perspectivedigest.org http://www.perspectivedigest.org/?issue=20-2

Perspective Digest

The Resurrection and the Old Testament

Many seeds of both the Messiah and the future understanding of resurrection areplanted in the Old Testament.

Jon Paulien

The Scholar and the Word of God

The responsibility of scholars extends beyond what many professionals see astheir role.

Tom Shepherd

Luther’s Creation Theology

In his study of Creation, the German reformer focused especially on the creative,preserving, governing, and recreating activities of the Word.

Denis Kaiser

Nebuchadnezzar and God

The life of Nebuchadnezzar demonstrated—historically—that the God of heavencan use anyone to accomplish His divine mission.

Patrick Mazani

1/1

perspectivedigest.org http://www.perspectivedigest.org/article/163/archives/20-2/the-resurrection-and-the-old-testamentJonPaulien

Many seeds of both the Messiah and the future understanding of resurrection are planted in the Old Testament.

“In so far as the ancient, non-Jewish world had a Bible, its Old Testament was Homer. And in so far as Homerhas anything to say about resurrection, he is quite blunt: it doesn’t happen.”1 This statement sets the table for thefundamental challenge faced by early Christians on this topic. Christianity was born into a world in which its central claim was “known” to be false. (Recall the mockingresponse of many of the Greek philosophers on Mars Hill when Paul brought up the resurrection of Jesus in Acts17:31 and 32.) Outside Judaism, nobody believed in resurrection, at least not in the way that the Bible defines it.

This is not to say that the ancient world had no concept of life after death. If Homer functioned like the OldTestament for the Hellenistic world, its New Testament was Plato. Plato had no need for resurrection because heunderstood the human person to be divided into two distinct parts; a mortal, material body and an immortal,immaterial soul that lives on after death. So for Plato, death affected only the body, not the soul.

Resurrection is not a general term for life after death in all its forms; it refers specifically to the belief that thepresent state of those who have died will be replaced by a future state in which they are alive bodily once more. Thisis not a redefinition of death, but the reversal or defeat of death, restoring bodily life to those in which it has ceased.Though the resurrected body may be different in many ways, it is as material as the first body, usually arising at thevery place of death, wearing clothes, and arising with recognizable, physical characteristics of the former life.Resurrection in the fullest sense requires the belief that human beings are whole persons, with unified body, soul,and spirit. This means that, in the Seventh-day Adventist view, resurrection is absolutely necessary to experiencelife beyond the grave.

According to the ancients, a lot of things happened after death, but bodily resurrection was not one of them.Bodily resurrection was not a part of the pagan’s hope for the future. Death was like a one-way street: You cantravel down that street leading to death, but once at your destination, you can’t come back. The ancient Greeks did

1/5

allow that resurrection could possibly occur as an isolated miracle, but such are either fictional or are more likeresuscitations than genuine resurrections. The idea of a true resurrection, particularly a general resurrection at the end of the world, was alien to theGreeks. This means that something happened to Jesus that had happened to no one else in the ancient world. Whatis particularly striking is a sudden proliferation of apparent deaths and reversals of deaths in the ancient paganworld beginning with the mid to late first century A.D. and for centuries afterward. It is quite likely that these wereinfluenced by the New Testament stories of the resurrection of Jesus. Resurrection in the Old Testament—the General Picture To those accustomed to reading the Old Testament through the lens of the New, it may come as a surprise thatmuch of the Old Testament reads like Homer. In the words of Job himself, “‘Life is but a breath; . . . one who goesdown to the grave does not return. He will never come to his house again’” (Job 7:7, 9, 10).2 “‘At least there is hopefor a tree: if it is cut down, it will sprout again. . . . So he lies down and does not rise; till the heavens are no more,people will not awake or be roused from their sleep’” (14:7, 12). Words like these sound like a one-way street.

Writers of the Old Testament were not deeply disturbed about this. Old Testament Israelites were attached tolife; they did not invest much energy in dreaming of a life hereafter. As with Job, they were interested in the outcomeof God’s judgment in the here and now. They did not believe that human beings have innate immortality. Rather,they believed that life comes from God (Gen. 2:7), returns to Him (Eccl. 12:7), and the dead lose consciousness andnever again have a part in what happens under the sun (Eccl. 9:5, 6). Sheol, or the grave, was a place where thewhole person goes at death. It is not a place of consciousness or purpose.

So, for most of the Old Testament, the idea of resurrection was, at best, dormant. The two or three relativelyclear texts (Dan. 12:2, 3; Isa. 26:19; Job 19:25-27) are accompanied by numerous hints that would eventuallyblossom into the full-blown confidence in the resurrection expressed by most of first-century Judaism. What is theevidence for resurrection in the Old Testament, and how did people come to believe in it? Explicit Old Testament Texts The clearest expression of bodily resurrection in the Old Testament is found in an apocalyptic context in Daniel12:2: “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake” (ESV). The text goes on to make reference totwo resurrections, one “to everlasting life” and the other “to shame and everlasting contempt.” Then in verse 3,referring to the first of the two resurrections, the “wise” shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who bringmany to righteousness like the stars forever and ever. This prediction of the resurrection is the last in a long line ofpromises to the people of God in Daniel, promises of a divine kingdom (2:35, 44, 45), stories of vindication in theface of death (Daniel 3 and 6), the vindication of the Son of man (7:13, 14), and a Messiah to come (9:24-27). Sodeliverance of bodies from death is connected to the vindication of the whole people of God.

It is not immediately clear if the word many foresees only a partial resurrection or whether the word is used asan idiom for “all.” But what will prove particularly significant for this paper is the fact that Daniel 12:2 and 3 alludes toearlier passages in the Old Testament (such as Isa. 26:19; 53:10-12; 65:20-22; 66:24), putting an inner-biblical,bodily resurrection spin on passages that could be read in other ways.

The second clearest expression of bodily resurrection in the Old Testament can be found in Isaiah 26:19. Isaiah24 through 27 exhibits a more apocalyptic style than is generally found in the pre-exilic prophets, envisioning therenewal of the whole cosmos. The section is a mixture of doom and lament, on the one hand, and expressions oftrust and praise on the other. The hope expressed in 26:19 is anticipated first in Isaiah 25:7, 8, where the LordAlmighty “will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; he will swallow up deathforever.” The context of 26:19 is set in verses 13 to 15, where the enemies of God’s people are now dead in thecomplete and endless sense. But in contrast to these, “‘Your dead will live; their bodies will rise. You who dwell inthe dust, wake up and shout for joy’” (26:19). A resurrection of the body is clearly in view here, but there is noreference to a resurrection of the wicked. Also significant is that Isaiah 26:19 evokes the language of earlier, more

2/5

ambiguous Old Testament texts like Hosea 6:1 to 3.

The third Old Testament text widely considered an explicit description of bodily resurrection is also the mostcontroversial of the three: Job 19:25-27. Though there are difficulties in this passage, John C. Brunt believes thatthe conviction of life after death is clear. Job expresses confidence that God will be his “Redeemer” in the last days(vs. 25). What this means is expressed in verse 26, the challenging Hebrew of which is translated by the ESV: “Aftermy skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God.” In the context, Job can find no justice, and all hisfriends and family have deserted him. But in verse 25, the mood changes, and Job expresses confidence that hisRedeemer will one day vindicate him. Such a vindication requires a judgment and a bodily resurrection, so in spite oftranslational challenges, it seems likely that bodily resurrection is in view in Job 19, although the word explicit isprobably a stretch when applied to this passage. Harbingers of the Resurrection in the Old Testament In addition to the more explicit texts on bodily resurrection in the Old Testament, a number offer intriguing hintsof what would become the standard understanding within early Judaism and Christianity. The two most intriguing ofthese are found in Isaiah 53 and Ezekiel 37.

In Ezekiel 37, God’s ability to restore life is applied to the nation as a whole, in keeping with the community-oriented worldview of the Old Testament. The prophet sees a valley full of dry bones. He prophesies to the bonesand they come together, life is breathed into them, and they live again (Eze. 37:1-10). In verse 11, the vision isinterpreted as a metaphor of Israel’s restoration after the Exile. But the repeated use of the word translated as“grave” in verses 12 and 13 suggests to some that the text goes beyond return from exile to the resurrection ofindividuals within the nation who have died. At the least, this text shows that the idea of resurrection was notunfamiliar to Israel, even if it was rarely expressed in explicit terms.

Isaiah 53 is one of several “Servant Songs” in the latter part of Isaiah. It is not always clear whether thesesongs are a metaphor of the suffering of Israel as a community in the future or a reference to one who suffers intheir behalf. As with Ezekiel 37, the language of death and bodily resurrection can be used as a metaphor for theexile and return of the whole nation. But Isaiah 53:7 to 12 seems to imply more than that. Though there is no explicitmention of resurrection itself, verses 7 to 9 indicate that the servant dies and is buried and verses 10 to 12 indicatethat he afterward emerges in triumph. So the early Christian application of Isaiah 53 to the death and resurrection ofJesus was exegetically defensible. But more than this, numerous allusions to Isaiah 53 in Daniel 12:2, 3 provideevidence that long before the time of Jesus, some Jews at least saw in Isaiah 53 a forecast of resurrection. In Isaiah53, belief that Israel’s God will restore the nation after the exile becomes belief that He will restore the nation’srepresentative after death. So Isaiah 53 seems to provide a transition between national and bodily restoration.

Hosea, one of the two earliest writing prophets, has a couple of intriguing hints of resurrection. Hosea 13:14,speaking of Ephraim (northern Israel) asks, “Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem themfrom Death? O Death, where are your plagues? O Sheol, where is your sting?” (ESV). The thrust of the Hebrew isactually a denial that God will raise the northern kingdom of Israel from death, but the LXX and the New Testament(1 Cor. 15:54, 55) take the passage in a positive sense. John Day has persuasively demonstrated that Isaiah 26:19,a fairly plain resurrection text, clearly alludes to Hosea 13:14.

The second hint is in Hosea 6:1 to 3. The idea of bringing to life on the third day is echoed in later passages,such as 1 Corinthians 15:4. It may also have been in the mind of Daniel when he wrote his resurrection passage inDaniel 12. That the bringing to life is preceded by a “striking down” is resurrection language. Though in its originalcontext, Hosea 6:1 to 3 is probably mocking an inadequate prayer based on Canaanite religious expectations, bothHosea 6 and 13 demonstrate that the idea of resurrection was clearly present in Israel as early as the eighthcentury.

There are other intimations of resurrection in the Old Testament. There are several accounts of bodilyresurrection in the stories related to Elijah and Elisha. Perhaps these incidents inspired the language found in

3/5

Hosea, written to the same area less than a hundred years later. There are also the unusual stories of Enoch andElijah, who took a different route to immortality than by death. There are frequent expressions of hope that theremight be a deliverance from Sheol. And the Torah itself was later understood to offer a number of harbingers of theresurrection. So from our perspective, at least, the Old Testament picture was not as bleak as it may seem at firstglance.

The Path to Resurrection This survey of the Old Testament data raises the historical question of where resurrection came from withinIsrael. Explicit references to resurrection are rare, and most of the implicit ones can be understood as metaphors ofthe community’s return from exile and disgrace. When and why did God begin to turn Israel’s eyes from the hope ofnational resurrection to an individual hope in the resurrection of the body? The consensus among scholars who take a naturalistic, developmental approach to the Old Testament is tosee this shift as fairly late. They understand Job 19 to be written not by Moses, but during or after the Exile. Theyconsider Job, in any case, to be ambiguous at best regarding bodily resurrection. They also date Daniel and theIsaiah Apocalypse (Isaiah 24 through 27) as second- and third-century B.C. insertions into the canon of the OldTestament. So in the critical consensus, belief in bodily resurrection was a late development in Israel, clearlywitnessed only centuries after the Exile.

Given these critical assumptions, it is often assumed that the belief in bodily resurrection arose amongIsraelites around or after their exposure to Zoroastrianism in the Persian court. But the popularity of this view haswaned considerably among scholars. First of all, as mentioned before, the language of resurrection is echoed notonly in Ezekiel 37, but all the way back to Hosea, in the eighth century B.C. And Ezekiel’s story of the dead risingfrom their graves cannot be related to Zoroastrianism, since the Persians exposed their dead rather than buryingthem. And the emerging Israelite belief in resurrection is anything but dualistic, a core characteristic ofZoroastrianism. More recently it has become fashionable to see the emerging Israelite belief in resurrection as grounded in thedying and rising Baal of Canaanite mythology. Though this approach is more plausible in terms of its historicalprogression, it is also unlikely to be the primary explanation of Israel’s emerging belief in the resurrection. For onething, there is no reason to believe the Canaanites ever applied the resurrection of their god to themselves. And it isalso questionable in light of the larger picture of the Exile. If Israel’s exile was a consequence of its compromise withpagan gods and their nature religions, why would the prophets who promised a return borrow their central imageryfrom those same religions?

If one accepts the biblical chronology of Daniel and Isaiah at face value, a different trajectory begins to emerge.With Hosea, the seeds of resurrection, buried long before in the Pentateuch, begin to emerge as metaphors ofIsrael’s rebirth as a people. With the Isaiah Apocalypse (Isaiah 24 through 27), bodily resurrection, hinted at also inIsaiah 53, takes explicit form. During the Exile itself, Daniel and Ezekiel apply resurrection language not only to thereturn of the nation but also to the return from the grave of at least some of those who have died in the past. In sucha trajectory, it is more likely that Zoroaster picked up the idea of resurrection from Daniel than the other way around. If bodily resurrection is a plausible development within the evidence of the Old Testament itself, what were thefactors that led to that development? There are several. First, is the belief in creation. If God is the ultimate source ofphysical life, it is perhaps inevitable that people would come to believe that the same God is powerful enough to bothend life and restore it (Deut. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:6). He created, and thus He can re-create. And indeed, some of theresurrection texts explored earlier contain strong echoes of the Genesis creation narratives. In those narratives,Yahweh created the first human from the dust, breathing into Adam His own breath (Gen. 2:7). This language is thenechoed in relation to death in Genesis 3:19; when God takes His breath away, humanity returns to the dust oncemore. Furthermore, Adam and Eve’s expulsion from the garden, is a first intimation of Israel’s future exile. So thefate of the nation and the body are linked together in the original narrative of creation.

