Comments on the Spring 2008
Sabbath School Lessons 6-10

Introduction
“Responsibility and Accountability”

The April, May, June 2008 issue of the Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide is entitled “The Wonder of Jesus.” Dr. Roy Adams is the author of this series of studies. In these lessons, he examines the person of Jesus and his wonderful life, works, and teachings. After carefully studying through the lessons, we believe that there are many serious issues that need to be addressed. The following articles will be a combination of commentary and extra study material to help those using the Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide in their quest for truth and to help them intelligently discuss, from an informed perspective, the lessons in their local Sabbath Schools.

Before we comment on the lessons, I would like to share some thoughts on why it is important to share our faith and what God requires of us.

Individual responsibility and corporate accountability are issues that are like an approaching hurricane. We may not wish to face it, but it is too broad to move around and is approaching too fast to run away from. As individuals, we each must face God in the judgment and give an account: “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment (Hebrews 9:27).” While we must each stand before God as individuals, we are to also be responsible to others as we share in our part of the body of Christ and our faithfulness to that body. “For the body is not one member, but many (1 Corinthians 12:14).” See also verses 15-31.

Here we see a two-fold picture of responsibility. Firstly, we are accountable to God for our own actions concerning ourselves. Secondly, we are accountable to the body of Christ. Let us first begin by examining our responsibility for ourselves.

Individual Responsibility

Throughout the Bible, the concept of individual responsibility is taught. Beginning in the Garden of Eden, both Adam and Eve were asked by God to give an account for their actions (Genesis 3:9, 11, 13), and in Revelation 22:12, Jesus says: “And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.”

In between Genesis and Revelation we find the call of God to be accountable. At the time of the golden calf apostasy, God, through Moses, called upon Israel to publically declare where they stood: “Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD’S side? let him come unto me (Exodus 32:26).” Peter says that we shall each be judged according to our works: “And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear (1 Peter 1:17).” Paul, in Romans, notes that “every one of us shall give account of himself to God (Romans 14:12).”

Because we must each given an account of ourselves to God, we each have a responsibility to study for ourselves to know what the truth is instead of accepting someone’s word for what constitutes truth. The Word of God commands us to:

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).

 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear (1 Peter 3:15).

The Spirit of Prophecy has further stated the following points:

Let us duly consider the fact that we are to be saved, not as companies, but as individuals (The Review and Herald, September 17, 1895). (All emphasis supplied unless otherwise noted.)

 We are not saved as a sect; no denominational name has any virtue to bring us into favor with God. We are saved individually as believers in the Lord Jesus Christ (The Review and Herald, February 10, 1891).

Clearly, you must stand before the judgment bar of God and be ready to answer for yourself. Your father or mother, sister or brother, daughter or son cannot stand for you. Only Jesus may stand in your place, and he will only be able to stand in your place if you have accepted him into your heart and your life has been transformed by his grace.

Belonging to any church, even the Seventh-day Adventist Church, does not give one a ticket to heaven. We have received reports of some who have refused to read Part One of these studies because they did not come from “the church.” The excuse was that “the church has to be theologically correct and the Adult Sabbath School Study Guide is not just the work of one person but rather the accumulated review and effort of many people. Surely they all cannot be wrong.” Such thinking, however, is papal in its very core roots. “Do not think for yourself; trust us to think for you. We sit in Moses’ seat and cannot lead you wrong.” Does not this thinking mirror the Catholic doctrines of papal infallibility and ex cathedra?

Corporate Accountability

While most Christians would agree that we all have an individual responsibility to God for ourselves, what about the concept of corporate accountability or the concept that we share a responsibility for the welfare of the body of Christ, as well as a responsibility for the actions of the body as a whole? Does the individual Christian have a responsibility to others and even to the whole body itself? Let us first notice some statements of inspiration to gain a background on this concept.

The first murderer in the Bible was asked by God, “Where is Abel thy brother (Genesis 4:9)?” Cain’s response was, “Am I my brother’s keeper (Ibid.)?” Sinful man has been echoing the response “Am I my brother’s keeper?” for the last six thousand years. It is not natural for the heart of wicked and sinful man to wish to share the responsibility for others. In fact, with the fall of mankind, we find Adam and Eve failing to accept the responsibility for their own actions; but, rather, each blaming another for their troubles. (See Genesis 3:12, 13.)

Paul eloquently speaks to the responsibility the individual Christian has to the body of Christ:

And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it (1 Corinthians 12:19-26).

Accountability for others is not natural to mankind. It runs against the grain of our self-sufficient, individualistic society. We like to be our own person and do our own thing without responsibility for someone else. To some, corporate accountability even sounds cultish. God, however, says:

So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another (Romans 12:5).

Our connection to each other means we must recognize that our individual functionality affects that of others, and we are accountable to them. In other words, we are their keeper. We do not stand independent of one another.

Because such an interdependency exists within the Body of Christ, we are responsible to one another to do our part and to help them do theirs.

Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up. Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone? And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken (Ecclestics 4:9-12).

Corporate accountability involves accepting the responsibility of pointing out sin and dealing fairly and honestly as Jesus would because Christ can and does hold his people accountable as a body.

In the seventh chapter of Joshua we find the sad account of Israel’s defeat at the hands of the men of Ai. This small group of men routed Israel, who in their self confidence sent only three thousand men to battle. It was not alone for this self confidence that Israel was overwhelmed but because of the sin of a man and his family. Achan had directly disobeyed the command of God (Joshua 6:18) and kept to himself a Babylonish garment and some silver and gold (Joshua 7:21). God, however, when describing the problem to Joshua, did not mention just one man or his family. No, God said:

 Israel hath sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant which I commanded them: for they have even taken of the accursed thing, and have also stolen, and dissembled also, and they have put it even among their own stuff (Joshua 7:11).

Notice that God declares the sin of Achan to be as the sin of Israel. Secret sin was in the camp, and, until it was discovered and put away, the blessing of the Lord could not be with Israel. “Neither will I be with you any more, except ye destroy the accursed from among you (Joshua 7:12).” Ellen White wrote the following concerning this:

God’s command had been disregarded by one of those appointed to execute His judgments. And the nation was held accountable for the guilt of the transgressor: “They have even taken of the accursed thing, and have also stolen, and dissembled also (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 494).”

Achan’s sin brought disaster upon the whole nation. For one man’s sin the displeasure of God will rest upon His church till the transgression is searched out and put away (Ibid., p. 497).

I saw that many souls will sink in darkness because of their covetousness. The plain, straight testimony must live in the church, or the curse of God will rest upon His people as surely as it did upon ancient Israel because of their sins. God holds His people, as a body, responsible for the sins existing in individuals among them. If the leaders of the church neglect to diligently search out the sins which bring the displeasure of God upon the body, they become responsible for these sins (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 3, p. 269).

