Print
A Fallen Hero, A Hardened Sinner – and Grace
For those drawn to the gentle figure of Jesus, violent Elijah is a jarring contrast. Though he had help corralling the 450 prophets of Baal after Yahweh’s victory on Mt. Carmel, Scripture gives Elijah himself full credit for the slaughter.
But however squeamish we may feel about Elijah’s violent deeds, both in Christianity and in Judaism he was to be a key figure in ushering in the kingdom of God. In short, he is one of the good guys.
And that is why the aftermath of Mt. Carmel is so startling – and so encouraging. It is the story of a fallen and depressed prophet who was nurtured back to life by a gentle and gracious God.
Typically we want our heroes to be free from taint. There are exceptions, to be sure. In any contest over favorite Bible characters, I have found that David wins hands down in the Old Testament, and Peter in the new. Both were seriously flawed, yet God used them, blessed them, and claimed them as his own. That’s good news for the likes of us.
What is so striking about Elijah’s fall, however, is the fact that he lost hope. Not only did Jezebel’s threats send him on the run, but when he was way out in the desert, far from the reach of his enemy, he simply curled up under a broom tree and asked God to turn out the lights. “It is enough; now, O LORD, take away my life, for I am no better than my ancestors.”1
Finished. No hope.
But then the LORD’s messenger came calling. Touching Elijah, he said, “Get up and eat.” There it was: a plate of hot food and a jug of water. He ate, drank, and went back to sleep, a classic case of deep depression.
The messenger came again: “Get up and eat,” he said. “Otherwise the journey will be too much for you.”
Elijah ate and drank again, but this time he started on his journey once more. His goal was Mt. Horeb – another name for Sinai – where God had rattled the stones with thunder and fire. Scripture doesn’t say so, but we can guess that Elijah was looking for a mountain big enough and hot enough to handle the likes of Jezebel.
After many days in the desert, he crept into a cave at Horeb and spent the night.
The next day? An audio conference with God.
“What are you doing here?” was the question.
“I’ve worked hard for you,” said Elijah. “But it’s no good. They’ve abandoned the covenant, destroyed your altars, killed your prophets. I’m the only one left and they’re trying to kill me.”
“Go out and stand on the mountain,” said the voice. “The LORD is about to pass by.”
A rock-splitting wind, an earthquake, a blazing fire – but Elijah sensed no presence of the LORD.
The NRSV description of what followed is tantalizing: “After the fire a sound of sheer silence.” Elijah knew the time had come. He wrapped himself in his mantle and went out to stand on the mountain.
He heard a voice with the same question as before, “What are you doing here?” Elijah’s answer was the same whimper as before.
The LORD didn’t argue. He simply said he had work for Elijah – three anointings: Jehu as king of Israel, Hazael as king of Aram, Elisha as Elijah’s successor. But then a comment: “You’re not alone. I still have 7000 who haven’t fallen for Baal.”
So Elijah went back to work.
Ellen White offers encouraging words here: “If, under trying circumstances, men of spiritual power, pressed beyond measure, become discouraged and desponding; if at times they see nothing desirable in life,” she writes, “this is nothing strange or new.... One of the mightiest of the prophets fled for his life before the rage of an infuriated woman.... But it was when hope was gone... that he learned one of the most precious lessons of his life. In the hour of his greatest weakness he learned the need and the possibility of trusting God under circumstances the most forbidding. – Prophets and Kings, 173
An experience of quite a different kind is also embedded in the Elijah narrative, the story of a great villain who also received a measure of grace. If Elijah was one of the greatest of prophets, Ahab was one of the most wicked of Israel’s kings. Indeed, the author of 1 Kings declared: “There was no one like Ahab, who sold himself to do what was evil in the sight of the LORD.”
Not surprisingly, that assessment immediately follows the report of Jezebel’s plot to kill innocent Naboth for his ancestral vineyard.
But when Ahab went down to inspect his new land, Elijah was there to meet him: “Have you killed, and also taken possession?” He queried.
“Have you found me, O my enemy?” retorted Ahab.
The verdict on Ahab and his house was a horrific one.
But then a surprise: Instead of striking out at Elijah, Ahab melted: “He tore his clothes and put sackcloth over his bare flesh; he fasted, lay in the sackcloth, and went about dejectedly.”
The LORD seemed as astonished as anyone. “Have you seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me?” he exclaimed to Elijah. “Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the disaster in his days; but in his son’s days.”
