Memory, Meaning & Faith

"Thou Shalt Not Kill": What Kind of Killing Is Forbidden? Is All Killing Forbidden? (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17)

By Dr. James J. North, Jr.*

This study is an effort to establish what kind of killing is and is not included under the 6^th commandment. Based on views passed on from generation to generation, many Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) have considered the Commandment to prohibit murder, killing in war, suicide, killing in self- and family-protection, etc . . .  We have used the commandment to frown on, if not to prohibit, the bearing of arms, guns, as instruments of war, of law enforcement, and of hunting. Many would not have a weapon/gun in their homes as an instrument of self and family protection for fear of a home intrusion that might cause them to kill the intruder. 

The commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” is translated into English from the original Hebrew in two texts in the OT, Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17. They are both statements of the 6^th Commandment, given initially by God from Mt. Sinai (Exodus 20:1-17) and repeated by Moses (Deuteronomy 5:1-21).  

Reminders

The principal translation that brought the Bible and the Commandments in English to us is the King James Version, the translation authorized by King James I. of England, completed in the year 1611. The phrase, “Thou shalt not kill” is the 1611 (KJV) English translation of the original Hebrew language of the 6^th Commandment. 

So we start with a gentle reminder that the Word of God in English was preceded by and sprung from the Word of God in Hebrew. Thus the meaning of the English must be first and foremost interpreted by the meaning of the Hebrew.

A second reminder and beginning point in this study is that our understanding of Scripture is not static. A number of factors have caused and will cause us to adjust our understanding of the Bible—archeological discoveries, studies of the ancient languages, historical research, and systematic Bible study. “The path of the just is as a shining light that shineth more and more unto the perfect day” (Proverbs 4:18). (see JPST—“The path of the righteous is like radiant sunlight, ever brightening until noon.”). Difficult as it may be, we must be willing to adjust our understanding of Scripture when exegetical, historical, and contextual study corrects our views, even when these views have been handed down to us by revered leaders and writers.   This was the experience of our SDA pioneers, who grew as they studied and restudied Scripture. They learned and changed. This has been our history and it will be our future.

Are Children Born Sinners?

 By Edyta Jankiewicz, Ph.D. cand.*

 

Although Adventists reject a purely Augustinian conception of original sin, the official teaching of the church affirms that Adam’s sin “resulted in the condition of estrangement from God in which every human being is born. This estrangement involves an inherent tendency to commit sin.”[1] This must, of necessity, include children. Despite much discussion regarding the nature of humanity, however, little of the contemporary Adventist debate has pertained directly to children; thus, Adventism does not have a complete or systematic theology of the nature of children.

2011 Ellen White and Current Issues Symposium: "The Phenomenon of Prophecy and Role of Prophets in the Old Testament Compared with the Ministry of Ellen G. White"

Presentation

Jiri Moskala, Professor for Old Testament Exegesis and Theology at the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University, shared a paper about the characteristics and major roles of prophets in the Old Testament and whether these roles/tasks can be found in the ministry of Ellen G. White.*

Testimony. Dr. Moskala started with a personal testimony on how he had gone from a fearful picture of God to the picture a loving, a "smiling" God, who wants the best for everyone and who delights in His children. He found forgiveness, a new picture of God, joy of salvation and assurance of salvation in Christ. In this context, he found God as a loving savior also in Ellen White's writings, for example in Steps to Christ: "If you give yourself to Him, and accept Him as your personal Saviour, then, sinful as your life may have been, for His sake you are accounted righteous. Christ's character stands in place of your character, and you are accepted before God as just as if you had not sinned." (p.62) Actually, her writings had a big influence on Moskala's spiritual growth.

Phenomenon of Prophecy. Pointing to the dominant role of prophets in the Old Testament (OT), Dr. Moskala listed several prophets and the crucial points in salvation history in which they were called to their ministry: Noah (before the Flood); Abraham (starting point for a new ministry to all nations); Moses (Exodus from Egypt); Hosea and Amos (before Samaria's fall in 722 BC); Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel (before and during Babylonian captivity); John the Baptist (before Christ's appearing). Prophets also came often during a distinct time of crisis, Elijah and Elisha for example (Israel's idolatry).

