The Secret to Knowing God’s Will

19 October 2019 Chatswood

The freedom to choose is an amazing gift. Science can’t explain it. God has given us this gift: freedom of choice.

How do we know what the right decision is?

  • Who to marry
  • Where to live
  • What to do for work
  • Where to send my kids to school

Today we’re going to find out some amazing things about God’s character, his love. In the area of how to know God’s will. How to make decisions.

I work at in the water industry. We have a structured way of making decisions. Look at the options, drivers for change, stakeholders, risks. Analyse the costs and benefits. Write it all up, then take it to a committee for approval.

In our personal lives though, how do we make decisions? As Christians, how do we make our decisions?

Can we know God’s will? I believe we can, but maybe not in the way you may think. As we learn the secret to knowing God’s will for our decisions today, I think we’re going to appreciate God’s love for us more.

This is a sermon of two halves: what doesn’t work, then what does work.

Here’s a Bible verse that sounds like the answer for good decision-making. Is 30:21.

Your ears shall hear a word behind you, saying,
“This is the way, walk in it,”
Whenever you turn to the right hand
Or whenever you turn to the left.

This idea of the still small voice, that tells you which option to take at every turn. For every decision you make God tells you which option is best.

Should I wear this shirt or that shirt? Ok, this one.

Is that the way it works?

We’ll come back to this verse a little later – it’s important. But I’m going to suggest though that some Christians may misunderstand and misapply this verse. It’s easy to get confused on this.

First we need to have another look at God’s character of love and freedom. Then this verse will make a whole lot of sense.

God’s character is beautiful, and a daily relationship with Him is amazing. Sometimes we have misplaced expectations, though.

Have you ever felt that you just don’t pick up the right signs when it comes to a plan for your life?  Have you ever felt that God’s “impressions” led you into a brick wall?

A lot of people would like to believe that God would speak to us whenever we make a decision. Guide us away from disasters. Guide us to the good life.  But many of us have been frustrated in our attempts to get any clear sense of God’s will.  The signs seem to point in different directions.

Maybe you’ve been in a situation where you were faced with a tough decision. You wanted to know whether to take a new job, to move to a new town, or continue a relationship.  Maybe you went to bed wishing you could wake up and find a big fat “yes” or “no” painted in the sky when you woke up.

And then you feel even worse when someone tells you that God gave them clear direction. But you’re still waiting for Him to give you clear guidance. Does it make you feel just a bit jealous?  Why doesn’t God direct my decisions?

I’ve seen some interesting approaches to decision making, among my Christian friends.

One person used to open the Bible randomly, blindly point to a verse, then interpret it as either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ about buying a particular investment.

Another friend used to flip a coin for his decisions, and pray that God would direct through that.

I know a girl who was extra keen to make her decisions based on signs that God was leading. She said to her boyfriend that she’d prayed to God that she would marry the man who said a particular phrase to her. She didn’t say what that phrase was. She did say that he’d almost said it though.

They broke up a few months later. He must not have said the right phrase.

Another young couple met at church and started a relationship. He believed God spoke to him and said to him that she was the woman for him, so he asked her to marry him. She said yes, and it was happily ever after. Well, not quite. They divorced and both remarried. They both started to question if God even exists. Partly because they thought God was leading them and now they feel betrayed.

I could share plenty more examples. People being impressed to read certain Bible verses that seem to point to a particular decision. But that too can lead you astray. The devil tried that trick with Jesus. He quoted the Bible to try to tempt Jesus to do the wrong thing. You can read about it in Matthew 4.

Experiencing God’s direct intervention in our lives can be addictive. Or at least thinking we are being directed by God.

We can easily get trapped into thinking that “God’s will for me is one path and one path only. The exact career path, home locations, “the one” life partner. Any deviation from that one thread of decision-making is living out of His will.

And if I’m not seeing clear signs, then I must be off that one path for my life.” At least that’s how many Christians think.

I’ve thought that there’s only one path and it’s my job to find it and stay on it as close as I can. It’s addictive, and it’s also deceptive.

In contrast, I believe God gives us freedom to choose our path within a broad range of options that are all within His will. His Word gives broad principles of how we should live our lives.

That principle is evident right from the beginning. Did God tell Adam and Eve which food to eat?

No, he let them choose from a very wide variety, but just said there was one tree not to eat from. In Gen 2 God said:

“Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat.”

This is a key principle for Christian decision making. There’s often many choices that God can bless. God gives clear boundaries for what is good and bad, but there’s often a broad range of options that are acceptable and good. We often waste a lot of time and energy trying to be sure that we make the best choice when our lives could be much more effective if we just made a good decision and moved on.

The devil has twisted this to make it look like God is restrictive on our choices. In Gen 3 he said to Eve that God told them they couldn’t eat from every tree.

There’s actually a Bible verse that says we should make good decisions and move on, not agonise over the best choice: Eccl 11:4,6: The whole chapter is great.

Whoever watches the wind will not plant;
    whoever looks at the clouds will not reap….

Sow your seed in the morning,
    and at evening let your hands not be idle,
for you do not know which will succeed,
    whether this or that,
    or whether both will do equally well.

In other words, make good decisions and move on without worrying over whether it was the best decision.

Only rarely does God specifically tell us who to marry. Hosea and Gomer spring to mind as an example.

Or where to live. Abraham.

Or what career to pursue: think of Jonah, Moses and Saul who became Paul.

I believe these are special cases. Exceptions, not the rule.

In none of these cases do we find the human praying to God that He would reveal His choice in these specific matters. God simply came and unambiguously gave an unexpected life-changing plan.

But many Christians today tend to seek God’s will in their decision-making much like fortune-telling.

We want to avoid the hard work, risk and responsibility involved in constantly prioritising among good options for major life decisions. We want God to do more than simply tell us broadly what is good and bad. We want Him to tell us which specific option is best. Wouldn’t that make life much easier? I say this looking in the mirror.

Who likes making decisions?

Decision-making is hard! Not many people enjoy the responsibility of making decisions. Who’s been in a group that goes out to eat or do something and you all look for someone else to decide where to go? No one wants to make the decision in case it’s not the best thing.

But God created us with this funny thing called free choice.

God created us to be free persons, with the ability to creatively express ourselves. To be independent. To love. Love is only possible for one who has freedom to choose. Otherwise we are merely robots.

God is a good God! Way better than a fortune teller. Let’s not sell ourselves short on just how good God is! He didn’t give us the gift of free choice, only to turn around and want to take it back from us.

In a good marriage, both partners try to please each other. But imagine if a wife tried to please her husband by asking him which job he wanted her to take, which clothes he wanted her to wear, and made every decision according to his desires. One of them would soon become unhappy. The wife would tire of the husband’s overbearing control. Or the husband would tire of his wife’s inability to figure things out for herself. Probably both of them would end up frustrated.

Yet sometimes we treat our relationship with God like that. Why do we want Him to make all our major decisions? Are we really looking for a mutually satisfying loving relationship based on freedom?

I don’t know about you, but my motivations have been selfish and lazy, when I’ve fallen into that trap, of treating God like a fortune teller.

The marriage relationship is happiest when there is freedom of choice – freedom of creative expression. All within rather broad boundaries of what’s acceptable and what isn’t. I think that’s how it is with God, too.

God didn’t give us the gift of free choice only to want to take it back from us.

We’re also God’s children. If the parent makes every decision for the child, the relationship will soon become dysfunctional and the child will not learn or grow.

In reality, God gives us broad principles of right and wrong and gives us freedom to exercise our creativity and choice.

Isn’t that what we’d prefer for our kids?

Can you imagine wanting your kids to just ask you to direct all their career and life choices? Yet that’s effectively what we expect God to do for us sometimes.

Wouldn’t you prefer your growing children to express their own unique identity and make decisions for themselves? We still like our kids to talk to us about their decisions – just like God likes us to bring every part of our lives to Him in prayer. Prayer is asking God for wisdom, for His character.

You might be thinking: “but asking God to make all our decisions has the added benefit of Him knowing the future. So he can tell us what’s going to work out best.” (Like a fortune-teller.)

The problem with the fortune-teller approach is that God’s Word doesn’t work like that. It gives us principles on which to grow in making our own sound decisions. It’s not meant to be a recipe for discerning God’s choices as if we were reading tarot cards or astrology.

God’s character is much more beautiful than that of a fortune teller! He created us to be much more than robots.

There are also many practical problems with the belief that God led you to a particular past decision that you made, or direction that you chose.

Let’s say you pray something like “God, if I get the job I’ve applied for in Melbourne, then I’ll take it as Your leading that You want me to move my family there.”

At first everything seems to confirm that “God” wants you in Melbourne. You get the job; your wife also gets a transfer there. The kids find an excellent school. Everything is going really well.

Then the business that employed you winds up. Your wife falls pregnant again so soon neither of you will be working.

The kids’ school ends up becoming a negative influence on the kids due to bullying and other problems.

What do you do? “God” led you to Melbourne, right?

If God really did enter into all our bargaining and direct our lives like that, would He put an expiry date on His leading in a particular decision? Would He say, for example, “OK, move to Melbourne and stay there no matter what happens for the rest of your lives.” Or maybe, “until things go bad and you feel like going somewhere else.”

To take this approach consistently, you would really have to stay following a particular direction until you received a new or different direction.

If you felt that God chose a particular school for your children, would you be free to move them if they were bullied or abused at that school? Would you interpret any adversity as a new “direction” from God? Or maybe God is testing your faith? How do you know?

There are always going to be exceptional circumstances or events that the original decision doesn’t cover. Unless we literally do have God constantly directing every decision, every moment of our lives. Right down to shoe laces and lane changes.

But is that really what that verse in Isaiah 30:21 meant?

We’re going to resolve this tension soon. We’re going to see what this verse actually means, and how God’s character truly is love. He’s a God of love and freedom, not fortune-telling or control. He didn’t give us the gift of free choice only to take it back from us.