If his son had repented as thoroughly as Ahab, we have good reason to believe that there could have been another postponement. And another. And another. One of the most remarkable features of the Old Testament is that God “repents” more often that anyone else. Modern versions, like the NRSV are inclined to say that God “changed his mind” (e.g. Jonah 3:10). But the point is: when humans repent – even bad guys like Ahab – God changes his mind and grants grace.
In short, whether a good guy like Elijah wraps his mantel about him in chagrin, or a bad guy like Ahab clothes himself in sackcloth, God grants grace. For us, that has to be good news.
User login
Recent
- victor Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- WC Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- victor Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Rescued LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Defender of THE Faith Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Roger S The Dark Fantasy World of Walter Veith
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- George Tichy Pacific Union Conference Calls Special Constituency Meeting to Authorize Equality in Ordination
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
Newsletter
Organizations
Sat, 09/08/2012
|
San Diego Adventist Forum
Sigve Tonstad, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion, Loma Linda
University
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Good news, indeed, Alden. Ahab's house deserved punishment because of their history of murder and idolatry, but had Ahab's successors repented, as Ahab did, then they, too, would surely have been spared. Thank you for your analysis of these stories.
Alden,
As amazing as Ahab was Manasseh and 2 Chronicles 33:1-13. Upon one responding in repentance, Grace is truly amazing.
regards,
pat
Ah, vintage Alden that pleases me well. Super graphic language that describes a super graphic human experience. What really gets to me is how the Word from the Lord got through to a very worn-out man. Too often we look for the earrthquake and fire for evidence that God is blessing us--makes for good committee input to get the next motion passed! But Elijah is telling us that God's voice is in something far more personal and deeper than we can arrange. Those who have been through this kind of experience know exactly what I mean. The Jewish custom to this day in important events is to allow "the chair of Elijah" to be placed at the table--it'snot for our Jewish friends alone. Perhaps that was what Malachi (4:4-6) wanted us today to keep in mind
"before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord." Cheers, Herb
"..it's not for our Jewish friends alone. Perhaps that was what Malachi (4:4-6) wanted us today to keep in mind."
"before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord."
Inductive study: observe , interpret, APPLY
Many times EG WHite writes application at the end of chapers in the Conflict of the Ages volumes.
EG WHite writes a whole chapter on application of Elijah and the mantle for US in PK 177-189
Herb,
Have you ever written any article or book revealing the balanced/proper concept of grace?
I am seeing the evolution/corruption of the word being conformed to the antinomian trend of the modern church. There are at least 3 major aspects of grace and I am finding one being neglected BIG TIME !
The situation is so unfortunate and prevalent that I was surprised to hear even Ted Wilson mention the balanced concept at the Atlanata GC.
God's grace is a stumbling block to the law keepers. They are always trying to get God to be 'balanced'. God's grace is an offense only to the self righteous.
Fay,
Would you care to give us your unbalanced concept/defintion of God or grace?
Fay,
I suggest to some "balanced grace" must lead to perfection or it is "unbalanced"...and of course that fruitful display can only be recognized by a few "gate guarders."
That the grace of God in Christ which brings salvation and also instructs, to some, must be further honed to make the "true believer" totally complete "witihin" in the present.
"I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” Gal.2:21.
We by faith wait in expectation that we "will be" what we are now "considered to be" in Christ by "faith alone" at Christ's appearing. This Grace is indeed a stumbling block to the self satisfied appraiser of others.
regards,
pat
"They call themselves believers, but they are clearly doubters, skeptic, cynic....they are by nature stingy with the idea of God's love, and are among the first to scorn and demonize anyone who dares to present the Grace of God without 'the balance'. When Jesus gave up His life on the cross, He didn't say, "it is balanced."...LOL"
A quote this morning from my friend Toby Sapp
Elijah in the account of 1 Kings 1
By this time Elijah had single handedly trumped the king as well as the popular religious practices of Baal. He literally buried his opposition. Nobody would dare to question his credentials; he was untouchable possessing superhuman abilities, as to control even the weather by his word. To mess with Elijah was like challenging God.
In this account, as well as hardship of the famine, Elijah lost sight of the value of human life in hastily killing 100 men, creating many widows and orphans. God entrusted him with vast powers; yet he abused it with murder on the flimsily pretense of disrespect, unlike the abused meek Jesus.
