Commentary: The Common and The Simple

 The Common and The Simple

 

The teacher's section of our quarterly makes the following statement:

 

In 1972, journalist David Halberstam published The Best and the Brightest, a book on the architects of U.S. policy in Vietnam in the early 1960s. The title of Halberstam's book referred to the fact that these individuals had received the best education in the best institutions of higher learning, and most had achieved—prior to their involvement in the emerging U.S. Vietnam strategy—notable successes and triumphs in business, govern­ment, and academia. Why then, Halberstam asked, did the policies they formulated and put into place prove to be disastrous?

 

If you look at biblical history, God rarely chooses the "best and the brightest." And when the "best and the brightest" do stumble into the sacred story, they often prove not to be so bright and good after all. Examples include King Saul, Judas, and Solomon. His best servants often don't start out so well. Moses committed murder on impulse, fled into the desert, and tried to talk his way out of his mission. Jonah fled in the opposite direction to avoid confronting his own fear and bigotry. Paul was a persecutor and an enabler of mob violence.  King David was a shepherd.  The prophet Amos was a farmer.  Many of the Apostles were fishermen.  They were not exactly the best and brightest.  They were common and simple people. 

 

Was Aaron any different?  He was very likely a former slave just like the rest of the Israelites.  Aaron was given many privileges and gifts.  Aaron was right there with Moses from the start (Exod. 4:27–30); Aaron was Moses' spokesman before Pharaoh (Exod. 7:1); Aaron cast down the rod that became a serpent (vs. 10); Aaron smote the waters that turned to blood (vs. 20); and Aaron was part of a select few who were able to approach the Lord in a very special way (Exod. 24:9, 10). In short, the man had been given privileges that few in history ever had, and yet, when a great test came, he failed miserably.  Let us read the story,

 

Exodus 32 

¹ When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, "Come, make us gods^[a] who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him."

 ² Aaron answered them, "Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me."

³ So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron.

⁴ He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, "These are your gods,^[b] Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt."

 ⁵ When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, "Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD."

⁶ So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.

 

We see how Aaron messed up, big time.  But here's the amazing thing, God not only forgave Aaron his sin, the Lord eventually allowed Aaron to wear the sacred garments as the covenant nation's first high priest, a type for the high priestly ministry of Jesus Himself (Heb. 8:1). In other words, although Aaron was guilty of a terrible sin himself, he was also the recipient of God's redeeming grace; grace so great that it not only forgave him but allowed Aaron to assume a sacred office that, at its core, is all about God's grace and mercy and forgiveness. Thus, Aaron's life is a spe­cial example of mercy and redemption available to all in Christ.  But, now Aaron could sympathize with others who like him were not the best and the brightest and would err as he did. 

We too are chosen of God.  None of us are the "best and brightest." And if we are, it's only because the standards are so low.  God's royal priesthood is made up of repentant sinners and recovering "best and brightest" who realize that they need the garments of Christ's grace and righteousness. 

 

Commentary: Carnal versus Spiritual

Carnal versus Spiritual

Many brothers and sisters refer to the contemporary church as spiritual Israel as opposed to literal Israel.  The idea is that the promises made to the Biblical Kingdom of Israel which they call literal - now applies to the modern church, which although is not an actual kingdom with political structure and dominion of land.  In other words, the modern church be the recipients of the fulfillments of these promises.  Spiritual Israel, they argue, is not united by land and politics but by a Spiritual bond, hence Spiritual Israel.  This arguments, however, has terrible flaws.   One of which is that not all of the Kingdom of Israel were Israel (Romans 9:6); only those who live by faith were Israel.  This is still true today.  Only those who live by faith are Israel.  To say that the modern church at large is Israel is a lie, since we know that many do not live by faith. 

Now, the word literal can mean real, but the opposite of literal is figurative, fictional or symbolic, not spiritual.  The collective of modern believers is not fictional or symbolic; it is as real as it was in the past.  It is however, a spiritual collective; always have been and always will be.  In the Bible the opposite of spiritual is carnal.  The word carnal refers to things of the flesh.  Carnal are those who do not live by faith.  Carnal Israel would have been those who although subjects of the territorial domain of the Kingdom of Israel they did not live by faith.  It is still true today. 

One of the most evident characteristic of carnal believers is contention and division (1 Corinthians 2).  We see this in the disciples.  They were always arguing about who would be the greatest in the kingdom (Mark 9:34).  The Corinthians Church is another example.  Paul tackles every contention they have in 1 Corinthians.  This was not new.  Even in the infancy of the Kingdom of Israel carnality showed it ugly face.  Joseph's brothers were carnal.  Joseph and his father were Spiritual.   Contrasting Joseph with the his other brothers Ellen White says,

"There was one, however, of a widely different character—the elder son of Rachel, Joseph, whose rare personal beauty seemed but to reflect an inward beauty of mind and heart. Pure, active, and joyous, the lad gave evidence also of moral earnestness and firmness. He listened to his father's instructions, and loved to obey God. "—Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 209.