Things become even more complicated when other people are involved.

My mum met someone who had a very clear idea of God’s will for his life. He said he had a direct connection to God’s will. Impressive, eh? Only problem: this guy said to my Mum: God told me to marry you.

Oops! What would you do? Fortunately mum was able to think quickly so she said: Well, God hasn’t told me that.

The guy was a bit of a fruitloop so my mum got away as quick as she could.

Think twice before praying: “God, I’ll marry the first person who speaks to me.” Such a prayer is foolish. It doesn’t make what happens next “God’s will” just because you put your fortune-telling “God” in a corner.

Jephthah made a stupid deal with God that the next thing that came through the door he would offer as a sacrifice to God. And alas in came his daughter. The tragic story is in Judges 11. The lesson is that we shouldn’t pick random signs like that to make our decisions. God doesn’t intervene just because we made some deal on our terms.

This story may not make much sense at first, but God actually loves us too much to intervene when we make stupid deals.

The fact that God didn’t intervene with Jephthah’s daughter is actually a demonstration of His character of love and freedom. The story is there for our benefit, even though at first it seems terrible. The mistake was by Jephthah, and it’s recorded for us so that we don’t treat God like a fortune teller in our own lives.

Now we’re moving into the second half. We’ve looked at things that don’t work now we’re looking at things that do work.

Does God ever direct particular choices for an individual’s specific life decisions? Very occasionally, yes.

For example Saul on the Damascus road. If He does, it’s, usually unexpected and unambiguous.

God is leading through the circumstances of our lives constantly. We call it Providence. But we usually don’t have specific insight into how God is working in our lives.

If God does give you a specific instruction, then you should definitely follow God’s direction with all your heart and soul.

Or if you have a passion or a burden on your heart to do something in harmony with God’s word, do it with everything you’ve got. Like Ezra and Nehemiah who we’ve been studying about in this quarter’s Sabbath school lesson.

If you don’t have specific instruction from God on your particular life choices, it is not because you are any less spiritual. You can still live your life knowing you are within His will. Look at this verse in Galatians 1:4:

who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father,

If we’re letting God deliver us from this present evil age, then we know we’re in God’s will! It almost sounds too simple, doesn’t it?

So then should we depend more on ourselves for making decisions and spend less energy seeking to know God’s will? Absolutely not. Seeking knowledge of God’s will is more about understanding His character and growing in wisdom, faith and love than about getting arbitrary signs that point to option A or B.

And yes, we should still give God the glory for His leading in our lives. For giving us wisdom, and growing our characters. But hesitate before you claim that God directed you to a particular choice as though He were a fortune-teller that could be commanded to give you an answer through a job interview or a flip of a coin. That could backfire on you; and bring God’s name into disrepute.

I’ve made this mistake, of treating God like a fortune teller. I prayed that if I got accepted to do a PhD, I would take it as God’s will. When I got accepted, I told people that God led me to do the PhD. In hindsight, I don’t actually have any evidence that doing the PhD really was God’s specific calling for my life at that stage. The mistake was not so much doing the PhD, but claiming that that was God’s will for me.

What if I prayed “God, if I get accepted to be a drug mule I’ll take that as Your will that I should go to Indonesia.” I would most likely get the gig. But does that make it God’s will because I prayed that prayer?

What if Steve Smith prays, “God, I’ll take it as Your will that I should play Test cricket for the summer if I get selected”.

Of course he’ll get selected for the next test match. Whether playing cricket would be God’s specific choice for him or not is an entirely different question.

Test matches usually go over Sabbath. The first test in Brisbane next month goes over Sabbath. So on that basis his choice should be automatic. He doesn’t need a sign. God has already told him not to work or do his own pleasure on the Sabbath.

Now don’t get me wrong, I like Steve Smith. I’m happy for his story of redemption after being banned for a year. It’s a great story. But wouldn’t it be even better if he found Jesus and gave up cricket because he found something that truly satisfies! Why chase fame and glory through sport when you have everything in Jesus?

If Steve Smith chose to obey God, he would have to give up Test cricket. Following God is much more rewarding than being regarded as the best batsman in the world. What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world but lose his own soul?

Often doors will open or close suggesting an answer to your prayers. But there’s always the problem of not knowing whether an obstacle is God allowing your faith to be tested or God closing a door. Or whether an opportunity is God allowing you to be tempted or God opening a door.

Often God simply doesn’t intervene at all, beyond natural cause and effect. He allows us to mature and grow in our decision-making. Slowly we begin to realise the confusion created by treating God like a fortune-teller. As though we could command him to give us answers whenever we’re in a pickle.

We treat God like Google sometimes – we go to Him only when we want answers. And sometimes God works with that! He reaches us where we’re at – thankfully!

God is our loving Father. He’s more than happy to give us wisdom and freedom to creatively express ourselves. He loves to see our loving response to His goodness as we learn and grow. This does not lead to decision-making independent from God. It leads us to closer intimacy with our Heavenly Father. Over time we appreciate more and more the amazing gift of freedom of choice. That is love, and God is love.

God has given us freedom to choose, to express ourselves, to be our own unique person. In short: to love, not to be robots. So to be anxious for the right answer for every decision is missing the point. God didn’t give us free choice only to want to take it back again.

I want to leave you with three things that do work for knowing God’s will.

The first principle for the secret of knowing God’s will for your life is this — become familiar with God’s voice. How?  Not primarily by listening to voices inside us, but by listening to the Bible, the Word, that God Himself has spoken.

This is so basic. If you want to know when God is speaking, you need to be familiar with His voice. What does He sound like? What kind of things does He say? What does He tend to emphasize?  You find all that recorded in the Bible.

That’s where you KNOW that you’re listening to God’s voice – learning the secret of His will.

Jesus Himself gives us a wonderful promise about His words:

Matthew 7:24:

“Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock:”

Jesus contrasts this with the one who ignores His words.  That’s like building your house on shifting sand.

The Word is a good foundation.  It’s where we build from.

There’s a lot more things the Bible says that we know are God’s will. Here’s some examples.

  • For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.       1 Tim 2:3,4
  • In everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. 1 Thes 5:18
  • For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.   1 Pet 2:15

The next principle is look for signs that make sense.

Be careful when you ask for a sign. I’m not saying don’t do it. But think about what you’re doing. The Bible gives some interesting examples.

Gideon requested a sign with the fleece after God already told him that he would defeat Midian. God might answer your prayers for a sign, but think about it: was Gideon’s request out of faith or doubt? Did God already tell Him enough to act before the sign?

The Pharisees asked Jesus for a sign, and listen to the response of Jesus in Matthew 16:4:

A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and no sign shall be given to it…

So if you want to look for signs, pray for signs that make sense. And not just to you, but to those looking on – even those who don’t believe in God.

If you’re deciding on a life partner, ask for insight into the person’s character, not for that special person to send you a text message in the next 30 minutes.

Too often people ask God to speak to them through signs that are completely arbitrary.  They want a yes or a no. 

And they give God instructions on how to send the message.  “If you want me to attend that church, then have the pastor call me tomorrow.”

In other words, people just pick something out of the blue and ask God to turn that it into a sign.

There’s better ways of discovering God’s will than that.  God can give you signs that make sense, signs that are information. If you’re evaluating churches, ask God to show you information about those churches, good or bad.

If you need to decide on a life partner, a new job, or moving to a new place, ask God to show you information about your options – the good things and the bad things. These are signs that make sense.

The Bible says God wants to give us wisdom. That doesn’t mean all the answers, it means the understanding and skills we need to come to the answers ourselves.

Let’s look at James 1:5

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.

God wants us to GROW in wisdom and knowledge.  Just picking signs out of the blue, doesn’t help us do that. God wants to make us wiser, not luckier.  So we need to be more careful in looking for signs.  Is this a healthy relationship, or an unhealthy relationship?  Is this choice going to hurt the people I love, or help them?  Is this new job going to expand my abilities, or shrink them?  Ask the right questions.

Ask God to give you meaningful answers, to show you evidence one way or the other.  These are the signs that make sense.

Just asking for God to answer our questions with a yes or no through some random sign will not help us grow in wisdom.

We need to pray for wisdom, not just answers.

That’s why Jesus said: (Matthew 16:4)

A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and no sign shall be given to it…

Men, have you ever wondered why women sometimes don’t tell us exactly what they want? If we want to choose a gift for them, or take them on a romantic date, they sometimes only give us vague answers as to what they want. Do you know the reason for this? Neither do I really. But I’ve been told that it’s because the women in our lives want to know that we love them, and that we know how to express that for ourselves without being told exactly what to do. They don’t want to spoonfeed us!

Sometimes I think it’s the same with God. He doesn’t want to spoonfeed us, to tell us exactly what we should do in certain situations. He’s given us the principles in His word. Now He just wants us to use the love, wisdom and creativity that He’s given us. To live out our lives in a way that demonstrates we choose to love Him. Not as robots that just follow detailed instructions. God doesn’t promise to make us robots, He promises to give us wisdom to discern His voice.

Am I saying that therefore we should totally abandon the idea of Is 30:21 – the text about a voice in our ear guiding us to the left or right? Not at all, the verse is there for a reason. To find out why it’s there, let’s read the very next verse, verse 22.

You will also defile the covering of your images of silver, and the ornament of your molded images of gold;
You will throw them away as an unclean thing;
You will say to them “Get away!”

The verse doesn’t say that God will make every decision for us. It means He will guide us away from evil and toward good. We will know the difference between right & wrong. He speaks to us through our conscience to tell us what is right and wrong.

It’s clear from the context and the rest of the Bible that signs for every decision is not what the verse is telling us. The Bible does not promote fortune telling! But it does give enough guidance to help us know & choose right over sin – every time.

