“Daniel and Esther Head for the City”

Christians living in a modern secular, urban culture constantly face the challenge of knowing how to relate to cultural issues:  Shall we adapt or resist?  And can we adapt without risking dangerous compromise?  From Scripture we can better understand the biblical alternatives by reflecting on the lives of Daniel and his friends, on the one hand, and Esther, on the other.  What we learn is that sometimes we must stand firm and sometimes we must adapt.  When and how we make which choice is something that the church and each member of the church must seek through prayer and Bible study.

Alden Thompson:  BA (1965), Walla Walla College; MA (1966) and BDiv (1967 = MDiv), Andrews University; PhD (1975), University of Edinburgh

Alden Thompson is currently professor of biblical studies at Walla Walla University. He has been a faculty member at WWC since 1970. From 1972 to 1974, he was on college-sponsored doctoral study leave at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. In 1980-81 he was an exchange teacher at Marienhöhe Seminary in Darmstadt, Germany. After serving as WWC academic vice president for four years (1986-90), he returned to full-time teaching in the School of Theology.

An ordained minister in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Thompson is a graduate of Walla Walla College (BA 1965) and Andrews University (MA 1966; BDiv 1967). Before joining the faculty at WWC, he pastored in Southeastern California (1967-1970). He received his doctorate in Old Testament and Judaic Studies from the University of Edinburgh in 1975. His dissertation, Responsibility for Evil in the Theodicy of IV Ezra was published by Scholars Press in 1977.

He is in frequent demand as a speaker and seminar presenter. His primary interests are the Bible, especially the Old Testament, Ellen White studies, “Inspiration,” and Adventist History. He has written extensively for Adventist publications.

Pastor Edwards continues his series in the Gospel of Mark. Today’s passage takes us to the story of Herod and his illegitimate wife Herodius’ response to the preaching of the gospel by John the Baptist. They listen to the [still modern] voices of ease and image and in doing so silence the Word of God.

Questions for discussion (from Good Word Online):

What do we know about Isaiah with regard to his background and ministry as a prophet?

Basic facts of his life may be gleaned not only from Isaiah itself but also 2 Kings 18:13-20, 21.
His father was a certain Amoz.  He was born most likely in Jerusalem around 760 B.C.  He received his call in the year that King Uzziah died (Isaiah 6:1).  He refers to his wife curiously as “prophetess” (Isaiah 8:3).  His ministry extended over about forty years during the reigns of Uzziah, Jothan, Ahaz, and Hezekiah and the last reference to him is Hezekiah appeal to him when Sennacherib was threatening Jerusalem (ca. 701 B.C.).  His easy access to the king and the court suggests that he belonged to the aristocracy.  Since his call came to him in the temple it is possible that he was a priest. A legend has it that he was put to death by being sawed in half.  It is impossible to substantiate.

How is Isaiah’s call particularly striking?  What is unique about it?

He had a profound sense of his unworthiness when given the vision of God which was responded to by purification with a live coal from the alter.  When God called him his response was free and unconditional.  Perhaps the burning coal pressed to his mouth not only served as a means of cleansing, but also as an intimation of the burning messages he would have to deliver to Israel.

What sort of character did Isaiah display with regard to his commitment to God’s call?

In his reference to his wife as prophetess and also to his giving of symbolic names to his two sons as a part of his prophecy to Israel one can see that his whole family were a part of his ministry.  His adamant rejection of Ahaz’ alliance with Syria was not politically motivated but based on his deep conviction that faith in God was a sufficient basis for protection.  He was fearless in the presence of power and consistent in his messages.

What were the great themes of his messages?