Achan’s sin cost the lives of thirty-six Israelite soldiers. But it also brought the displeasure of God upon the camp. This sin cost not only Achan and these thirty-six, but his family, as well, was stoned and burnt with Achan. Why could this have been? According to Deuteronomy 24:16, “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” If Achan’s family did not participate directly in his sin, they must have known and tried to conceal the sin, or at least they were quiet and did not say anything about it. What a lesson for us to learn! We noted in Part One of these comments the following quotation: “Indifference and neutrality in a religious crisis is regarded of God as a grievous crime and equal to the very worst type of hostility against God (Testimonies for the Church, vol 3. p. 280).”

All have a part to play in warning others of sin and destruction that is coming. “But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand. So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me (Ezekiel 33:6, 7).”

God’s Word records that there will be many abominations among his professed people just before the seal of God is impressed into the foreheads of those that sigh and cry for the abominations done among God’s people. Five destroying angels were commissioned to go forth and execute justice and judgment upon all who do not have the seal of God (Ezekiel 9:1-4). While we might be lead to believe that the ringleaders of this apostasy in Israel, which included sun worship (Ezekiel 8:16), were worthy of justice, our hearts must stop and ponder Ezekiel 9:6: “Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women.” A corporate involvement causes the death of the maids, women, and even little children. When we remember that, at times, God designated whole nations for destruction, including the children, it seems hard to reconcile with a God of mercy and love. But these nations had all committed the unpardonable sin. The depths of their sins were so heinous and complete that not only were the adult men beyond the reach of the Holy Spirit, but all those living in those environments had been so contaminated with rebellion that they could not be saved.

So it will be in the end time. Those who refuse to separate from Babylon will eventually become assimilated into part of Babylon and perish. “And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues (Revelation 18:4).”

My brother or sister, you each have an individual responsibility to God and a corporate accountability to the body of Christ. When false views are presented about God and our Saviour, what are we to do? I have often thought of the high value and respect that I have for my mother. I would never allow anyone to publically or privately denigrate her or falsely accuse her without a vigorous protest. I am sure you might feel the same way. Should we feel any less concerned for the image of our God and his Christ? I urge you to carefully consider the materials in this booklet for you cannot play ostrich now that you have this book. You, too, are accountable for what might have been said to a soul or done for him or her that was slipping into the slimy pit of deception.

God has always given calls for decision to his people.When Joshua was reviewing the history of Israel before his death he said, “Choose you this day whom ye (second person plural) will serve (Joshua 24:15).” Elijah asked the professed people of God, “How long halt ye (second person plural) between two opinions (1 Kings 18:21)?”

Israel is in a crisis, friend. Will you remain indifferent and neutral, or will you act boldly to stand for your Master? “The people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits (Daniel 11:32).” “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven (Matthew 10:32).” You most certainly are your brothers’ and sisters’ keeper. Will you accept this responsibility?

Editor’s Note: Each Sabbath School lesson that we will be writing about in this booklet will be dealt with individually, and we will clearly mark out the day in the regular lesson or teacher’s edition that we are referencing. Some of the material, however, will overlap and will apply in more than one place. We will note some of this overlapping but encourage you to go through all this booklet instead of waiting for each week to come that corresponds to the quarterly. May God guide you into truth.

The Wonder of Jesus Lesson 6
The Challenge of His Sayings

Lesson 6 for May 3-9 discusses some of the more challenging statements of Jesus. Truly many of the teachings of Jesus seemed radical or unique to his listeners. While at times he seemed to some to set aside the laws of Moses (John 8:1-11), at other times he seemed to make these laws more narrow than originally given (Matthew 19:3-12). As you study the teachings of Jesus carefully, however, you will see that his sayings were not new in the sense that the concepts taught did not exist before. Rather, his sayings taught a fuller, deeper meaning upon the subjects in question.

Sunday, May 4–Lesson on marriage and abstinence. This lesson does not present any main issues beyond our past Adventist teaching; however, we would like to share a few thoughts that might encourage us in the sacred institution of marriage. Coming from the Garden of Eden, marriage has bridged almost all cultures and peoples of this world, from antiquity until today. Sadly, many marriages are not lasting and fewer are happy. I am sure that few people who marry seek God’s guidance enough to be sure of the direction their lives should take; however, once the covenant has been entered into, it is not God’s design that it be broken. Whether a person finds himself or herself in a situation they are happy with or not, it will be made better and happier by submitting to the Lord and following counsel of God’s Word. God, through the Apostle Paul, gives counsel for both men and women:

Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it (Ephesians 5:21-25).

While the wife is to submit unto the husband, the husband will be wise, at times, to submit to the wishes and wisdom of his wife, for they are counseled to submit to each other (v. 21). The husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church; and, if he will love her with sacrificial love by always putting her best interest and holy wishes first, she will find pleasure in submitting to him.

Monday, May 5-Lesson on forgiveness. The focus is Matthew 18:21, 22.

 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven (Matthew 18:21, 22).

In Monday’s lesson, Elder Adams reports of a 13-year-old who was left severely disabled after a man raped her, beat her, and poured roach killer down her throat during the attack. Adams then asks:

Is Jesus asking the victims of heinous acts to forgive not only the first occurrence but also the seventh? And is He saying that God will never forgive those who find themselves unable to absolve the demons in human flesh that commit them? The point here is not that we should not forgive. Rather, it is whether we may press the gracious counsel of the Lord too far when we apply it to the kind of ghastly, mind-numbing atrocities listed above (Lesson of May 5).

Earlier, in a question for reflection, Elder Adams asked the following:

Could it be that Jesus, speaking to ordinary people about ordinary offenses, mistakes, and hurts that we experience in our normal interaction with one another, gives a command that does not envision the more complex and sinister cases of human criminality (Ibid.)?

As Christians, do we need to even consider such questions? I would hope not, but the reality is much different. Many who profess to be Christians find forgiveness for the perpetrator of a malicious death or harm to a child difficult to accomplish. But the command of Jesus and God is plain. We are to “pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you (Matthew 5:44).” Why? “That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven (v. 45).” If we are to become like God in character, we must forgive as Jesus, the express image of the Father’s person, forgives. He told us that: “ But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses (Matthew 6:15).”

How often did Jesus forgive? As noted in the lesson, even upon the cross he stated: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34).” How much are we to forgive? This is a question that does not need to be debated. How much has Jesus forgiven us? What must be integrated into our lives is the love of God that allows us to be able to forgive. This love is manifested in the gift of God’s only begotten Son (1 John 4:8-11).