I think God allows us to not have immediate clarity on all our decisions between good alternatives for good reason. I think it’s dangerous for us as humans to have inside knowledge as to God’s will ahead of time. It’s might be OK looking back, but when we’re looking forward, there are several risks:

  • We’ll take things for granted. We’d take people for granted. Instead of choosing to love our spouse, we’d stay with them because God told us to.
  • We’ll become arrogant and difficult to work with. It’s hard to argue with someone who claims to have God’s will on their side.
  • If we really did know where God was leading us, we might freak out because sometimes He leads us places that we’ll only ever understand looking back, not looking forward.

Now, let’s look at our third and final principle which will help us find the secret of knowing God’s will in our lives. It’s this: listen to those who listen.

When we have to make an important decision, it always helps to get feedback from other people.  We don’t want to restrict ourselves solely to a voice inside our own heads.  Other voices are important. The most useful voices are people who listen, people who have themselves listened to the voice of God.

Godly counsellors are a big help.  Men and women who have experience in listening to God speak through His Word. People who are happily following God’s will for their own lives.

Here’s another good piece of advice in Proverbs 11:14:

Where there is no counsel, the people fall; but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Where do we find safety?  In the multitude of counsellors.  Listen to those who listen. Here’s why that’s important.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but in the Bible there are many examples of God speaking to us through other people, but only a few where He directly spoke to a human.

God sent messengers and prophets to warn Israel, Jonah to warn Ninevah, and even another prophet to warn His own servant David. God could speak in our ear directly, but sometimes he uses other people.

There’s an interesting example – and that is Saul who became Paul. God did actually speak to Saul directly, but only very briefly. What did God tell Saul to do? He could have laid out the whole plan then and there, while he was lying on the ground blind. But he told him to go find Ananias, and that Ananias would tell him what to do. You can read all about it in Acts 9.


So what have we learned today?

First, God’s will is not simply one path for your life. God has created you with freedom and love. You have creative choice. There are many options for your life that are within God’s will for you. God didn’t give us the gift of free choice only to take it back again.

Second, we learned how to make good decisions that are within God’s will. How do you choose the green paths and not the red paths?

  • Become familiar with God’s voice – in the Bible
  • Look for signs that make sense (ask for wisdom! – not answers)
  • And listen to those who listen

Do you want your decision-making to be more in harmony with God’s will? Do you want to know God’s will for your life? Then ask for wisdom more often than you ask for signs. The bible says we should ask for wisdom, but Jesus says wicked people ask for signs. Ask for God’s character before you ask for the answers that you want.

More often than not, God will answer in ways you don’t expect, because we have a lot of growing to do to understand God’s will and character. I know I have a lot of growing to do!

The answer to knowing God’s will for your life is becoming thoroughly intimate with God’s word. Praying every day that God transforms your character into harmony with the principles of the Bible. Praying for God’s character of love. That’s the important part of being in God’s will. Then you’ll be able to make the little and big decisions in your life more and more in harmony with His will. But it takes time. A lifetime of growth, with plenty of learning from mistakes along the way.

I’m sorry if you were hoping for a silver bullet formula for knowing God’s exact recipe for all your decisions. Like a fortune teller. I simply don’t believe that’s consistent with God’s character of love and freedom.

The reality of God is much better than that! God gave us freedom to choose, to grow. He doesn’t then turn around and ask us to give up that freedom.

The best choice we can make is in Josh 24:15. Choose ye this day whom you will serve. Choose today to serve God. If we do that for all our decision-making, that will get us a long way.

A relationship with God gives us more freedom, not less. Not freedom to be selfish and do whatever we want to do, but freedom from sin. Freedom to love, and to be creative in our expression of that love.

Will you commit to taking time every day to learn more about God’s character of love and freedom, and letting that rub off on you and your decision-making? Will you commit to choosing today to serve God, and to personal growth with God every day of your life?

I believe, for all of us, our decision-making in 10 years time will be way more in harmony with God’s will – his character of love and freedom – than it is today. There’s no simple recipe for instantly moving all your decision-making into exact harmony with God’s master plan for your life. God is not a fortune teller!

God loves us enough to give us freedom.

Following God’s will involves continual learning and growth. Choosing what’s good, true and loving over what’s selfish. It’s the challenge of Christian growth. It takes time, patience, growing trust, and all based on love and freedom.

Why I Climbed Uluru Yesterday

My Attempt at Resolving Mismatched Narratives

Key points

  • Respecting the sacredness of Uluru to the Anangu people is the main publicised reason for advocating against climbing.
  • The principle of protecting religious freedoms, on the other hand, should not require that we all treat everyone else’s sacred items as sacred to ourselves. We don’t all hold each other’s beliefs simultaneously. Rather, each should be free to worship what we each regard as sacred as we each choose individually, without infringing on anyone else’s rights while so doing.
  • There is an underlying issue of land rights and ownership, for which there are no simple answers. To boil it down to a simple question of whether tourists should be allowed to climb Uluru risks reducing a complex issue down to symbolic tokenism without actually meaningfully contributing to reconciliation for our first nations people.
  • There are real human safety risks that do actually mean that the climb as it is being conducted now is not ideally suited for the present or future. This is at the forefront of the justification for closing the climb according to the Park Rangers with whom I spoke.
Hundreds of tourists climbing Uluru

After three days staying at Yulara and exploring lots of enthralling walking tracks and activities in and around the Uluru Kata Tjuta National Park, the weather cleared and the climb opened. My wife and I took turns climbing Uluru while the other one looked after our young children. It almost didn’t work out for us to be able to do it, but just hours before our departing flight and a month before the scheduled permanent closure of the climb, we scratched this controversial item off our bucket lists.

Now, lots of my friends will think that climbing Uluru is the wrong thing to do. I hear you: I too can see plenty of good reasons to close the climb. Here I outline why I chose to climb it. Not so much to justify my decision – many would say that nothing could justify it – but to highlight and challenge some complex and conflicting narratives.

First, let’s examine the stated reason for the requests not to climb prominently displayed on signs around the site:

‘Our traditional law teaches us the proper way to behave. We ask you to respect our law by not climbing Uluru. What visitors call the climb is the traditional route taken by our traditional Mala men on their arrival at Uluru in the creation time. It has great spiritual significance.’

I get that. I too am a spiritual person and regard many things in life as sacred.

If one of the Anangu people was personally offended because they knew that I personally climbed Uluru, I would think harder about my decision to climb the rock, especially if I had an existing relationship with them, or may do so in the future. When I climbed, however, I saw no Anangu people in the area. Just car- and bus-loads of tourists. It is much more likely that my choice to climb will offend (those unfairly characterised as) urban elites than anyone else.

A couple of days before I climbed, an Anangu girl was selling her artwork in the carpark where we were watching sunset. I asked her if she minded people climbing Uluru and she said she didn’t mind with a casual shrug.

Now that I’m posting this blog, there’s a risk, of course, that I may be offending local cultural and spiritual values for any Anangu who happen to read this. If you are offended, my sincere apologies, but please keep reading!

Being a spiritual person, I value my freedom to worship as I choose. I strongly affirm the right of the Anangu people to treat Uluru as sacred. Similarly I would like everyone to respect my right to keep my Saturday Sabbath as a day of rest and worship. This means I refrain from working or engaging in any form of trade or business. But for me to require that everyone honour my Sabbath and refrain from working would be an overstep. I would be moving from protecting my freedom of worship to forcing others to treat something that is sacred to me (i.e., a portion of time) as sacred to themselves too.

Incidentally, I am expecting my rights of freedom to worship to be restricted in the future in a global push for Sunday sacredness, which I would reject.

A relevant analogy here is the way that Hindus treat cows as sacred. Even Gandhi himself did not want to restrict his entire nation from killing or eating cows as he recognised that not everyone views cows as sacred. (No issue for me – I’m happily vegetarian.)

I see the sacredness of Uluru to the Anangu people as similar to sacred cows and Sabbath / Sunday sacredness. If someone gets upset because I didn’t treat the Uluru climb as sacred in the way that the Anangu do, then they should be equally upset because most of the world eats beef, and because everyone dishonours a portion of time that is sacred to a significant number of the world’s population. Muslims regard Friday as holy; Jews and Sabbath-keeping Christians such as myself regard Saturday as holy; and much of Christianity regards Sunday as holy.

To treat the sacred customs and laws of the Anangu as normative for everyone may end up being condescending tokenism. It is as though repentant colonialists are now saying ‘we regret obliterating your culture, customs and laws, and now we will force us all to abide by it (though in an area where the impact on our daily lives will be minimal yet we can engage in virtue signalling to condemn others who disagree)’.

Uluru at sunset. Uluru is sacred to the local Anangu people.

Meanwhile protection for the rights of Christians to maintain their values within their own institutions in such areas as education around origins and sexuality is being progressively weakened. I’m not advocating for Christians to impose their values on others, just to be able to maintain their own values within their own lives and organisations.

There definitely is a clash of values between everyday Australian culture and the culture of the Anangu. I resonate with some of the values expressed by the chair of the Board of Management for the Uluru Kata Tjuta National Park, which made the decision to close the Uluru climb:

Whitefellas see the land in economic terms where Anangu see it as Tjukurpa. If the Tjukurpa is gone so is everything. We want to hold on to our culture. If we don’t it could disappear completely in another 50 or 100 years. We have to be strong to avoid this. The government needs to respect what we are saying about our culture in the same way it expects us to abide by its laws. It doesn’t work with money. Money is transient, it comes and goes like the wind. In Anangu culture Tjukurpa is ever lasting.

However, my own values come from different sacred writings: the Bible. I don’t expect the Board chair to honour all the laws in the Bible that are important to me. For true equality and reconciliation we should all be given freedom to choose which sacred laws to follow.

I’m a big fan of reconciliation. For me the most complete and sustainable form of reconciliation starts with each of us being reconciled to our Creator. Then we will naturally be reconciled with each other.

All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Cor 5:18-21

This reconciliation is all voluntary, based on love and freedom rather than imposition of sacred rules. There remains total freedom to reject the offer of reconciliation and choose selfishness instead. But that’s another topic.

