| Author | Message | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 368 Registered: 8-2008 |
As I am writing, I found a second trivia question: What are the similarities and differences between God's declaration to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:28-30, and His declaration to Noah in Genesis 9:1-7? What does that tell us about what happened in the intervening chapters? Cue the Jeopardy music... Da da da da, da da da, da da da da, DA, dadadadada... | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 369 Registered: 8-2008 |
Hint: Galatians 3:19-"It was added because of transgressions." | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 374 Registered: 8-2008 |
Okay, I've given you all almost a day. First, God no longer commands Man to subdue nature, but in its place instructs him that the animals will now be afraid of him. In rabbinical scholarship, they have detected in this Noachide Covenant God's communication to man a command that man must not treat animals cruelly. Man is, in his core essence, no longer entirely safe for animals to be around. Second, in stead of being told to rule over the animals, man is told that he has "authority" over them, a much less powerful description of his role. Man, by becoming sinful, was no longer fit to "rule." Only in Christ would a Second Adam come who was truly fit to rule and subdue. Thirdly, man is given the animals to eat (AMEN!): "Every living creature will be food for you; as I gave the green plants, I have given you everything." The reference to "as I gave the green plants" is a reference to Genesis 1:28-30, where God says, "I have given every green plant for food." Interestingly, if Adventists claim that Genesis 1:28-30 contains God's command to eat only plant-based food (which they do), then they have to see Genesis 9:1-7 as containing a command to humanity to eat meat, so that if they want to see this as a performance-based thing (which is how they see it), they had better be eating meat. If they see Genesis 1:28-30 as a description that plants were given because they were the way to health, then they have to see Gen 9:1-7 as saying that man now had to eat animals and animal products for his health. You can't have it both ways, because God explicitly says He gave the animals, "as I gave the green plants." Biologists today know that man does indeed need a diet that is primarily plant-based, but that he also needs a supplement of animal products, and specifically eggs and lean meats like poultry and fish (most doctors aren't crazy about red meat). You can't get things like B12, and complete proteins, as well as other essential compounds, from a vegan diet. You just can't, period. Anyway, this discussion about food is a diversion, just stuff I find interesting. Back to the main point. Finally, in the Garden there was no fear-based command to not kill others. Man, seeking to live by an external law of right and wrong (Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil), rather than by God's indwelling (Tree of Life), could now only be brought to do what is right by fear and external control. This would only be changed in the Cross of Jesus Christ, whereby Jesus is both the Tree of Life, and in a sense chose that Tree for us, so that now we who are in Him live by His indwelling in the Person of the Holy Spirit. This is why Paul refers to the Law as being added because of transgressions. Because of Adam and Eve's transgression, man now had to have external controls on him. Think about heaven: Do we honestly think that when we get to heaven, we're going to be sitting there every moment having to remind ourselves of the commandments in order not to sin? "I really want to punch that angel over there in the face, but I better not because God said 'no.'" I don't get that at all. We will do good because our flesh, which requires external control, will finally be completely gone, and all we will have is the indwelling of Christ, as He does good in us and through us. In us who are in Christ, there is sanctification, both a fact by God's declaration of our Holiness before him, and a process by which that declaration becomes actualized. That process is learning to live by Jesus's indwelling, rather than by our flesh. It is the mortification of our walking-dead flesh. Sanctification is not the process by which I learn to keep the commandments by my efforts, but the process by which I learn to live in the new reality of the power of the Spirit's indwelling. In essence, my flesh may still need some external commandments to control it, but my spirit does not. Sin is when my walking-dead flesh tries to re-assert itself, and the New Testament commands are God's way of giving me the means to tell my flesh like a stupid dog, "No! Bad flesh! Down! Sit, stay!" The New Covenant commands do not contain a "Do this or die" type of rule because, in a sense they only speak to my flesh (which is already dead), not to my spirit made alive in Jesus. Jesus, in me, doesn't need the external commands, because He does what is good simply because He is God, simply by His act of being Himself. Or at least, that's the way I see things. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 10028 Registered: 12-2003  |