We find that he focused particularly on God’s sovereignty (Isaiah 2:8, 18, 20-21) and holiness (Isaiah 6:3).  He saw human sin for its moral depravity for which sacrifices could not atone without repentance (Isaiah 1:11-15).  The only remedy for humankind’s selfishness and self-reliance is faith in Yahweh: “If you will not believe, you will not be established” (Isaiah 7:9).  In spite of punishment for all the unfaithfulness of Israel he names one of his sons Shear-Jashub which expressed the promise that “A remnant will return” (Isaiah 7:3).  Greatest of all for us are his messianic prophecies, especially Isaiah 42 (Which Jesus explicitly applies to himself) and Isaiah 53.

Questions for discussion (from Good Word Online):

• What do we know about Philip the Apostle?
• What do we know about Philip the Evangelist?  What gifts did he bring to his ministry?  How do the two Philips compare?

Questions for discussion (from Good Word Online):

• What can we know about Daniel’s family background and early formative circumstances of his life?
• What do we know about Daniel that helps us understand him as an agent of hope?
• Daniel obviously played a role in the palaces of two world empires as an advisor and a governor, but how should we primarily characterize him with regard to his spiritual role in relation to his people the Jews? as a wise man, an apocalyptic visionary, a prophet?
• Although he was an amazing recipient of God’s power to interpret dreams and to reveal events of salvation history far in advance of their occurrence, what limitations in knowledge and understanding with regard to Israel’s future did he struggle with?  How is this relevant for us? See his struggle in Dan 9 with the “seventy years” prophecy.
• What should be the role of prophecy in our spiritual lives?  Is prophecy given at one juncture of history iron clad in its fulfillment, or can God change the game-plan when circumstances change?

Questions for discussion (from Good Word Online):

What was the social standing of women in the first century A.D. among Jews?  What legal rights did they have if any?

First of all, from the perspective of human nature in general the woman as mother will usually have the love and respect of her family.  She births the children, feeds and nurtures them, cares for her husband, etc., and for the most part is loved and honoured in return.  However, whenever a society is under military and/or economic pressure, the weaker members usually suffer the most.  Also, in certain societies due to long established views and customs women often fare worse than in others.
We find that in Judaism at the turn of the millennium from B.C. to A.D. both theology and practice did not favour women.  Jesus the son of Sirach, a wisdom writer around 200 B.C. wrote the following advice in Sirach 42, a book of the Apocrypha:

12  Do not look upon any one for beauty,  and do not sit in the midst of women;  13  for from garments comes the moth,  and from a woman comes woman’s wickedness.  14  Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good;  and it is a woman who brings shame and disgrace.

Generally Jewish women could not receive an education, she could be divorced but could not divorce.  She was under her husband’s authority until he died and then under her eldest son’s authority if she had one.  It is most likely that Jesus’ prohibition against divorce was primarily motivated to protect women from the liberal branch of Hillel’s theology which allowed a man to divorce his wife for any cause (see Mat 19:3).

What evidence do we have of how the gospel related to social customs and taboos in Jesus’ ministry to and relations with women?

As with all people who were religiously and socially marginalized by misfortune, ethnic background, or tabooed behavior, Jesus’ relations with women were compassionate.  The Samaritan woman at the well is a salient example (John 4).  The account of his forgiveness of the woman caught in adultery was subsequently so offensive that most ancient manuscripts left it out (See John 7:53-8:11). His treatment of a woman of ill-repute in Luke 7:36-49 went beyond granting her forgiveness.  He scandalized his host in allowing her to touch him by anointing and kissing his feet and wiping them with her hair.  In John 11:1 the Mary there is identified as the one who anointed Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair.  John records that Jesus had special love for her, Martha and their brother Lazarus.  Furthermore, as a Jewish teacher (Rabbi) Jesus would have been regarded as completely unconventional and out of place in having women followers (Mat 27:55, Luke 23:49, 55).

What evidence does the New Testament give about women in worship?