Tuesday, May 6–Lesson on wealth and giving. The main text is from Luke 12:32-34.

Did Jesus teach without reservation that one must forsake all to be in his kingdom or did he simply ask that we be willing to forsake all? Luke 14:33 says: “So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.” This seems plain yet we do not seem to all hear the call from Jesus. Or have we misunderstood the call? While physically we must be ready to forsake mother, father, houses, lands, and anything of this earth; Christ does not always ask each person to do this. What he does ask each one to do is to forsake all mentally and emotionally so that Jesus is first in our lives. If this is done, then when we are asked to forsake all physically, it will not be difficult to implement God’s will, for the decision has already been made.

Perhaps you have thought that your heart decides the location of your treasure. While there may be a good deal of truth in this statement, Jesus said: “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also (Luke 12:34; Matthew 6:21).” The giving of our treasure, our actions motivated by the love of God, is not all that builds our character, but our actions help to form our character.

By beholding Christ, he is changed from glory to glory, from character to character, and becomes more and more like Jesus. He is imbued with love for Christ (Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, p. 220).

A well-balanced character is formed by single acts well performed (The Youth’s Instructor, January 17, 1901).

Wednesday, May 7–Lesson on perfection. The key text is Matthew 5:48: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Few issues can turn heads like this one. What does it mean to be perfect? Does it mean that we love our enemies as the immediate context teaches? Some have defined perfection as having perfect love for, or a perfect relationship with, God.

The word translated perfect in Matthew 5:48 is teleios (teleiV). Teleios carries the idea of something brought to its end or something fully mature. It is used in 2 Corinthians 13:11: “Be perfect (teleios), be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.” Jesus said to someone asking about eternal life: “If thou wilt be perfect (teleios), go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me (Matthew 19:21).”

Adams, in the lesson for May 7, states: “Across the centuries, conscientious Christians have struggled to reach the standard to which they thought Jesus Christ was pointing, a state of complete victory over the world, the flesh, and the devil.” While Adams does not say he agrees with these Christians as to the meaning of perfection, I certainly and clearly do. To make myself very plain–this victory over the world, the flesh, and the devil is complete victory over all sin and self. Is this simply, however, a goal or something to strive for but not really something that can be obtained? God has promised full and complete victory to the soul that trusts in Jesus:

 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy (Jude 1:24).

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it (1 Corinthians 10:13).

 If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth (Mark 9:23).

How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein (Romans 6:2)?

And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure (1 John 3:3).

 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne (Revelation 3:21).

All His biddings are enablings (Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 333).

Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more (John 5:14).

Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more (John 8:11).

Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city (Revelation 22:14).

Thursday, May 8–Lesson on the family. The key text is John 19:25-27. Our Creator, who began families, knows well the importance that should be attached to the family. Yet, as Adams brings out, some of the most challenging statements made by Jesus concern our relationship to our families. Adams goes on to reference Matthew 10:34-37, 12:46-50; Luke 9:59-62, 12:49-53, 14:26. These texts make one point very clear–God is to be first and foremost in our lives. As noted in the lesson, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 811 states: “In the Bible, ‘to hate,’ often should be understood simply as a typical Oriental hyperbole meaning to love less.”

He who spoke “Honour thy father and thy mother (Exodus 20:12),” also strongly taught the children’s duty to their parents and strongly condemned those who fail to support their parents under a false pretense of religious piety. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said:

For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye (Mark 7:10-13).

Ellen White spoke of the evil of this practice in her insightful book The Desire of Ages:

They set aside the fifth commandment as of no consequence, but were very exact in carrying out the traditions of the elders. They taught the people that the devotion of their property to the temple was a duty more sacred than even the support of their parents; and that, however great the necessity, it was sacrilege to impart to father or mother any part of what had been thus consecrated. An undutiful child had only to pronounce the word “Corban” over his property, thus devoting it to God, and he could retain it for his own use during his lifetime, and after his death it was to be appropriated to the temple service. Thus he was at liberty, both in life and in death, to dishonor and defraud his parents, under cover of a pretended devotion to God (The Desire of Ages, pp. 396, 397).

Ellen White also called corban, “a neglect of filial duty (Ibid., p. 408).” Jesus’ statement in Mark 7 and the quotes from The Desire of Ages do not simply give a balancing viewpoint, but parts of the whole big picture that Jesus would have us to see. While there is a clear duty to parents and they are not to be neglected, we are not to use their non-necessary needs as an excuse to refrain from doing God’s work. Nor are we to retain a love for them that would hinder the work that God is calling us to do.

Friday, May 9–Lesson for further study. The beginning paragraph says: “No question, some of Jesus’ sayings are hard to understand, especially if taken in isolation. When, however, we view them in context, particularly with other corrective statements that balance them out, many of them become much easier to understand (emphasis in original).” Corrective statements?! As if any statement of God needs correction? How dare we fill minds with doubt such as this simple statement does?

The Wonder of Jesus Lesson 7
The Puzzle of His Conduct

Lesson 7 for May 10-16 discusses some of the puzzling conduct of Jesus. Many things that Jesus did seemed either out of the norm or simply unethical to the religious bigots of his day. The question is asked in the Sabbath afternoon section, “…we find ourselves genuinely puzzled by aspects of His [Jesus’] conduct, wondering, Does He expect us to do that, and in the same way?” The main topics for this lesson are neglecting parents, displaying anger, destroying personal property, neglecting the persecuted, and hanging out with undesirables. So how do we reconcile the actions of Jesus with his teachings and those of the rest of Scripture? Furthermore, if Jesus is not to be our example in all things, then need he be our example in battling against sin? We believe that there are good answers to these questions, though, and none need to be left in question as to how to relate to the conduct of Jesus.

Sunday, May 11–Lesson on Jesus’ apparent neglect of his parents. The key text is Luke 2:41-51. In the middle of the lesson, we read:

This is one of those events that show the limits of using Jesus’ conduct as a model in every case. What is happening here, it would seem, is that Jesus’ Messiahship has already begun to shine through at the tender age of 12. He is becoming conscious of an allegiance to a Power infinitely higher than His parents, however much He respected them.

 Of course, none of us are the only begotten Son of God; and, while we too are to respect our earthly parents, we also have a higher responsibility to God. We are his sons by adoption (Galatians 4:5; Ephesians 1:5), and he is to have our highest allegiance. By doing so, we are truly imitating Jesus, for we are commanded to copy his life.