A second root of resurrection belief lay in the promises of God’s love and faithfulness to Israel. If God’s love and

4/5

faithfulness are only for this life, they are truly steadfast in only a limited sense. Victory over death provided Israel’sGod the ultimate way to demonstrate His faithfulness and love toward His own people. A personal experience withthe steadfast love of Israel’s God led to the conviction that His faithfulness would be known, not only in the present,but also beyond the grave. There Israel’s relationship with God would continue. Resurrection belief within Israel is also rooted in the justice of God combined with His sovereign power. As thealmighty Judge, God rewards the faithful and punishes those who rebel against His covenant commandments. AGod of justice would not forever leave Israel to suffer oppression from the pagans. But that kind of justice was less and less seen as Israel’s history went on. It became clear that if there is noresurrection and no judgment, there is no justice in this world; therefore, a future bodily resurrection is required forjustice to occur. It is precisely the resurrection that allows God fully to demonstrate His faithfulness toward Hispeople. God’s justice is seen first in the national resurrection of the people, and ultimately in the bodily resurrectionof the individuals who made up that people.

The fourth root of resurrection belief lay in Israel’s belief in the wholeness of human beings, the idea that bodyand soul are a single, indivisible unit. This wholistic perspective is revealed in Genesis 2:7, where the living soulrepresents the whole being, including the body. According to Brunt, the Old Testament view of death grows out ofthis wholistic understanding.3 If it is the whole person that dies, then any hope for an afterlife must include arestoration of the physical body. The final root of resurrection belief lay, of course, in the promise of national restoration on the other side of theExile. In passages such as Isaiah 53 and Ezekiel 37, the two restorations are so completely mingled that it is hard totell them apart. As hope for Israel’s national restoration began to fade with the Persian and Greek occupations afterthe Exile, bodily resurrection became more and more the focus of the remnant of ancient Israel.

Why is the Old Testament so implicit about the resurrection? Brunt argues that the Old Testament writers couldnot point back to the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the foundation of their hope for the future.4 Their thought worldwas oriented to the community rather than to the individual. So it is to the social unit and its survival that theemphasis of God’s revelation to them is placed. But individual and national restoration are not an either/or in the OldTestament. Many seeds of both the Messiah and the future understanding of resurrection are planted in the OldTestament, to bear fruit once the messianic promises of God were fulfilled. Jon Paulien, Ph.D., is Professor of Religion and Dean of the School of Religion at Loma Linda University in LomaLinda, California. NOTES AND REFERENCES 1. N. T. Wright, “The Resurrection of the Son of God,” Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis,Minn.: Fortress Press, 2003), vol. 3, p. 32.

2. Unless noted otherwise, all Scripture references in this article are quoted from the New International Versionof the Bible.

3. John C. Brunt, “Resurrection and Glorification,” in Raoul Dederen, ed., Handbook of Seventh-day AdventistTheology, Commentary Reference Series (Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald Publ. Assn., 2000), vol. 12, p. 358.

4. Ibid., p. 357.

Back to top

5/5

perspectivedigest.org http://www.perspectivedigest.org/article/166/archives/20-2/the-scholar-and-the-word-of-godTom Shepherd

The responsibility of scholars extends beyond what many professionals see as their role.

The Scriptures are at the center of who we are as a people and as a body of scholars. In handling the Word ofGod, we are faced with choices that seem to pull us in two directions. On the one hand, faith and conviction call forexpressions and actions that are loyal to trusted beliefs and traditions. On the other hand, scholarly methodologiesdemand objective impartiality and unbiased investigation leading to results that may challenge long-held positions. Athoughtful look at 2 Peter 1:16 to 21 shines light on this topic. This passage presents three steps of relationship tothe Word of God.

The Setting and the Text First and Second Peter were written in a time of severe trial for the early Christian Church. In contrast to 1Peter, where the problem is persecution from the outside world and the not-too-subtle lure of the old way of life, in 2Peter the threat is internal. False teachers have infiltrated the church and threaten to rip it apart. First Peter is like an incredible cathedral of amazing theology spiraling ever upward, resolving challengingproblems of how to relate to the outside world, how to interact with one another in the household of God, and how tobe conscious of God in daily life. Second Peter, on the other hand, is straight and direct, facing the challenge of falseteachers in the church. Its outline is simple: chapter 1, how to stay in the faith; chapter 2, where the false teachershave gone wrong; chapter 3, answers to the false teachers’ positions. The passage of for study in this articledeals with the interrelationship between the Word of God and personalexperience: “We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our LordJesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father,and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,’ weourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the

1/7

prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place,until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripturecomes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spokefrom God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:16-21).1

We Were Eyewitnesses Peter begins in a rather interesting way: “We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known toyou the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (vs. 16). It would be like someone coming home and saying, “Iwas not driving fast when I came down Main Street.” You know that there has to be a story he will tell with somedrama involved and that he wants to give his explanation of what happened. This seems to be the same pattern in 2Peter 1:16. Peter was obviously being accused of doing the very thing he affirms he and his colleagues were notdoing. Thus, the words that follow will give his defense against the accusations of the false teachers while, at thesame time, present his teaching. Peter is apparently being accused of disseminating “cleverly devised myths.” The Greek term is translated“myth” along with the verb, which means “to make wise, to devise craftily.” In the ancient world, myth could simplymean a story or narrative as contrasted with reason or argument.2 It is clear in the context of 2 Peter 1, however,that the term is being used to describe something that is not true, but not only that. Peter’s opponents are making anaccusation that he is deceptive. It is not just made-up stories he is telling; it is made-up stories that were carefullycrafted—tall tales slyly woven (in a “made wise” way—we might say “slick”) and fashioned to catch the gullible. Thefalse teachers are accusing Peter and his associates of telling lies to trick people.

Peter’s response to this attack is to insist on the eyewitness character of his and his fellow apostles’experience. He speaks of making known to the readers “the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Peter1:16). The use of the liturgical phraseology (“our Lord Jesus Christ”) suggests the catechetical nature of theinstruction, which runs throughout the Epistle. The subject of the apostles’ teaching was the power and coming ofJesus. In the context of the book, this clearly points to the Second Coming. But how could Peter be referring to the Second Coming when he depicts his experience as an “eyewitness”account? What he goes on to describe is the Transfiguration. It is worthwhile noting that each of the Synoptic Gospelaccounts of this event is preceded by a reference in some form to “‘some standing here who will not taste death untilthey see the kingdom of God after it has come with power’” (Mark 9:1). Interpreters have taken these words of Jesusin a variety of ways, but the way that seems to make the most sense (and parallels 2 Peter 1:16 to 21) is that Jesusis referring to His transfiguration as the event where “some standing here” will see the kingdom of God come inpower, and that the Transfiguration itself is a foretaste of the final consummation of the kingdom when Christ returnsthe second time.

What Peter stresses in his account is the very sensory and personal nature of the apostles’ experience. Theywere eyewitnesses (2 Peter 1:16). They saw His glory (vs. 17). They heard God’s voice say, “‘This is my belovedSon, with whom I am well pleased’” (vs. 17). The voice came from heaven while they were with Jesus on the holymountain (vs. 18). It was their eyes that saw this, their ears that heard it. They were together with Him on themountain. It was not the dream of one person or some rapture of personal hallucination, particularly because it was“we” who saw, heard, and experienced it. All this is the personal and sensory experience of the apostles, the “we” ofthis passage. Peter extends the “we” section into verse 19, and here we meet a pivotal interpretation of the passage. It isvaluable to compare the translation of the first part of the verse in several versions to see the three different ways theverse is taken: ● “And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed” (ESV). ● “We have also a more sure word of prophecy” (KJV). ● “In addition, we have a most reliable prophetic word” (CEB). The ESV translation suggests that the personal experience of the Transfiguration in some way makes theprophetic writings more secure. The KJV translation suggests that the prophetic writings themselves are more

2/7

secure than the personal experience of the Transfiguration. The CEB translation suggests that the prophetic writingsand the Transfiguration stand side by side as the bulwarks of Peter’s message.

Which is correct? Three factors must be taken into consideration in making the choice—the meaning of theadjective “more sure/more secure” in this context, the predicate position of the adjective, and the presence of and atthe beginning of the sentence in verse 19. Let us look at each factor briefly in turn. The adjective translated “firm, strong, secure” would mean “more firm, stronger, more secure.” RichardBauckham points out, however, that this adjective used with the verb have typically means “to have a firm hold onsomething.”3 The other concept to be added here is that Koine Greek sometimes used a comparative adjective as asuperlative. (“More secure” could be used to mean “most secure.”) If that were the case here, the meaning would be“to have very firm hold on something” or “to place very firm reliance on something.” The predicate position of the adjective would normally require a predicate translation, similar to that of the ESV(“And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed”) and contrary to that of the KJV (“We have also a more sureword of prophecy”), which clearly has an attributive position translation. However, the fact that secure is combinedwith more leads to the translation, as Bauckham has suggested, “to have very firm hold on something.

Also of note is that verse 19 begins with and. This is significant because usually this word implies simply that anadditional thought is added on to the previous discourse. It does not typically introduce a conclusion or a contrast.The word translated “and” is used 63 times in 2 Peter with the most common usage being transitional orcontinuative. In this category, we find what appears to be the apostle’s favorite usage of the word where hecombines two like objects or concepts—grace and peace (1:2), calling and election (vs. 10), condemnation anddestruction (2:3), holiness and godliness (3:11), etc. There are many fewer examples of the adjunctive usagetranslated “also” and the emphatic usage (“even,” “in fact”). There is no adversative usage (“and yet, but”) or resultusagae (“and so, and then”) unless it is at the beginning of 1:19. This makes it much less likely that 1:19 has a resultusage, but it is not impossible. There is another characteristic of the passage that militates against a result usage in 2 Peter 1:19. The apostlehas been stressing the importance of his eyewitness experience in 1:16‑18. If the “and” at the beginning of verse 19presents a result, it means that the Transfiguration experience is more important than the prophetic Scriptures inconfirmatory authority. Then the opening line of verse 19 should be translated “And so we have the prophetic wordmore fully confirmed.” After this first phrase of verse 19, however, Peter immediately turns around and tells his readers to pay specialattention to the prophetic Word (“to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place”). IfPeter is telling his readers that personal experience trumps the words of Scripture at the beginning of verse 19, whythen tell them to pay special attention to Scripture in the last half of verse 19? Why not instead tell them to focus onpersonal experience? For these reasons, it seems more logical to take the CEB type of translation as the likely meaning of verse 19:“In addition, we have a most reliable prophetic word.” That is to say, the apostles’ personal experience of theTransfiguration and the prophetic words of the prophets in the Old Testament support each other in bringing securityand guidance to the believers.

The event of the Transfiguration, particularly seen from a post‑Resurrection vantage point, gave Peter a newoutlook on the message and meaning of the Old Testament prophets. Now the words of the ancient prophecies wereenlightened by the glory of Jesus Christ. They shone with a new luster and power. That power was already there inthe prophetic messages (1 Peter 1:10‑12). But the experience of the Transfiguration along with that of the Cross andthe Resurrection let the inherent light shine forth more brightly. The light of the Old Testament prophecies shonefrom the past and together with the experience of the Transfiguration enlightened the spiritual life and vision of theapostles’ present so that they could look forward in hope to the complete fulfillment of that glory at the future SecondComing. You Should Pay Attention Peter then transmits this assurance to those he is writing to and teaching. Here in verse 19b is where the “you”

3/7

references begin. “In addition, we have a most reliable prophetic word, and you would do well to pay attention to it ,just as you would to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts”(vs. 19, CEB, italics supplied). The readers are called on to take special notice of the Scriptures. The verb has theconnotation of being concerned with something, devoting oneself to it. Peter desires an extension of the apostles’experience to the community of believers. As the Transfiguration imbued the apostles’ experience of the OldTestament prophecies with renewed vigor, so the connection of the believers with the apostles’ experience is to bringthem to a living experience of the Scriptures as well.

Peter affirms the importance of the prophecies, describing them as a lamp shining in a dark place. He bids thereaders to give heed to the light of these prophetic sayings until the day dawns and the morning star arises in theirhearts (2 Peter 1:19). Here we have three lights—the lamp, the dawn, and the morning star. Peter has alreadyidentified the lamp as the prophetic Scriptures. The dawn of day, or “The Day,” is used throughout the NewTestament as a reference to the Second Coming of Christ. But to what does the morning star refer, and why is it saidto arise in your hearts? The Greek word translated as “morning star” referred in the ancient world to the planet Venus when it shonebrightly in the morning sky before sunrise. It was the harbinger of the coming dawn. Terrance Callan suggests thatthe morning star might be just another way of talking about the second coming by expressing one idea through twoterms (the coming of the Day and the Day Star).4

But one would hardly speak of the Second Coming as something occurring in the believer’s heart, some type ofspiritual enlightenment, if you will. Second Peter 3 disavows any concept like that. Instead, the morning star, asharbinger of the dawn, more likely represents the believer’s hope and trust in that great day, the return of our Lord.The three lights work together. The prophetic lamp of the Scriptures shines into our hearts and creates the morningstar hope for the coming great and glorious day of our Lord’s return.