While women in general are prohibited from speaking publically in worship contexts in 1 Cor 14:34-36 and 1 Tim 2:9-15, it is hard to imagine that this was practiced in Philippi where the church was made up exclusively of women at a place of prayer by the river (Acts 16:13, 16).  The arguments given in 1 Tim 2:9-15 for women being silent in church raise more problems themselves, both in terms of reason as well as a plain reading of the temptation account in Genesis 3.  Furthermore, we find in 1 Cor 11:2-16 that a woman should cover her head when she prays or prophecies. Was this at public or private worship?  The text does not say.
Why the general exclusion of women’s public participation in worship?  Were the cultural norms too strong for Christianity to change them yet?  Is this general exclusion of women from participating actively in worship motivated by a desire to avert misunderstanding by outsiders?  In pagan contexts men were the active participants in worship. Apart from priestesses and temple prostitutes, women either stayed at home or silently accompanied their husbands.  In synagogue worship women sat at the back, often unseen behind a curtain.

What is the evidence in the New Testament about women in ministry?

In Acts 9:36 a woman, Tabitha by name, was referred to as a ‘disciple,’ a term that apart from this instance is exclusively restricted to men. What may this have implied?  From Paul we learn that he had women as fellow workers “in the work of the gospel” (Phil 4:2-3).  Finally in Romans 16:7 provides astonishing evidence that a woman was numbered among the earliest apostles.   Paul sends greetings to “Andronicus and Junia.”  Firstly, it is not likely that ‘Junian’ is a man’s name since it is found nowhere as a man’s name, i.e. ‘Junias,’ while there are 250 examples of it as a woman’s name, i.e. ‘Junia.’  Secondly, the word “men” in the phrase “they are men of note among the apostles,” is not in the Greek but is added by the RSV and other translations which take ‘Junia’ as a man’s name.  It should read instead “they are prominent among the apostles” (NRSV).  Thirdly, the fact that they were in Christ before Paul and prominent among the apostles suggests they were among the special group mentioned in 1 Cor 15:7.  Fourthly, it is likely a reference to husband and wife.  One may firmly conclude that Junia was both a woman and a wife among the apostles.  (See James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9-16 .  Vol. 38b (Word Biblical Commentary) Dallas, TX: Word Books, Pub., 1988, pp.894-895.

How can one tell whether social behaviours mandated and/or regulated in the Bible have a practical, local motivation rather than a principled motivation?  On what basis or principle does one decide?

It is remarkable that many who reject a social-contextual interpretation of Scripture actually practice it themselves.  Ellen White in her time and women in our time obviously do not follow Paul’s prohibition about women speaking in church.  Also, women covering their heads at worship is no longer practiced in most Protestant churches.  Finally, no Christian worthy of that name would send a runaway slave back to his owner in our modern context (see Philemon).  Are we simply doing this in conformity with ‘our’ culture, or is there some principle that provides a basis for our departures from these practices in the N.T.?

Questions for discussion (from Good Word Online):

Although Peter was impetuous, ambitious, and could be even rashly violent, Jesus saw through this roughness a faithful commitment and  loyalty and a teachable spirit that would make him not just a leader among the disciples but a faithful witness of God’s grace to the world.