We are to copy no human being. There is no human being wise enough to be our criterion. We are to look to the man Christ Jesus, who is complete in the perfection of righteousness and holiness. He is the author and finisher of our faith. He is the pattern Man. His experience is the measure of the experience that we are to gain. His character is our model. Let us, then, take our minds off the perplexities and the difficulties of this life, and fix them on him, that by beholding we may be changed into his likeness. We may behold Christ to good purpose. We may safely look to him; for he is all-wise. As we look to him and think of him, he will be formed within, the hope of glory (The Review and Herald, March 9, 1905).

Monday, May 12–Lesson on Jesus’ apparent display of anger. The term “righteousness anger” is not in the Bible but the term “indignation,” (which means anger) is used. When Jesus cleansed the temple twice (John 2:13-17; Matthew 21:12, 13), he surely displayed “righteous anger.” But it must be kept in mind that the temple was truly, both spiritually and physically, the property of God his Father. As God’s representative on earth he had a right to speak in any manner consistent with holiness and righteousness.

With a zeal and severity He has never before manifested, He overthrows the tables of the money-changers. The coin falls, ringing sharply upon the marble pavement. None presume to question His authority. None dare stop to gather up their ill-gotten gain. Jesus does not smite them with the whip of cords, but in His hand that simple scourge seems terrible as a flaming sword. Officers of the temple, speculating priests, brokers and cattle traders, with their sheep and oxen, rush from the place, with the one thought of escaping from the condemnation of His presence.

A panic sweeps over the multitude, who feel the overshadowing of His divinity. Cries of terror escape from hundreds of blanched lips. Even the disciples tremble. They are awestruck by the words and manner of Jesus, so unlike His usual demeanor. They remember that it is written of Him, “The zeal of Thine house hath eaten Me up.” Ps. 69:9 (The Desire of Ages, p. 158).

Perhaps the closest biblical precedent for such action was when Elijah marched in, unannounced, before Ahab and pronounced the ceasing of rain in Israel (1 Kings 17:1). While his actions, as well as the actions of Jesus, may seem out of line with God’s character, it must be remembered that God will one day perform his “strange act (Isaiah 28:21)” and he will do all he can to spare any from that day.

Even though Jesus had expressed indignation in his denouncement of the Pharisees and scribes, it was accompanied with tears of love and hurt over Jerusalem and its people.

Divine pity marked the countenance of the Son of God as He cast one lingering look upon the temple and then upon His hearers. In a voice choked by deep anguish of heart and bitter tears He exclaimed, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not (The Desire of Ages, p. 620)!”

Jesus wept “bitter tears.” In fact, Ellen White wrote that Jesus “was in tears, not of ordinary grief, but of intense, irrepressible agony (The Great Controversy, p. 17).”

Before leaving this part of the lesson, it might be well to ponder an important point. Throughout the lesson, we are asked if we would do things such as Jesus did? Adams quotes from F. Scott Spencer in Monday’s lesson:

“… if the preacher goes on too much about money one Sunday or if we are just generally miffed at various church personnel and programs, do we bust in during a worship service and start upending pews, pulpits, altars—anything not nailed down—and bouncing ushers from the premises?”

No doubt there were points of conduct that the authority of Jesus, being the only begotten Son of God, allowed him to do. However, an important point that must be considered is the fact that Jesus was always following the direction and commands of his Father (John 5:19, 20, 36; 10:25, 32;14:10). Jesus did nothing of his own power or from his own directive. He was always totally submissive to the plans of the Father. So perhaps the question is not what would Jesus do, nor even what he did he do, but what did the Father wish and direct him to do? This being the case, if the Father tells us to turn over the offering plates, we do it; if God tells us to raise the dead, we will do it; but we had better be sure it really is God instructing us. Jesus said his disciples would do even greater works than he did (John 14:12). Those disciples, however, would need to be in touch with God as Christ was and then they too might have puzzling conduct!

Tuesday, May 13–Lesson on Jesus’ apparent destruction of personal property. This lessons deals with the swine that were killed by the demons that Jesus allowed to enter into them. Adams asks:

Would He have done the same thing if the animals had been sheep? Where is the sympathy in Jesus’ action here? Was there a concern on His part that, regardless of His own dietary strictures, the herd, nevertheless, represented the livelihood of one or more families in the town? How would the idea of compensation fit into this picture?

Adams then proceeds to quote from F. Scott Spencer, a teacher of New Testament at the Baptist Theological Seminary in Richmond, Virginia. Spencer was quoted in Monday’s lesson and is also quoted in Thursday’s lesson. While Adams also quotes Ellen White three times in this lesson, perhaps he feels that Spencer has equal or greater insight than Ellen White. Whereas Spencer can only speculate on matters such as why Jesus allowed the owners of the swine to suffer financial loss, Ellen White can positively state the truth of the matter.

Furthermore, the Bible says that “God, … created all things by Jesus Christ (Ephesians 3:9).” Thus, not only are “the cattle upon a thousand hills (Psalm 50:10)” the Lord’s, but so are the sheep, pigs, and everything else. The “personal property” that Jesus was dealing with actually belonged to him and his Father.

Wednesday, May 14–Lesson on Jesus’ apparent neglect of the persecuted. The main point of this lesson is Jesus’ apparent disregard of John the Baptist when he was imprisoned and put to death. Adams suggests that since Jesus especially spoke of visiting those in prison as a requirement for entrance into his kingdom Christ’s failure to visit or show more concern was puzzling. Adams does not provide an answer. However, the teacher’s edition does provide an answer from The Desire of Ages, which we quote here, with the complete paragraph, for those who do not have access to the teacher’s edition or who would not otherwise have heard it in class.

Jesus did not interpose to deliver His servant. He knew that John would bear the test. Gladly would the Saviour have come to John, to brighten the dungeon gloom with His own presence. But He was not to place Himself in the hands of enemies and imperil His own mission. Gladly would He have delivered His faithful servant. But for the sake of thousands who in after years must pass from prison to death, John was to drink the cup of martyrdom. As the followers of Jesus should languish in lonely cells, or perish by the sword, the rack, or the fagot, apparently forsaken by God and man, what a stay to their hearts would be the thought that John the Baptist, to whose faithfulness Christ Himself had borne witness, had passed through a similar experience (The Desire of Ages, p. 224)!

Thursday, May 15–Lesson about Jesus hanging out with undesirable people. Psalm 20:1 says: “The LORD hear thee in the day of trouble; the name of the God of Jacob defend thee.” Twenty-six times in the Scripture God is called the “God of Jacob.” Twenty-six times God associates his holy name with a name that means supplanter. God hates sin, but he loves the sinner and wants folks, who understand how worthless they are, to know that he loves them and cares for them. Since Jesus is the “express image” of the Father’s person (Hebrew 1:3), we know that he sees sinners exactly the same way God does.