I see in the life of Elijah, as Alen Thompson suggests, prophets are faulty. We cannot regard everything they do or teach as if stamped by Divinity. EGW failed to recognize her own humanity saying, “I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas…light shining from the throne” (5T 67). Such a claim is impossible.
Amazingly, in spite of flawed ideas and cultural influences, God uses prophets, pastors and teachers. He always has revealed himself to troubled individuals. God seems to be less concerned about perfection then we are in expecting our religious leaders to be flawless, unlike the rest of humanity. Elijah demonstrates that faulty prophets will be in heaven and defective individuals will be translated. This is good news for every sinner, saved by grace.
"That the grace of God in Christ which brings salvation and ALSO INSTRUCTS...., "
I knew we would finally tap a larger concept of grace...even if out of contention.
Here is a scripture clue:
2 Corinthians 12: 9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
Just "UNMERITED FAVOR" ?
Just mercy?
Just forgiveness?
Jim,
Regardless of our growth/sanctifiction "through instruction" and the indwelling Spirit our justification before God is " Just Unmerited/merciful/forgiveness" by the Grace found in Christ through "faith alone" who justifies the "ungodly."
"But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,Rom.4:5.
Now that is excellent news for sinners.
regards,
pat
A beautiful presentation of the Grace of God! My problem and concern is that even with such an expression of His kindness, His children in ancient Israel repented to a god of whom they were afraid; a god that would punish them for their rebellion even to the third and fourth generations. It was because of this erroneous concept of God, that He gave them the rituals,... ceremonials and, as we saw in last week's SS commentary, the detailed attire of the high priests. It would be a shame if we still cling to the sublime mercy of God but hold on to a god who uses his power to destroy or reward his children depending of their choices, and a god for whom the "shedding of blood" is necessary to ultimately grant pardon. That would miss the whole point of the reason He came to die.
Humberto
From my perspective I have trouble seeing many redeeming qualities in Elijah. He would have made better sense in a Muslim context, as a Bin Laden character on a jihad against the king of Saudi Arabia and other corrupt Muslim rulers. This is a man who pursues his religious vision with homicidal certainty, who taunts and kills in the name of God. Elijah is somebody I wouldn't care having on my side. It's a judgment with an anachronistic bent, but murdering people for their religious beliefs is not my cup of tea.
Another question altogether is whether he, like David, ever lived. Some of the greatest scandals in the OT, such as the massacres in the Torah and the Book of Joshua are literary events, not historical ones. But it is troubling that people back then thought that this was the way a true God would deal with people.
Aage
Another question altogether is whether he, like David, ever lived. Some of the greatest scandals in the OT, such as the massacres in the Torah and the Book of Joshua are literary events, not historical ones. Aage
They said the same thing about the Hittites until archeology proved that right too.
No, lack of archeological proof is no guarantee of your positions correctness.
Michael
"lack of archeological proof is no guarantee of your positions correctness."
But when archealogy "proves" the Bible it is accepted as proof.
Elaine
Michael
It's true that lack of proof is not the same as the existence of proof, but it can be a strong indicator. If archeologists are right that only 3000-5000 people lived in the highlands of Juda in the 10th century BC, there obviously could not be a Davidic-Solomonic kingdom emanating from Jerusalem. The double monarchy of David and Solomon, as described in the Bible, is a matter of faith, not history. The same goes for the Patriarchal age and the Exodus. They are literary events in the sense that they are not backed up by any supporting evidence. Like the story of King Arthur, these stories caught on but they don't intersect with history. Only faith can access them.
The Hittites were put in the same category by some people until their language and culture was excavated. With the Hittites we're dealing with the presence of proof, not its absence.
Aage
The Hittites were put in the same category by some people until their language and culture was excavated. With the Hittites we're dealing with the presence of proof, not its absence. Aage
Exactly. That is why it is far wiser and more intellectually honest to NOT say, "Some of the greatest scandals in the OT, such as the massacres in the Torah and the Book of Joshua are literary events, not historical ones." since one has no more historical proof for that position than the texts of ancient history provide.
It is speaking from silence, then interjecting what you think as if it was factual.
When people wrote down something they considered a fact but minor point that the intended audience would take for granted, like David is the King and the attacks of the Hittites, people never thought to not only write it down, but also inscribe big statues so that doubters thousands of years later would believe them.
Its really a silly POV. Someone writes a history and it comes down through the ages copy by copy and the non believers wont accept that, but if you had put it in some clay and fired it and then dug it up, then they would.