Very interesting ponderings, Brent. I think the law was given even more fundamentally as a revelation of sin rather than as an external control. To be sure, it did serve as an external regulator, but Revelation 6:14 is interesting: "For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace." The context of this verse is compelling; it immediately follows this: Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God" (v. 12-13). Given the context, Paul is actually saying that the law is what empowered sin and caused it to increase (see also Romans 3:20, 4:14-15, etc.). In other words, the law was not given so much to improve behavior as to trigger an awareness of sin by actually causing sin to increase. It seems so backwards, but this is what Romans teaches. The power of sin is the law. Paul also clarifies in Romans 1 and 2 that natural man does have moral sensibilities built into his conscience. Again, conscience can be deformed and mis-taught, but even Gentiles who do not have the law can instinctively do the work of the law (Romans 2:14). So, given the whole context of Romans, I've become convinced that the real purpose of the law never was primarily that of controlling behavior. It was primarily for literally increasing sin and driving man to desperation and recognition of his depravity. This is why Paul makes such a big deal out of the fact, in Romans 4, that righteousness is credited on the basis of faith—alone! But you still have good insights above, Brent! Colleen | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 5045 Registered: 9-2006  |
Very good Skillet, I am learning from you. My concept of Romans 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: Is that the law makes one aware of Gods holiness and the harder we try to follow it the more aware we are that we cannot do it and that we must turn to grace or remain fearful of Gods law and his justice. I hope I didn't botch that, but basicly I think the law was not given to cause sin, but rather to show us the sin we already had in us. The law was given to prepare the way for the coming of the savior. God pointed to the innocent blood of the lamb from the very beginning after Adam sinned. He demonstrated this very clearly when he restrained Abraham from sacrificing his son and furnished the sacrifice himself. The types and shadows we see throughout the old testament pointed to the day when John would declare "Behold the Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world." River River | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 377 Registered: 8-2008 |
The Law came for several secondary reasons (Paul talks in Galatians about part of it being to keep a people, Abraham's descendants, under control and as a separate people so that Jesus could come through them and fulfill the promise). The primary reason was to initiate God's KRISIS (the Greek word for Judgment that means something more than judgment in my view--it should be obvious what English word derives from it). God initiates His KRISIS in our lives by pushing us to the point that we finally agree with Him: This life of trying to live by my power and my strength and my greatness, and not be your grace, is a path of total self-destruction. I thought that I could be like You (good or holy) by the 'knowledge of good and evil,' but it is clear I am nothing at all like You. Therefore, I agree that this thing in me that lives this way deserves to die, and I plead with you to kill it." It is at this point that the old man is crucified with Christ and we are raised the new man (born again). This is what Paul means in Romans 3:19-20: The problem a lot of Evangelicals have, and one I aim to address in my book, is that all those times that Paul talks about us being crucified with Christ, or dying with Christ, etc., Evangelicals think that is somehow simply symbolic. Their version of the Cross, an extremely simplistic version of Penal Substitution, simply cannot see that the Cross has a spiritual effect on us that is beyond our ability to understand. It is a mystery. They see the Cross simply as taking punishment, and that once punishment is taken away, I then need to actually work to get rid of sin's effects in myself by my efforts. They will criticize those liberal theologians who believe in the Moral Influence Theory, because that theory is merely symbolic, but in their version of Penal Substitution, the Cross is merely symbolic too: They see it as somehow God's temper-tantrum, as if He is letting steam by beating His Son so that He can feel okay about sin. You cannot ever, ever, ever ask God to feel okay about sin. Sin destroys that thing He loves, me. If you ask Him to be okay with sin, you are asking Him not to love me. He can't do that because love is who He is. You can't ask God to be someone other than who He is. Because modern western man is a materialistic fool (materialism in the philosophical sense), he doesn't see the Cross as both physical and spiritual. He doesn't realize that the spiritual world is greater, and more real, than the physical world, and the Cross was God's way of creating a means so that the curse (death) caused by the Tree of Knowledge could be met by me dying in His Son, and His Son's resurrection life, the Tree of Life, could be in me by His resurrection. Once I realized this, I cannot begin to explain to you how many texts now make sense to me. For instance, in Isaiah 6, God brings Isaiah before him, and because Isaiah has sin in him, he cannot stand to be in God's presence. God's presence is unbearable to him (why does Revelation speak about people being tormented "in the Presence of God and the Lamb"?). God isn't afraid of Isaiah's sinfulness. God already knew that in Christ He would expunge sin. Sin