• In what sense did Jesus refer to Peter as a rock on which he would build his community of believers?  What are the keys of the kingdom and the powers of  ‘binding’ and ‘releasing’ given to Peter?  How can Peter be God’s spokesman one minute and Satans’s spokesman the next? Mat 16:13-23 is an episode in the interaction between the disciples and Jesus that is full of insight and irony, inspiration and blindness, paradox and parody.  This is a story that marks a pivotal transition in the overall dynamics of Mark’s structure as a Gospel.  Mark 8:27 marks the transition from Jesus as a dynamic, wonderworking hero to the anti-hero of the Suffering Servant Messiah.  In especially Matthew and Mark’s accounts it is important to observe the events that precede and follow this important passage. Note especially that the transfiguration account follows closely after it.  Was this given as an assurance especially to Peter, James, and John after the troubling revelation by Jesus that he would be rejected by the Jewish leadership and be put to death?  Luke’s account in Luke 9:18 ff. is not as dramatic.  Is it significant that in Mat 18:18 the same authority of binding and releasing is given to all the disciples?
• What do we know about Peter’s role in the mission of the church after the resurrection?
  • After Jesus’ ascension in Acts 1 it is Peter who takes the initiative to replace Judas by another witness of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection and ascension.  Also, after the disciples had been filled by the Spirit, it was Peter who stood up to address the Jewish witnesses of this event in Acts 2.  His message mirrors that of John the Baptist, “Repent, and be baptized,” only now this is to be done “in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38).  It was Peter together with John who healed the lame man outside the temple gate (Acts 3:1-10), an event that occasioned another address to the onlookers to repent for the forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ (Acts 3:11 ff.).  This in turn lead to their arrest and witness before the rulers and elders of the people.
  • Over and over Luke records how Peter and the others were filled with the Holy Spirit in all their speaking, decisions and activity (Acts 4:8, 31, 13:2-4).  It was the Holy Spirit that both gave Peter the vision and commission to preach to the Gentile Cornelius and his family and also authenticated this mission by being obviously manifested in these Gentiles (Acts 11:5-18).
• What happens to Peter’s leadership role eventually?  How does he both help and hinder Paul’s mission to the Gentiles? The last we hear of Peter in Acts is at the Council in Acts 15 where he defends Paul’s mission to the Gentiles from the same circumcision faction that had criticized his mission to Cornelius (Acts 15:5 and 11:2-3).  James is now in power (Acts 15:19, “I have decided”!).  The issue was far from settled as we learn from Gal 2:1-14. When the circumcision supporters come from James to Antioch, even Peter and Barnabas back off from table fellowship with the Gentile believers and Peter is publically rebuked by Paul!
• What testimony is there to Peter’s subsequent mission and message?  From Gal 2:9 indicates that Peter’s subsequent mission is primarily to Jews.  1 Cor 1:12 may support this.  However, his letter 1 Peter is addressed to Christians suffering in the northern provinces of Asia Minor (1 Peter 1:1) who are ostensibly Gentiles (1 Peter 2:10).  Did Peter actually work in those areas?  We do not know.  What we know is that he came very much to terms with the path of suffering that leads to glory in Jesus Messiahship that he found so troubling in Matthew 16.  This theme permeates 1 Peter (see 1 Peter 1:6-7, 10-11, 20-21, 2:12, 4:12-13, 14, 5:1, 6, 10).  It was a glory he believed in so firmly that he sealed it according to tradition by refusing to be crucified rightside up like Christ, but upside down when martyred in Rome.

Questions for discussion (from Good Word Online):

What are the basic facts about Peter’s background?

Peter is most likely the best known disciple of Jesus, a Galilean fisherman, the brother of Andrew (Mark 1:16-20) and the son of a certain John according to John 21:15 or Jonah according to Mat 16:17.  The latter has been interpreted as a descriptive title indicating him as an ‘extremist’ rather than who his father was, or it may be a variant form for John.  Apart from the prophet of the name ‘Jonah’ this name does not occur as a person’s name centuries before and after this time.

There are actually four names used for him in the N.T.  The Hebrew form Symeon of the Greek form Simon, occurs only in Acts 15:14.  Simon occurs over forty times.  This has been taken to reflect that the Greek form was his original name.  Given the strong Hellenistic influence around Galilee, it suggests that he may have been bi-lingual.  In John 1:42 it is Jesus who gives him the Aramaic name Cephas, which means Peter or ‘rock.’

It is clear that Peter was married (Mark 1:30) and we hear that his wife accompanied him later on his missionary journeys (1 Cor 9:5).

What were the initial circumstances of Peter’s call to discipleship?

Did it start in Judea around John the Baptist’s ministry, or did it start with Jesus’ call on the shores of Galilee?

According to John 1:35-42 Andrew announced to Peter that they had found the Messiah.  This was in Judea where John the Baptist was witnessing to Jesus.  This may explain their immediate, unhesitating response in the account of the call in Mark 1:16-18 which would appear to have come later.