Whats the difference? The same words written by the same person, one on parchment, designed to be portable and reproducible and the other written in clay or carved in a rock.
I think its intellectually dishonest to say one is better than the other especially since it has been proven by accident with the dead sea scrolls that nothing has changed in the copies since then which would be the only intellectually honest argument one could make to favor the clay or stone inscription over the biblical accounts.
Michael
Michael
You can't compare the story of David to that of the Hittites. The Hittites are not only attested to in their own inscriptions and archeological sites but also described by the Egyptians who tangled with them for centuries. Here is what real history looks like when it makes it to Wikipedia:
"The Battle of Kadesh (also Qadesh) took place between the forces of the Egyptian Empire under Ramesses II and the Hittite Empire under Muwatalli II at the city of Kadesh on the Orontes River, in what is now the Syrian Arab Republic.[7] The battle is generally dated to 1274 BC.[8] It was probably the largest chariot battle ever fought, involving perhaps 5,000–6,000 chariots."
When it comes to King David and King Arthur all we have are stories but no history, no intersection with archeological dirt. For King David there is also the counter-indication of a population estimate of less than 5000 people in the Judean highlands. That doesn't automatically mean that the Biblical story is a legend; it just means that there is no evidence that he ever lived beyond the story itself.. You could argue the same for King Arthur's existence. Under any circumstance, these Biblical stories can only be accessed by faith. You would at least agree with that, wouldn't you?
Aage
This commentary is so precious and powerful. Thank you, Dr. Alden. God bless you.
Yes Aage
I would. Those few that remain unproven.
However, I would expect people to hold out the same lack of evidence to their non existence, so statements like "Some of the greatest scandals in the OT, such as the massacres in the Torah and the Book of Joshua are literary events, not historical ones." are just as unprovable as the point you are trying to make about King Aurthur.
Yet in your case you make that statement, and so matter of factly that seemingly one should just accept is as fact. That is the flavor of your statement.
I am just pointing out that in making the statement as you did, that statement is as unprovable and what you say King David is. In fact your statement is even less provable in that at a bare minimum, your contention is not thousands of years old as the bible accounts of David are, and who knew more about thousands of years ago? The ancient writers, writing much closer to the times of the actual events, or you, now?
BTW, my point with the Hittites is not post discovery of both their cities and the Egyptian references to them, my point is pre archeological discovery, where scoffers were making the same case against the Hittites you are making against David.
Michael
Michael
When I stated that the Book of Joshua stories are literary, not historical, I'm accurate. They have not been attested to historically. It doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't happen (although it seems clear that such is the case), only that there is no proof outside the text itself.
Jesus is also a literary character in the sense that we have no direct evidence that he ever lived. I think there is enough circumstantial evidence to assert with confidence that he did, but the evidence is strictly circumstantial (such as, how to explain Paul's ministry without a historical Jesus). That is the difference between Jesus and David: there is little circumstantial evidence--and quite a bit of contradictory evidence--to suggest that David is a historical person. The same goes for King Arthur, and, I would imagine, our friend Elijah.
Aage
Aage...
I simply see Michael saying that the Hittites were regarded by scholars as a mythical "not happening"... until archaeological proof showed up later. The same was said regarding Belshazzar, and that was overturned by later finds.
To me, Michael is making a reasonable argument that there should be a certain hesitance to speak in absolute terms from silence about the mythological nature of David, Solomon, accounts of massacres in the Torah, or the Exodus, in light of the fact that more historical evidence could still be unearthed proving otherwise...just as happened with the Hittites, etc.
Thanks...
Frank
After Carmel and after Ahab died...
2 Kings 1: 10 And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.
2 Kings 1: 12 And Elijah answered and said unto them, If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And the fire of God came down from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.
2 Kings 1: 13 And he sent again a captain of the third fifty with his fifty. And the third captain of fifty went up, and came and fell on his knees before Elijah, and besought him, and said unto him, O man of God, I pray thee, let my life, and the life of these fifty thy servants, be precious in thy sight.
Double portion:
2 Kings 2: 23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2 Kings 2: 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
Frank
I don't have any problems with that, in principle.