The Second Coming is a real event just around the corner, but if it is only an event in the future and not one inmy life, then the morning star hope has not arisen in my heart. Peter’s words suggest a personal experience of thecoming dawn of Jesus’ return, not unlike the Transfiguration experience that changed the apostle’s ownunderstanding. It is striking to note how both experiences (the Transfiguration and the hope of the Second Coming)are interlinked by Peter with the prophetic Scriptures. They Spoke From God The apostle does not end his discourse in 2 Peter 1 by talking either about his own experience or that of hisreaders. Instead he describes the experience of the prophets who received the message from God. The apostlebegins with the emphatic “knowing this first of all,” which returns to the Christian teaching language of instruction.The teaching the readers had received before is underscored. What the readers are to focus on is the message God has sent in Scripture: “Knowing this first of all, that noprophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20). The key phrase for understandingverse 20 is “someone’s own interpretation.” Two fairly divergent explanations of these words predominate inscholarship. The minority view is that the reference is to the ruling out of personal interpretation, that interpretation ofScripture is a function of the community of faith. The majority view is that “someone’s own” refers to the prophethimself and makes reference in particular to the type of explanation of visions and dreams given by angels in bookslike Daniel, Amos, and Zechariah. According to this viewpoint, both the revelation of the dream/vision and theinterpretation of it are from God. Thus there are no logical seams or cracks through which the false teachers’deceptions can gain ground.

What makes the majority view more likely is the literary configuration of verses 20 and 21. They form a pair ofoverlapping structures, the first a chiasm and the second a case of antithetical parallelism. My own rather literaltranslation that maintains the basic Greek word order illustrates this: A B 20b Because every prophecy of Scripture is not of one’s own interpretation, B´ A´

4/7

21 For not by human will was the prophecy carried formerly A B 21 For not by human will was the prophecy carried formerly A B But by the Holy Spirit carried, people spoke from God. The chiastic structure of the first pair illustrates how “not of one’s own interpretation” parallels “not by humanwill.” This parallelism is consistent with Bauckham’s argumentation that the reference to “one’s own interpretation”refers to the prophet’s interpretation of the vision he has received. That is to say, both the vision and theinterpretation of that vision in the prophet’s writings come from God, not from the prophet himself.

However, the antithetical parallelism of verse 21 takes a step further. It indicates how the prophet functionseven when an angel is not present to provide the interpretation. The emphasis is on God’s activity via the Holy Spiritand the functional word is carried. The Greek verb is translated “to bear, carry,” which is used four times in thepassage. Besides the two uses in verse 21, it also appears in verse 17 (“For when he received honor and glory fromGod the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am wellpleased’”) and verse 18 (“And this voice we heard from heaven carried while with him in the holy mountain” [my ownmore literal translation to illustrate the use of the verb carry]). In all four uses in the passage the verb is in thepassive voice, suggesting the activity of God—He is the One doing the “carrying.” There are, then, three locations where God was active in bringing the message. One location was theexperience of the apostles at the Transfiguration. The voice of God carried the message of honor (2 Peter 1:17, 18).Another location was the giving of the vision and interpretation to the Old Testament prophet. The vision andinterpretation were not the prophet’s invention; they came from God (vs. 20). And finally, the third location was theinspiration of the prophet to speak the message. The Holy Spirit carried the people, that is, the prophets, when theyspoke from God (vs. 21). The first was a personal revelation of Christ’s glory, the second was a revelation of the vision and message ofScripture, and the third was the inspiration of the prophets to be able to write the message in a reliable manner toexpress the will of God. This third step is an expression of the incarnational character of Scripture—people spokefrom God. Humans did the speaking, but the message and its inspiration were from God. The Word of God “becameflesh” in the human words of the prophets. Lessons for the Scholar Today How is the scholar to balance the tension between faith commitment and scholarly objectivity? It is clear that 2Peter 1:16 to 21 teaches the tight interconnection between the apostles’ experience of the Transfiguration and theprophetic Scriptures, as well as the revelatory and inspired nature of those writings. For those who have acceptedthe Scriptures as the Word of God, these statements in 2 Peter 1 teach that this holy Word must be handledcarefully, thoughtfully, always with its divine origin in mind. This does not mean covering over questions or data thatare challenging, just that all these queries are placed within a framework of hope and trust.

But there are more lessons for scholarly life. The “we,” “you” and “they” pattern of discourse suggests that eventhis pattern and the argumentation that goes with it provide instruction for scholarly life. Reviewing the pattern in itsoriginal setting, for Peter the “we” was the grounded personal experience of the apostles that connected with the OldTestament prophecies as reliable testimony. This “we” saw and heard and touched the Word of Life (1 John 1:1‑4)and recognized the way in which the Old Testament prophecies were also a “most reliable prophetic word” (2 Peter1:19, CEB). The “you” was Peter’s appeal to his readers to experience the rising of the Day Star, coming toexperience the power of the hope of the Second Coming in the Word of God and the salvation of which it speaks.And the “they” was the reliable and interlocked reception and expression of revelation and inspiration. For those in scholarly life and research, the concept of “we” comes in three steps. First is our own backgroundand personal experience in character development, ethical, and spiritual life—the integrity of who we have become

5/7

as we approach research. This step parallels Peter’s insistence that he and his fellow apostles were not deceptivein their teaching (vs. 16). Objectivity in scholarship requires ethical standards of honesty and reliability in carryingout and reporting research findings. The second step in the “we” is personal observation—seeing, hearing, touching, if you will, the truthsencountered; the data of studies; the pottery fragments, tablets, and inscriptions uncovered. These are oureyewitness experiences. Just as the Transfiguration modified how the apostles understood the ministry of Jesus andthe prophecies of the Old Testament, so research opens new vistas, new ways of seeing old truths. It is a new wayof looking at the world, a new set of questions. This change in who we are and how we understand, so tied to our experience, impacts how we do research.There may be complete agreement on a particular methodological approach to a passage, yet arrival at differentresults in research. This does not prove the methodology false. More often it illustrates the way in which differingpersonal backgrounds affect use of the methodology. Interesting and helpful complementary understandings of thedata can arise from such research and interaction.

The third step of the “we” is the sense of community, already implied in the previous paragraph. It is a “we” andnot simply an “I.” Scholars form a body of believers, a community that has experienced the power and resurrectionof Jesus Christ. It was not one disciple who saw the Transfiguration but three, a group who pondered and discussedits significance and eventually shared its reality with others (Mark 9:9, 10). Scholars typically publish individually intheir respective type of research, but they read and think of the meaning of that research together as a communityand critique one another’s work. Without that sense of community, without that check of what is said, the researchloses its context and hence a great deal of its power to transform. Although the Adventist Church thankfully does nothave a teaching Magisterium, it is not just a group of individuals who happen to be going in the same direction. Weare a body of believers accountable and responsible to one another in the body of Christ and in this denominationcalled Seventh-day Adventist. But there is never just a “we.” There is always a “you” whom the scholar faces and relates to, even as Peteraddressed the “you” of his second letter. These are those not of our guild who are impacted by our research. It ishere that the “we” and the “you” intersect. Personal experience of research in these sacred truths must inspire withtheir power and joy.

But the responsibility of biblical and theological scholars extends beyond what many professionals see as theirrole. They relate not only to their students but also must face their Lord for what they say. Jesus said, “‘Whoevercauses one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastenedaround his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea’” (Matt. 18:6). Biblical and theological scholars mustuncover new insights that challenge the status quo, while at the same time recognizing the life situation and faithjourney of the emerging adults and more mature students in their classrooms. Finally, the “they” for scholars, as for Peter, are the prophets and apostles and their writings, the text ofScripture, which always stands apart from us and critiques our lives. According to Peter it is these writings that arethe incarnated and reliable Word of God. In this light, it is not so much that scholars critique the Bible but that it is theevaluator of the scholar’s experience and practice. In the community of faith scholars place themselves under itsmolding influence. “We,” “you,” and “they.” Scholars seek to understand the Bible’s message and prophetic voice through thevaried methods of scholarship in which they have been trained. They must share what they find with those theyserve, not covering things over or making the evidence fit preconceived ideas (from either the right or the left). Thegoal is not some sterile, stand-apart, away-from-the-life-of-the-church sort of investigation. It must be rememberedthat scholars, along with all Christians, are the experiment upon which the Word in its power works—which meansreally believing and tasting that the Lord is good, knowing on a personal level the reality of the ancient truths. It isthen that these scholars are, in the truest sense, scholars of the Seventh‑day Adventist Church. Tom Shepherd, Ph.D., Dr.P.H., is Professor of New Testament Interpretation at the Seventh‑day AdventistTheological Seminary, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan, where he is also the Director of the Ph.D. inReligion and Th.D. programs.

6/7

NOTES AND REFERENCES 1. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture references in this article are quoted from the English Standard Versionof the Bible.

2. Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude: The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids,Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006), p. 200.

3. Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter: Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1983), vol. 50, p.223.

4. Terrance Callan, “A Note on 2 Peter 1:19, 20,” Journal of Biblical Literature 125:1 (Spring 2006):147.

Back to top

7/7

perspectivedigest.org http://www.perspectivedigest.org/article/162/archives/20-2/luther-s-creation-theologyDenis Kaiser

In his study of Creation, the German reformer focused especially on the creative, preserving, governing, andrecreating activities of the Word.

When Martin Luther began giving a series of lectures on the Book of Genesis in the summer of 1535, he did notanticipate that it would become the last and longest of all his series. He had already preached earlier about variouspassages from Genesis, but his later lectures on that biblical book from between 1535 and 1545 constitute a moremature and detailed exposition than his earlier treatments.

These lectures have been studied from a variety of perspectives—gender equality, anthropology, work andvocation, the cross and salvation, the two kingdoms of God, ecclesiology, ecology, the doctrine of the Godhead, aswell as the philosophical and theological knowledge of God. Other researchers have focused on the sources thatLuther consulted as well as on the editors and publishers of his lectures. It is well‑known among scholars that the present text of Luther’s Genesis lectures reflects the notes of hisstudents and the editorial work of the publishers rather than what he himself had actually written. Several writershave pointed out that the concept of creation ex nihilo (“creation out of nothing”) was pivotal to both Luther’sdoctrine of creation and his doctrine of justification. Johannes Schwanke studied Luther’s Genesis lecturesspecifically from the perspective of that concept, suggesting that it is the overruling theme of these lectures.1

In Luther’s lectures on the biblical creation account as found in Genesis 1:1 through 2:4, it was not so muchthe concept of “creation out of nothing,” but the idea of ultimate creation, preservation, and governance by God’sspoken word that formed the main emphasis. Thus, many of the themes touched on in these lectures center inLuther’s picture of God’s nature and character. Luther’s Basic Presuppositions Before looking at Luther’s interpretation of the biblical creation account, it is helpful to take note of explicitpremises and underlying presuppositions found in his lectures. The premises and presuppositions of a personinfluence his or her interpretations and conclusions. Paying attention to underlying assumptions may shed light on

1/9

other topics and themes. Luther seemed to emphasize (1) the authority of the sources, (2) the concept of time, and(3) the nature of God. 1. The authority of the sources. Martin Luther approached the issue of origins from the basic premise that theBible is the only safe and reliable source of information on that topic, being superior to the writings of philosophers,theologians, astronomers, and scientists. His lectures reveal, nevertheless, that he interacted with the writings of awide range of ancient and medieval Greek, Jewish, and Latin philosophers and theologians. In matters of science, he considered the ancient Greek philosophers superior to Christian theologians andphilosophers. Their reflections were “more advanced” and “more clever” than the “childish ideas” of Ambrose andAugustine.2 Luther regarded it expedient to follow the advice of Jerome and Averroës, who recommended refrainingfrom attempts to explain scientifically the exact procedure of creation. Such attempts were considered futile because God is not necessarily bound to the laws of nature but is able toalter them. Although Moses’ creation account may not be able to explain in every detail how creation occurred, thereis no better teacher in matters of origins than Moses. Hence, Luther advised his students to follow the biblicalcreation account rather than philosophers and church fathers.3 Science was assigned the place to observe andponder over the divine works, for it cannot clarify their origin. One should remember that the terminology of Scripture may differ from the language employed by scientistsand philosophers. Thus, for example, the entire area that the Bible calls “heaven” was divided by astronomers into“spheres,” “apsides,” and “epicycles.”4 Yet, in his attempt to assess the views of ancient and medieval scholars froman independent and critical perspective, Luther was not always able to divest himself of their presuppositions. 2. The concept of time. Luther’s understanding of time and timelessness may be an example of his havingbeen influenced by ancient and medieval scholars. Though rumors of Nicholas Copernicus’ heliocentric worldviewhad already spread throughout Europe in the mid‑1510s, the majority of the astronomers still rejected that system atthe end of the 16th century. Luther was not an exception; being a child of his time, he still reasoned that the Earth isat rest and everything moves around it, including the Sun.5

In the Genesis creation account, he stated that Moses “is speaking of the natural day, which consists of twenty-four hours, during which the . . .[sun] revolves from east to west.”6 In his understanding it was not merely the earthlyreckoning of time, but time in general that came into existence on the first day of the creation week. The heavenlybodies were actually made specifically for humans in their physical life on this Earth, since they were able to count;an ability that animals did not possess. He argued that both the counting of definite times and time in general arestrictly connected to the movement of the heavenly bodies. Thus, in his opinion, there was no time before that firstday. Speculations about what happened and what God was doing previous to the existence of time were to beavoided, however. In fact, God is “outside the scope of time,” which is why all things are present to Him; “nothing . . .is earlier or later, swifter or slower.”7 Hence, when this present world will come to an end, time will cease as well,and the saints, too, will exist in a realm of timelessness. Luther’s suggestion that the Father “begets the Word ineternity and in time establishes this world through the Word”8 resounds the idea of the eternal generation of theSon. It is apparent that Luther unconsciously depended on the Greek philosophical notion of time, despite hisaffirmation of the Bible as the last norm in the interpretation of biblical passages. 3. The nature of God. The Genesis account provided much material for discussions about the nature of God.Luther admitted that the New Testament speaks with more clarity about the Trinitarian concept than the OldTestament, but he insisted that the patriarchs knew this concept through the Holy Spirit as indicated by a few biblicalpassages. He noticed the different usages of the divine names in Genesis 1 and 2: elohim (“God”) is used inGenesis 1; whereas, the divine covenant name Yahweh does not appear in that chapter. He interpreted this asMoses’ attempt to highlight the divine plurality, an effort that he saw in various ways throughout the chapter. Thus, Luther argued that Genesis 1:1 to 3 portrays how each of the divine persons became active in thecreation process—the Father began to create in the beginning of the first day (vs. 1), the Holy Spirit seated Himselfabove the work of creation (vs. 2), and the Son became active when God “spoke” all things into existence (vs. 3). Asall things were made through the Word (John 1:1‑3), so everything is made alive through the Spirit. That the various creation acts are preceded by the phrase “God said” was a circumstance that Luther regarded

2/9

as a reference to the creative activity of the Word. His allocation of the phrases “God said,” “He made” (Gen. 1:7, 16,25, 31; 2:2, 4), and “He saw” (1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31) to the respective divine Persons obviously stems fromAugustine. The first phrase pointed to the eternal generation of the Son and the establishment of the world throughthe Word “in time.” The second phrase referred to the Son, who is the image of both the divine majesty and allcreated things, which is why He can bestow existence on all things. The third phrase points to the Holy Spirit who“sees the created things and approves them.” According to Luther, the action verbs—said, made, and saw—wereintentionally chosen to assist the reader in understanding more clearly the doctrine of the Trinity. He acknowledgedthat this argumentation is not explicitly articulated in the biblical text, yet he saw nothing wrong with the teaching assuch.