Back to the climb, respect and reconciliation for the Anangu.

You wouldn’t climb a church, would you? This is the exact same, as Uluru is a sacred site for the Traditional owners of the land, the Anangu People.

OK, but this is their land, you may be thinking. Or, at least, Uluru is their land. Well, this is a complicated matter. Anyone who’s enjoyed the Australian classic The Castle probably has a good idea that native title versus terra nullius in Australia has a tortured and twisted history. I’m not a lawyer, so I’ll leave that matter to legal experts. However, right now (until 26 October 2019) the public has the legal right to climb Uluru.

I don’t condone the past forceful colonial dispossession of Aboriginals from their land. I’m not certain on the best solution for the future, but I’m guessing it probably doesn’t include handing back ownership of all Australian land to our first nations people. I honestly don’t know how much land or which land should be handed back. I do know that yesterday I simply exercised my right to be in that part of Australia, including to climb Uluru.

Back to my own spiritual values. Actually, I worship the God who created our earth. (That’s the reason I keep the seventh-day Sabbath holy, by the way; the Sabbath is a memorial of Creation.) To worship God is one of the reasons I climbed Uluru yesterday. For me, visiting and climbing Uluru was an intensely spiritual experience. I’m astounded by the beauty of God’s Creation. Uluru also happens to be a testament to the veracity of the biblical Genesis account of origins. The juxtaposed consistency of the upturned sedimentary strata that make up Uluru (and Kata Tjuta) does not match an evolutionary account of the rock’s geological origins nearly so well as the biblical flood narrative.

Me at the summit of Uluru, with Kata Tjuta in the background. I asked a stranger to take the photo then found out he knew my wife! Small world.

You may think that flood story is all a bit of far-fetched mythology; but here’s something to ponder. Local Aboriginal tribes also have a mythological Creation account for Uluru that includes a flood story with the specific detail of 40 days of rain that matches the biblical narrative. (This is only one of many similar such indigenous creation accounts around the world.)

This provides a challenge for the publicly sanctioned discourses of Aboriginal cultural sacredness and also the current scientific consensus regarding origins. Any biblical creation or flood story does not fit comfortably into socially acceptable narrative, yet provides remarkable overlaps with Aboriginal dreamtime stories and actual empirical geological evidence of the rock itself.

I do also care about our first nations people. There were many things that I saw while on holidays in the Northern Territory that warmed my heart. Aboriginal people have created sustainable tourism to grow their own economy while protecting the environment, sharing the experience and their culture with us. Anangu and other tribal leaders from Uluru to Kakadu gave us great insights into the land, plants, animals, people and culture of the regions we visited.

But there were also somewhat saddening observations. At Katherine, where my brother lives, I went into the bank where an elderly Aboriginal man was trying to withdraw money. He tried three times to provide a matching signature but each time was unable to. He was drunk. The bank teller caringly suggested that he go have some water to drink and come back after a couple of hours to try again.

At our lodge at Yulara a middle aged Aboriginal man from a neighbouring tribe (not Anangu) asked us to buy some alcohol for him. We said that we’ve never drunk alcohol in our lives and that he’d be healthier if he also didn’t drink any more. We had a friendly conversation for a few minutes but he was obviously disappointed that we didn’t support his desire for more alcohol. We were also sad for his plight brought on by the imposition of Western cultural excesses on a people ill equipped to handle such vices.

OK, so back to my climb. Yes, it was a once-in-in-a-lifetime opportunity that was too attractive to pass up. OK, I’ll admit there’s probably a bit of selfish motivation mixed in there. But if my selfishness was all about ‘conquering’ Uluru for myself, then I would have just done it without researching and posting this. True, my attempt at navigating the conflicting narratives in this post may also be tainted by selfish desire to prove my point – or gain notoriety?

But I would like to think that I’m actually making a valid point about the various conflicting narratives in our world where modern media (particularly of the ‘social’ variety) dumb-down discourse through virtue signalling and other devices that actually tend toward polarisation and away from reconciliation. (Why else would Israel Folau be vilified and ostracised as homophobic when there is scant substantive evidence for such a conclusion?)

Moving along, I regard a couple of other values as important and relevant here: safety and the environment.The safety of climbers provides perhaps the most striking of contrasts and mismatches. For the various Park Rangers I spoke to at Uluru, the real issue behind the climb closure is safety. For their own Work Health & Safety requirements rangers wear an attached harness to climb Uluru while the public goes up with no safety guidance or requirements other than one chain that goes the length of the steep climb.

The lone chain for climbers to hang onto is an anachronism. It was an appropriate response to climbing deaths in the 1960s, but in today’s litigious, risk averse and safety conscious age, one would expect to see a gondola lift or at least a harness system a la Sydney Harbour BridgeClimb. But even that would be distinctly out of place in the rugged natural environment that is Uluru. The chain itself is regarded as a scar on the naked beauty of the rock. Not to mention the buses lined up in the carpark spewing forth hundreds of tourists at once into what is ideally experienced and enjoyed as a serene and relatively solitary environment.

Then there is the mismatch of the bravado of the unfit and overweight thinking they are able to tackle the raw wilderness adventure that is an Uluru ascent. Rangers suggested that at the least there could be mandatory health screening before admission to attempt an ascent. The majority of deaths on Uluru have been from over-exertion: heart-attack. I would also suggest that a better way to ensure safety of climbers is to have a sign-on / sign-off register, and to only allow a limited number commence each minute rather than an en masse assault like an advancing army of Alexander the Great, only much less organised and more likely to wound each other than gloriously conquer Uluru.

The strain on the natural environment is another good reason to cease the climb in its current format. We saw several personal items falling uncontrollably down the rock – water bottles, camera parts, tissues, hats – all in the space of a few minutes. For those who take the better part of the day, there are the inevitable deposits of human waste (and toilet paper) in the crevasses and water courses on the rock.

There are numerous cultural clashes too. We saw angry Chinese would-be climbers shouting at the rangers because they closed the climb for safety reasons due to high winds. The tourists’ frustration was understandable when they could see other climbers beginning their ascent, lucky to have entered the gate just before the rangers assessed the risk as too great. Surely there is a better risk management approach than to simply stop more people entering the climb while those already on the rock are free to take all day with no information service to alert them of heightened wind risk.

Contrast that with the anger of virtue signalling city dwellers shaming climbers. Meanwhile the local Anangu people did not show any anger that I saw; rather indifference or sadness at the history of exploitation of their country and culture.

In my own climb I tried to resolve as many of the mismatches as I could. I took only my phone up to grab some quick pictures and climbed up and down without ever touching the chain. This made it easy to overtake the hundreds of tourists ill-prepared for such a climb. I only spent about 45 minutes on the rock in total: 20 minutes to the summit (about 10 min to top of chain) and 25 minutes down, stopping to admire the raw natural beauty of the rock and its surrounds.

As should be obvious by now, physical fitness is another value of mine. A few days earlier I also ran around the base walk in around 52 minutes (11 km). My whole family rode bikes around it on another day, taking our time (about 2 hours for 16 km). We also went to sunrise and sunset viewing places on multiple occasions each, and did the walks at Kata Tjuta.

Watching sunset at Uluru with my family

The Uluru climb actually reminds me of climbing straight up the face of The Pyramid at Girraween. The incline, risks and level of difficulty are quite similar. I have walked up the first Pyramid countless times (and the second Pyramid once) so my one and only climb of Uluru had a sense of déjà vu for muscle memory if not for the completely different surrounding terrain and type and size of rock.

So I’m happy to have immersed myself in some of the natural, cultural and historical world of Uluru. At least, enough to have formed my own perspective on the many clashes of culture, ideology and values that it highlights. Unsurprisingly, with such conflicting values and narratives, I leave with mixed feelings about the upcoming permanent closure of the climb, and invite you to form your own views.

My wife Renee at the summit with our boy’s little teddy.

Free Will: Really? How? Why?

Life is all about choices… or is it? Is free will just an illusion or is there an immaterial, moral dimension to our experience, to reality? Are we really free? And if so, how should we make the most of that freedom and make the best choices? Is there a shortcut to optimising our decisions by consulting some fortune-telling God? Watch this video to find out.

My Modern 95 Theses

500 years ago Martin Luther kick-started the Protestant Reformation with his own 95 theses posted in Wittenberg on 31 October 1517. Much has changed in our world since then, and Martin Luther’s protest was a significant moment in improving many things.

But there’s still a lot left to protest about. I’ve chosen my own 95 points of protests about various social, environmental and religious issues relevant to our world today.

Second coming & prophecy

  1. The same revolutionary Jesus Christ who literally restarted how we count history 2017 years ago promised He would come back to earth and restart history again.
  2. The Bible prophecies of Daniel 2 and Daniel 9 give astoundingly accurate predictions of future events, culminating in Jesus first and second comings. Dead sea scrolls demonstrate authenticity. Jesus’ first coming was exactly as predicted, as were major world events through to now. One event still outstanding: Jesus’ second coming.
  3. I have told you these things before they happen so that when they do happen, you will believe. John 14:29 – Jesus
  4. And you will hear of wars and threats of wars, but don’t panic. Yes, these things must take place, but the end won’t follow immediately. Matthew 24:6 – Jesus
  5. I will come and get you, so that you will always be with me where I am. John 14:3 – Jesus

(Ir)relevance of the church

  1. Protestant = one protesting against misrepresentations of God and the Bible. 500 years after Luther posted his 95 theses, such protest is very much still relevant. But Christians fighting amongst themselves to be “right” is rather missing the point.
  2. I protest the child sex crimes of the church!
  3. When church is done right, it’s one of the very best things on earth. When church is done wrong, it’s antichrist. – David Asscherick
  4. The aim of most religion is to work to improve one’s standing. Sadly, that’s why religion is losing its relevance – there are far more effective self-help programs out there. Religion IS relevant if it helps us rest in God’s goodness, not pursue our own. He took our bad and gave us His good.
  5. Church done well is a hospital for the sin-sick, not a museum for saints.
  6. Biblically, the church’s role is proclamational not salvational. We have something to SAY but we are powerless to SAVE. Jesus alone saves. – David Asscherick

Separation of church & state

  1. Religious freedom and separation of church and state: one of the best things to come out of the Reformation. Surprisingly, Luther himself didn’t embrace this principle. It’s being obscured again today.
  2. The conservative right wants to impose religious values on society. The liberal left correctly separates church and state. However, the left imposes secularism and makes it difficult to uphold one’s own religious values without being treated – even punished – as a bigot.
  3. When you vote, ask not “Who will legislate my religious values?” but rather “Who will allow freedom of religious values and beliefs, even those opposed to my own, and freedom to express and share religious beliefs and values with others?”