In the lesson it is noted that Jesus was accused of being a glutton and a drunkard (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34). He was also called “a friend of publicans and sinners (Matthew 11:19).” Some of these friends were the despised tax collectors and most likely the harlots. One can only imagine the “talk” having such friends generated. However, our saviour was so filled with love that even those whom the world considered undesirable were desirable to him. Jesus saw each person as a candidate for heaven. Ellen White writes:

Jesus did not consider heaven a place to be desired while we were lost. He left the heavenly courts for a life of reproach and insult, and a death of shame. He who was rich in heaven’s priceless treasure became poor, that through His poverty we might be rich. We are to follow in the path He trod (The Ministry of Healing, p. 105).

Neither could they [Pharisees and the chief priests] bear the manifestation of love and mercy that he gave to those who were considered outcasts and sinners (The Signs of the Times, June 11, 1896).

Friday, May 16–Lesson on further study. Two of the lesson’s three Ellen White quotations are given without comment and discussion questions are raised.

The Wonder of Jesus Lesson 8
The Intensity of His Walk

This week’s lesson is on a vital subject. Perhaps we fail to understand the desire of Jesus to walk closely with God and his desire to fulfill the mission he came to do. Paul writes, “For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin (Hebrews 12:3, 4).” We have not resisted unto blood, but Jesus did! There are three points that we would like to bring up concerning this lesson. The first point is the fine treatment that we believe Adams gives to Wednesday’s lesson. He succinctly treats this subject well and we recommend its reading.

The second point concerns a statement found on the lesson for Monday, May 19. There Adams writes:

He was to struggle as we do, to be tempted as we are, yet He had to remain immaculate.

We can totally agree with the above statement. In Lesson 3 of the study guide, the subject of the incarnation is raised. If Jesus accepted the nature of Adam before the fall, how could he have been tempted as I am, who inherits his sinful nature and who must struggle with trials from both within and without? Yet in his book The Nature of Christ, published in 1994, Adams takes a strong pre-fall view. Adams well knows that there is a “linkage” between “the nature of Christ, sin, sanctification, and perfection (Roy Adams, The Nature of Christ, p. 13).” To accept the post-fall view of the pioneers, including Jones, Waggoner, Ellen White, and then later men such as M. L. Andreason would require also accepting the related concepts of perfection that Adams does not wish to touch.

The third point of consideration on this lesson is made during the introduction found in the Sabbath afternoon reading. There we read:

Adventists are a peace-loving people. We feel elated when the church or its members get positive press, when everybody thinks we are good. But how might we react if we woke up one day to find huge headlines in the media branding us as losers, disrupters, or insurrectionists?

The truth is that the church, as a whole, does not like such headlines. Many of the newer members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church may not know that during the first one hundred-plus years of existence, Adventism was considered to be a cult. Some of the main reasons for this were the church’s teaching on the incarnation, the teaching that the atonement is to be completed in heaven and not at the cross, and the predominate ministry of Ellen G. White in the church. However, the biggest issue that Evangelicals had with Adventists was their non-trinitarian position on the nature of God and Christ.

This status forever changed fifty years ago when some of our leading ministers met with prominent evangelical ministers to discuss differences and to show them that we were “Christian.” During the middle 1950’s, while preparing his first book on Seventh-day Adventists, Walter Martin approached the brethren in the General Conference asking for their official position on the Godhead. A trinitarian position was essential in removing Seventh-day Adventism from the status of a cult and without a belief in the trinity talks between Evangelicals and Adventists could not even begin.

For over one hundred years, Adventism had called the fallen churches Babylon yet the Adventists did not like being called a cult; so, in order to be accepted into the fellowship of churches, significant changes were made in our positions. During the meetings that took place between 1955 and 1956, a new version of our message was presented to the Evangelicals.

The results from these meetings were published in 1957 in the book Questions on Doctrine. This book clearly taught a new theology that had never before been known, as such, in Adventism; however, the authors of this book tried to write their words in such a way so as to make it sound like the old paths the church had once taken only using clearer language.

Many accepted this line and said that any apparent differences between the old teachings and the new views were simply a matter of semantics. However, there were some such as M. L. Andreasen who could not accept this position and they plainly showed the differences, and the protest has continued, in one form or another, for the past fifty years.

It should be kept in mind that the starting point of these compromises was the acceptance of the doctrine of the trinity, which did not happen until after the death of Ellen White. This acceptance did not come in overnight but was a gradual change taking over twenty years to become widespread. By the time another twenty years had passed, the church was ripe for apostasy. To be accepted as Christian, we toned down our message and became like all the nations around us instead of the distinctive people God desired.

Based upon our past and current experience, it is clear that we do not deal well with bad publicity. We have been told that in the end, when calamity upon calamity is occurring, Satan’s agents will point to the faithful and blame them (Maranatha, p. 216).What will we do then? “If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, how then canst thou contend with horses (Jeremiah 12:5)?”

The Wonder of Jesus Lesson 9
The Tenderness of His Love

This lesson speaks of Christ’s love in dealing with the woman caught in adultery, children, the family of Lazarus, his enemies, and Israel.

These are good subjects with points worthy of thought. Due to space considerations, there are just two points that we would like to consider concerning this lesson. The first deals with the revelation of God’s love and the second the limits of his forgiveness. The manifestation of God’s love, based upon the Bible, is revealed in the gift of his Son (John 3:16).

In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:9, 10).

The trinitarian doctrine does not allow for God to have a real son to give for the redemption of mankind. The trinity is a masterpiece of Satan to destroy the effectiveness of the plan of salvation in the believer’s heart.

 Satan is determined that men shall not see the love of God, which led him to give his only begotten Son to save the lost race; for it is the goodness of God that leads men to repentance (R & H, March 20, 1894).

The second point that should be considered comes from Thurday’s lesson, May 29, which speaks of Christ’s love for Israel. Matthew 23:37 is noted where it is recorded that Jesus wept over Jerusalem. Israel was finally weighed in the balances of the sanctuary and found wanting! God’s love is infinite but men and women can shut that limitless love out of their lives and when this is accomplished nothing else can be done to help them or a church. They are weighed in the balances of the sanctuary and found wanting. Please notice these words of warning from Ellen White:

In the balances of the sanctuary the Seventh-day Adventist church is to be weighed. She will be judged by the privileges and advantages that she has had. If her spiritual experience does not correspond to the advantages that Christ, at infinite cost, has bestowed on her, if the blessings conferred have not qualified her to do the work entrusted to her, on her will be pronounced the sentence: “Found wanting.” By the light bestowed, the opportunities given, will she be judged (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8, p. 247).