In the context of his discussion of the words translated as “he said” and “creation out of nothing,” Lutherdistinguished between an unspoken and a spoken word in God. The unspoken, uncreated Word was one with Godand a separate person, whereas the spoken, created Word created all things. God’s spoken words are not merelygrammatical words or vocabularies but true and substantial things. Thus, God created all things through theuncreated Word by speaking. As may be expected, the phrase “Let us make man in our image” (Gen. 1:27) called for a lengthy commentaryon God’s nature. Luther sensed that this statement was intended to assure the reader of the divine mystery that“from eternity there is one God and that there are three separate Persons in one Godhead: the Father, the Son, andthe Holy Spirit.”9

Being aware of various arguments proposed by Jewish scholars in objection to the Trinitarian interpretation ofverse 27, he took time to critique those arguments. He concluded that the three divine persons cooperated in theircreative activity. Therefore, they express the deliberation of their council by saying “Let us make man” (vs. 27). TheFather did not make one man, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit still another, but “the Father, the Son, and theHoly Spirit, one and the same God, is the Author and Creator of the same work.” Adam was not the image of only one of the three divine persons but of all three, signifying that he was made by“three separate persons in one divine essence.”10 Yet, the Father is only known in the Son and through the HolySpirit. Thus God cannot be divided subjectively because he is one God “so far as His substance or essence isconcerned. He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three distinct Persons in One Godhead.”11

Creation–An Act of Divine Benevolence

As has been shown previously, the renowned German reformer intended to use Scripture as the ultimate andauthoritative source of information on the issue of origins. Yet, the fact that he continued to assume the validity of theGreek idea of God’s timelessness and the eternal generation of the Son should suggest that these concepts mayresurface in this study. Luther’s concern with God’s nature and character plays a major role in this study, since thetheme of divine grace and benevolence occurs basically everywhere in Luther’s lectures. • Creation out of nothing in six literal days. Interestingly, Luther could not discern any complications ordifficulties between the idea of God’s timelessness and the biblical affirmation of the divine creation activity in time.God created all things by speaking, “by the uncreated word.”12 Everything—Sun, Moon, stars, conditions on Earth,plants, and animals—came into existence through the Word. Some have argued that the phrase “creation out of nothing” lies at the heart of Luther’s creation theology; yet, itappears that he often referred to that concept by mentioning the power of the Word without explicitly bringing up thephrase per se. His view of “creation out of nothing” was obviously in harmony with Irenaeus’ concept. Irenaus had opposed three different cosmogonies—(1) the Gnostic view that the world emanated from God; (2)another Gnostic idea that the world is wicked per se and was not created by God Himself; and (3) the Platonic ideathat God used already existing matter. Irenaeus countered the first two views by emphasizing that God created theworld out of nothing and the third view by underscoring that God had invented matter. Similarly, Luther stated that God did not need pre‑existing matter to create, for He merely spoke and things,animate and inanimate, were generated. Thus, the reference to the creative activity of the Word emphasizes God’sability to create out of nothing. Yet this concept was not only found in Genesis 1:1 to 3, but also supported by many

3/9

other biblical passages. Exodus 20:11 was especially significant because it emphasizes that “the heavens and theearth” were made “in six days.” The primary matter of the heavens and the earth and everything that is therein wasnot created “outside the six days but at the beginning of the first day, . . . according to the plain words of theDecalogue (vs. 11).”13 His literal understanding of the creation days led him to reject the views of Augustine andHilary who had argued for an instantaneous and simultaneous creation. • Creation as a manifestation of divine charity. Luther was concerned not only with apologetic questions, butalso—and even more—with what the creation account teaches its readers about God’s character and personality.He viewed almost everything in the account as a revelation of God’s benevolence and grace. Thus the creation ofthe heavenly bodies, the physical conditions of the Earth, and the plant life reveal God’s benevolent character. Infact, He prepared “a home and an inn” furnished with every joyful thing for humanity. In this way God had alreadytaken care of human needs even before He created humans, suggesting that divine providence is far greater than all“anxiety and care.”14 The heavenly bodies—Sun, Moon, and stars—were intended as service agents to humanitybecause the motion of those bodies allows for the counting of days, months, seasons, and years. Lutheremphasized that God repeatedly expressed His satisfaction and delight with the results of His creation, which wasintended to be the realm of life for humanity.

The description of the Earth as words translated as “formless” and “void” was viewed by Luther as anotherindication of God’s benevolence; God’s solution to this “dark and mixed” condition of the Earth “without any fruitsand barren” was his work of “forming” and “adorning.”15 The idea of “adorning” was derived from the Latin reading ofGenesis 2:1, translated “thus were finished heaven and the earth and all their adornment.”16 The “adorning” of theEarth happened accordingly between the fourth and the sixth day. Luther suggested that the creation of all things,animate and inanimate, reveals God as a lover of beauty. A bird, for example, has “such pretty feet and suchdelicate hair that it is clear that it was created by the Word of God with a definite plan in view.”17

Luther perceived a difference between animate and inanimate things. While God declared that He was“pleased” with the inanimate things that He had made, He emphasized that He “blessed” all the animate beings.Since Luther defined blessing as “increase,” he interpreted it as the initiation of the new method of procreation.Thus, this blessing of living beings, which are capable of fruitful procreation, announced “increase” and was“effective immediately.”18

A further difference between the living beings that God created occurred by “the creation of man” because thatactivity was regarded by Luther as “the last and most beautiful work of God.”19 It was by the “special plan andprovidence of God” that “man was created.”20 The repetition in Genesis 1:27 was supposed to be understood,according to Luther, as an emphasis of the “Creator’s rejoicing and exulting over the most beautiful work He hadmade.” God was more delighted and pleased to make “so beautiful a creature” than with “the other creatures” for hecreated “man . . . according to His own similitude” so that God “is truly recognized” in him. This is why Lutherdeclared: “In him [man] there is such wisdom, justice, and knowledge of all things that he may rightly be called aworld in miniature. He has an understanding of heaven, earth, and the entire creation.”21 Yet, he recognized stillanother difference: “No other beautiful sight in the whole world appeared lovelier and more attractive to Adam thanhis own Eve.”22 Between them there was a union of hearts and wills that was not possible between them and anyother animal. After God had finished all His work of creation, His character became especially visible. For He did not abandonthe Earth, but He expressed His love toward and approval of the created things. His preserving and governingactivities still prove His nearness and presence in the affairs of the world. Luther regarded the entire process ofcreation in the beginning of the world and the continual upholding of the universe and the Earth as an amazing,attracting, benevolent, generous, and selfless act of God that testifies of His goodness and love toward humanity. • The significance of the Sabbath. Another sign of God’s benevolence was the Sabbath. That God rested onthe seventh day was not an indication that He entirely ceased from doing anything. The German reformer arguedthat the Creator did not so much cease the work of “preserving and governing the heaven and the earth,” rather thathe refrained from creating “a new heaven, a new earth, new stars, [and] new trees.”23 Yet, questions arise as to

4/9

what the Sabbath rest of God was and how He sanctified the Sabbath. He sanctified the Sabbath not for anyoneelse but for Himself. That it is sanctified signifies that it is made holy or set aside for a sacred purpose, which in turnmeans that the time on that day should be devoted to divine worship. On that day, Adam would have instructed hisdescendants about the divine will and the worship of God. They would have praised Him and given thanks to Him.Luther made various remarkable statements about the envisioned observance of the Sabbath: “Therefore from the beginning of the world the Sabbath was intended for the worship of God. Unspoiled humannature would have proclaimed the glory and the kindnesses of God in this way: on the Sabbath day men would haveconversed about the immeasurable goodness of the Creator; they would have sacrificed; they would have prayed,etc.”24

The Sabbath shows specifically that humanity was created to know and worship its Creator. While adomesticated animal may learn to recognize the voice of its owner, humans are different in that they are capable ofhearing God, knowing His will, and communing with Him through prayer and faith.

Luther declared that “the Sabbath command remains for the church” for, although humanity has lost theknowledge of their Creator, God wanted “this command about sanctifying the Sabbath to remain in force” because itsignifies that spiritual life will be restored to the believers through Christ.25 Thus, the real purpose of the seventh dayis the preaching and hearing of the Word, and since humans should spend their Sabbath time with God’s Word andother forms of worship, they are also made aware of the fact that they were primarily created to acknowledge andglorify God. It is especially on the Sabbath that God speaks with us through His Word, and in both Scripture andgeneral practice it was morning time that was set aside for prayer and preaching (Ps. 5:3). Luther also recognized afuture significance of the Sabbath, an aspect to be addressed later. Creation—a Continuous Divine Activity It is striking that Luther considered creation and the physical world inherently good. Everything that God did inand through creation was driven by His love, benevolence, kindness, and goodness. He explained the originalmeaning and the abiding significance of the seventh day, the Sabbath, without even addressing once Sunday as themodern day of worship. The central statement in Luther’s comments on the biblical creation account is thateverything was created out of nothing through the Word. It is this aspect that will be of great significance for hisdescriptions of God’s continuing interaction in present and future times. • Preservation, governance, and ongoing creation. One has to remember that Edward Herbert’s De Veritateand the philosophy of Deism were still future when Luther made the following remark, which otherwise could beeasily understood as a direct attack against Deism: “God did not create things with the idea of abandoning themafter they had been created, but He loves them and expresses His approval of them. Therefore He is altogether withthem. He sets in motion, He moves, and He preserves each according to its own manner.”26

God is interested and directly involved in human affairs. An observer of the events and developments in natureand the heavens may not understand what happens behind the scenes, yet God does not cease to be supreme andthe only Master of order. Philosophers may wonder about the growing of seeds and plants; Luther ascribed thecause behind that phenomenon simply to the divine Word. It is through the Word of God that the human realm of lifeis continually preserved—a fact not recognized by philosophers. It is through the “power and effectiveness” of thatWord that the entire creation is still preserved and governed.27 God’s preserving and governing activity can be seen,as Luther pointed out, in His continual moving of the heavenly bodies, in His holding back of the sea so that theterritory necessary for habitation and life is preserved. It is, in fact, through the Word that created everything out ofnothing that everything is continually preserved and governed. Luther considered the nature of the divine Sabbath rest also as indicative of several aspects of the divine workof preservation. Though God ceased to create a new heaven and a new earth as a result of His satisfaction with theones that had been “created by the Word,” He was still working, although He rested from his work. He merelyceased to establish; whereas, He did not cease to govern and preserve. The Sun, the Moon, and the stars stillcontinue their course on the seventh day—their motion is actually caused by the divine Word. On the first seventhday God refrained from creating new classes of creatures, for whatever He wanted to make He had already made.But now, after sin has come into the world, God not only preserves His creation but also changes and renews it; thus

5/9

new classes come into existence—a signifier of the many species and races that exist today, even those who are“troublesome and harmful.”28

Even procreation was viewed by Luther as a creative act that takes place “through the working of the Word”because the Word is active in the parents in the moment of procreation. Thus, the Word creates whenever livingbeings—animals and humans—procreate and beget descendants.