Government & economy

  1. Polarised partisan politics combined with the shallow social media analysis are unravelling Western liberal democracy.
  2. On evidence to date it seems the best of bad options for political systems is liberal democracy. But the jury is out again now thanks to 24/7 (fake?) news cycle, ‘scrutiny’ of social media and plethora of self-serving leaders.
  3. Capitalism: a logical extension of the Reformation and Protestant work ethic. Great source of individual freedom and opportunity, but also basis for huge inequality, populist uprising and global conflict. “Income from labor is about as unequally distributed as has ever been observed anywhere. “ – Thomas Piketty
  4. Given the fundamental selfishness of human nature, it makes sense to legislate on the assumption of homo economicuseven though this presents a less-than-ideal foundation.
  5. I still believe that free market capitalism, with regulatory intervention to protect externalities, is the best of bad options in current circumstances. Only the permanent and complete removal of selfishness and greed will present a better system, but we have to wait for God’s final perfect solution for that.
  6. American exceptionalism only gets off the ground as an idea if the role of government is celebrated (as opposed to minimised) or if the foundational ideology is racist. Otherwise America is just like any other nation, but with a unique set of chance characteristics that happen to put it in a position of global dominance for a limited time.

Salvation & sacrificial atonement

  1. Jesus took the guilt, shame and death that we each deserve so that we could have the abundant life that only He deserves. Amazing!
  2. Jesus on the Cross: the unique story where the hero voluntarily dies for the villain. The best news ever!


  1. The Bible is full of profound and timeless wisdom. Such gems as “do to others what you would like them to do to you.” It’s worth regular reading.
  2. “A simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council without it.” Martin Luther

Hell & death

  1. Eternal torment in hell: if true, then God is not love but a tyrant. Thankfully, not true. Imported into early Christianity from Greek philosophy.
  2. Ghosts, witches, séances, apparitions, Wicca, etc – all propped up by two wrongs: the myth that the soul cannot die and the real but passing presence of evil supernatural beings.

Health & health care

  1. A vegetarian diet was largely scoffed at just a few years ago. Now it is the rage. 150 years ago Ellen White received prescient health insights and set up a whole demographic for longer healthier living. #AdventistHealthStudy
  2. Affordable universal healthcare saved my life. Thanks Australia!


  1. How can a mother’s rights over her womb trump her unborn baby’s rights to life while after birth, a baby’s rights to life trump a mother’s rights to her breasts and uninterrupted sleep? I’m all for consistency: let’s also prioritise the rights of the unborn child.

Judgmental intolerant society

  1. The moral relativism, ‘tolerance’ and non-judgmentalism of the left unfortunately tends to lead to absolute intolerance and judgmentalism of anything deemed not to fit the new ethic.


  1. Marriage and the Sabbath. Two institutions given by God right at the beginning in a perfect world. Both under extreme attack.
  2. The Sabbath is the most misunderstood gift to humanity. It is an institution of rest. The exclusion of work. Yet for many it is confused as a works-based approach to God. How can: (no work + rest) = work?


  1. “Professing to be wise, they became fools” (Rom 1:22). The prevailing wisdom of the age on sexuality, gender and reproduction is foolishness. – David Asscherick
  2. Arguing for ‘marriage equality’ from an ‘evolutionary origins of species’ point of view has no principled basis for restricting ‘equality’ to two consenting non-related adult humans. From a genetic perspective, ‘marriage equality’ arguments should either let any combination of any number of organisms marry or restrict it to identical twins. Something between those extremes is ‘optimisation’ which negates the whole argument for ‘equality’. I’m all for optimisation. Enough genetic difference (e.g., X & Y chromosomes) yet similarity (e.g., homo sapiens) to optimise life for succeeding generations.
  3. The truest thing about each human’s identity has little to do with their sexual identification or sexual preference. It is that each of us is created in God’s image, and is loved by the Creator of the universe, enough for Him to die for us!
  4. Marriage provides an amazing foundation for a resilient family unit, the building block of a successful society. It is more about fierce uncompromising commitment than about feelings of romance or sexual attraction. Let’s move the conversation to setting the bar high for healthy resilient marriages rather than merely defining legally what marriage is and isn’t.

Gun control

  1. Thanks John Howard for Australia’s gun control. Americans seem to have a hard time figuring out why controlling access civilians’ to personal nukes would be a bad idea.
  2. If you’re going to argue that gun rights are sacred, please articulate a principle that logically differentiates a civilian’s right to bear guns from their right to bear nukes.
  3. The NRA and its ties to conservative politics in the US (actually, both sides for that matter) has totally warped American perspectives on gun violence. One American’s personal stance on never touching a gun speaks volumes: the story of Desmond Doss. #HacksawRidge

Conspiracy theories & polarised discourse

  1. Conspiracy theories are much easier to concoct than accurate explanations of complex realities. Some ‘alternative facts’ may end up proving correct; but there is very little value in peddling conspiracy theories.
  2. Any debate these days tends toward extreme polarised points of view. Truth usually comes with at least two associated error traps often at opposite ends of a spectrum. Slogans and strawmen arguments abound, but wisdom and understanding requires committed engagement.

Inequality & social justice

  1. Thank you Jesus for positively discriminating to assist the downtrodden and disadvantaged.
  2. Act your wage: “People buy things they don’t need, with money they don’t have, to impress people they don’t like.” – Clive Hamilton, Growth Fetish
  3. “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.” – Jesus, Luke 12:15
  4. But if someone who is supposed to be a Christian has money enough to live well, and sees a brother in need, and won’t help him—how can God’s love be within him? Little children, let us stop just sayingwe love people; let us really love them, and show it by our  1 John 3:16,17

Gender & sexism

  1. The biblical view that I hold is that both genders are of equal value but are created to be different and complementary both ontologically and functionally.
  2. While I don’t believe women should be actively prevented from doing things that men traditionally do, nor valued or remunerated less, I question whether an objective of 50-50 splits or equivalent sameness in all functions and roles is helpful. Men will never be able to perform the incredible functions of women in bringing children into the world.

Climate change & environmentalism

  1. There is overwhelming evidence that anthropogenic global warming is a major global issue. The conservative right, with its ties to the energy and resources industries, has manufactured unreasonable doubt, successfully obfuscating the evidence.
  2. With strong links between evangelicals and right-wing politics, Christians have fallen for twisted logic to believe that humans could not possibly alter earth’s climate.
  3. I’m no leftie, but the left is far more realistic than the right on the diagnosis of climate change, even if not all their proposed remedies are ideal.
  4. Christians take note: caring for the natural environment and animal welfare are very much biblical principles and responsibilities of all humankind.

Foreign policy, immigration & armed conflict

  1. A softer stance on foreign policy happens to be in harmony with biblical principles of “turn the other cheek”, “love your enemies”, and so on. I’m not saying there is never a place for the use of armed forces, but I resonate with stories such as that of Desmond Doss. Far too much is spent on military. #HacksawRidge
  2. Jesus told the story of the good Samaritan as an example of showing open friendship and love to foreigners, who Jesus preferred to call neighbours.
  3. For people who claim to be children of God, having open borders and sharing our wealth and resources makes a good deal of moral sense.
  4. The example of modern Germany, being prepared to take in Syrian refugees, is much more similar to the principles of Jesus than aggressive border protection policies of other Western countries.

Globalisation vs nationalism

  1. Nationalism – putting self first – is against Jesus’ principles of open friendship and sharing. But globalisation can easily entail attempts at coercive central government control.
  2. Globalisation is inherently socially disconnected and isolating. To the extent we embrace global connectedness, we lose local connectedness. We simply do not have the capacity to maintain loving close relationships with that many people.
  3. Christians take note: neither extreme of globalisation nor nationalism is in harmony with biblical counsel and the wisdom of Jesus. How about open, sharing local communities whose open borders are more for the purposes of giving than accumulating and protecting?


  1. The left sees nothing wrong with Islam; while the right sees many things wrong. Yet the right is unable to see own faults. Christians take note: Jesus called out the faults of those who claimed to be God’s followers far more vehemently than He called out the faults of the ‘heathen’ religions outside of Israel.
  2. Jesus continually said good things about Samaritans. He was a friend of the Samaritan; and is a friend of the Muslim today.
  3. The Samaritans were the equivalent of modern day Muslims. Yet somehow Jesus seemed to ignore the hostility of a few of them and focus on the hypocrisy of His own chosen people.
  4. I open my heart, wallet and the place I call home to refugees of all faiths. I’m all for shielding and protecting Muslims, even if not the religion of Islam, or any religion, for that matter.