The Wonder of Jesus Lesson 10 
The Meaning of His Death

This lesson speaks of the meaning of Christ’s death upon the cross. There are some small points that we dearly hate to pass over, but we do not wish for those reading this booklet to think that we are looking at the study guide simply to find fault. Sometimes we all misstate a position and wish we had chosen better words. We feel we should give Elder Adams the benefit of the doubt in most of these cases; however, a reasonable discussion of the death of Jesus is not given, and we, therefore, provide the following thoughts.

One of the main reasons the Adventist pioneers rejected the doctrine of the trinity was that it was subversive to the atonement. Remember that the Advent Movement was based on a fuller revelation of the atonement than had ever been understood before. “The Scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and the central pillar of the advent faith was the declaration: ‘Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed (The Great Controversy, p. 409).’” Anything that is subversive to the atonement is subversive to the Advent Movement!

The reason the trinity was considered to be subversive to the atonement involved the fact that it degraded the dignity of the sacrifice and thus the power of the atonement. An appreciation of the law of God cannot be realized without an appreciation of the greatness of the sacrifice needed to atone for the transgressor. The importance of any law is revealed by the sacrifice needed to atone for its transgression. If God’s law is of such a low nature that a human sacrifice, or even the life of an angel, could atone for its transgression, then the stature of such a law is far different than the stature of a law that requires a divine sacrifice. In fact, the difference would be as great as that between a creature and the Creator!

God’s law is so high, so sacred and just, and its transgression so abhorring in his sight that only the life of his dear Son, and nothing less, could be accepted as an atonement for its violation. The realization of this truth will establish a tremendous respect for God’s law in the believer’s heart.

Our understanding of the law and the offering for its violation go hand in hand. We cannot have a totally correct view of one without the other. To degrade the law, we must of necessity degrade the offering needed to atone for its violation. To degrade the sacrifice, we must of necessity degrade the law which requires it. The inverse is also true. If we exalt the law, we must of necessity exalt the value of the sacrifice needed to atone for its transgression. Also, an exaltation of the sacrifice must of necessity exalt the stature of the law which requires it. Since the trinitarian doctrine only makes provision for a human sacrifice, the dignity of the law, the Lawgiver, and the Sacrifice are degraded. Elder J. H. Waggoner explains it thusly:

It is not our purpose to present any argument on the doctrine of the trinity, further than it has a bearing on the subject under consideration, namely, on the Atonement.

Many theologians really think that the Atonement, in respect to its dignity and efficacy, rests upon the doctrine of a trinity. But we fail to see any connection between the two. To the contrary, the advocates of that doctrine really fall into the difficulty which they seem anxious to avoid. Their difficulty consists in this: They take the denial of a trinity to be equivalent to a denial of the divinity of Christ. Were that the case, we should cling to the doctrine of a trinity as tenaciously as any can; but it is not the case. They who have read our remarks on the death of the Son of God know that we firmly believe in the divinity of Christ; but we cannot accept the idea of a trinity, as it is held by Trinitarians, without giving up our claim on the dignity of the sacrifice made for our redemption.

And here is shown how remarkably the widest extremes meet in theology. The highest Trinitarians and lowest Unitarians meet and are perfectly united on the death of Christ—the faith of both amounts to Socinianism. Unitarians believe that Christ was a prophet, an inspired teacher, but merely human; that his death was that of a human body only. Trinitarians hold that the term “Christ” comprehends two distinct and separate natures: one that was merely human; the other, the second person in the Trinity, who dwelt in the flesh for a brief period, but could not possibly suffer, or die; that the Christ that died was only the human nature in which the divinity had dwelt. Both classes have a human offering, and nothing more. No matter how exalted the preexistent Son was; no matter how glorious, how powerful, or even eternal; if the manhood only died, the sacrifice was only human. And so far as the vicarious death of Christ is concerned, this is Socinianism. Thus the remark is just, that the doctrine of a Trinity degrades the Atonement, resting it solely on a human offering as a basis (The Atonement in the Light of Nature and Revelation, pp. 164-166; 1884 ed.).

A very important point must be noted from Waggoner. A correct understanding of the doctrine of the atonement (which involves a rejection of the trinitarian teaching) does not require “a denial of the divinity of Christ.” In fact, it is based on the concept that the sacrifice upon Calvary was a divine sacrifice instead of merely a human one. The truth that the divine Son of God died upon the cross was the center of Paul’s teachings. Writing to the Corinthians, he stated: “And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified (1 Corinthians 2:1, 2).”

While Paul and other inspired writers mention the incarnation, the life of Christ, the resurrection, ascension, and his high-priestly ministry, the emphasis has been on the cross. That does not mean that any portion of the plan of salvation is more necessary than another. To illustrate this, think of the major organs of the body such as the heart, lungs, and the liver. All are needful. All are important and the failure of any one organ leads to the failure of the whole body. In like manner, the different aspects of the plan of salvation are all necessary. If we remove any one portion of that plan, the whole plan fails. This being true, why did Paul emphasize the death of Christ on the cross so much? Because through the death of Christ God could break and win the hearts of sinners and thus reconcile them to Himself.

The medium of the cross is God’s way of speaking to the heart of man in a way that nothing else can. Not only does it fulfill the demands of the broken law, but it illustrates the love of God and his Son for sinful man. Virtually anyone who has ever claimed the title “Christian” has heard about the cross. Have we really studied the cross and the events surrounding it? What really happened at Calvary? We quote John 3:16 and freely speak of Christ dying on the cross, but, as Elder Waggoner pointed out over one hundred years ago, many have a very faulty understanding of what Golgotha is portraying to us. We will investigate the three following points: 1.) Did Jesus die in totality? 2.) How could the Son of God die if he was divine? 3.) If Christ really died in totality, how does he live to make intercession?

Today we live in a troubled world. Racial differences, “ethnic cleansing,” and prejudice cause these divisions. While we live in a very fragmented and divided world, the one common denominator that links all humanity is the fact that all are sinners! “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).” John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Here we are told that Christ was given for one class of people: sinners!

In the heart of his message on justification as found in Romans, Paul testifies: “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:6-8).” Paul states that Christ did die and that he died for those who hated his Father.

Writing to the Corinthians, Paul also declared: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3).” Two significant things from Paul’s words will be noted at this time. Firstly, the gospel he taught was that which he received. Paul declares that he had received firsthand instruction from Christ himself. Earlier in this epistle he had written: “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you (1 Corinthians 11:23a).” He also instructed the Galatians: “For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:12).” Clearly, what Paul claims to have taught was the pure, direct Gospel of Christ.