doesn't scare God one bit. He hates it because it hurts me, but He knows how to deal with it. So what happens? God sends the Seraphim to bring a glowing coal (Jesus) to his lips, and then tells Isaiah his sin is atoned for. Because that old spirit in me, the old man, that ate that stupid fruit like a moron, is killed in the Cross by its power in the spiritual realm, God's perfect presence no longer destroys me. Now, my old spirit is gone, but I still got this body and gray matter that have all these stupid habits and stuff, so that I still in a sense need a means (commands from God) to differentiate between the Spirit's guidance in Me, and my walking-dead flesh trying to re-assert himself, but when the finality of Jesus comes and this body is replaced with a new one, that won't be the case anymore. Hallelujah! This view of the cross is in essence very much like Penal Substitution, but it is like Penal Substition on steroids. Paul knew exactly what Paul meant. He became subject to God's KRISIS on the Damascus Road, and was born again. He is unequivocally clear that his entire understanding of the Gospel came from this event (see Gal. 1:12). Some folks try to say he received this revelation at Sinai, spending some alone-time with Jesus, but the context of Galatian 1:12 means he received it on the Damascus Road, and the Bible's discussion of his time in Arabia (the Roman province that contains the Sinai Peninsula and wraps around modern Israel all the way to its north) makes clear he was preaching there. F.F. Bruce, in his biography of Paul, makes it unequivocally clear that the only conceivable way to understand Gal. 1:12 is that Paul is talking about the Damascus Road. No other interpretation is consistent with Scripture. The last several versus of Romans 7, culminating in Romans 8:4, are his discussion of that KRISIS and him being born again. Why, why, why, do people think Jesus told him, "It is hard for you to kick against the goads." No Evangelical has ever, ever, ever given a suitable answer to my question of why Jesus said this to Paul. His attempts to kill Christians were his attempts to use the Law to bring about greater goodness in himself and make himself more pleasing to God. The entire process was a processs of him coming to the end of his rope. Why do you think Acts mentions that he was present at Stephen's stoning? Why? It is after this that all of a sudden Paul goes nuts and starts killing all the Christians. The reason is that Stephen's speech cut Paul to the core. He simply couldn't get around the obvious truth of what Stephen was saying. He thought if he could kill all the Christians, it would make his theological crisis (KRISIS) go away. That's why in the next chapter (Acts 8) it refers to him as basically going ballistic. Here's another point: Stephen, in his speech, said "The Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands." What does Paul say at the Areopagus in Athens? "The Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands." Word-for-word. Whatever Stephen said, it stuck so deeply in Saul's craw that he just couldn't shake it at all, no matter how hard he tried. It showed him unequivocally that he was evil, wrong, bad, not good. | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 378 Registered: 8-2008 |
There's a lot more that goes into this from the Bible of course, and the book will deal with it. Now Daniel 7 totally makes sense to me. The other beasts had some correspondence to real-world physical animals, but the final beast didn't. He was other-worldly. God says "the books were opened," and I believe in Judaism "the books" means the Law. Then a judgment is made in favor of the saints, and the beast is killed. The beast is sin in man, and that beast torments and destroys man. They judgment is made in favor of the saints, indicating somehow they were being judged as part of this, and by being judged, the beast that kills them, sin, is destroyed. Daniel 7 is describing Romans 3! Daniel 7 is totally, completely about the Cross of Jesus Christ!!!!!!!! Daniel 7 is also apocalyptic, because it covers the Cross and everything on earth that happens as a result until the end. That's why the NT refers to the time post-cross as the last days. Daniel 7 is about how God makes a judgment (as in Romans 3) against us and at the same for us, to save us in the Cross!!!!! Same with it talking later in Daniel about Michael "standing up." See this in Revelation 12: "Michael and his angels fought against the dragon." When Jesus died and resurrected, He went back to heaven, and Satan, the Serpent, lost all his power as the ruler of the earth. Thus, since he wasn't in charge of any planet, he no longer had the right to appear before God as he did in Job's day. So Michael the Archangel (not Jesus, remember), stands up... and throws Satan's sorry carcass out of there! How awesome is that! No wonder Satan comes down to earth so angry! He's just had his butt whooped like he never had it whooped before, and once what happened on the Cross comes to its full effect on the course of history, he's going to be thrown into hell and toasted like a marshmallow! He's literally got no chance in hell now, and he's all-fire angry about it! The judgment in Daniel 7 is about that whole process, about the Cross coming to its full effect. Indeed, as Durant said, "Christ and Caesar had met in the arena, and Christ had one." When Christianity came in, it destroyed the basis of the Roman empire because it created huge social unrest and struck at the very philosophical basis of Roman thought, which was Tree of Knowledge sort of thought. Power and malice and all that. Daniel totally, totally makes sense now! The prophecy then states that the other beasts will be allowed to live for a time, indicating this is not an apocalyptic prophecy. (Might be good for someone to write an article in Proclamation about this, because it would de-fang SDA-ism's interpretation of Daniel completely.) (Message edited by bskillet on June 21, 2009) | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 379 Registered: 8-2008 |