Moskala quoted Abraham Heschel and said: "The God of the philosophers is a concept derived from abstract ideas; the God of the prophets is derived from acts and events." (Heschel, God in Search for Man, p. 213). After that Moskala gave an overview over the different kinds of prophets: starting with Enoch (first prophet, Jude 14) and his son Methuselah (prophetic meaning of name: "At his death He will send" or "When he is dead it shall be sent" - pointing to the flood which came in the year of Methuselah's death). Then Moskala proceeded to honorary prophets (Noah [Gen 6-9], Abraham [Gen 20:7], Moses [Deut 18:15, 18], Samuel [1 Sam 3:20] and David [Acts 2:29-30]) and mentioned also the different classifications of prophets in general (non-writing prophets [e.g. Enoch, Abraham, Elijah and Elisha] and classical writing prophets [major and minor prophets - number of 16]). Beside these there are, according to Moskala, also other special categories of prophets: those, whose writings were not included in the biblical canon (Samuel, Nathan, Gad [see 1 Chr 29:29; 2 Chr 9:29]) and prophetesses like Miriam and Hulda.

2011 Ellen White and Current Issues Symposium: "Gift of Prophecy and the Church: A Biblical Perspective"

Presentation

Ranko Stefanovic, Professor for New Testament at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, traced origin, meaning, and function of the gift of prophecy in the Bible.* 

The Pre-Prophecy Period. After creation, still in Eden, God attempted to have an intimate relationship with Adam and Eve with straight face-to-face communication (cf. Gen 2:15-17). Since their disobedience and the fall caused a disconnectedness between them and God (Gen 3), the result was a disrupted relationship between Him and whole humanity as well as a destruction of their intimate communication with Him—which ultimately will not be restored until sin is totally removed (Rev 21-22).

Despite the fall God continued to communicate with humankind. According to Stefanovic, two phases can be traced in the Old Testament: a) the to-each-individual-communication and b) the through-prophets-communication. The first took place during the antediluvian/pre-flood up to patriarchal times where God spoke directly to individuals via theophanies or dreams. Examples for these periods can be found in Genesis, e.g., Noah (Gen 6:13-21; 7:1-4; 8:15-19; 9:1-19), Abraham (Gen 12-17; 22), Isaac (26:2-5, 24), Rebekah (25:22-23), Jacob (28:13-15; 31:3, 11-13; 35:9-12; 46:2-4), and also persons who did not belong to the godly line, for example Cain (4:6-15), Hagar (16:7-12; 21:17-18), and Abimelech (20:3-7). This list is not exhaustive and it also can be presumed, said Stefanovic, that God spoke to many others during this period, although they are not directly mentioned in Scripture.

Miracles, Divine Action, and the Laws of Nature

By Martin Hanna, Department of Theology and Christian Philosophy,Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary.

 

In this blog, I share some reflections on miracles, divine action, and the laws of nature. In subsequent parts, I briefly survey how these issues are dealt with in a recently published book by John Walton (part 1), in the writings of Ellen G. White (part 2), and in the Bible (part 3). 

 

1. John Walton’s Perspective

Miracles and the laws of nature. In The Lost World of Genesis One, Walton writes that in the Bible, “there were no [supernatural] ‘miracles’ (in the sense of events deviating from that which was ‘natural’)” (20). God is “carrying out his purposes through the naturalistic operations of the cosmos” that “were decreed by the word of God” (117). “What we identify as natural laws only take on their law-like quality because God acts so consistently in the operations of the cosmos” (134). However, “we should not expect anything in the Bible . . . to engage in the discussion of how God’s level of creative activity relates to . . . the laws of nature” (20).

Miracles and the laws of evolution. Walton concludes that “everything that science discovers is another step in understanding how God [works]” (115). While “not promoting evolution” (165), Walton holds that the metaphysical perspective (117) of “biblical theology is compatible with” evolution’s “descriptive mechanism” (153). There are no “hard and fast lines of distinction between the scientific and the metaphysical. . . .[N]one of us has a worldview comprised of only one of them. Science and metaphysics blend together in life” (130-131).

The Lost and Found World of Genesis 1

By Roy E. Gane (Old Testament Department, SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University)

 

 Here I would like to respond to the January 30, 2011 post by my friend and colleague Nicholas Miller (Department of Church History, SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University) titled: “The ‘Found’ World of Genesis 1: Is Theistic Evolution a Meaningful Option for Seventh-day Adventists?” Dr. Miller was reacting to the Friday evening and Sabbath afternoon presentations at Andrews University on January 21-22, 2011 by my friend John H. Walton of Wheaton College, author of The Lost World of Genesis One. On Friday evening, Dr. Walton presented his approach to comparative methodology: how to understand the Old Testament within its ancient Near Eastern context. On Sabbath afternoon, he applied his approach to Genesis 1, proposing that this account of the Creation week (of literal days) recounts God’s assignment of functions to components of Planet Earth and its environment to inaugurate it as a cosmic temple in which he took up residence and began his rule.   