• The spiritual and moral purpose of the creation account. Though Luther firmly believed in the historicity of arecent, literal six-day creation, he also recognized the positive impact that the creation account could have on itsreaders. Thus, it reveals the amazing divine power that created all things “by a method surpassing all reason andunderstanding,” which fills the reader with awe and “wonderment at the power of the Divine Majesty”—a fact thatbuilds up the faith of the reader.29 Here Luther connected two aspects of God’s nature and character—Hisomniscience and intimate love for humanity. If God has so much power, He should also have the power to defendhumans against their physical and spiritual enemies today. The creation account should open the eyes of thereaders and build up their faith to believe more readily that God can preserve them, too. Yet, Luther recognized apurpose of the creation account that surpassed the general comfort for the present life—it may move to “hope andlonging for the Coming Day and the future life.”30 That God is able to resurrect people from the dead is displayed byHis ability to create from nothing through the power of the Word. Seeing that God prepared a home for the first humans and already took care of their needs before they wereeven created may convince the reader of the divine providence that is greater than all his or her “anxiety andcare.”31 It moves the reader to an appreciation of God’s kindness, goodness, generosity, and solicitude, as can beseen from the following quotation: “Therefore I prefer that we reflect on the divine solicitude and benevolence toward us, because He providedsuch an attractive dwelling place for the future human being before the human being was created. Thus afterwards,when man is created, he finds a ready and equipped home into which he is brought by God and commanded toenjoy all the riches of so splendid a home. On the third day He provides kitchen and provisions. On the fourth, sunand moon are given to man for attendance and service. On the fifth the rule over the fish and the birds is turned overto him. On the sixth the rule over all the beasts is turned over to him, so that he might enjoy all this wealth free, inproportion to his need. And all this generosity is intended to make man recognize the goodness of God and live inthe fear of God. This care and solicitude of God for us, even before we were created, may rightly and profitably beconsidered here.”32

God’s goodness and power are also seen in His preservation of life on Earth as well as in His governing of theheavenly bodies. Even this will have a positive impact on the spiritual life of the believer if he or she ponders it. “For me it is enough that in those bodies, which are so elegant and necessary for our life, we recognize boththe goodness of God and His power, that He created such important objects and preserves them to the present dayfor our use. These are views which are proper to our profession; that is, they are theological, and they have power toinstill confidence in our hearts.”33

Some have speculated why God may have started to equip or adorn the earth on the third day, whereas Lutheremphasized that it is far more profitable to study the creation account in order to learn more about God’s kindness,to meditate and wonder now and in the future at His “concern, care, generosity, and benevolence.” God makeshumanity rich and wealthy before it is able to concern itself with itself.34 Thus, Luther believed that creation by Godwas something inherently positive so that “the care and the concern for nature” should be “the response to the beliefthat God is the cause and source of all creatures.”35

• The creation account as a type of the future. Luther frequently drew parallels between elements of thecreation account and the future life. Thus the Eden home served as a figure of the future heavenly home for theredeemed. Reflecting on the biblical creation account would ignite a desire and a longing for the future that Godpromised in the Bible.

“It is a good thing to know these facts and to ponder them, so that we may have a longing for that Coming Day6/9

when that which we lost in Paradise through sin will be restored to us. We are waiting for that life for which Adamalso should have waited. And we duly marvel at this and thank God for it, that although we are so disfigured by sin,so dull, ignorant, and dead, as it were, nevertheless, through the merit of Christ, we wait for the same glory of thespiritual life for which Adam would have waited if he had remained in his physical life, which was endowed with theimage of God.”36

Luther saw parallels between Christ’s adorning of the Eden home for the first, but as yet uncreated, humanbeings and Christ’s furnishing of the heavenly home for the saints who still live on Earth. That is why he regarded theworld in its first finished form and way as “a type and figure of the future world.”37 Though he noticed clearterminological and thematic parallels between aspects of the creation account and Christ’s earthly and heavenlyactivities now and in the future, Augustine’s allegorizations—considering the Moon, e.g., as a signifier to the church—appeared too speculative to the German reformer. Adhering closely to the literal meaning of the text seemed toguard from such conjectures.

The Sabbath pointed forward to the future life in different ways. Luther mused that “all the things that Godwants [to be] done on the Sabbath are clear signs of another life after this life.”38 He saw no significance of Godspeaking to the believers through His Word if there would not be a hope for a future and eternal life. They could livethen like people who do not have that hope and do not know God. Yet, since God speaks to them so that they mayknow Him, it necessarily follows that there is “another life after this life.” They need His Word and the knowledge ofHim to attain that life. The beasts of the field, however, do not know God and the Word, and they are not promisedany life beyond this temporal and present physical one. Thus, the divine commands to spend time with the Word, tosanctify the Sabbath, and to worship God all prove that “man was created not [only] for this physical life” but that“there remains a life after this life.” Hence, there is a “sure hope of immortality,”39 which is again a sign of God’sgoodness and love toward humanity. “Without a doubt, just as at that time God rejoiced in the counsel and work by which man was created, sotoday, too. He takes pleasure in restoring this work of His through His Son and our Deliverer, Christ. It is useful toponder these facts, namely, that God is most kindly inclined toward us and takes delight in His thought and plan ofrestoring all who have behaved in Christ to spiritual life through the resurrection of the dead.”40

Conclusion

Most of the themes highlighted in Luther’s lectures on Genesis 1:1 through 2:4 center in his picture of God’snature and character. Although the German reformer deliberately chose the Bible as the ultimate norm for hisinterpretation of the biblical creation account, considering it more reliable and accurate than the observations ofscientists, astronomers, and philosophers, it did not shield him from maintaining some of their presuppositions.Thus, time did not exist before the creation of the Earth and will cease to exist when the saints go to heaven. At the same time, God dwelt in a realm of timelessness but, in Luther’s view, God was not confined to thatrealm. God, consisting of three distinct persons, was deeply interested and active in human affairs. Though theFather began to create, it was the Son—the Word—who became active when the Father spoke, whereas the Spiritmade everything alive. Luther’s main emphasis was not so much on the concept of “creation out of nothing” as onthe idea that everything was created, is preserved and governed by God’s spoken word. The reference to the Wordis certainly indicative of the idea that God did not need primary matter to create, yet it is not necessarily bound to it.For although God’s continual preserving and governing activities occur through the Word, it does not create newthings but preserves what has been created before and sustains it. The German reformer strongly insisted on the historicity of a literal six‑day creation that occurred about 6,000years ago, in contrast to the notions of such church fathers as Augustine and Hilary who believed in aninstantaneous, one‑day creation. It seems that Luther regarded the moral and spiritual purpose of the creationaccount and its significance for the picture of God as being almost more important than the question of historicity.The creation account revealed divine goodness, kindness, providence, love, generosity, selflessness, benevolence,wisdom, justice, knowledge, and power. Creation was not something evil but something amazing, attracting,beautiful, pleasant, and inherently good.

7/9

According to Luther, the Sabbath was intended as a time for divine worship, for the preaching and hearing ofGod’s Word, and for the growing relationship with God. The Sabbath points believers specifically to God’s goodnessfor, on that day, He continues to sustain the universe, and to govern and preserve the realm of human life. All thishappens through the constant benevolent activity of the Word. God’s creative, preserving, and governing activitiesmake believers wonder at His power. They build up faith that He will preserve and defend them too. It shows themthat God is able to take care of their needs before they are even aware of them, and that He can resurrect them fromthe dead. All this is possible through the power of the Word. Yet, his positive statements should not be understoodas an affirmation of the perpetuity of the fourth commandment.

Finally, Luther considered creation as a type for the future. As God prepared the Eden home for the firsthumans, so Christ prepares a heavenly home for the redeemed. The Sabbath also points to the future, forcommunion with God on earth would be meaningless if there would be no hope for a future life in communion withGod. Growing in knowledge of God would be meaningless if everything would end at death. Though Luther addressed every verse of the Mosaic creation account, he focused specifically on divineactivities. The creative, preserving, governing, and re-creating activities of the Word stand out distinctly. Luther notonly addressed the biblical text but was also able to apply it to the daily life of the believer. He emphasized that Godwas not only active in the past but is still active today and wants to play a role in the life of every individual person. Denis Kaiser is currently completing a Ph.D. in Adventist Studies and Historical Theology at the Seventh‑dayAdventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan. NOTES AND REFERENCES 1. Johannes Schwanke, Creatio ex nihilo: Luthers Lehre von der Schöpfung aus dem Nichts in der GroßenGenesisvorlesung (1535-1545), vol. 126 of Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann (Berlin and New York: Walter deGruyter, 2004).

2. Martin Luther, Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar: Herman Böhlau, 1883), vol. 42, pp. 22-24.

3. Ibid., pp. 4-6.

4. Ibid., pp. 35, 36.

5. Ibid., pp. 33, 41.

6. Ibid., p. 31.

7. Ibid., pp. 57, 58.

8. Ibid., p. 37.

9. Ibid., p. 43.

10. Ibid., pp. 43, 44.

11. Ibid., p. 44.

12. Ibid., pp. 35, 39, 40.

13. Ibid., p. 6.

14. Ibid., pp. 35, 29, 30.

15. Ibid., pp. 6, 7, 25-27, 29.

8/9

16. Ibid., p. 56.

17. Ibid., p. 39.

18. Ibid., pp. 39, 40.

19. Ibid., p. 41.

20. Ibid., p. 42.

21. Ibid., p. 49.

22. Ibid., p. 50.

23. Ibid., pp. 57, 58.

24. Ibid., p. 60.

25. Ibid., pp. 60, 61.

26. Ibid., p. 38.

27. Ibid., pp. 57, 58.

28. Ibid., pp. 40, 48, 49.

29. Ibid., p. 37.

30. Ibid., p. 56.

31. Ibid., p. 35.

32. Ibid., p. 29.

33. Ibid., p. 31.

34. Ibid., p. 30.

35. Vítor Westhelle, “Cross, Creation, and Ecology: The Meeting Point Between the Theology of the Cross andCreation Theology in Luther,” in Viggo Mortensen, ed., Concern for Creation: Voices on the Theology of Creation(Uppsala: Svenska kyrkans forskningsråd, 1995), p. 166.

36. Luther, Werke, op. cit., p. 50.

37. Ibid., p. 30.

38. Ibid., p. 60.

39. Ibid., pp. 60, 61.

40. Ibid., p. 51.

Back to top

9/9

perspectivedigest.org http://www.perspectivedigest.org/article/160/archives/20-2/nebuchadnezzar-and-godPatrick Mazani

The life of Nebuchadnezzar demonstrated—historically—that the God of heaven can use anyone to accomplish Hisdivine mission.

Humans generally find it easier to point out other people’s errors than to name their own. Criticizing others is anexercise in futility with this exception: It is possible to learn from the mistakes of others if we study from cause toeffect and learn in our own lives the lessons taught by the errors of others. This exceptional aim may bring benefit toa study of the moral deficits of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (605‑562 B.C.). And such study may bring better understanding of God’s character as seen in His dealings withNebuchadnezzar; demonstration of the importance of receiving and submitting to God’s warnings and counsels; andencouragement to avoid such consequences as Nebuchadnezzar experienced. Nebuchadnezzar, the Servant of the Most High God Many scholars focus exclusively on Nebuchadnezzar’s devastations in Judah (2 Kings 24:10‑16; 25:1‑21; Jer.39:10), the setting up and worship of his golden image (Daniel 3), or his pride in the beauty and impregnability ofBabylon (Dan. 4:30), as deserving of punishment. There is no complete record of Nebuchadnezzar’s sins andiniquities, although Daniel 4:27 suggests that he had some moral problems. It is well to consider that the casualreader of the Book of Daniel may fail to discern those actions that Yahweh considered deserving of the greatestcondemnation.

It seems Nebuchadnezzar’s actions against Judah were actually commissioned by Yahweh the God of Judah(Jer. 25:9; 27:6; 43:10). It is this God who gives Nebuchadnezzar a new title: “my servant” (Jer. 25:9; 27:6; 43:10).Nebuchadnezzar, wittingly or unwittingly, is the “servant” used by God to discipline the disobedient Judah.

Some scholars object strenuously to the concept of Nebuchadnezzar as God’s servant. These consider suchlanguage to be a serious scribal mistake. In fact, the Old Testament Greek text (LXX) deliberately avoids translating“my servant” in the corresponding verses (Jer. 25:9; 34:5; 50:10). Despite this objection, many other scholars have

1/8

viewed the title “my servant” as being appropriate because Nebuchadnezzar nearly annihilated Judah’s populationin accordance with God’s plan for disciplining that nation. It is God who delivered King Jehoiakim and the templeresources to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (Dan. 1:2). In this instance, Nebuchadnezzar was simply aninstrument used by God to carry out His will.

“My servant” is a relational term. It denotes an existing relationship between a superior and a subordinate, forexample, that of words translated “lord” or “master,” and “servant” or “vassal,” respectively. In the ancient Near Eastthe term translated as “servant” was used widely. In the biblical tradition it could be technically used by the Hebrews(1 Sam. 27:12; 2 Kings 16:7) to mean “vassal.” In Ugarit it was a technical term that meant “a vassal.” The idea of Nebuchadnezzar being God’s servant implies that the monarch was answerable to God forexecuting His assignments. Being a servant of God is a serious appointment that calls for accountability in thestrictest sense. Perhaps Nebuchadnezzar lacked the personal commitment, faithfulness, dedication, and devotion ofhis appointment as God’s servant. Was he actually aware that he was God’s servant when he was devastatingJudah? The record does not state that he intended this campaign as an act of obedience to the Most High God. Hedid not necessarily have to be aware of God’s decision to use him. God can use anybody to carry out His will without letting that individual know about it. A good example isGenesis 45:7, where Joseph said to his brothers, “‘God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant onearth and to save your lives by a great deliverance.’”1 Clearly, the brothers’ wickedness was used by God withouttheir knowledge or consent for a greater good. Nebuchadnezzar is attested as a servant of various deities on duplicate clay cylinders recovered from theziggurat of Borsippa. The inscription on these cylinders is no doubt Neo‑Babylonian and archaic, and it reads: “Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, the loyal shepherd, the one permanently selected by Marduk, the exaltedruler, the one loved by Nabû, the wise expert who is attentive to the ways of the gods, the tireless governor, thecaretaker of Esagil and Ezida, the foremost heir of Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, I, when Marduk, my great lord,duly created me to take care of him, Nabû, the administrator of the totality of heaven and the netherworld, put in myhands the just scepter.”2