Where the analogy with the Hittites breaks down is that when it comes to the age of the Patriarchs, the Exodus and the Conquest there are actually a lot of counter indications. For instance, when it comes to the Conquest of Palestine, the archeological record tells a completely different story, one of habitation rather than disruption and invasion. There is no archeological record of an invasion that overran Palestine. Its unlikeliness is increased by the fact that It would have had to happed at a time when Palestine was garrisoned by Egyptian troops, since Egypt was solidly in control of Palestine during the Bronze Age. An army of escaped slaves would have run smack into the Egyptian army in Palestine. The cities destroyed by Joshua, Jericho and Ai, in addition, had demonstrably been destroyed before the supposed date of the Conquest. The list of counter indicators is long.
I suppose I could have qualified my remarks by saying that from a strictly archeological/historical point of view the events of the Book of Joshua never took place. Could it happen that later archeologists, digging deeper or working with better methods, will uncover the reality described in the OT? Could Solomon's temple emerge from the mists of myth at the end of a shovel? Although I hold that to be a very remote possibility, it is, in principle, possible. Science, unlike religion, is a self-correcting process that often forces us to revise our current conclusions.
Aage
Seems like the old canard keeps surfacing when "faith" is discussed. The conflict happens when faith is translated as "belief" when the Greek word used throughout the NT is "pistis"--trust, willing obedience to one that can be trusted, etc. I don't merely believe my wife, I trust her (a far different way to live in the same house). Abraham is not remembered for the fact that he "believed" God but because He had "faith" in Him--he knew enough about God that led to his trust--even to killing his teen-age son! NT faith, as Luther said, is a linkage of trust in what happened on the Cross and the trust that God will indeed give him power to resist the devil. In other words, faith comes with two hands, the grace of pardon and the grace of power. Salvation, in Greek, can be translated "healing." Faith is our response that means being born again is more than being forgiven for that doesn't yet heal the danage done by sin; Our salvation involves the whole body, --physically, mentally, socially and spiritually--in other words, salvation is the healing, the restoration, of all that has been affected by sin.
On a related mater, "perfection" is another misused word depending on one's presupposition. Perfection is not a requirement--it's God telling us that "I can completely heal the damage done by sin--and all I ask is your faith--your trust that I can do what I promise. Sounds like a remarkable offer to me. What arout you? Cheers, Herb
Herb,
Your getting close to "meeting Him." Perfect yet or have you had enough faith/trust? :>)
Cheers!
pat
The chronology of Bronze and Iron Age Palestine is not a straightforward matter - it is vigorously debated by archaeologists and other scholars. The problem with Aage's account is that it implies greater unanimity than is actually the case to current scholarship, when in fact there are scholars who hold views that would be compatible with those presented in the OT. It's not a case of "scholarship says this" and "the Bible says that", so "choose ye this day ..." - no question that current scholarly analysis, as a whole, does not support the Biblical narratives but there is complexity and disagreement. And there is evidence supportive of the OT presentation of Israelite history, as well as against it.
Archeological evidence against literary interpretation of some biclical stories is only one thing.
But would you really like to worship a God that creates the world and then "regrets" what he had done and wipes out almost all living things - most of them absolutely innocent? Someone who orders an invasion on an inhabited area and orders all men to be slaughtered and virgins raped? Someone who wipes thousands of priests just because they got God's name and some liturgical practice wrong? Someone who sends bears to gruesomely maim children?
To me those are quite strong indicators that most of the Bible is not to be taken literally. Doing so strips it of any spiritual authority.
.To me those are quite strong indicators that most of the Bible is not to be taken literally. Doing so strips it of any spiritual authority. Jag
Or, those stories are from a people who thought of themselves as directed by God to do all that they did, but need to be understood as a society that was/is a product of geography and culture just like everybody else around them. This, in no way, diminishes the impact of a man who died and rose on the third day. And yes, you can still believe in Christ without legitimizing the torturous culture he was born into; and accessed in his teachings; one which he, too, condemned.
Yes, David you are absolutely correct.
While a post-graduate student at Newbold College many years ago, I was blessed to have Eduardo Martinez teach me Biblical Archaeology. As we traversed past many of the ancient biblical sites in our studies we were amazed to find Velakopsky's conflated ancient chronology to be rather useful in helping the various bible stories fit more accurately within their ancient context. I particularly remember how the biblical narrative of the fall of Jericho fits much more neatly alongside a different Egyptian dynasty than is regularly proposed.
I well remember also trawling through the archaeological reports of the findings at Ebla. I actually was able to redate these findings much more closely to the commonly accepted date for the Abrahamic narrative.