What is the evidence of Peter’s role as leader among the disciples?

Was the change of his name from Simon to Cephas (Peter, ‘Rock’) simply a declaration by Jesus given to match his ‘rocky’ character, or a prediction by Jesus of his future leadership?

How did Peter’s initial understanding (or misunderstanding) of Jesus as Messiah contribute to his long and erratic journey to a mature faith?  Where do we find the first real evidence of a mature faith?

Some of the passages that tell us a great deal about Peter are Mat 17:24-27 (the issue of the Temple tax), Mat 18:21 (the issue of forgiveness), John 6:68 (faithfulness when others desert Jesus), and especially Luke 22:24-34 and Luke 22:54-62 (controversy over power and Peter’s denials) followed by John 21:15-19 (Peter’s restoration and re-commission).

How is Peter’s journey a real comfort to us today?

Questions for discussion (from Good Word Online):

• What can we glean from the N.T. about the personal background of John the disciple of Jesus Christ?  John (together with his brother James) was a son of Zebedee who ran a family fishing business near Capernaum on the north shore of Galilee (Mark 1:19-21) They must have been moderately successful since they could hire servants (Mark 1:20).  Besides his early calling at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry he was also chosen as one of the twelve and is referred to as an apostle (Mark 3:14, 17).  James was probably his older brother since he is always mentioned after his brother in all the N.T. lists of disciples (e.g., Mark 1:9, 3:17).  There is the suggestion that since a certain Salome is mentioned as a bystander at Jesus’ crucifixion in Mark 15:40 and that James and John’s mother is mentioned in Mat 27:56 as a bystander this Salome may have been their mother.  Both James and John appear to have been fairly temperamental to earn the title “sons of thunder” by Jesus (Mark 3:17).
• How do we know that this is the same John as the author of the Gospel of John which never explicitly uses his name, or the author of Revelation which uses this name but does not identify him as the disciple John, or as the author of 1, 2, 3 John in which this name does not occur at all? As for the Gospel of John we have allusions to the ‘beloved disciple’ (e.g. John 13:23-26, 19:26-27, 35, 20:2-10, etc.).  Two significant occurrences are found in John 21:2 and 7 where Peter asks about the fate of this beloved disciple.  Jesus answer implies he would live longer than the rest.  If Revelation should be dated in the early 90’s A.D. during the persecution under Domitian, this may make a plausible connection.  Also, the author’s simple identification as John without need for further amplification fits with a person of John standing as disciple.  As for 1, 2, 3 John the writing style and vocabulary have clear parallels with the Gospel of John.  Also 1 John 1:1 includes the author among those who saw and touched Jesus.
• What was significant about John as a disciple of Jesus in the earliest church and for us today as an example of an agent of hope?
  • On the negative side, John and his brother asked for the most privileged positions of power at Jesus’ side based on their misunderstanding of his kingdom (Mark 10:35-45; Mat 20:20-21 has their mother asking for them, but with their consent!).  Luke 9:52-56 records their desire to call divine fire down on a Samaritan town that refused to accept Jesus and their rebuke by Jesus.
  • On the positive side, John was part of a trio with James and Peter who received special attention by Jesus.  They alone were allowed at several special events: the raising of Jairus’ daughter from the dead (Mark 5:37), the transfiguration of Jesus (Mark 9:2-4), the agony of Jesus in the garden (Mark 14:33).  We learn from Paul in Gal 2:9-10 that this trio were pillars of the Christian community in Jerusalem who gave him strong support for his mission to the Gentiles.
  • Early church sources indicate that he moved to Ephesus and carried out a faithful ministry that centred on love until his death in old age.  1 John 4:7-21 is a fitting summary of his focus on God’s atoning love for all humankind and its consequence of our love for one another.