Morality & law

  1. Finding a basis for moral laws is a philosophically fraught area. It is difficult to argue for any version of foundational morality without appealing to religion (e.g. the Judeo Christian moral law). There does not appear to be any better alternative.
  2. Abandoning the foundation of Judeo Christian law usually diminishes law and order. However, I would only make a pragmatic appeal to a solid foundation of morality rather than attempt to impose religion.
  3. If morality was solely defined by consensus or utilitarian ethics, it seems doubtful that there would always be protection for the basic human rights of minorities or the voiceless – e.g., the unborn.
  4. While I do think that the last 6 of the 10 commandments are the best basis for upholding morals in society, the challenge is finding an appropriate extent to legislate these. For example, it makes sense to outlaw rape, in harmony with the seventh commandment (against adultery), but probably not to outlaw consensual adultery. Similarly, it makes sense to outlaw perjury, but probably not lying about the size of the fish you caught. I can’t think of any reasonable legal application of the commandment against coveting.
  5. To me it seems hypocritical to fight against same sex marriage while not fighting, to the same extent, against the legal provisions for ‘no fault’ divorce. But equally it is hypocritical to claim that opposition to same sex marriage must necessarily be imposition of one’s religion on non-believers.

Personal revival of spirituality

  1. Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. John 17:3
  2. God can be more than ‘proved’ – He can be known and experienced – David Asscherick. See Psalm 34:8
  3. Faith rests on evidence and reason, but God offers more (not less) than this: firsthand experience and personal relationship (Heb 11:1). – David Asscherick
  4. Letting go of self and pride, admitting you were wrong, and continually learning. This is the most liberating way to live, and enables us to grow spiritually.

Suicide, mental health, screen time

  1. There is a direct correlation between the amount of screen time and the decline in mental health of our current generation. – Numerous scientific studies.
  2. Enjoy the outdoors with family and friends but without technology!

Is God real? Creation vs evolution

  1. “In the beginning God.” – the Dawkins delusion, by God (apologies to Alister McGrath)
  2. I’m against pseudo-science. But atheists who are respected scientifically get away with speculative and unprovable ideas such as SETI and the multiverse. So it seems reasonable to let Christians get away with the idea of “God” being the answer to SETI or the multiverse. Atheism 0 Theism 0
  3. The common picture of God has been so badly distorted from reality so as to make atheism attractive in comparison. Like the erroneous doctrine of eternal hellfire. That one piece of distortion makes the atrocities of Hitler and Stalin look like child’s play. And God an absolute tyrant. Own-goal by theists.
  4. Theism wins easily, in terms of utility, risk management & opportunity maximization, and philosophical/logical coherence. And, according to John Lennox, empirically, to boot. #PascalsWager Theism 1 Atheism 0.
  5. Accounting for free will. in a materialist (atheist) worldview, everythingis known or determined (even if humans do not yet have insight into the future). There is no freedom. No choice. Just the illusion of it. It is in this (atheist) worldview that I have to conclude that my choices are pointless, that there is no free will, and that everything that was going to happen is already determined. The script is already written. Theism 1 Atheism 0.
  6. The fact that freedom exists is what the new atheist unwittingly tries to take advantage of when he or she tries to persuade others to choose to abandon belief in God. But freedom of choice does not exist in a purely material universe.
  7. The fact that true freedom exists powerfully argues that a powerful intelligence (God) designed it that way. That God loves you enough to give you the choice of whether to believe His claims or not. To serve Him or not. And to love Him back or not.
  8. Abiogenesis: a major stumbling block to an evolutionary explanation for the origin (not just diversity) of species. Theism 1 Atheism 0.
  9. Consciousness: another major hurdle for material explanations of the universe. Theism 1 Atheism 0.
  10. Morality: either it has a transcendent and absolute quality, allowing (say) paedophilia to be vile under any circumstances, or it’s entirely a relative social construct which may change across time and place. Theism 1 Atheism 0.
  11. Meaning, purpose, destiny: without these, life is axiomatically meaningless, directionless, and pointless. Theism 1 Atheism 0.
  12. Material explanations for the universe are struggling to come up with any sort of compelling explanation for the presence of information (e.g., genetic code), logic, and finely tuned physical laws. All from nothing!? Theism 1 Atheism 0.
  13. In the years ahead there will be two massive pendulum swings away from atheism. One will be true (Rev 14:6-12), the other will be false (Matt 24:24-25). The false correction will swing from atheism to experience-based spiritual phenomena (2 Cor 11:14-15). The true correction will swing from selfishness to self-sacrificing love (Jn 13:35).

The great controversy between good & evil

  1. Evil may look like it has a strong foothold, even the upper hand. But love has already won the war. Evil and death have been forever defeated at the cross!
  2. I’m keen for the world as we know it to come to an end, but not because I want conflict and destruction. Instead, I am looking forward to God restoring our lives and planet to the perfect eternal love and happiness He intended.
  3. Christians please note: the Bible teaching regarding the ‘investigative judgment’ as a mechanism for transparently dealing with evil totally makes sense and comes naturally if you believe in ‘soul sleep’ and Arminianism (i.e., personal freedom of choice). It’s a natural fit into the narrative that “God is love”.
  4. God is love! Love requires freedom. Freedom entails risk.

God’s presence in and direction for my life

  1. As our loving Father, God wants us to learn to make good decisions for ourselves based on the principles and values of His character of love and freedom. Not to treat Him as a Divine fortune-teller.
  2. I miss my dad, who died a year ago. He had a big positive influence in my life. He was an atheist who found God and totally changed his direction to live for God. I look forward to seeing my dad again.
  3. I love my wife, Renee, and my kids. They have taught me much about selflessness, love and God. I have found marriage to be the best way to refine one’s character, reduce selfishness, and increase happiness.
  4. I have had numerous life experiences that demonstrate to me that God is real, life has purpose and meaning, and authentic love and freedom truly exist. A ‘chance’ meeting at a train station and recovery from a freak accident are just two of many life-shaping experiences that confirm experientially the empirical and philosophical evidences that God is real and God is love.
  5. Jesus of Nazareth: my guru, friend and Saviour. God of the universe. Yours too.

Being filled with God’s Spirit

Being filled with God’s Spirit is a goal for my whole life, but this year I am committing to extra prayer for being more filled with God’s Spirit.

What does that mean? And what does it NOT mean?

When on Earth, Jesus promised His Spirit so that we can experience His personal presence in our lives to the same extent as when He was on earth. This intimacy leads to fruits in the life, such as love, joy, peace, etc. And an empowered life.

I’ve already experienced a closeness with God brought about by God’s Spirit, and want more.

A few weeks ago I was talking to a good Christian friend, saying I was seeking for more of God’s Spirit. He replied: “So you’re speaking in tongues?”

I don’t have the privilege of the gift of tongues. But I don’t feel deficient because of that.

I’ve done a bit of study to see what the Bible says about speaking in tongues. I had two questions:

  1. Is speaking in tongues an essential sign of being filled with God’s Spirit?
  2. Are ‘tongues’ foreign or unintelligible languages?

This is what I found:

Doctrinal cluedo - Tongues

I believe in the gift of tongues in our day. I have a good friend, a pastor currently in Sydney, who was on a mission trip in Papua New Guinea and was given the gift of tongues to be able to communicate with the locals there, crossing the language barrier. That is, after all, the purpose of the gift of tongues, as seen in Acts 2. Ultimately, the gifts of the Spirit are for the purpose of empowering our message about God and His true character of love.

But tongues (as in, crossing the foreign language barrier) is just one relatively minor footnote in the story of God’s Spirit. God’s Spirit is about bringing truth, knowledge, power and a better life, not about bringing the confusion of unintelligible utterances (which would hardly be a convincing ‘sign for unbelievers’). Nor about quick-fix emotional highs like a drug (which perhaps could have been a ‘sign for believers’, albeit a fickle one). He brings lasting love, joy and peace that transcends circumstances.

I believe in and desire the outpouring of God’s Spirit. I’m seeking it daily.

I believe God’s Spirit is more about truth, goodness, wisdom, peace and love than about the fleeting ecstasy that many have unwittingly come to expect.

Christians, please think twice before supporting Trump


James Dobson. Source: Speakerpedia

James Dobson and many other Christians support a vote for Trump because, they say, he upholds traditional Christian and family values better than Clinton. But coerced morality has a murky history of backfiring.

It is true that the Republicans have traditionally upheld conservative values in social policy more strongly than the Democrats. Trump has tapped into this history – e.g., with his slogan “Make America great again”. Of course, the slogan is also a catch-all reference to many other things such as turning the economy around.

I do believe that the success of modern Western civilization is built heavily on Christian principles and values, which, I agree, are currently being eroded. But I believe the successes of the West were not built on the legislation of religious values. Rather they were built on principles of religious freedom; the separation of church and state. And appropriate enforcement of law and order.

But law and order is not always the same thing as morality. There is definitely a connection, but also a lot of confusion. An obvious example of overlap is murder. Murder is both morally wrong and against law and order. But what about adultery? Is it immoral? Most would say yes. But is it, or should it be, illegal? Most would say no.

Then there’s a hotly contested grey area in between where what may be considered immoral is not necessarily considered illegal. Gay marriage and abortion would have to be placed here.

As Christian values are slowly being eroded, it is tempting for Christians to fight the changing moral landscape through legislation. But I argue that the attempted legislation of conservative morality is a sure sign of a society in decay. Look back at history. The Jews tried to codify hundreds of additional laws to ensure that their people wouldn’t suffer the natural consequences of breaking God’s moral laws. But they ended up crucifying Jesus and lost their nationhood. The Roman church of the Dark Ages tried to burn heretics to preserve their version of Christianity, but that merely spawned the Reformation and then the rise of atheism. Centuries later the Roman church’s deadly wound is only now being healed.

Western Christian leaders are now trying to legislate to marginalize Muslims, gays, immigrants, women and anyone else who poses a threat to white male beliefs, values and power. Trump has harnessed this mentality to garner electoral support. Will history look back any differently on today’s latest attempts at coerced religious morality by an unholy alliance of church and state?


Donald Trump. Source:

Trump is hardly a standard for virtuous morality himself. And his constantly changing policy positions appear to be simply calculated to generate votes rather than being aligned to any moral compass. This hypocrisy has historical analogues in the corrupt Jewish leaders and the corrupt leaders of the Roman medieval church.