Look Michael and Aage,
This argument is getting no where. Who cares if there is proof or there is no proof. The only question that needs answering is whether you believe in the one true God, the God of heaven and of earth, the God who sent His Son to die for YOU and for me. I for one am going to take Him at His Word that these events happened. God made it clear to us in the Bible when events in there did not happen (e.g. prophecy that was going to eventually happen and Jesus' parables which He made clear were stories). So if there is an account given which INCLUDES the lineage of Jesus (as it does in Joshua because you'll find in Matthew 1 that Rahab married Salmon so obviously Rahab was real and did get rescued from Jericho and became a follower of God), actually if there is any account God has given us that He does not specify is 'just a story' then I for one am going to take the almighty creator of the universe at His Word.
Sorry for that rant, but you're arguing over such silly things. You either believe God or you don't.
Jess
Herb,
Thanks for posting the balanced concept of grace.
To any reader.
Since the GOSPEL is the good news of God's GRACE..
Acts 20: 24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD.
Romans 1: 16 For I am not ashamed of the GOSPEL of Christ: for it is the POWER of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Then if one does NOT understand, embrace, or present the true concept of GRACE..then this follows
Galatians 1: 9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other GOSPEL unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
and then one is not equipped to do this..
Revelation 14: 6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting GOSPEL to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
and , since we are SAVED by GRACE, then salvation is impacted.
Ephesians 2: 8 For by GRACE are ye SAVED through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
How significant is this point? Well, the SS quarterly has to do with GRACE.
and 99% of Christianity is deceived by those who TRASH the 4th commandment.
How many SDA are deceived with a FALSE GOSPEL because they are taught a false concept of GRACE?
For instance, when it comes to the Conquest of Palestine, the archeological record tells a completely different story, one of habitation rather than disruption and invasion. There is no archeological record of an invasion that overran Palestine. Its unlikeliness is increased by the fact that It would have had to happed at a time when Palestine was garrisoned by Egyptian troops.....Aage
It depends on what you obviously want to believe Aage. The "conquest" rather than "habitation" of Palestine is expressed in the Archeological record how? Destruction of cities? The bible records Jericho and it also records that after the power demonstrated, city states were tripping all over themselves to make peace with the Israelites, some to the extent of trickery! So no widespread archeological marks of conquest to BEGIN with.
If someone went and "conquered" a bunch of Bedouins how would that be expressed in the archeological record? You find a broken tent pole and some camel hair tent fabric and then make wild assumptions on if the owner of the tent has been "conquested" or "Invaded" or if it was merely a giant sand storm that broke the tent, blew it away and buried it in the sand?
Again, you argue from silence and assumption on the meaning of the things that are discovered.
Solomons temple among them. If you have read much of middle east archeology, it is sometimes difficult to gain a cogent sense of understanding about things from the fact that these people were not dumb. They often used old materials in the construction of something new. Buildings that were damaged by any number of causes could either be repaired, discarded and their materials made into a new building next door or across town or if it suited their needs better at the time, a perimeter retaining wall from the previously used materials would be built and the rest thrown in as backfill to create a new larger terrace for whatever entirely new building was to be built on top of it.
All of these things happened on the temple mount and even if large scale digs were done, the mishmash of construction and re construction would yield little more than the areas long held, multiple faith history reveals about the multiple temples that were all built on this same site.
As to the Egyptians having garrisons in Palestine, the loss of the Egyptian army sent to recapture the Israelites was still fresh in their minds. That and they were no doubt aware of the sense other nations and city states had at that time. That of "Make peace with the Israelites at any cost" and your theory goes out the window.
Michael
I was at Jericho ruins with HMS Richards many years ago. He clearly stated that the customary date of its destruction was "off" approximately a thousand years and that it could not have occurred when the Bible recorded it.
There are so many new discoveries continuing to be made in Palestine (BAR is one of the best sources) that even with the finding of the inscription of the House of David there is nothing that has left a trace of the palatial palace of Solomon, his thousands of chariots, and the fanciful tale of his achievements. We must realize that like the Greeks in their histories, the Hebrews were know for their hyperbole when writing their own accomplishments. The wonder is why the first is roundly rejected as only being a glorified account and the other as completely and factually correct. One places his faith where he chooses and it is not based on incontroverble evidence but is learned from childhood. After all, Home's epics would take days to recite and there were some, like the Hebrew faithful, who could recite similarly their ancient tales. The ability to recite does not mean they were true. Actors can recite from memory entire plays of Shakespeare, which has nothing to do with their literally being true.