Questions for discussion (from Good Word Online):

Compassion is a feeling and an attitude of the heart that manifests itself at different levels and is more-or-less predictable for certain relationships.  A predictable manifestation of compassion is that of a father for his children.  Jesus notes this in his rhetorical question about a father giving his child a serpent when asked for a fish, or a scorpion when asked for an egg (Luke 11:11).  Some humans seem to have a capacity for compassion more than others.  We feel sorry for the sick and the destitute.  Some thinkers cynically suggest that this is often motivated by one’s secret relief that one does not share such conditions.

• Is compassion merely a state of ‘feeling’ sorry for someone?  How can one recognize compassion in someone else?  In words?  deeds?  both?  Mat 9:36 records Jesus’ compassion for the crowds “because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.  This is a summary that closes a cycle of miracles in Matthew chapters 8-9 which takes compassion to a higher level.
• What do we know about Jewish backgrounds that illustrate Jesus’ compassion as particularly remarkable in fact and the manner of his healing of the leper (Mat 8:1-4) and the Centurion’s servent (Mat 8:5-13), Peter’s mother-in-law (Mat 8:14), and the woman with an issue of blood (Mat 9:20-22)? Paul captures the essence of divine compassion in a particularly striking passage in Rom 5:6-8:

6  While we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
7  Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man
— though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die.
8  But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died
for us.

Just as Jesus contrasts a generally expected level of compassion by earthly fathers to their children to God’s limitless compassion, Paul contrasts a barely expected level of sacrificial compassion between human beings to God’s incredible compassion to the weak, sinners, indeed even enemies (Rom 5:10).

• While the atonement provided by Jesus is the ultimate manifestation of divine compassion for us, in what way are we to emulate this compassion?  In Mat 5:43-48 Jesus exhorts us to love our enemies in emulation of God.  How is this possible?  What does it mean?  What is the benefit?  What part does forgiveness play in this?
• Finally we must ask, ‘What are the limits of compassion”?  See Mat 18:21-22.  Are there limits to God’s compassion?  See Mat 18:23-35.  What is the relation between compassion and judgment, the love and wrath of God?  See Rom 1:24, 26, 28.

Questions for discussion (from Good Word Online):

• When it comes to witnessing for the Kingdom, what message does the diversity of those Jesus called to be his disciples have for us?
• In the record of the disciples’ first practicum in witnessing in Mat 10:5-15 Jesus prescribes an exclusive focus on the Jews as well as a charity based mission.  Why or why not would this be a valid example of how mission should be run today?  What do we know about Jesus’ message in the rest of Matthew that indicates this initial focus on Jews was not intended to be exclusive?  See also Rom 1:16.
• The disciples were given the same message that John the Baptist and Jesus started their ministries with, i.e. “The kingdom of heaven is near” (See Mat 3:1-2, 17).  Another way of understanding “kingdom of heaven” is the “reign of God.” What did this message mean then and what does it mean now?
• In the next major section of Jesus’ instructions to the disciples (Mat 10:16-31) he both warns of persecution and comforts them.  In this instruction there are several puzzling statements:
  1. Why does Jesus say that “you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of Man comes” (Mat 10:23, NRSV)?
  2. What does he mean when he says, “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Mat 10:28, NRSV)?
• In the final section (Mat 10:32-42) Jesus’ instructions are about a disciple’s priorities and rewards.
  1. What does Jesus mean in the fundamental paradox he expresses in Mat 10:39: “He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it”?  Is this purely about dying a martyr’s death in the service of the gospel and its reward?
  2. What does Jesus mean in Mat 10:41 about the rewards of a prophet and a righteous man in relation to the reward of giving a cold cup of water to one of his disciples?

Basically every Christian must ask the question, “What is the truth of the gospel?”  What is it that made and makes the N.T. revelation of God in Jesus Christ believable?