My guess, and I cannot yet prove it, is that the 1290 days in Daniel 12 refers to the period between something (Jesus baptism) and His death. The abomination that causes desolation can only mean the desolation of the Jewish covenant, because it refers to "When the power [the Old Covenant Law] of the holy people [the Israelites] has been finally broken." It is an abomination before God because the Holy People rejected Jesus by crucifying Him, an abomination. It causes desolation because it eventually results in the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD. The angel says, "Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days." Jesus tells the Disciples to wait for the Holy Spirit, and roughly 45 days after His death, what happens? Pentecost! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavuot, where it discusses Daniel 12 in terms of a Passover/Pentecost connection. Way cool. (Message edited by bskillet on June 21, 2009) (Message edited by bskillet on June 21, 2009) (Message edited by bskillet on June 21, 2009) (Message edited by bskillet on June 21, 2009) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 10031 Registered: 12-2003 |
Brent, very interesting posts. You have some profound insights. I don't believe, however, that we can limit Daniel 7 to the issue of the cross and Jesus' defeat of Satan which Colossians 2:15 clearly says happened at the cross. Daniel 7:15-28 gives the explanation of the vision in the first half of the chapter. When Daniel asked for the interpretation of the vision, he was clearly told the four beasts represent "four kings who will arise from the earth." Daniel asked to understand the fourth beast who was clearly different from the first three, and beginning in v. 23 he receives further explanation. That fourth beast would devour the whole earth and crush it, and out of that beast ten kings would arise-and out of those ten kings, one would be different from the rest. That one would speak against the Most High and wear down the saints. He is the one who would seek to change times and law, and he would be given authority over those things for "time, times, and half a time." Then the court would sit and remove that king's dominion, and he would be annihilated and destroyed forever. And THEN the sovereignty, dominion, and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven would be given to the people of the saints of the Highest One. His kingdom will be everlasting, and all dominions will obey Him. The corresponding passages from the NT are found in Revelation 19-22. We can't spiritualize away the plain meanings of the words in Scripture. When one compares Daniel 7 to Revelation 19-22, we find that there really are physical, political, religious/spiritual, and natural forces at work in unprecedented ways. The fact that the kingdom of God is within us does not mean that the kingdom of God is exercising dominion over all the kingdoms under the whole heaven at this time. While Satan is certainly a defeated foe, he is still at work. Not until the millennium will he be bound and sent to the abyss (see Rev 20). The abyss is not a metaphor, either. Remember the demons Jesus cast out of the demoniacs? They pleaded with Him not to send them to the abyss but to allow them to go into the pigs instead. The abyss appears to be a real place where demons are in bondage. Peter also writes of the "spirits now in prison" (1 Pet 3:19) who had been disobedient during the years Noah was building the ark (see Genesis 6 and the brief passage about the nephilim). Jude also speaks of angels who "did not keep their own domain but abandoned their proper abode" and have been "kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day" (Jude 6). While it's totally true that demons were defeated at the cross, they have not all been bound. Some are bound, as Peter and Jude say, but these are identified in Peter as those who were disobedient in the days of Noah, and in Jude as those who left their own domain. These remain in "eternal bonds under darkness"—still waiting for "the judgment of that great day." Jude wrote AFTER the resurrection; the judgment of the Great Day has not yet occurred. Jesus specifically referred to the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel (referred to in Daniel 9:27, 1:31, and 12:11). This prophecy was fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes, and even when Jesus was here, the Jews celebrated Hanukkah in celebration of the defeat of that ruler. Yet Jesus was clear that Antiochus wasn't the only fulfillment. Another was coming. Titus in AD 70 also desolated the Jewish temple. Many also believe that 2 Thess. 