Nebuchadnezzar’s confession about his gods as inscribed on the cylinders is expressive of far more devotionand loyalty than his confession about Yahweh in Daniel 2 and 3. In Daniel 2:47 he is talking about the wonderful Godof Daniel, who does unusual things. He acknowledges: “‘Your God is the God of gods and the Lord of kings and arevealer of mysteries, for you were able to reveal this mystery.’” And in Daniel 3:28, Nebuchadnezzar makes a nicespeech about the God of the three young Hebrews: “‘Praise be to the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego,who has sent his angel and rescued his servants! They trusted in him and defied the king's command and werewilling to give up their lives rather than serve or worship any god except their own God.’” In Daniel 3:29, he makes an empty promise that was never backed up by his personal commitment or hispolitical power: “‘I decree that the people of any nation or language who say anything against the God of Shadrach,Meshach and Abednego be cut into pieces and their houses be turned into piles of rubble, for no other god can savein this way.’” There is no record that this edict was carried out in Neo‑Babylonia. The confessions of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2:47 and 3:28 to 29, appear as hymns of praise to the God of theHebrews. These two texts are also truth statements that, unfortunately, failed to be incorporated into the king’scharacter. He was never known for his moral integrity. Further, they were landmark confessions in his career as aservant of Yahweh. Yet his words did not appear to have any lasting impression on his life with regard toaccountability to Yahweh. Nebuchadnezzar’s praises are remarkable. He responded appropriately to Yahweh’s dramatic demonstrations.He acknowledged that the God of the Hebrews was God of gods (Dan. 2:47) and that there is no other god whocould save as He does (3:29). Such praises are befitting a servant of Yahweh. The problem is thatNebuchadnezzar’s praises were short‑lived. He spoke the truth about the God of the Hebrews but in essence lackedthe faith in that God to sustain the conviction in his own life. For “God’s truth is to be individually recognized,understood, and applied.”3

2/8

Nebuchadnezzar had tangible evidence of the unique character and power of the God of the Hebrews. Forreasons known only to him, he failed to build a relationship with the God who thus revealed Himself. The kingaccomplished God’s mission without making a personal commitment to this God. This failure created a relationalproblem between Nebuchadnezzar and the God he worked for. Unfortunately, his actions betray him. His wordsabout God should have been matched by his life. Nebuchadnezzar served at least two masters, Yahweh andMarduk. His allegiance was divided. The Unforgotten Frightening Dream And this happened again. Nebuchadnezzar was terrified by another dream (Dan. 4:4, 5). This time it wasoverwhelmingly intense and ominous. In his distress, he made an administrative error. He failed to include the leaderof his intelligence service in his summons to an emergency consultation. Previously, Nebuchadnezzar had put Daniel in charge of all the wise men who had failed to interpret an earlierdream (Dan. 2:48). Considering Daniel’s success in telling and interpreting the king’s first dream, it seems strangethat Nebuchadnezzar should now fail to consult first and foremost with Daniel, his chief of intelligence. Why heinitially involved his Babylonian wise men and not Daniel is a puzzle. Even though, in this instance, the kingremembered and related the dream, the Babylonian officials could not make sense out of what he said about hisdream (4:7). It was not until the illustrious wise men of Babylon were forced to admit defeat that Daniel wasconsulted.

In the ancient courts, kings were surrounded by a group of highly qualified advisers who would interpret omensand advise the king on critical issues. The story of Joseph is a good biblical example (Genesis 41). In Neo‑Assyria,the king was always surrounded by his learned advisers who provided “personal discussion and explication ofinterpretations.”4 Despite the input of the elite, the ancient king always had to make the final decision on what to dowith the information provided by the wise men. Kuhrt argues that it is clear from the recovered evidence that the kinghad “sufficient knowledge to be in a position to estimate the likely accuracy of statements”5 or even to challenge theinterpretations. Nebuchadnezzar continues to call Daniel by the name Belteshazzar (Dan. 4:8, 9, 19). Daniel had received thisname when he was enrolled in King Nebuchadnezzar College (1:7). The Hebrew name Daniel means “God is myjudge” or “My judge is God.” Belteshazzar is the Babylonian name translated as “protect his life” or “protect the life ofthe prince/king.”6 Perhaps the name Belteshazzar implied that the bearer was in a position and under obligation toprotect the life of the king. If this were the case, Nebuchadnezzar should, for his own protection, have takenseriously the advice Belteshazzar (Daniel) provided (4:17). Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was vivid in his memory. He had forgotten other dreams in the past (Dan. 2:2‑7), butnot this one. He related the dream to Daniel, whom he preferred to call Belteshazzar. He had confidence in Daniel’sability to give the authentic interpretation to the dream. Interestingly, when Daniel arrived to interpretNebuchadnezzar’s first recorded dream (Daniel 2), Nebuchadnezzar posed a challenging question to Daniel: “‘Areyou able?’” (vs. 26). Later, when Daniel came before the monarch to interpret the king’s last recorded dream (Daniel 4),Nebuchadnezzar reversed his earlier words to Daniel. Instead of asking, “‘Are you able?’” (2:26), the king nowaffirmed him by stating, “You are able” (4:18, NKJV). Thus Nebuchadnezzar shifted from the interrogative to theaffirmative. Such a shift shows that Nebuchadnezzar had established confidence in Daniel as someone who couldmeet his expectations.

Daniel was possibly shocked by the king’s dream. It was apparent that it was evil. He hesitated to tell the kingthe interpretation because he had bad news for him. In ancient times the person who brought bad news thatimplicated the king would face execution. In fact, Daniel wished that the dream could be applied to the king’senemies and adversaries (Dan. 4:19). The idea of wishing misfortune and disaster on enemies still prevails in our contemporary world. We want ourenemies to suffer devastating setbacks or even to die. Daniel’s warning that the dream meant disaster toNebuchadnezzar was expressed euphemistically (vs. 19). The king insisted, however, on knowing the meaning of

3/8

the dream. He sought to allay Daniel’s fears. In fact, Daniel’s fear was not based on what might happen to himshould he tell the king the dream. Rather, Daniel was stunned at the gravity of the prediction concerning the king. But Daniel related the meaning of the dream without compromising the message (Dan. 4: 19‑26). He added anappendix to its interpretation (vs. 27), an appeal for the king immediately to reform his ways in the hope that hemight avert the impending calamity. Daniel’s appeal to the king was so clear and earnest that the king did not askany further questions. He understood the gravity of the prophetic dream, but would make his own decision based onhis own feelings about what his chief advisor had said. Nebuchadnezzar was not alarmed by Daniel’s interpretation.He was not impressed to make the changes necessary to safeguard his future. Further, there is no record in Daniel4 that Nebuchadnezzar conferred honor on Daniel or offered praise to Daniel’s God for the interpretation of thatdream. Perhaps he rejected Daniel’s interpretation. Twelve months later, he was still in denial (vss. 29, 30). The role of wise men in the king’s court was advisory only. The king had full authority in deciding whether or notto act upon the advice he received. He could accept the advice or reject it. When God’s word of warning comes toanyone, it is left to the individual to make a decision to comply or to reject that word.

It is not altogether surprising that Nebuchadnezzar failed to give due credit to Daniel’s advice. Earlier, Danielhad interpreted the dream of the image (Daniel 2) and the king, although deeply impressed, did not act according tohis advice. He made an image of gold alone—and not of the different metals seen in the dream (3:1, 5, 7, 10). Bymaking an image of gold only, Nebuchadnezzar attempted to overrule Daniel’s interpretation (2:37‑45). He objectedto the idea of being displaced by another inferior kingdom (vs. 39). Since nothing of consequence had happened tohim when he acted contrary to Daniel’s interpretation of his first dream, it was easy for him to trust his own judgmentwith regard to later prophetic dreams. It was deemed crucial for ancient kings to maintain their dignity and individuality. Nevertheless, in many caseswhere the ancient kings heeded the advice from their elite, all worked out well for them. The Pharaoh who followedJoseph’s advice thereby saved Egypt and the whole region from the seven years of grueling drought and famine(Gen. 41:56, 57). Daniel kindly asked the king to consider his advice seriously: “‘Be pleased to accept my advice: renounce yoursins by doing what is right, and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed. It may be that then your prosperitywill continue’” (Dan. 4:27). Nebuchadnezzar had “sins” and “wickedness” that displeased the Most High God, butDaniel hoped that something could be done to avoid the stated consequences. In other words, Nebuchadnezzar’ssins and wickedness could be repented of, and it was in his power to change his course of action. Knowing Yahwehas he did, Daniel believed that such a course of action could result in the forgiveness of the king’s sins and apossible delay or reversal of the threatened punishment. Opportunity was given to Nebuchadnezzar to set right his bad record. Sins committed against fellow humanswere also committed against the God to whom they belonged. The king himself was responsible for repenting of themistakes he had made during his career as a servant of Yahweh. His sins were to be forsaken, and his sinceritydemonstrated by doing that which was right and just. He needed to become sensitive to the needs of others. Indifferent ways, God gives each individual an opportunity to expunge his bad record.

It is worthy of notice that the fate of Nebuchadnezzar is already determined by the holy beings (Dan. 4:13, 17),but Daniel’s advice, if heeded, seems to suggest that the divine plans for the king might be subject to change,depending upon the king’s response to his dream (vs. 27). Nebuchadnezzar already knew that “‘the spirit of the holygods’” (vs. 9) was in Daniel. He knew, therefore, that Daniel would not, in such a situation, offer his own opinions.Rather, the king’s advisor was delivering a divine message, the rejection of which was an evidence ofNebuchadnezzar’s attitude toward Yahweh, and not toward Daniel. It seems reasonable to assume that the king understood that Yahweh’s message demanded an immediateresponse. The Hebrew word translated “therefore,” used here (Dan 4:27), seems to allow for the possibility of achange in Nebuchadnezzar’s situation. However, “therefore” (vs. 27), can also call one’s attention to some definiteaction that is to take place without failure. At any rate, a red flag was raised and the king would have done well totake the situation seriously. The call for repentance is always solemn and must be considered seriously andpromptly. It is an emergency. “Therefore” (vs. 27) brings prospects of hope as well as of despair. Nebuchadnezzar ispresented with a clear indication of the need to re‑evaluate the course of his life after the dream. He is required to

4/8

respond to the message promptly and responsibly. Nebuchadnezzar’s Moral Deficits

Daniel pleaded earnestly with the king to consider the advice he presented. Perhaps the sentence determinedupon the king could be changed. Daniel’s proposal focused on two requirements. Nebuchadnezzar’s potentialescape from the impending doom was predicated upon his willingness to separate himself from sins and iniquities(Dan. 4:27). Daniel was most probably urging that the king initiate a “violent self‑liberation”7 or “snatching out ortearing away associated with rescue”8 from his own sins and iniquities. It may well have been a difficult and painfulprocess, but it was at least possible and in the end would have been very rewarding. That, for Nebuchadnezzar,would have been a saving act. What was it that Nebuchadnezzar needed to separate from? Daniel stated clearly to the king that “your sins”and “your iniquities” must be done away with immediately. There is a difference between sins and iniquities. Theword sin, from its root, can be understood to be “the religious disqualification of specific modes of behavior”9 and it“designates negative conditions and conduct, especially with reference to human agents in a religious context.”10

Sin is something committed against the divine. This means that Nebuchadnezzar had committed sins against God.Sin is to “miss a scope or aim.11 Postmodernity has dropped the word sin from its vocabulary. In the eyes of Yahweh,Nebuchadnezzar had some actions, omissions, or behaviors on his record that failed to meet Yahweh’sexpectations. Iniquities are “the transgressions of human beings toward others, transgressions inevitably prompting drasticconsequences for the perpetrator.”12 These are the offenses against humanity. When Daniel confronted KingBelshazzar on the night Babylon fell to the Medes and Persians, he reminded him of Nebuchadnezzar’s sins andiniquities (Dan. 5:18‑21). Nebuchadnezzar was appointed to be Yahweh’s servant and had become internationallyrecognized. After learning his duty before the King of kings, he still killed people at will and humiliated those whomhe disliked. Besides his abuse of power, Nebuchadnezzar became so arrogant about his achievements that theMost High God saw the need to strip him of all his personal power and glory.

The pride of Nebuchadnezzar is attested to in the biblical text as well as archaeological evidence. Daniel 4:30reads: “‘Is not this the great Babylon I have built as the royal residence, by my mighty power and for the glory of mymajesty?’” There is a striking similarity between Nebuchadnezzar’s words in Daniel 4:30 and his words in some ofthe Neo‑Babylonian documents. In the Grotefend Cylinder, Nebuchadnezzar boasted: “Then built I the palace, theseat of my royalty, the bond of the race of men, the dwelling of joy and rejoicing.”13

He also declared in the India House Inscription that “in Babylon, my dear city, which I love, was the palace, thewonder of the people, the bond of the land, the brilliant place, the abode of majesty in Babylon.”14 It seems thatNebuchadnezzar became inordinately proud of his achievements. He was “exalted to the pinnacle of worldlyhonor”15 and became “so ambitious and so proud-spirited.”16 The Most High God disciplined Nebuchadnezzar byexiling him to the fields where he lived as an animal among animals for seven years.