Secondly, neither Paul nor the other Bible writers used words in meaningless ways. When Paul wrote that “Christ died,” he meant just that. The term Jesus Christ is more than a name. It is really a compound of the Son of God’s earthly name “Jesus,” which means Saviour, and his heavenly position “Christ,” which means the Anointed One or Messiah. If Paul had wanted to emphasize that it was only the human nature of the Son that died, he could have written that “Jesus died,” instead he wrote “Christ (the Anointed One or divine Messiah) died.” Paul believed that the Son of God really died.

The testimony of Jesus Christ himself is equally clear. In Revelation 1:18 Jesus says: “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.” Jesus says that he was dead. Friend, did he lie? I don’t believe that he ever told anything but pure truth. We can agree with Peter when he stated that Jesus “did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth (1 Peter 2:22).” No, Jesus told the truth when he said that he was the Son of God and that he died. He is “the faithful and true witness (Revelation 3:14).”

When Jesus and the disciples came to the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he told his disciples that he was going to die. After giving Peter and the disciples an opportunity to acknowledge that he was the Son of the living God, the Bible says: “From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day (Matthew 16:21).” Peter didn’t take this very favorably. The next verse records: “Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee (v. 22).” Peter tried to deny that Jesus must die. This brought the rebuke from Christ, “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men (v. 23).” It was Satan, the father of all lies (John 8:44), not God, that had inspired Peter into his rashness.

When Jesus had opened before his disciples the fact that he must go to Jerusalem to suffer and die at the hands of the chief priests and scribes, Peter had presumptuously contradicted his Master, saying, “Be it far from thee, Lord; this shall not be unto thee.” He could not conceive it possible that the Son of God should be put to death. Satan suggested to his mind that if Jesus was the Son of God he could not die (The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 3, p. 231).

The evidence is clear that God wants us to understand that the atonement is based on the real and full death of the Son of the Great Lawgiver. Satan wants us to believe “that if Jesus was the Son of God he could not die!”

Paul noted in 1 Corinthians 15:3 that “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.” The most graphic and detailed account of Christ’s death is found in Isaiah, chapter 53. This chapter describes the totality of Christ’s death. We have been counseled: “The entire chapter should be committed to memory. Its influence will subdue and humble the soul defiled by sin and uplifted by self-exaltation (The Youth’s Instructor, December 20, 1900).” The last three verses of chapter 52 and the first six verses of chapter 53 begin with the sufferings of Yahweh’s servant; however, it must be remembered that the law required death, not torture. Verses seven through twelve speak explicitly of death.

 “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth (v. 7).” Here Christ is described as being brought as “a lamb to the slaughter.” I grew up in an area where there were cattle and various animals on farms and any farmer knows what happens during slaughter time. The animal is killed! The Hebrew word for slaughter (xbj- tebach) can also be translated “massacre.”

“He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken (v. 8).” The expression “cut off” is used in Daniel 9:26 to describe the death of the Messiah. Furthermore, the verse states that the Messiah was to be “cut off out of the land of the living.” If one is not living, he must be dead.

“And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth (v. 9).” This text which describes Christ’s burial states plainly that he was to be put in a “grave.” Friends, it is neither legal nor proper to bury people in graves unless they are dead! Furthermore, this text speaks of “his death.”

“Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand (v. 10).” This is perhaps one of the strongest statements in all of Scripture concerning the atonement. Of all people who should be able to fathom the importance of this, it is Seventh-day Adventists. Few understand the implications of the usage of the term “soul” as Adventists do. The Word of God does not say that the Messiah would give his human body for the offering but instead his “soul.” The Hebrew word for “soul” is vpn (nephesh). This refers to the total being, all that lives and breathes!

“He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors (vs. 11, 12).” Here is a clear allusion to the drink offering which was poured out to show total and complete sacrifice. The Word states that Jesus “poured out his soul unto death.” Here “soul” is again the Hebrew nephesh. The word for “death” (twm–maveth) is from the root word translated “die” in Ezekiel 18:4 where we read that “the soul that sinneth, it shall die.” We have preached for years that Satan wants you to believe that you do not really die when you die, and Satan is just as interested that you believe Jesus did not really die when he died on the cross.

This brings us to the second question of our study: How could the Son of God die if he was divine? To answer this, we need to first understand some of the attributes of God that set him apart from his creatures. The first attribute is God’s omnipotence. This simply means that he is all-powerful; his power is unlimited. This is especially noticeable concerning his creative ability. In fact, it is this ability that God says sets him apart from all false gods. Notice the contrast illustrated in the following verses:

But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation. Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion (Jeremiah 10:10-12).

The second attribute of God is his omnipresence. This means that God can be anywhere or everywhere at any time. In fact, by his spirit he can be all places at all times. David said, “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there (Psalm 139:7, 8).”

The third attribute of God is that he is omniscient. God is all-knowing. He has total knowledge of that which has occurred in the past, as well what is currently happening. He also knows the future. “Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure (Isaiah 46:10).” Not only does God have total knowledge of events, He also understands all scientific and psychological mysteries. (See Job chapters 38-41.)

The fourth attribute of God is that he is inherently immortal. [A distinction is here made by using the term “inherently” because when Jesus comes back, “this mortal shall . . . put on immortality (1 Corinthians 15:54).”] This means he is not subject to death. This is also the exclusive property of God.

Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen (1 Timothy 1:17).

Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen (1 Timothy 6:16).

The Apostle Paul, under inspiration, wrote concerning Christ: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:6, 7).” The original Greek in the first part of verse 7 is: all eauton ekenwsen (all eauton ekenosen) which literally translates to “but himself emptied.” Paul says that the one who was divine – “in the form of God,” “emptied” himself of that divine form. In other words, Christ emptied himself of the divine attributes in the incarnation and accepted the essential attributes of a slave.

Jesus laid aside his omnipotence. “The faithful and true witness” stated very clearly: “Verily, verily (truly, truly), I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. . . . I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me (John 5:19, 30).” Ellen G. White wrote: “All the miracles of Christ performed for the afflicted and suffering were, by the power of God, through the ministration of angels (The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 2, p. 67).” Christ did not retain his omnipotence in the incarnation; instead, he totally depended on the Father.

Christ laid aside his omnipresence. Jesus accepted the physical restrictions of humanity. This is one reason that Jesus told the disciples that it was “expedient” for him to go away so that the omnipresent Comforter could come. (See John 11:1-21; John 16:7.)

Christ laid aside his omniscience in the incarnation. Luke 2:52 states that “Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.” One can not increase in wisdom if he already possesses it all. In fact, Jesus plainly told the disciples that he did not even know the exact time of the second coming. “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father (Mark 13:32).” (If God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are three coequal beings, all being omniscient, then the Holy Spirit would also know the time of the coming of Christ.)

Finally, Christ laid aside his immortality in the incarnation. The Scriptures teach that the soul of Christ died, that he gave up the “breath of life” at Calvary.

Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors (Isaiah 53:12).

And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. (Matthew 27:50 NKJV).

When we tie these four attributes together, we see that Christ, in the incarnation, laid aside the attributes of divinity while retaining his divine relationship with his Father; in other words, he was divine because of who he was and not because of powers or abilities he had within himself. He was still the divine Son of God. The Scriptures confirm what the servant of the Lord wrote nearly one hundred years ago:

At the time when He was most needed, Jesus, the Son of God, the world’s Redeemer, laid aside His divinity, and came to earth in the garb of humanity (Bible Echo and Signs of the Times, October 12, 1896).

It must be understood that Christ came from the Father “not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father’s person (The Signs of the Times, May 30, 1895).” Christ received by nature all the attributes of God. Because Jesus was the begotten Son of God, he received the attributes of God, including inherent immortality. This immortality, along with his omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience, Christ laid aside in the incarnation and could do so because he had received these from God. A mere creature, one created from nothing, would not measure up to the divine stature necessary to be the sacrifice for the sins of the world. If Christ had been coequal and coeternal with God in every respect, then he could not have laid these attributes aside.

How do we relate to statements from Ellen White where she writes that Christ “clothed his divinity with humanity (The Review and Herald, June 1, 1905)”? Was his divinity “clothed” or “laid aside?” We do not believe that these statements are antithetical one to the other but rather complement one another. We find the answer to their relationship in the following Scriptural passage and comment of Sister White:

And the Devil, taking him up into a high mountain, showed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the Devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them; for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will, I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine (Luke 4:5-7).

He presented the world to Christ as a most dazzling, enchanting spectacle. But Christ saw that which Satan tried to veil from his eyes, and that which he flattered himself he had done. Christ had not exchanged his divinity for humanity; but he had clothed his divinity in humanity, and he gave Satan the evidence for which he had asked,—showed him that he was the Son of God. Divinity flashed through humanity, and the evil one could not resist the authority of the divine voice, as Jesus said, “Get thee behind me, Satan; for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve (The Review and Herald, October 29, 1895).”

It was not his omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, or immortality that Satan could not resist. No, it was his divine authority! While Christ laid aside the physical and mental attributes of divinity at the incarnation, he was still the divine Son of God invested with authority because of who he was! He was still the Son of the living God. In all of his humanity, he never gave up his divinely appointed authority which the Father had given him. This explains why Satan’s temptation in the wilderness was not to make the stones turn into bread, but rather to command them to be bread. (See Matthew 4:3, 4.) In the parable of the wicked husbandmen, the householder said that they would respect his Son because he was his Son! “But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son (Matthew 21:37).”

If Christ really died, how can he live today? The answer is that the one who bestowed life to his Son before eternity began raised him from the dead. In nearly thirty instances, the New Testament speaks of God raising Christ from the dead. The testimony of Scripture is plain: “And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. . . . Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole (Acts 3:15; 4:10).” See also 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 1 Peter 1:21; Ephesians 1:19.

The Word of God is very clear that our hope would die without the resurrection of Christ. Writing to the Corinthians, Paul noted:

Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins (1 Corinthians 15:12-17).

Paul also mentions Christ being raised by the Father in Romans 4:24, 25: “But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification.”

In reviewing the facts of Scripture from this study, we may restate the following points: Firstly, Christ laid aside his immortality to die. Secondly, he died in totality. His “soul” (nephesh) was poured out. Thirdly, to be raised from the dead, he had to have died! The trinitarian doctrine states that God and Christ are coequal and coeternal in every respect; that Christ was and is self-existent and not dependent on God for his life. It teaches that Christ had three natures: the divine spirit, the human body, and the human soul. The only one capable of dying was the human body. The Adventist version accepts the human body and divine spirit, but leaves out the human soul. Either theology has only the human body, the part considered the most inferior of the three (or two) natures, as the sacrifice for the sins of the world!

While we are not instructed as to the manner in which God gave life to Jesus in the resurrection, we do know that it was the second time that God gave life to his Son, thus “again.” The record of the first time can be found in Proverbs 8:22-25. See Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 34.

The Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works. He established me before time was in the beginning, before he made the earth: even before he made the depths; before the fountains of water came forth: before the mountains were settled, and before all hills, he begets me (Proverbs 8:22-25, LXX).”

The word in verse 23 for “time” is aiwnoV (aionos). The root word for aiwnoV is aiwn (aion) from which we have the English word “eon”–an indefinitely long period of time or an eternity. God had brought forth his Son before time, before the eons, and gave Christ his Spirit. At his death, Jesus committed the keeping of his Spirit to his Father; therefore, God could restore that Spirit back to Christ in the resurrection.

Peter writes: “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed (1 Peter 2:24).” God’s law had been broken by man. Its penalty is death. Our hope of eternal life centers in Jesus Christ who truly paid that penalty for us. Jesus said:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation (John 5:24-29).

The death of Christ proves the love of God. “We love him, because he first loved us (1 John 4:19).” That love is what motivates the Christian: “For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead (2 Corinthians 5:14).” Christ is the perfect revelation of the character of God. When Paul beheld Jesus lifted up on the cross, he did not only see Jesus, but the Father himself crucified with his Son. Not that the Father died physically, but rather his message at the cross was a revelation of the eternal, unselfish principles of his character. God, through Christ, has declared that he will serve even the creatures he has made, no matter what the personal inconvenience, pain, and suffering to himself. He is willing to serve and save man at any cost to himself. Referring to the charges that Satan had made against God, Ellen White wrote:

Satan had accused God of requiring self-denial of the angels, when he knew nothing of what it meant himself, and when he would not himself make any self-sacrifice for others. This was the accusation that Satan made against God in heaven; and after the evil one was expelled from heaven, he continually charged the Lord with exacting service which he would not render himself. Christ came to the world to meet these false accusations, and to reveal the Father (The Review and Herald, February 18, 1890).

Not only did the cross answer questions concerning the character of God, the death of Christ revealed the true nature of Satan and sin. Calvary revealed the character of rebellion. It showed that Satan would go to any length to cause suffering to God. There is no limit to the effort Satan would put forth to have things his way. Satan was demonstrating the principle that has motivated him; he expects others to serve him at any expense necessary. Unlike God, who is willing to offer service at his expense to us, Satan expects our service to him at our expense!

Jesus said in Matthew 16:24, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” What Christ is telling us is that as our love for him grows, we will accept the principle of the cross–a willingness to serve others at our own expense. The unconverted heart follows the principle of Satan. The converted heart follows the principle of Christ. Only the true death of Christ as demonstrated at Calvary can motivate men’s hearts to make such a change.