I understand there is widespread feeling that the American political system is broken. My appeal to my American friends is to consider whether you want to restore Christian values through legislation by a broken political system or through grass roots Christian revival unfettered by government coercion?

So when you go to vote, ask not “Who will legislate my religious values?” but rather “Who will allow freedom of religious values and beliefs, even those opposed to my own, and freedom to express and share religious beliefs and values with others?” State sanctioned coercion and persecution has only ever backfired, helping spread religious values opposed to the church-state union of the day. Just look at the early Christian church and then the Reformation for evidence of that in the past. And the Bible predicts another repeat in the near future.

So please take this perspective into account before promoting or voting for Trump. Note that I’m not asking my American friends to vote for a particular candidate. There are potential problems ahead if Clinton wins, too.

There is abundant evidence that Bible prophecy is compellingly accurate about our world’s past and present. Thus the predictions about the future are also compelling. Europe and America are focal points of Bible prophecy relevant to today. With the assurance of a track record of reliably fulfilled prophecy, I know the immediate future is not pretty, regardless of the outcome of this election. But God’s love and grace are enough to get us through whatever details the future holds.

I’m keen for the world as we know it to come to an end, but not because I want conflict and destruction. Instead, I am looking forward to God restoring our lives and planet to the perfect eternal love and happiness He intended.

Needle in a Haystack: True Story

You’re about to read an amazing true story of an incredibly unlikely set of circumstances that saved a friend of mine from suffering, separation and loss. So unlikely that it gives me reason to believe in an unseen hand guiding the affairs of our lives. You can have confidence in the story because I was directly involved, wrote down the details shortly after it happened, and know several others who can also verify details of what happened.

Have you ever tried to find one person among millions? Source:

Have you ever tried to find one person among millions? Source:

Joe[*] was deeply distressed. He had tried his hardest to be the best Christian he knew how to be, but felt that God did not accept him.

Joe was a reclusive young fellow. He’d previously been involved in dark satanic arts and rituals. He struggled with depression and anxiety. But he was most earnest.

A few years ago, Joe reached the point of despair. The Christianity he was pursuing was not working for him. He reached a very private personal crisis that only he knew about. Feeling unable to talk to anyone, he devised a plan to bring resolution. At least he hoped it would resolve his struggles.

He would leave everything he knew and go back to work in the satanic music store in another state where he had previously worked.

He left work early that afternoon, then gathered his most important possessions. He dyed his blond hair black, shaved part of his head, and put on black clothes, sunglasses and boots. He was making a definite departure from his search for light to go back to the darkness he knew. He wanted nobody to recognise him or to intervene.

He got in his car and drove to the train station near the church he had been attending. He scribbled a note to say goodbye. He left the note on the car seat, and left a loaded gun in the car boot. He grabbed his bags and caught the train to Sydney’s Central station where he would then catch the overnight train that was due to leave at 7pm.

His family noticed that he didn’t come home at the usual time so started to make some enquiries. They realised something was not right with Joe so quickly became worried. They thought perhaps he had gone to a midweek church meeting so went looking there. They found his car and saw his note.

Their hearts started racing. What had happened to their beloved Joe? The note was brief and gave no indication of whether he was leaving or … They did not want to think.

Then they opened the boot, saw the loaded weapon, and their worst fears flooded over them.

They quickly called some of Joe’s friends to try to trace him, hoping he had not harmed himself. But nobody knew anything of Joe’s movements that afternoon.

Joe had been a member of the youth group in an active and growing church, and so he had a couple of close friends with whom he sometimes socialised. These two young men embarked on a city wide search for their friend.

But it was like finding a needle in a haystack. Finding one missing person in a city of 4 million seemed futile. Joe left no clues as to where he was going or what he intended to do.

His friends and family asked the whole church to pray for Joe, that he would be protected from harm and restored back to his family.

The message to pray for Joe reached me at the University of Technology that evening. I had an evening class and was heading home a little after 7pm. I prayed silently for Joe as I was walking back to the train station to go home.

As I was hurrying through Sydney’s Central station to catch my train, I thought I recognised a vaguely familiar figure in the corner of my eye.

Country link train on Central's Platform 1. Source:

Country link train on Central’s Platform 1. Source:

There was Joe, sitting on a bench on Platform 1, waiting for his interstate train.

I almost walked right past him. He was barely recognisable.

He tried to avoid my eyes. I did a double take, called his name. It was Joe alright!

He was shy, embarrassed, but most important was still alive and well! The lost needle had been found in the haystack the size of Sydney!

Joe told me of his plan to go and work at the satanic music store. I was so happy to have found him, but so sad for his desperation. I pled with him to stay with us. “We love you, Joe. God loves you.”

Joe was a little bit cautious and reserved. I assured him that his parents were really worried for him, and truly loved him. He hesitated. I continued to plead with him.

After a couple of minutes he decided not to leave Sydney. He would come back home with me! What joy and relief!

As we were leaving Platform 1 to go buy Joe a ticket to get the train back home instead, the overnight interstate train pulled onto the platform. It was half an hour late!

I went with him all the way back to his car parked near our church. On the way he showed me what he had packed in his bags. He showed me a couple of clubs covered with spikes that he had prepared to use as weapons. I was shocked but happy to have Joe back safe and sound.

I believe in a loving God who was looking out for Joe that night.

There was a board meeting at the church that evening. They were all praying for Joe. Imagine their surprise and joy to see the direct answer to their prayers.

Joe’s parents were filled with relief to see their boy back home. The whole ordeal was over in just a few hours, without the need for any emergency services.

How much worse it could have been for Joe, his family, and his friends.

Praise God for the safe and happy ending to the day’s drama.


Just think about all the things that happened that evening, and ponder with me the probability that all of this just happened by random chance.

Joe had maybe about 50 people praying for him, and just a handful actively looking for him: his family and his two mates. He was one person lost in a city of 4 million, and on his way to another city.

I had prayed for him but had no idea that he would be anywhere near me on my route home from university. I was definitely not looking for him. Joe normally lived and worked about an hour from where I was studying.

Normally closed passageway to enter via Platform 1. Source: Google Streetview

Normally closed passageway to enter via Platform 1. Source: Google Streetview

I was catching a suburban train at Central. Joe was catching an interstate train. He was already on his platform waiting for his train that arrived half an hour late. Had it been on time, or just a bit less late, our paths could not have crossed.

And what was I even doing on an interstate platform? Occasionally I did enter the station that way, but I usually went the way most people do, via the Devonshire St tunnel that links Broadway directly to the suburban train platforms.

Sometimes I would take the above ground route. And rarely, I would enter an opening in the wall at Platform 1. If you go to Central you will find this opening is usually closed. Entry is not permitted. For some reason, that evening, I went via Platform 1.

My normal route to catch my train would not normally lead me to where Joe was waiting for his train. Source: Google Maps

My normal route to catch my train would not normally lead me to where Joe was waiting for his train. Source: Google Maps

Even still, Central is a very busy station and Platform 1 was crowded with people waiting to board that train. The chances of me seeing Joe that evening were vanishingly slim.

It all makes sense looking back. God was in control. These were not mere random coincidences.

We have a God who loves and cares for each of us deeply. But He doesn’t force Himself on anyone. He doesn’t even provide incontrovertible evidence that He exists, because He wants people to freely choose to love Him back. But He provides enough evidence on which to solidly base our faith. This story is one such example.

As I look back in my life the evidence of His love for me and for all of humanity is overwhelming. We have an amazing God of love and grace!

[*] Not his real name

Twenty-three hundred… and now only three minutes to midnight!

Here’s an interesting way to remember the significance of the Bible’s 2300 day prophecy. This is by no means the prophet Daniel’s intended interpretation. But noteworthy nonetheless.


The Doomsday Clock. Source:

It relates to the doomsday clock, by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. According to these eminent scientists, the threat of human caused global catastrophe due to nuclear weapons and climate change is so high that they characterise it using the time 23:57.

The closest we have come to midnight by this clock was 23:58, at the height of the Cold War.

As that threat receded the doomsday clock wound back as far as 23:43 but has since climbed back to 23:57 in 2015, and stayed there notwithstanding the recent Paris climate agreement.

Pretty precarious times, these.

Now, back to the 2300 day prophecy. Let’s ignore the units and the start period of the 2300 day prophecy for a moment.

What does “twenty-three hundred” bring to mind?

One hour to midnight? If so, good! As they say about great minds… Never mind. Just let me say I think this provides a helpful way to remember the significance of the prophecy, even if not its intended interpretation.

According to Daniel 7, 8 and 9, the 2300 day prophecy brings us to within the period of time we know as the “time of the end.” We could metaphorically call this stage of Earth’s history the time approaching midnight.

Now, if the 2300 days does indeed bring us to 1844, and a day does indeed represent a year, when would midnight be? Simple extrapolation brings us to the denouement of World War II. The year 1944 included one of the last major turning points in Europe: D-Day. But there were bigger turning points in the preceding 3 years, where the threat of Third Reich global domination was largely averted.

Needless to say, we sailed perilously close to midnight during World War II, even before the Doomsday clock started plotting our situation from 1947.

And we have flirted with midnight for quite some time, now.

The progression toward midnight has not been uniform at all. It is as though there are opposing forces driving us both toward and away from disaster.

It reminds me of Bible passages that talk about God holding back the “four winds” of strife, and that there appears to be a delay in His return. All for the sake of not allowing any to perish without having the chance to be rescued.

Even if not the original intention, I find the “twenty-three hundred” nomenclature significant in highlighting how close we are to the end. The Bible and the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists have common ground on this point. But only the Bible presents a glorious rescue plan and future for humanity, if we choose it.

For other recent posts on the Investigative Judgment, see:

What’s the big deal about Adventism’s Investigative Judgment?

scalesofjusticeI believe the Seventh-day Adventist teaching on the Investigative Judgment (IJ) for several reasons.