1. Many Christians base their belief in Jesus on another belief, i.e. their belief that the New Testament is the “Word of God,” that it is authoritative because it is inspired by God.  But one must ask, what about the thousands in the first few centuries who never had a New Testament as we have it?  Our New Testament only found its final form of twenty-seven documents in 367 A.D.  Before that there were various smaller or larger collections that included documents that were appropriately left out of the final N.T. canon.  Ultimately the N.T. is the repository of the eye-witnesses of Jesus and their close associates.  What makes the content of their remembrances and interpretations any more believable, authoritative, and inspired than the those of the followers of, e.g., Buddha?  Is it the coherence between their words and their lives?  the coherence of the teaching and life of Jesus himself as reported by them?  the fulfillment of messianic prophecy from the Old Testament?  the fact that Jesus himself made claims to be God (see John 8:58)?  Are all these things proofs?  One must admit that there is also a palpable coherence between the teaching and the life of Buddha?  What gives Jesus’ teaching and life a claim to greater truth? While there were many who chose to believe him, there also were many who did not.  Was this simply because some opened themselves to experience God as revealed by Jesus and found that it truly put their lives together in a way that nothing else did, while others never opened themselves to that journey for whatever reason?  How important is ‘experience’ in coming to belief?  See 1 Peter 2:3 (Psalms 34:8).
2. How can eternal truth reside in the particularity of history without being integrally distorted and compromised?  Today we tend to want dramatic evidences for the “truth” of Jesus and bypass the very fundamental fact that God did not reveal Himself in Christ in a dramatic way, but chose for him to appear in a political backwater of the Roman empire, in an ignominious town in Palestine, in the home of a simple carpenter, in ordinary human flesh.  How can John subsequently move from “the Word was God” (John 1:1) to the word of life “which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands” (1 John 1:1)?  What is the relation between eternal truth and historical manifestation?  Apart from our arguments regarding the atonement, was incarnation necessary?
3. What is the connection between what Jesus taught and how he lived (and died!) that lights the flame of belief in human hearts?  Was it primarily with compelling propositional truths or with his paradoxes of life and death that he draws us?  See Mark 15:39.   How important a part of all this is the witness to his resurrection?  See 1 Cor 15.

(Notes from Good Word Online)

This is the third in the quarter’s series about Missionaries in the Bible.

From his base near the Jordan River, John preached a message of repentance, forgiveness, and social justice, all to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah. Large crowds gathered to hear him speak; and many followed his teachings. In fact, several of Jesus’ disciples were first disciples of John the Baptist.

This week we will discover more about the mission of a man whom Jesus praised more highly than anyone else; plus, we will look at the parallel between John’s calling and ours.

Come and join a discussion group on this topic.

I used to get into trouble at school for using the word ‘BUT’ too much, but in his shout of triumph, the apostle Paul uses 3 ‘buts’ one after the other to describe the Christian victory.

Venue? ~ Crieff SDA Church, Gwydyr Road, Crieff PH7 4BS

What for? ~ This is an opportunity to listen to some world leaders and sharpen your skills from the lessons they have learned.

Why Attend? ~ No organization deserves better leadership skills than the life-changing, hope-bringing work of a great local church.

Who should attend? ~ Existing and potential leaders ~ pastors, elders, young and old. Anyone who wants to learn to lead with diligence.

Lunch? ~ Bring a packed lunch ~ we will supplement what you bring.

Materials Source? ~ The lectures are specially selected from the Willow Creek Global Leadership Summit series. All the presenters are by DVD.

Speakers?

Michael Porter ~ ‘Your Move’ ~ Professor – Harvard Business School, author of 27 books.

Jimmy Carter ~ ‘Building Humanity’ ~ 39th President of the United States, Nobel Peace Prize 2002

Marcus Buckingham ~ ‘Put your strengths to work’ ~ Leadership consultant for ‘The Gallup Organization’ and author of ‘The One Thing you Need to Know’.

Richard Curtis ~ ‘Living for the greater good’ ~ Award winning film producer of films such as ‘Mr Bean’ & ‘4 Weddings and a funeral’; co founder of the ‘Make Poverty History’ campaign, Live 8 Concerts and Comic Relief.