Elaine
"...HMS Richards many years ago. He clearly stated.."
Sr or Jr?
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/06/09/the-walls-of-jericho.asp...
Michael
Michael
I doubt very much that the AU archeology people would agree with your fundamentalist website. Nobody believes that the Bible's Jericho story has been uncovered by archeologist. In general conservatives content themselves with hoping that the Bible one day will be vindicated, or that the evidence is too scant to form an absolute judgment, but nobody this side of Ark chasers share these people's view. It would be interesting to hear what Dr Geraty's evaluation of the evidence might be.
To Alden Thompson's and other people's certain despair we've run his meditation off the tracks, and I apologize for that.
Aage
There have been at least H.M.S. Richards. HMS Richards, Jr, who began the Voce of Prophecy in the 40's was the one to which I was referring. He was Jr., and his son became Jr., on his grandfather's death. I believe HMS. Richards, Jr. is also deceased. Elder Richards and his oldest child, Virginia Cason, often put together tours and I have been on several. The one I was referring to was one of the most intellectual SDA evangelists and we never saw him without a book in his hand--all genres. No one has replaced him. that compares to his caliber.
Elaine
So would you say Aage, that those archeological teams faked their soil cross sections or any of the rest of their data? Or do you just want to disagree with the findings?
Michael
Michael
I'd like to see their research written up in a journal that deals in archeological research. The great thing about scientific journals is that they peer review articles. They don't print articles about eroded dinosaur tracks in Paluxy being human footprints before checking with experts in the field. This field is overrun with charlatans. Since I'm not an archeologist, I'm totally dependent on the expertise and judgment of those who are. So if a credible journal published this sensational discovery--and I would even settle for an Andrews University publication--I'd be all eyes and ears. The reason why you don't see any SDA academics jump in her and back you up is that they're not willing to surrender their integrity to score an apologetic point. At least, that's my contention--and challenge. Start calling them up, Michael and tell me what they say.
Aage
Aage,
On the one hand you say you are guided by the "experts" in their field and yet you say,
"Nobody believes that the Bible's Jericho story has been uncovered by archeologist. In general conservatives content themselves with hoping that the Bible one day will be vindicated, or that the evidence is too scant to form an absolute judgment, but nobody this side of Ark chasers share these people's view."
Thats a pretty all encompassing statement and doesn't sound to be based on any "experts" findings.
If the data is true and the layers are as they say then it sounds like it might have some merit.
I have an interest in Archeology so I subscribe to 3-4 different journals. I have checked up on many Jericho accounts and the strongest findings I have seen currently about this particular site is that it does sound an awfully lot alike the bible account but they contend that it isnt "Jericho" in the bible account.
They fall back on that since they haven't uncovered a big plaque that says, "Here lies the ruins of Jericho."
As a matter of fact and not faith, I tend to take the biblical account. One reason is, can you imagine the sensation that would be made if archeology was able to prove the bible wrong?
And yet we have never heard that either have we?
Michael
Michael
You come close to arguing that Biblical archeology of the scientific kind is a conspiracy against the truth. You imply that archeologists actually know that the Biblical Jericho story is true but that they don't dare say so or don't want to say so for some reason. This is essentially what creationists imply about evolutionists: they know that the creationists are right but they hate God so much that they'd rather lie about the matter.
I see no reason why you shouldn't continue to read the Book of Joshua the way you always have. I accept the fact that people, in faith, take the Bible's various stories as factually true. All I'm saying is that this paper truth is not written in the dirt of Palestine, as far as scientific archeology is concerned. Even your magazines seem to say as much (I these are no doubt conservative publications, to boot.)
Aage
Not true Aage, I just resist arguments from silence that are offered up as objective truth. If one was to put it in the simplest terms possible it might be represented like this.
Times archeology has proven the bible wrong = 0
Times the bible has proven archeologists arguing from silence wrong =Many.
You pick the side that is batting zero and I pick the side batting .300 plus. We are both happy with our positions, which is fine, but lets not suggest the score isn't what it IS.
Michael
" can you imagine the sensation that would be made if archeology was able to prove the bible wrong?
And yet we have never heard that either have we?"
If that was TIC, it will fly; otherwise, one of the best sources for "proving the Bible wrong" is Finklestein"s "The Bible Unearthed." This would prove an excellent exercise for testing one's perception that the BIble is accurate and true in every detail. Argue with the experts.