Miller raised a number of issues that deserve clarification and further discussion. I will not attempt to provide solutions to all the problems he raised, but will try to identify some productive directions in which we can make progress regarding (1) understanding comparative methodology, (2) what is at stake regarding a comparative approach to Genesis 1, and (3) the role of Andrews University in hosting scholarly debate.

I agree with Miller on several important points, including the need to pay careful attention to methodologies and philosophies behind them, the assessment that theistic evolution is not in harmony with Seventh-day Adventist teaching, and the opinion that we at Andrews University need further thinking and discussion concerning choices and formatting of opportunities for live interaction with scholars who are impacting the wider academic community in some ways that may be challenging to us. However, my perspective differs from that of Miller in some ways, at least partly because we work in different disciplines: While he is a church historian, I am in the area of Hebrew Bible and ancient Near Eastern studies, like Walton.

"Be Holy For I Am Holy" - God's Call for Holiness

By Teresa Reeve (New Testament Department, SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University)

 

It would make a great addition to the billboard messages from God that sprang up along freeways across the country a few years ago:

                     “You shall be holy for I am holy.”
                                                        Sincerely,
                                                                God

This message from 1 Peter 1:16* seems clear and unequivocal, it can be read in a moment while speeding along one’s way, yet it stimulates recurring questions and ruminations that refuse to let us rest.  For some, it also stimulates feelings of discouragement and despair as they consider how far they are from attaining to the holiness of God.   

What Does This Call Mean?

    So what is meant by the call to holiness in 1 Peter? The concept of holiness, expressed by the Greek word, hagios and its cognates, is important throughout the epistle. Key to understanding 1 Peter’s use of hagios is that, when used of created persons and objects, the word means: “set apart to the divine.” It was thus also employed to describe things and persons considered fit to approach God— those that are “pure” and thus acceptable to Him. Hagios is regularly used as the opposite of koinos (common).

The “Found” World of Genesis 1: Is Theistic Evolution a Meaningful Option for Seventh-day Adventists?

By Nicholas Miller (Department of Church History, SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University)

 

Last weekend a scholar from Wheaton College, Prof. John Walton, came to Andrews University to share his thoughts on the question of how Genesis 1 (ESV) should be read and understood. The crux of his argument was a historical one, and thus worth discussing on this history blog. Walton is viewed in the larger evangelical community as a relatively conservative scholar who believes in the authority of Scripture in spiritual and moral matters, as well as in its claims of miracles and the supernatural. For those not at the event, a brief summary of his presentations and claims follows.

 

Prof. Walton’s Presentations and Ideas

On Friday night, Walton spoke to students and faculty in a lecture sponsored by the University and the Science Department. He dealt with the question of the general interpretive approach to the Old Testament.  He argued that we can only understand the meaning of the stories in the Bible if we understand the worldview of its immediate intended audience. It was written to their worldview, not to that of the 21st century. While its spiritual and moral messages were also intended for today, we should recognize, Walton argued, that its authority does not lie in its claims about the physical world and material reality. He claimed that the Bible makes no scientific claims, i.e., that its observations on the natural and physical world were no different than the existing worldview(s) of the surrounding cultures.

What’s the Truth about Christian Headship and Submission?

By Martin Hanna (SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University)

 

 

Many sincere Christians engage in vigorous debate about headship and submission and relations between men and women. This blog seeks to clarify selected issues involved in this debate by surveying some insights on this subject from the Bible and Ellen White’s writings.    

What the Bible says

What does the Bible say? Literally translated, Paul writes about “submitting to one another in the fear of God; wives, to your own husbands as to the Lord” (Eph. 5:21-22). The submission of a wife to one husband is grounded in the headship modeled by Christ who is the one head of the church. “The husband is head of the wife as also Christ is head of the church and he is the Savior of the body. . . . Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her” (5:22-23, 25-26).

Christ’s example of servant headship is to be followed in the home as well as in the Church. The “rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and . . . exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mk. 10:42-45).

Voluntary, Mutual Submission (Carroll Osburn)

 

 

In the NT, . . . . When a person is called to submit, submission is always voluntary . . . . The middle sense of hupotassomai meaning “voluntary submission” is found in several NT texts, e.g., Rom 13:1 (“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities”), 1 Cor 16:16 (“submit to such as these”), and Eph 5:21 (“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ”).

It seems to me that the theme of Ephesians 5:15-6:9 is daily conduct of the Christian life. Paul specifically enjoins the readers in 5:15 to “take care how you walk, not as unwise but as wise.” Rather than singing the songs of drunkenness (v. 18), Christians should sing decidedly Christian songs that underscore and encourage the Christian walk (v. 19), continue with a daily prayer life (v. 20), and show mutual deference (“voluntary submission”) to one another (v. 21).