In Daniel 4:27, Daniel pleaded with Nebuchadnezzar to break away from his wickedness by doingrighteousness and showing mercy to the poor. Righteousness is doing right. Zvi H. Szubin defines righteousness as“the fulfillment of all legal and moral obligations,”17 and it “requires not merely abstention from evil, but a constantpursuit of justice and the performance of positive deeds.”18 Louis Jacobs points out that in Rabbinic literaturerighteousness is understood to include charity, almsgiving, and practical benevolence.19 Righteousness “involvesnot only justice at a court of law but correct behavior in social frameworks. The term is focused on one’s functionwithin the demands of specific relationships, and its meaning depends on whether the emphasis is on interactionamong human beings or with God.”20 Nebuchadnezzar fell far short of doing righteousness and showing mercy tothe poor. The Collection of Wealth

5/8

The Babylonian Chronicle attests that Nebuchadnezzar looted vast tribute from Judah and the surroundingareas he had defeated.21 He carried the temple utensils from the Jerusalem temple and deposited them in theEsagila, the temple of Marduk, his god (Dan. 1:2). The wealth that Nebuchadnezzar plundered from the vassalnations made Babylon the richest city in the ancient world. The India House Inscription of Nebuchadnezzarindicates: “Silver, gold, costly precious stones, bronze, mismakannu‑and cedar wood, all conceivable valuables, great (?)superabundance, the product of the mountains, the wealth of the sea, a heavy burden, a sumptuous gift, I brought tomy city of Babil before him, and deposited in Esagila, the palace of his lordship, a gigantic abundance. Ekua, thechamber of Marduk, lord of the gods, I made to gleam like the sun.”22

Nebuchadnezzar persisted in attributing his victories over other nations to his god Marduk. He did notrecognize the God of the Hebrews as having any part in enabling his success. Moreover, there are no recoveredrecords that show that Nebuchadnezzar reinvested any of his ill‑gotten wealth in the countries he had plundered. Social Obligations

Could it be that Nebuchadnezzar neglected to make provision for the needs of the poor of the conquered lands—the refugees whom he did not choose to take to Babylon (e.g., 2 Kings 25:12; Jer. 39:10)? When Gedaliah theappointed governor over Judah was killed in 582 B.C. by Ishmael ben Nethaniah and his gang of dissidents (2Kings 25:25; Jer. 41:2), Nebuchadnezzar never designated another leader for the poor people remaining in Judah.The Wadi Brisa Inscription identifies Nebuchadnezzar as “the just king.”23

In 595 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar released a royal document that condemned Baba‑aha‑iddina son ofNabu‑ahhe‑bullit, one of his top officials who had rebelled against him. In the document Nebuchadnezzar describedhimself as the one who “determines right and justice”24 and also as one who was responsible for destroying allcriminals in the kingdom (Dan. 4:27; 5:19). In Mesopotamia, a concept was widely known involving theestablishment of justice in the land, and speaking the truth. As already noted, Nebuchadnezzar did not live up to hisroyal decree in Daniel 3:29. Moreover, one is inclined to be suspicious of Nebuchadnezzar’s criteria for whom hechose to kill or to spare (5:19). It seems that Nebuchadnezzar might have forgotten, or somehow neglected, some critical traditional practices.Evidence shows that all over Mesopotamia, some parts of the Levant (north Syria), and also Elam, it was customary,or even obligatory for kings to publish a decree showing their affirmation of social justice. This was generallypublished about the time of their accession. The main purpose for such an edict was to rectify the social anomaliesthat were caused by debt.

Usually the process for correcting the imbalances in the society began by lighting torches as a public sign thatthe royal announcement was soon to take place. The king would assemble his officials at his palace and present tothem the written edict. All the tablets on which creditors had recorded what their debtors owed would be collectedand destroyed. Whoever had his debt record destroyed was free from the obligation of repaying that debt. Thus,those who were socially undermined or ostracized because of debt delinquency would be rehabilitated in the society.This was repeated at three- or seven-year intervals as long as the king was on the royal throne. There is no extantrecord showing that Nebuchadnezzar ever participated in this process. Nebuchadnezzar was consistent in honoring his Babylonian gods, although he acknowledged that the MostHigh God was unique. One of his prayers to Marduk, probably offered in 598 B.C., reads: “I then raised my hand; to the lord of lords, to Marduk, the merciful, my supplications went forth: ‘O lord of the lands, Marduk, hear the utterance of my mouth! Let me be fully content in my palace, which I built! Let me reach old age within Babylon! Let me enjoy a ripe old age!’”25

Nebuchadnezzar maintained his fidelity to his gods despite rendering a certain level of service to the MostHigh God who had demonstrated His uniqueness and power through the Hebrew captives. It is important to note

6/8

that Yahweh did not sentence Nebuchadnezzar for crimes committed in ignorance. It was not until the monarch hada thorough knowledge of the power and plans and supremacy of the God of gods and then rejected His claims thathe was held accountable for his actions. Since Nebuchadnezzar would not comply with the requirements of the Most High God, the dream came true forhim 12 months after its interpretation (Dan. 4:29). While the king was proclaiming his own greatness, a voice fromheaven spoke, and immediately, the monarch’s mind became deranged. He went out and ate grass like the cattle(vss. 31‑33). After the seven years of animal‑like life, Nebuchadnezzar raised his eyes toward heaven in humilityand praise to the King of the universe. Having learned his lessons and passed the test (vs. 34), he was restored tohis throne, a wiser, humbler, better man. The Most High God graciously bestowed upon King Nebuchadnezzar the title, “My Servant.” The monarch hadthe opportunity to learn about the requirements of this God through his Hebrew captives. This haughty king,however, disdained to be a humble servant to the Most High God. He did not deign to consider himself responsibleto anyone for his behavior toward his subjects. When Zedekiah king of Judah rebelled, the Babylonian army pursued him from Jerusalem and captured him bythe plains of Jericho (Jer. 39:5‑7). They brought Zedekiah to Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah, where the king decided thefate of his rebellious vassal. Nebuchadnezzar killed Zedekiah’s sons before him and then gouged out his eyesbefore carrying him captive to Babylon. In Daniel 4, we see that the Most High God is disciplining Nebuchadnezzar,his disobedient servant. The form of discipline was unusual, but it worked. After seven years of beast‑like behavior, Nebuchadnezzar came to terms with reality and with God (Dan. 4:34,35). Lifting his eyes toward heaven is a sign of acknowledging that the Most High God controls human power anddestiny. His intellect was restored. Nebuchadnezzar’s testimony about God in Daniel 4:34, 35, and 37 is a genuine statement of praise from aconvicted and converted individual. He was re-established in his sovereignty with added greatness and honor. Hisadvisers who had previously failed him surrounded him again (vs. 36). What would these advisers and noblescontribute to the changed Nebuchadnezzar? The God of heaven can use anyone to accomplish His divine mission. Achieving what God wants does notoverrule moral integrity and responsibilities. Those who develop a working relationship with God should be verysensitive to divine promptings and demands. What counts most when working for God is faithfulness to Him.

Patrick Mazani, Ph.D., is a pastor in the Ohio Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture references in this article are quoted from the New International Versionof the Bible.

2. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, eds., The Context of Scripture (Boston: Brill, 2003), vol. 2, p. 309.

3. John Wesley Taylor V, “Encountering Truth: A Biblical Perspective,” Journal of the Adventist TheologicalSociety 18 (Fall 2007):194.

4. Amelie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East c. 3000‑330 BC (New York: Routledge, 1995), vol. 2, p. 524.

5. Ibid.

6. Gerhard Pfandl, Daniel: The Seer of Babylon (Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald, 2004), p. 16.

7. F. Reiterer, in G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, eds., Theological Dictionary of the OldTestament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003), vol. 12, p. 113.

8. Ibid.

9. K. Koch, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 4, p. 309.7/8

10. Ibid., p. 310.

11. Benjamin Davidson, The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002), p.254.

12. Koch, op. cit., vol. 10, p. 550.

13. Keilinschriftliche bibliothek: Sammlung von Assyrischen und Babylonischen Texten in umschrift undübersetzung, Eberhard Schrader, ed. (Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1890), vol. 3, p. 39, quoted in James A.Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,1927), p. 243.

14. Charles F. Horne, Babylonia and Assyria (London: Parke, Austin, and Lipscomb, 1917), vol. 1, pp. 451, 452.

15. Prophets and Kings, p. 514.

16. Ibid., p. 515.

17. Zvi H. Szubin, in Cecil Roth and Geoffrey Wigoder, eds., Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem: KeterPublishing Co., 2007), vol. 17, p. 307.

18. Ibid.

19. Louis Jacobs, Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 17, p. 308.

20. Jutta Leonhardt‑Balzer, in Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, ed., The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible(Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 2009), vol. 4, p. 808.

21. A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Texts From Cuneiform Sources), (Winona Lake, Ind.:Eisenbrauns, 2000), p. 100.

22. Robert Koldewey, The Excavations at Babylon (London: Macmillan, 1914), pp. 210, 211.

23. James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament With Supplement(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton, 1969), p. 307.

24. E. Weidner, Archiv für Orientforschung , vol. 17 (1954), pp. 1-9.

25. Benjamin Studevent‑Hickam, in Mark W. Chavalas, ed., The Ancient Near East: Historical Sources inTranslation (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2006), p. 386.

Back to top

8/8

perspectivedigest.org http://www.perspectivedigest.org/article/161/archives/20-2/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-prophetic-people

What Does It Mean to Be a Prophetic People?

Probably no other passage in Scripture expresses so clearly the experience of the Adventist people and theiridentity than the vision of Revelation 10. The vision describes a heavenly voice instructing John to eat a little bookthat is open in the hand of an angel. The angel warns him, however, that the book will be “‘sweet as honey’” (vs.10)1 in his mouth but “‘bitter’” (NKJV) in his stomach. After John has eaten the book and his stomach becomesbitter, the angel instructs him: “‘You must prophesy again’” (vs. 11). Early Adventist believers saw in this prophecy a description of their experience in 1844. The unlocking of theprophecies of the Book of Daniel was exhilarating, and the expectation that Jesus would come on October 22, 1844,filled their hearts with joy, hope, energy, and a profound sense of mission. But when Jesus did not come in 1844, they experienced a deep disappointment. The Book of Daniel had beenindeed sweet in the mouth but bitter in the belly. They would come to understand, however, that the instruction of theangel, “‘you must prophesy again,’” was also for them. And so they rose to fulfill a mission. What does it mean to prophesy? In what sense is our mission prophetic? What are the characteristics of aprophetic movement? Luke’s description of the early church is a good place to begin to search for an answer. A distinctive characteristic of the work of Luke—known today as the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles—isits conception and characterization of the church as a prophetic body.2 In Luke’s view, the church was raised toexpress God’s word to His people and call them back to Him, as the ancient prophets did. This is because, for Luke,the church was in its identity, way of life, and mission an extension of Jesus, the prophet “like Moses,” that Godwould raise, fulfilling the promise of Deuteronomy 18:15-19. A prophet is essentially not a person who predicts the future but a person who speaks for God. He or she isGod’s instrument to communicate His will to the world. The prophet communicates this will by the words he or shespeaks and lives, that is, by his or her actions and character. So, the prophet speaks, but also enacts and embodiesthe word of God. Luke clearly identified Jesus as a prophet. Jesus applied to Himself the proverb that a prophet is not acceptedin his own homeland (Luke 4:24). After His death, on the road to Emmaus, His disciples described Him as “‘aProphet powerful in word and deed before God and all the people’” (24:19). After Jesus’ resurrection, the apostlesproclaimed explicitly to the Jewish nation that Jesus was the prophet “like Moses” that God had promised and thatanyone who did not pay attention to Him would be cut off from the people (Acts 3:22-26). Luke also identified thebelievers as prophets (Luke 6:23; 10:24). When Peter interpreted the descent of the Holy Spirit over the church atPentecost, he quoted Joel 2:28 to 32, arguing that the Spirit had empowered them to prophesy. Luke characterizedthe church as a prophetic body because it both continued and concluded Jesus’ mission.

1/3

Prophets exhibit three distinctive characteristics: ● The prophet is invested with the Holy Spirit. The essential characteristic of a prophet is that the Holy Spiritmoves and empowers him or her to communicate a message effectively. Scripture consistently relates prophecywith the endowment of the Spirit. This was a characteristic of Moses, the greatest prophet of the Old Testament(Deut. 34:10-12), Balaam (Num. 24:2), Saul (1 Sam. 10:5-13), the band of prophets over whom Samuel presided(19:20, 21), Elijah (1 Kings 18:12), Elisha (2 Kings 2:9, 15), and the rest—all acted and spoke under the influence ofGod’s Spirit. Joel also predicted that God would pour His Spirit “on all flesh” (Joel 2:28) so that they would prophesy. Luke repeatedly affirms that Jesus was full of the Holy Spirit, even before beginning His ministry (Luke 4:1, 14).Similarly, Luke emphasizes that God invested the church with power by pouring upon them the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8;2:4). Just as Elisha received a double portion of the Spirit of Elijah when he was able to witness Elijah’s ascension,the disciples also saw their Master ascend, and Jesus sent upon them the Holy Spirit. A crucial characteristic ofGod’s people is, then, to request and prepare itself to receive the Holy Spirit. ● The prophet speaks the word of God. Another essential characteristic of the prophet is that he or she receivesand speaks the word of God to the people. This is most of the time an uncomfortable task because God will oftenspeak to the people to reprove them, to call them back to His original purpose for them. In fact, it is preciselybecause humanity has wandered from God’s original plan that He finds it necessary to call them back through theprophetic ministry of His people (Rev. 14:6-12). God’s people need constantly to grow in their understanding of Scripture. Growing in knowledge meansexploring, asking questions, and sometimes disagreeing until we come to a deeper understanding of things. On theother hand, lack of growth in our understanding of Scripture implies the abandonment of our mission. Ellen G. White’s advice on this is essential: “Whenever the people of God are growing in grace, they will beconstantly obtaining a clearer understanding of His word. They will discern new light and beauty in its sacred truths.This has been true in the history of the church in all ages, and thus it will continue to the end. But as real spiritual lifedeclines, it has ever been the tendency to cease to advance in the knowledge of the truth. Men rest satisfied withthe light already received from God's word, and discourage any further investigation of the Scriptures. They becomeconservative, and seek to avoid discussion. “The fact that there is no controversy or agitation among God's people, should not be regarded as conclusiveevidence that they are holding fast to sound doctrine. There is reason to fear that they may not be clearlydiscriminating between truth and error. When no new questions are started by investigation of the Scriptures, whenno difference of opinion arises which will set men to searching the Bible for themselves, to make sure that they havethe truth, there will be many now, as in ancient times, who will hold to tradition, and worship they know not what.”3

● The prophet embodies the word of God. The prophets not only spoke the word of God but also embodied it intheir lives. Moses, more than anyone, embodied the law’s ideal for humanity: He was “very meek, above all the menwhich were upon the face of the earth” (Num. 12:3, KJV). Jeremiah bought a field that was under Babyloniandominion to demonstrate the certainty of God’s promise of deliverance, and Ezekiel was probably the prophet whoseembodiment of God’s word was more colorful and shocking. Similarly, Jesus and the church embodied the messageof the kingdom in their own lives (Acts 2:42-47). God’s people, then, need to embody the message they preach. This is all the more important when we grow inthe knowledge of truth. Disagreement is part of the growing process. Lack of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness(Gal. 5:22, 23) is evidence to the contrary. In addition, disagreement cripples our testimony. While ministering in themidst of the 1888 controversy, Ellen G. White remarked: “The most convincing testimony that we can bear to others that we have the truth is the spirit which attends theadvocacy of that truth. If it sanctifies the heart of the receiver, if it makes him gentle, kind, forbearing, true andChristlike, then he will give some evidence of the fact that he has the genuine truth. But if he acts as did the Jewswhen their opinions and ideas were crossed, then we certainly cannot receive such testimony, for it does notproduce the fruits of righteousness.”4

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture references in this column are quoted from the New International

2/3

Version of the Bible.