Paul says the carnal is always at war with the Spiritual (Roman 8: 6-8).  So, as disconcerting as it sounds, it should be no surprise that Joseph's brothers hated Joseph; even to the point of wanting to kill him (Genesis 37: 18).    The Bile says that he who hates in his heart is a murderer (1 John 3:15).  Ellen White describes the incident when they saw Joseph coming toward them.  Notice the contrast between Joseph and the brothers,

"Joseph, unsuspicious of what was to befall him, approached his brethren with gladness of heart to greet them after his long, wearisome journey. His brothers rudely repulsed him. He told them his errand, but they answered him not. Joseph was alarmed at their angry looks. . . . They accused him of hypocrisy. As they gave utterance to their envious feelings, Satan controlled their minds, and they had no sense of pity, and no feelings of love for their brother. They stripped him of his coat of many colors that he wore, which was a token of his father's love, and which had excited their envious feelings."—Ellen G. White, The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1, pp. 128, 129.

The Church of the day conspired to kill, abducted and sold as a slave own of their own.  To cover their crime they lied and deceived their father – the church pastor.   We are not beyond doing what these brethren did.  We, in fact, do it in our hearts.  Given the right circumstance and opportunity we would do the same or worse.  The Holy Spirit is trying to show us what we are capable of, before it turns into action.  It would behoove us to heed now.  Ignoring Him now will only make things worse for us and others. 

--
Raul Diaz
www.wolfsoath.com

Commentary: The Test

The Test

 

There are different kinds of test, therefore there are different definitions.  In the context of education (perhaps the most popular one) it is a series of questions, problems, or physical responses designed to determine knowledge, intelligence, or ability.  Another popular one is the medical test, which is a kind of medical procedure performed to detect, diagnose, or evaluate disease, disease processes, susceptibility, and determine a course of treatment.  Other definitions are very similar to these.  For example, in quality control and quality assurance it is a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, esp. before it is taken into widespread use.  In chemistry, it can be a procedure employed to identify a substance or to reveal the presence or absence of a constituent within a substance.   Sometimes the word test is used to define an event or situation that reveals the strength or quality of someone or something by putting them under strain.  This last definition is used in many circles to define events in life that are stressful in nature and that reveal our character. 

 

Implied in testing is the anticipation of expected results.  For example, we know whether the student being tested passed or failed depending on their answers.  We expect certain answers.  It is similar in other kinds of testing.  For example, pregnancy tests are designed to detect a hormone in the woman's urine that would only be present if the woman is pregnant.  Depending on the kind of test the results may show up as a line, a color, or a symbol such as a "+" or "-" sign. (Digital tests produce the words "pregnant" or "not pregnant.")

 

We read in Genesis 2: 15 -17,

 

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

This was to be a test.  You see, unbeknown to Adam, the Son of God was embroiled in a great cosmic conflict with Satan over good and evil. Satan put God on trial. If Satan could have one try at tempting Adam and Eve, they would put God to shame. God does not forcibly push Satan aside in front of all the cosmic intelligences.

God grew "the tree of life" and "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" "in the midst of the garden" (Gen. 2:9). Since God is only good, the source of evil for the tree of knowledge was the serpent (Gen. 3:1).

Satan asserts that holy beings,--both angels and man--do not need to obey God's law. "He [the rebel] reiterated his claim that angels needed no control, but should be left to follow their own will, ...  He denounced the divine statutes as a restriction of their liberty, and declared that it was his purpose to secure the abolition of law; ... Satan has continued with men the same policy which he pursued with the angels" (The Great Controversy, pp. 499, 500).

In order to disprove Satan's charges God needs Adam and Eve,--in their innocence of the cosmic conflict,--to make the right choice "not [to] eat of it," i.e., the tree, for "thou shalt surely die" (Gen. 2:17). Their unfettered love for the God of all truth will lead them to worship and obey Him alone.

It was a simple test.  It was a transparent test.  Implied in it for the whole universe was the anticipation of an expected result.  There will be no doubts either way the testers go.  You cannot say God manipulated the process or the results.  Either they ate or not. Either they believed God or believed Satan.  Either Adam chooses to love God above all or Eve above all.    Ellen White says that "The sinless pair wore no artificial garments; they were clothed with a covering of light and glory, such as the angels wear.  So long as they lived in obedience to God, this robe of light continued to enshroud them" (Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 45).  So, if they obeyed they would still have the light covering, but if not they would lose it. 

It is the same for us.  Who will we believe?  Who will we choose?  Mankind has not been placed in the same circumstances as Adam and Eve, but we have been given the same standing.  Our sins are forgiven through the blood of Calvary's cross and we are given these hours of probation in which to choose which side we shall take in the great controversy.  We may choose to accept and wear the robe of Christ's righteousness to cover our nakedness.  Yet as free moral agents we are also free to reject it.  Apart from that robe of perfect righteousness, the covering from the supernatural source, we shall be ashamed at His coming when we shall have no choice but to stand in our inadequate robes of self-righteousness.  By God's grace let choose the gift of righteousness now.

"A Garment of Innocence"