The appeal in v. 22, then, is for wives to demonstrate “voluntary submission/mutual deference” to their husbands. The way husbands show “voluntary submission/mutual deference” is by loving their wives. In a reciprocal relationship, a Christian couple can “walk wisely.”

Similarly, the way children demonstrate “voluntary submission/mutual deference to their parents is by obeying them. Parents demonstrate this attitude by helping their children to mature through responsible instruction and upbringing. In this reciprocal relationship, Christian families can “walk wisely.”

Too, the way Christian slaves demonstrate “voluntary submission/mutual deference” to their masters is through obedience and diligent work. The way masters demonstrate this “voluntary submission/mutual deference” is by avoiding threatening, domineering behavior. In this reciprocal relationship, Christians can “walk wisely” in the culture of slavery in operation at the time.

In this sense, “mutual submission” in v. 21 is urged of all Christians . . . . This is certainly in line with the teaching throughout the NT that Christians are to submit to one another”—Matt 20:26-28; Phil 2:3; 1 Pet 5:4-5. . . .

This author concludes that in Eph 5:21-24 Paul calls for a mutual submission, a voluntary deference for all Christians, whatever their roles in life. It is vital to understand that neither Paul nor Jesus before him called for the radical overthrow of hierarchalism. Both had ideals along egalitarian lines, yet both worked within cultural systems of the day—whether regarding slavery or gender roles—and taught Christians to “walk wisely” given certain cultural constraints. Paul’s admonition for mutual submission is still valid for twenty-first century Christians.

Carroll D. Osburn, Women in the Church: Reclaiming the Ideal (Abeline, TX: ACU Press, 2001), 166-169, 171.

Questions:

• Do Christian slave masters facilitate the voluntary submission of their slaves when they treat their slaves as the masters would want to be treated (Eph 6:5-9)? Does this Christian practice contribute to undermining the view that slaves were the property of their masters?

• Do parents facilitate the voluntary submission of their children when they lovingly teach them the ways of the Lord? (Eph 6:1-4). Does this Christian practice contribute to undermining the view of children as the property of their parents?

• Do husbands facilitate the voluntary submission of wives when they love their wives and give themselves for their wives? (Eph 5:22-33). Does this Christian practice contribute to undermining the view of wives as the property of their husbands?

 

The Shema: Message and Method of Discipling that Could Change the Church

When I read in Bill Hull’s The Complete Book of Discipleship (2006) that there have recently been “three streams of thought regarding discipleship” (p. 18), my interest was piqued. When I talk to different people in just my small world, I get at least three main streams of thought. For some discipleship means going out and winning more souls for baptism, for others it is fine-tuning their personal quiet time with God to an art form, and for still others it is a public push for revival and reformation. A concept that doesn’t seem to take a front seat in the discipleship/spirituality debates is how we relate with one another.

Three Streams of Thought

So, I was very interested in how Hull would delineate the streams of thought he saw. The first he calls “Classic Discipleship.” The characteristics of this approach included mentoring, disciplined Bible study and memorization, and training in witnessing—personally and publically. The strengths of the approach included focus, method, and measured performance. “The essential and lasting strength of classic discipleship is its commitment to Scripture and the importance of sequence and segmentation in training people well” (p. 18). However, the weaknesses included a lack of addressing the disciple’s inner life and the tendency of the discipleship to last only as long as a program did.

Higher-Critical Thinking and Its Effects (Part VI)

To read Roy Gane's previous suggestions regarding the relationship between Genesis and science, click here.

 

This series on what I call “Higher-Critical Thinking” has discussed a number of strategies by which people attempt to alter the meaning of Scripture so that its divine message does not impinge upon their beliefs and lifestyle. Here is another one:

Make the Bible conform to political correctness.

I have become aware of this approach when some individuals have taken offense to written or oral presentations in which I was simply presenting what the Bible unambiguously says. While they were ostensibly objecting to what I said, it was obvious that their real quarrel was with the Bible.
The first such occasion that I recall came after publication in 1996 of my adult Sabbath School lesson study guide (quarterly): Judges: Deterioration and Deliverance. A few months later, I received a letter from a woman who blasted me because I had insulted her by referring to the obesity of Eglon, the repulsive ancient king of Moab who oppressed Israel and was assassinated by Ehud, the Israelite deliverer (Judg 3). It was clear that to her, mention of obesity was “off-limits” because it placed a pejorative value judgment on a person.