Elaine
Michael
Ok, we agree to disagree. That's no problem. As for the contention that the argument from 'silence' is never any good, I would argue that it can often be very telling. For instance, archeologists point out that one of the few cultural differences they can point to between those who occupied the Palestinian highlands and the dwellers on the plain, was the consumption of pork. There are no traces of pig bones to be found in the Jewish highlands, from the earliest times onward. That particular 'silence' speaks loudly about the fact that a separate culture was developing in the highlands.
Or take the Book of Mormon. The fact that not a single Nephite campfire, let alone walled city, has been found in the Great Lakes Area (or anywhere else, for that matter), as stipulated by the Book of Mormon, is an argument from silence that speaks loudly to everybody except Mormons. The problem with the argument from silence is that those who have a vested interested in not hearing it, don't. Everybody else does.
Aage
God changing his mind....mmmmmm let's see. Where have we read of that before?
The gods change their minds often in ancient literatures. The Iliad gives numerous examples of dialogue between the gods, and between gods and humans. We get to see the reasoning and impulses behind the behavior. It is probably true to say that when large scale events such as wars occur in human history, the outcome can be safely attributed to actions of the gods. In this sense, God or the gods remain all-powerful, able to change their minds or influence human life at will, and this becomes a mark of divinity and the explanation of everything that occurs.
Is the Bible the same? Yes and No. Yahweh, the relational and emotional God of the OT, frequently changes his mind. He "repents," as Alden emphasizes, but he doesn't need human repentance first in order to do so. He can be jealous and compassionate, exhibiting the full range of human feelings. He is a god who exhibits great favoritism, but is often persuadable. The Psalms are full of this belief--otherwise why would anyone ever pray to God for help? Sometimes, as in the story of Elijah, this favoritism or tendency to relent (see also Yahweh's discussions with Abraham or Jonah) looks like the NT conception of "grace". No doubt there is continuity, as the NT writers interpreted the events of Jesus life with the OT in the back of their thoughts.
What is the difference from the Greek narratives? First of all, fate. Fate often exists as something beyond the reach of both Gods and humans. I don't think we see the OT writers appealing to blind fate or a sense of inevitability. Second, a righteous life holds some power of persuasion in the OT. God is more likely to hear the prayers of the righteous and to ignore those of the wicked.
The belief that God or the gods could be moved or persuaded by human appeal or good behavior must have been very comforting to humans who felt powerless before the violent forces of nature, foreign armies, or an acute conscience. It is on the way to grace in the NT sense of "unmerited favor" but it is not the same thing at all.
Graeme
There are contrasts and similarity between the pagan gods and the Hebrew God. Fate exists in the Greek stories just as in the Hebrew. Was the flood not fate for al those who perished? How was that not inevitable and God's decision, just as the gods of the Greeks acted without consulting humans? One can always find dissimilarities but every culture has those. What historians find interesting are the many similar comparisons.
Elaine
To suggest that archaeologists are a society of those who agree on any position is simply erroneous.
The BAR is the favorite journal of biblical archeology and there are almost always experts arguing opposing positions; accusations of forgery and more. But to believe that they are engaged in disproving the Bible is ludicrous. In the mid nineteenth century there were those who first began explorations there with the objective of proving the Bible was historically accurate. Preconceived biases were then the position as they were more eager to prove the Bible's literality and ignored any opposing findings. Today, there are far too many experts with the various universities in Israel. My son
was fortunate to spend two summers on "digs" with the BAR and Gabriel Bakar and other well-known archaeologists. Thousands of hours of painstaking work may often be fruitless. It becomes even more a thankless task when armchair "experts" wish to dispute their findings. Would you, as a layman, dispute your medical specialist without fully exploring her diagnosis? Fools rush in.....
Elaine
Elaine
I think you missed the point I made.
In the Greek stories, both humans and gods are beholden to Fate. That is not true in the OT, and certainly not in the Flood story, which is God's chosen considered action. Consequences and events are also seen in the OT as the result or curses or blessings--stemming from obedience or disobedience--or or as the fulfillment of divine promises, but not as inevitable.
The closest language we have to this sense of Fate today would be "Nature..." as in when we deplore Nature's ways for bringing death to thousands in an earthquake or tsunami.
Graeme
Its like you read my mind! You appear to know so much about this, like you wrote the book in it or ieomthsng. I think that you can do with some pics to drive the message home a little bit, but other than that, this is fantastic blog. An excellent read. I'll certainly be back.
Add your comment