2. See Luke Timothy Johnson, Prophetic Jesus, Prophetic Church: The Challenge of Luke-Acts toContemporary Christians (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2011).

3. Counsels to Writers and Editors, pp. 38, 39.

4. The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, p. 632. Italics supplied.

Back to top

3/3

perspectivedigest.org http://www.perspectivedigest.org/article/164/archives/20-2/seriously-now

Seriously Now!

A London newspaper once reported that because of the accumulated time from so many one-hour adjustmentsin daylight saving time, two Thursdays would have to be eliminated from the calendar to bring British time back towhere it should be. On another occasion, radio reports shocked listeners with the news that, according to researchers, the WhiteCliffs of Dover were turning as green as old Roquefort cheese. And then there’s the classic report back in the BBC’s black-and-white TV days when Richard Dimbleby, one ofthe most authoritative reporters at the time, narrated vivid details of the spring spaghetti harvest in a Swiss village.The report showed rural women picking long strands of spaghetti from trees, piling them into baskets, and takingthem to market. It should come as no surprise to the reader that each of these amazing revelations came to light on the verysame day—of different years—April 1. The British most certainly must be the undisputed April Fool’s champions ofthe modern world. Surely almost everyone has been on the receiving end of an April Fool’s joke at one time or another in his or herlife. At its most harmless level, it’s usually intended as a kind of trick that even the victim, although a bitembarrassed, may find amusing. There is apparently another way, however, of showing one’s foolishness that results from something moresignificant than a mild prank. It is possible to take on cosmic proportions. The psalmist wrote: “The fool says in hisheart, ‘There is no God’” (Ps. 14:1).1 This is a familiar passage to readers of the Bible. Christians sometimes mutterto themselves some reference to this verse—repeated word-for-word in Psalm 53:1—when they observe instancesin their culture when they hear someone express disbelief in God. But it must first be acknowledged that the fool depicted in Psalms 14:1 and 53:1 is not so called because of hisor her mere gullibility. The foolishness doesn’t seem at first to be the result of being poorly informed, but of anintentional decision to disbelieve. In speaking of these passages in Psalms, Ellen G. White describes those who “think they have made wonderfuldiscoveries in science. They quote the opinions of learned men as though they considered them infallible and teachthe deductions of science as truths that cannot be controverted. And the Word of God, which is given as a lamp tothe feet of the world-weary traveler, is judged by this standard, and pronounced wanting.”2

Right now there is in Western culture an unfortunate discord over the authority of science in decisionsregarding public policy and even, in some instances, international diplomacy. Regardless of one’s position on globalwarming, for example, any questioning of the findings of scientific evidence is decried by some as politicallymotivated, disparaged as willful ignorance, or, worse, outright “heresy.”

1/3

The root disagreement in all this centers on what is considered by science to be acceptable evidence. Theoverwhelming majority of the scientific community—and the media that report on the findings of science—treat theissue of origins as if the discussion is settled. Yet, as C. S. Lewis has said, “If there is ‘Something Behind’ [the originand existence of the universe], then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itselfknown in some different way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no suchthing, are neither of them statements that science can make.”3

But closer examination of the person who denies God’s existence in Psalms 14:1; 53:1 suggests even morethan a cold, hard intellective judgment that, given the materialist evidence, God cannot exist. There is a moral aspectto this pronouncement as well. Scholars have pointed out that the Hebrew word translated as “fool” in these two passages describes “one whoacts foolishly, especially in a moral sense, one who has no relationship with God, an unbeliever.”4

In other words, fools express unbelief both in what they say and in what they do: “They are corrupt, their deedsare vile; there is no one who does good” (Ps. 14:1). By their engagement in corrupt and vile behavior, they areimplicitly—“in [the] heart”—indicating their disbelief in God. George A. F. Knight suggests that these verses aren’treally speaking of sheer intellectual atheism. “In Old Testament times,” Knight observes, “virtually nobody was anatheist. Life was too mysterious for them to make that foolish mistake. . . . The fool spoken of here simply cannotsee God in action.”5

All of which brings to mind some troubling questions about what it truly means to be a fool as described in thesetwo psalms—even for those who may consider themselves to be faithful believers: Is there something in my life thatmay, at its very foundation, signify that I myself don’t really believe in God? Intellectual assent to God’s existence isnot enough. Am I living my belief in Him? “To hold a thing with the intellect is not to believe it,” wrote 19th-century Scottish minister and poet GeorgeMacDonald. “A man’s real belief is that which he lives by; and that which the man I mean lives by, is the love of God,and obedience to his law.”6

When Jesus said, “‘Watch out that no one deceives you’” (Matt. 24:4), He was responding to His disciples’questions about the time of the end. Beyond the mere gullibility with regard to false prophets and false christs, thereis certainly the possibility of self-deception as well. Readiness for the end times will be expressed by observable,everyday responses to God’s existence. And meanwhile all of this will be coming at an increasingly deceptive time of both trivial and significantinformation. A Columbo, Sri Lanka, newspaper—not the English this time—once ran a tongue-in-cheek contest for cashprizes to winners. The requirements of the competition were so absurdly simple that nearly everybody could win. Apolice force had to be called out when nearly 2,000 people showed up at the newspaper office to claim their prizes. In some small way, the two thousand “winners” must have felt as cheated as will those who—at Jesus’ return—realize how deceptive have been the promises of the world. Satan promises happiness, and for a time, his way maybring a measure of gratification. But sooner or later, it’s going to be apparent that the world simply doesn’t providethe happiness it promises, and those who have accepted it realize that they have been on the receiving end of anasty joke with cosmic consequence. And that is surely no laughing matter. NOTES AND REFERENCES 1. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture references in this column are quoted from the New InternationalVersion of the Bible.

2. Selected Messages, Book 3, p. 306.

3. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1981), pp. 19, 20.

4. Marginal note, Andrews Study Bible, p. 681.

5. George A. F. Knight, Psalms (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982), vol. 1, p. 251. Italics in the original.2/3

6. George MacDonald, Unspoken Sermons (Series Three), (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1891), p. 239.

Back to top

3/3

perspectivedigest.org http://www.perspectivedigest.org/article/165/archives/20-2/the-holy-spirit-and-biblical-interpretation

The Holy Spirit and Biblical Interpretation

Because the origins of the Bible differ from those of other literature, the hermeneutic for studying theGilgamesh Epic, Plato, Shakespeare, or Longfellow is not adequate for the Bible. The role of the Holy Spirit in theproduction, interpretation, and application of Scripture distinguishes it from all humanly motivated literature. Thoughit does not have a mystical, secret, or spiritual meaning unapparent in the text itself, its meaning is not capturedsimply by the study of syntax, grammar, background, author, genre, or structure. To understand the Bible correctly,one must allow the Bible to be its own interpreter under the guidance of the same Spirit that originally inspired it. The Bible depicts itself as a distinct genre of literature, repeatedly claiming divine origin for itself. Paul statesunequivocally: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16, NKJV).* Peter states that the Holy Spiritspoke through the prophets, foretelling the coming Savior. Though written over centuries, because of its common origin, Scripture displays a unity of divine revelationchanneled through the Holy Spirit to the prophets and apostles. Though a blending of the human and the divineexists, the result is the Word of God. “Prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as theywere moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). Scripture is unique. The truth claim of a piece of literature is normally accepted by the power of its rhetoric, logic, philosophy, andscience, or by its presentation of facts, the beauty of its language, and the accomplishment of its author. Scripture,however, comes with its own Power. The Spirit first prepares hearts and minds to receive the Bible as the authorityof life. The Spirit confirms the teaching of the Bible: “The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we arechildren of God” (Rom. 8:16). “No one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3). A worldly attitude or a humanistic, rationalistic, or empirical worldview imposed upon the Bible can close themind to what God has conveyed through His Word. Jesus was the Light of the world; yet, when He came to His own,they preferred darkness. They clung to their human worldviews rather than be exposed to the Light (John 1:4-13)and thus were left in darkness. Even His disciples suffered similarly. They were with Christ for three-and-a-half years; yet, despite theprophecies of the Old Testament and the constant teaching and warning of Christ, they never expected theCrucifixion. Nicodemus came to Jesus by night with a worldview that the Messiah would be a worldly king. He applied anearthly thought process to his understanding of Jesus (John 3:1, 2). Jesus came straight to the point: Unless one is born of the water and the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of

1/3

heaven. That which comes from an earthly perspective is earthly; that which is born of the Spirit is spiritualunderstanding. Nicodemus answered, “How is it possible to be born again?” Jesus answered, we speak out of whatwe know; that is, the worldly view of life that occupies our mind (see John 3:5, 6, 9, 11). If we have difficulty understanding signs and miracles, how can we understand when Christ speaks of heavenlythings? In contrast to worldly thinking, if the Son of man is lifted up, He will draw all people to Him (John 12:32).Those who come to Jesus will know who He is because they are born of and guided by the Holy Spirit. In otherwords, only under the power and inspiration of the Holy Spirit can one come to know the Truth. Paul addresses the importance of the right perspective for understanding God’s Word: “Do not be conformed tothis world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptableand perfect will of God” (Rom. 12:2). Thus he warns, “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and emptydeceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of allprincipality and power” (Col. 2:8-10). The world through wisdom, Paul warned the Corinthians, did not know God. Some seek a sign, that is,empirical evidence, while others want philosophical wisdom; but God is not found through those systems. We canknow God only through His own self-revelation, and through His Spirit God makes Himself known to us. When we surrender to the will of God through the Spirit, we are born again. The conversion that comes throughthe Holy Spirit is a complete reversal of directions. Our lives were headed toward the things of the world; now,through the revelation of the Bible, we see things from God’s point of view. This is why denial of the biblical position that Scripture came by the will of God, through the agency of the HolySpirit, denies the reason for the existence of the Bible. It rejects its immediate context. The interpreter, therefore,loses what is vital to the understanding of Scripture—that it is the Word of God. This imposition of an externalworldview on the Bible denies the interpreter the basic principle and power essential to understanding the Bible; andthus, wrong interpretations surely follow. Further, the willful retention of sin in the life puts us at odds with God’s Word, for sin deadens us to theinfluence of the Holy Spirit. “The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishnessto him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). Under the power and direction of the Holy Spirit, the Bible is our connection to God. Satan desires to instill in us“an evil heart of unbelief in departing from” the Word of God (Heb. 3:12). He leads us to use methods that areindependent of God. He wants us to deify reason, causing us to think of our own intellect as independent of God. Hesuggests that we explain the influence of the Spirit based on scientific principles. He knows that the gospel is hiddento those who are lost, to those “whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest thelight of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them” (2 Cor. 4:4, KJV). How crucial, then, that we never fall for these ploys by rejecting the essential role of the Holy Spirit in theunderstanding of Scripture. Our understanding of Scripture is clarified when we open our lives to the Spirit, whichtransforms our hearts and minds. The power of Christ, working through the Spirit, removes the veil from our blindedminds. We behold “as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, [and] are being transformed into the same image from gloryto glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord” (2 Cor. 3:18). Then He writes the law of God upon our hearts of flesh, whichbrings our hearts and minds into harmony with the mind of Christ. A true understanding of the Bible depends uponconversion of heart and mind through the working of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth (John 15:26). The Spirit does not speak of Himself, but always in harmonywith the Bible. The Spirit quickens minds to enable deeper understanding of Scripture’s message. “‘When He, theSpirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever Hehears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine anddeclare it to you’” (John 16:13, 14). We have the privilege of communing with the One who gave us the Word of God, to receive illumination on theWord, and to receive the quickening power that brings conversion to heart and mind. The Holy Spirit brings to us thewords of life. He conveys God’s forgiveness through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. He empowers us to live for Christ.He certifies our hope of eternal life with Christ. By the Spirit, we enter the life of sanctification. The regeneration of our lives enables fuller understanding of

2/3

truth. Christ said, “‘Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth’” (John 17:17). There is an interaction between thelives we live and our understanding the truth. The truth is not simply what we know, but what we do (1 John1:6, John 3:21). If our reading of the Bible is open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it will end with a desire to share with otherswhat Christ has done for us. After the Resurrection, Christ met with the disciples and promised that they wouldreceive power after the Holy Spirit came upon them and would be witnesses for Christ in Jerusalem, Judea,Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. Afterwards, when the disciples assembled together, they were filled with theHoly Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness (Acts 1:5-8; 4:31). The gift of the Holy Spirit impelled the disciples to take the message of the gospel worldwide. Instead of humanspeculation, the sword of the Spirit shed light upon Christ and cut its way through unbelief, bringing penitence,confession, and transformation. The church expanded rapidly. The power of the Bible under the Spirit of God is not imaginary, ethereal, symbolic, or mythical. This powerbrought worlds into existence, sight to the blind, healing to the deaf, and life to the dead. The Holy Spirit is theComforter. He longs to open the Bible to us, for it brings the message of God’s love, His plan of salvation, and Hisoffer of forgiveness. He purges us of the sin that clouds our reading of Scripture. The Holy Spirit brings conversionof heart and mind that enables us to understand and live in harmony with God’s Word. Finally, through theScriptures, the Holy Spirit brings the promise of Christ’s soon return, which will restore us to face-to-face communionwith God—the purpose for which the Scriptures were originally given.

* Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture references in this article are quoted from the New King James Versionof the Bible.

Back to top

3/3