2:4 and Revelation 13:14-15 refer to still a third fulfillment of this prophecy—the establishment of the antichrist. We have to be cautious about spiritualizing the the meanings of the biblical words. To be sure, prophecy is often metaphorical, but nothing on earth has yet transpired that fits the descriptions of Revelation 19 and 20, and we can't assume that the horrific natural disasters (mountains disappearing, one-third and one-fourth of earth's population being decimated in successive plagues, etc.) described in the later chapters of Revelation have already happened. There are still prophecies which have not been fulfilled, and some of them are downright material/physical, not merely metaphorical of spiritual reality. I don't believe we can be dogmatic about the playing out of the sequences and details of prophecy. Brothers and sisters in Christ see things very differently; the amillennial position is a completely different paradigm from dispensationalism or modified dispensationalism, and there are many compelling arguments for both positions. One more comment: I do believe Paul's Damascus Road experience was His great revelation. Even so, Paul did receive further instruction from the Lord Jesus. In 2 Cor 12:1-6 Paul tells about being caught up into the third heaven "fourteen years ago". Evidence points to AD 55 as the year Paul probably wrote this epistle; that would put his "third heaven" experience in 41 AD. This date pre-dates his writing of his first epistle, Galatians. In other words, Paul was personally taken to Paradise and shown things he was not permitted to tell—but which undoubtedly underlay many of the things he wrote about. He saw eternity; he saw the reality of those who have died in the Lord; God intentionally took him to Paradise as part of his "training". Everything Paul wrote flowed out of the things he learned from the risen Christ—both at Damascus Road and in his "trip" to Paradise—besides what what he learned other times as well. It's true that Galatians 1:11-17 suggests that Paul's Damascus Road experience was where he received his revelation of Jesus Christ, but God was certainly continuing to teach him. Nevertheless, it does seem that taking the plain meaning of the words causes OT and NT prophetic passages to fit together with less force-fitting. And that being said, both the amillennial and modifications of dispensational views handle the truth of the atonement with integrity whereas the SDA view is completely unbiblical. Colleen | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 383 Registered: 8-2008 |
Colleen, I agree with many of your assessments of the prophetic sections, in retrospect. However the Bible doesn't see the apocalypse as something that is going to happen in the future, but something that was inaugurated at the Cross and begins to this day. In that sense, it is all because of, aind pointing back to, the Cross. Peter says to God a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years a day, so that from God's perspective it has only been "two days" (so to speak) since the Cross. It is good not to spiritualize away, but one can also become overly literal. If we were literalistic in our interpretation of the first part of Daniel 7, we would never come to the conclusion in the second part, that these beasts are kingdoms. The things in prophecy are very often symbolic. Dispensationalists are overly literal in their interpretations. Especially in regards to the Temple restoration prophecies in the OT. Acts 15 says these prophecies refer to the Church, which as Paul says in Eph. 2, is the true Temple of God (the people are, not the buildings we call churches but aren't churches). Dispensationalists tear Acts 15 out of the Bible entirely and just pretend it isn't there (sound familiar?). To an extent, the dispensationalist view handles the atonement with consistency, but in a way that utterly tramples its true meaning. They treat it consistently, but consistently wrong. Like Covenant Theologians, they see the Law, not God's grace, as His eternal purpose. From this they see the Cross as a means to get us to keep the Law. Dispensationalists go so far as to say that this aspect of the Cross is finally worked out when Israel will begin to perfectly keep the Law (including the animal sacrifices) with Jesus at its head. This destroys what the Cross means, because it says I still have to perform up to a standard to be right with God. Paul said in the Cross, Christ crucified the Law, crucified the concept of performance-based means of getting right with God. Paul points out in Ephesians 2 to 3 that God's eternal purpose isn't the Law, but to dwell within us and live out His life in Us, to bring us to a complete understanding of His love so that we are brought to live in the fullness of this indwelling (Eph. 3:11 says the point of the passage is Paul's ministry as it fits within God's "eternal purpose.") This is the meaning of the Tree of Life. Adventism, Dispensationalism, and Covenant Theology all deny this "eternal purpose" and look at grace as a Divine Accident, a thing that God had no choice but to use to save us when we messed up, but which He doesn't like doing otherwise. | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 5073 Registered: 9-2006 |
I disagree with you strongly Skillet, it's "butt whupped" not "butt whooped."  You kids! River | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 390 Registered: 8-2008 |
River, after carefully analyzing the Greek and Hebrew in my interlinear Bible, I have come to conclude you are correct. It is "butt whupped." Anyway, that's my favorite part of Revelation because it shows Jesus "butt whupped" Satan at the Cross. (Message edited by bskillet on June 24, 2009) |