The Great Controversy Narrative

The IJ makes sense as part of the over-arching Great Controversy narrative of God’s transparent interaction with His created intelligent beings and His character of love and freedom. It contributes to my appreciation of the awesomeness of God’s character of love.

It is the Logical Outcome of Soul-Sleep and Arminianism, without Compromising Assurance

The IJ is the natural outworking of our unique Adventist position on soul sleep, the Great Controversy narrative and our understanding of freewill and how that plays out in salvation.

Any attacks on the IJ as though it undermined assurance are really fundamentally an attack on our Arminian understanding of salvation – appealing to either Calvinism or a hybrid form where we have some freewill of once saved always saved. Or they are a straw man attack.

A common criticism is that the IJ doctrine undermines assurance. “You have a 7 year old wake up with nightmares about the judgment and wondering if he is going to be with his Saviour in heaven.”

The theology change necessary to remove this criticism is not changing the timing or manner of any judgment, but a change in basic understanding of salvation and/or freewill. Either the child needs to understand that salvation is not dependent on his own keeping of the commandments (legalism) but on Christ’s righteousness, or salvation needs to be independent of freewill altogether.

The Adventist church has always taught that salvation is by grace through faith. Christ is our righteousness. The part we play in our own salvation is to choose whether or not to believe in the good news of Jesus. This belief is not contradicted by the Adventist teaching on the Investigative judgment; although many have misunderstood salvation and/or judgment and become confused as to the significance, implications and interrelationship of the teachings.

Adventists have not always presented our doctrines in a Christ-centred way; so the misunderstanding is somewhat understandable and definitely unfortunate.

But if our salvation is understood as being dependent on Christ’s righteousness and not our own, then the next logical option for the above 7 year old is not to question the doctrine of the investigative judgment but to question our basic understanding of human freewill. We should soon realise that any doctrine of the investigative judgment has little to do with the question of assurance. Any lack of assurance is because we either misunderstand Christ’s role in our salvation and take our eyes off Him, or because we can’t accept that our role of choosing our destiny, based on human freewill, remains. This is independent of any doctrine of timing or transparency of pre-Advent judgment.

If we remove freewill, then there are two broad options. Salvation would either not depend on one’s choices but on an arbitrary decree of God (Calvinism) or be applied to everyone regardless of their preference (universalism). Or some hybrid (e.g., once saved always saved).

The hybrid is an interesting one. In attempting to provide assurance by providing the “best” of both Calvinism and Arminianism, ‘once saved always saved’ actually delivers the worst. It removes freewill without satisfactorily improving assurance. Assurance isn’t guaranteed because it is always humanly possible to doubt whether you’ve ever crossed the line into salvation. Even in Calvinism, the nightmares should really become worse because we can never quite be sure whether we are among the predestined elect or not.

A useful analogy here is a high school student having nightmares about whether her exam scores are good enough to get her into studying medicine. The solution to removing the nightmares is not a change of the method, transparency or timing of the marking process. The solution would have to be one of changing or relaxing the entry requirements to remove the anxiety. The equivalent of simply removing the IJ doctrine but keep every other doctrine the same is to do instantaneous exam marking by a super-computer in the split-second before ATAR scores are published. It should be obvious that such a change would actually do nothing to prevent the anxious student’s nightmares.

It Resonates with Human Experience

A lot of the internal critics of the IJ complain that people who have questioned the teaching of the IJ have been silenced without a proper hearing. Their ideas and questions, they feel, were not given the light of day they deserved.

I resonate with their desire for open, transparent dealings with contradictory ideas and the people who hold them. That seems like a better application of the Golden Rule than simply shutting down dissent and excluding dissidents.

The interesting thing is that the IJ under question is actually all about providing just what the human heart desires: open, transparent and fair dealing. From the God of the universe, no less. He could simply annihilate all opposition. Instantaneously. But the beauty of His character is that He takes time to allow rebellion to demonstrate its true character and results for all to see. He also takes His time in investigation and judgment.

You may ask how and why does an open and transparent process that’s happening entirely outside of my present observations resonate with me? Let me go back to the above illustration of a high school student and exam marking. Does she have any visibility of the exam marking process between when it starts and when the ATAR scores are announced? No. Does she care that the process is open, transparent and auditable? Yes; she would be far less satisfied if the marking was done instantaneously by a ‘black-box’ supercomputer immediately before ATAR scores are announced. Especially if there was a background of accusations about the fairness of the supercomputer.

So in the context of Satan’s accusations about God’s fairness, the transparency of God’s judgments matters to us personally, even if our access to that transparency is not until after the judgment is pronounced.

Circumstantial & Prophetic Corroborating Evidence

There are too many serendipitous features regarding the way that the understanding of the IJ came about for me to regard it as a convenient cover-up of human devising for mistaken date-setting of the Millerite Adventists. These include:

  1. The prophecy of Revelation 10-11.
  2. The typology of the Old Testament feasts and what they represent. No better fit for the fulfillment of the Old Testament Day of Atonement has been put forward.
  3. An understanding of early SDA church history, and the characters involved.
  4. Overwhelming evidence that Ellen White was given special revelation from God, and her inspired corroboration of our pioneer’s conclusions from Bible study as to what was signified by the prophecy of Daniel 8. There are numerous pieces of evidence that Ellen White had special revelation. Any cursory study of her life story is sufficient to reveal that. But lest anyone accuse her ‘believers’ of rewriting history to paint her in a favourable light, there is one area alone that settles it for me: her amazingly accurate insights on healthful living over 100 years ahead of her times.

What the Bible Actually Says

My own understanding of the relevant Bible texts leads me to believe the Adventist teaching on the IJ. Now I don’t have personal in-depth understanding of the original languages, nor all the Hebrew culture and meaning attached to the Sanctuary. But from my limited knowledge, the traditional SDA teaching on the IJ does make more sense than alternatives that I’ve investigated.

Nonetheless, some of the alternative ideas do appear to have some grounding; thus their conclusions appear to have some legitimacy. However, they don’t have enough of a ‘smoking gun’ for me to decide to either reject our teaching and follow the ‘majority’ view (of Christianity at large), nor to motivate me to become enough of an expert in linguistics or systematic theology to be able to decide what the teaching should be for myself from first principles.

I happily trust the Bible’s promise of God’s Spirit to lead me into all truth (John 16:13) as I follow His leading (John 7:17).

Going back to the in-depth theological evidence, however, as it is also important to be true to the text (Acts 17:11). While we need not all become world-leading experts on every question (that would be impossible), there is a time and place to defer to experts.

For example, we’re not all experts on global warming. Yet we’ve decided, using a mixture of our understanding of the facts and our personal values, which “experts” to believe. Ditto for vaccination. Ditto for, let’s face it, most things that we believe in, or choose not to believe in. This includes electricity, CT scans, evolution, the age of the earth, etc. I don’t know anyone who refuses to believe something until they personally become an expert in that particular field. Most of us even choose to believe something other than the majority of experts in the field for at least one of their beliefs. None of us are strict slaves to empirical epistemology as revealed in peer-reviewed scientific literature.

So I’m happy to look at what the relevant experts have to say about the Investigative Judgment. Which experts do I choose? I let both my existing knowledge and values, guided by the Bible and the Holy Spirit, determine which experts are worth consideration. My Dad is one of those whom I consult in this particular field, although we see things differently in a number of fields. In this case, I do believe his arguments on Daniel 8 are worthy of consideration. His doctoral dissertation was on Daniel 8:14 (from UNE) and he has since deepened his appreciation of the case for the Investigative Judgment by broadening the hermeneutical undergirding through principles from degrees in Linguistics and Philosophy. I have posted a recent article which shares some of his insights in a more lay-readable, or at least educated lay-readable, format.

The Implications of the Choice

The implications of giving up my belief in the Adventist teaching on the investigative judgment would be profound. I would necessarily need to give up my belief in Ellen White, and in the Divine origin of the SDA movement. To avoid being hypocritical, I would also need to not regard our church or our teachings as any more valuable than the rest of Protestant Christianity except that in some areas we may happen to be more biblical than some others. But that would be true for any group.

To be fair to the church, I would have to declare these significant deviations in my belief system before taking up any leadership or teaching/preaching appointment.

This “risk” or “cost” cannot be justification for holding onto a weak or errant belief system; but I believe counting the cost is important and requires full consideration of the implications. Sitting on the fence and trying to have the best of both worlds is not fair to either one’s self or to others.

But the benefits of holding onto this teaching are that it gives us certainty of the nearness of the Second Coming and thus focus for our message and mission. The first angel’s message makes sense: “Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment is come” (Rev 14:7).

Does Seventh-day Adventism Hang on One Word?

Guest post by my dad, Dr Eric Livingston, who has studied multiple postgraduate degrees regarding this “one word.” I provide my own thoughts and introduction at another post.


It is claimed that “cleansed” in Daniel 8:14 is a mistranslation and that it should be “justified” or similar and does not link to Leviticus 16 where the ‘cleansing of the sanctuary’ has a different word. Also, the ‘Little Horn’ context, it is asserted, does not support a sanctuary ‘Investigative Judgment’ of believers. Should these repeated claims be sustained, Seventh-day Adventism would have taught wrongly for 170 years. We will suggest that the critics misunderstand how words work, that the ‘cleansed’/‘justify’ association and interrelationship renders “cleansed” a legitimate translation, and that the context does support a judgment of professed believers. Being some of the most prominent and sustained objections of critics, should their assertions be found lacking in the appreciation of the Daniel 8 context, in linguistic method, and regarding the ‘cleanse’/‘justify’ connection, their case would lose much credibility.

scalesofjusticeA former Seventh-day Adventist lecturer wrote: “Why do Adventists use a mistranslation such as ‘cleansed’ for the basis of their judgment doctrine? Why do Adventists ignore the context of Dan. 8:14 . . .?”[i]

More recently the critic’s biographer asserted: “He [Ford] explained the SDA habit of taking Daniel 8:13 and 14 out of context . . . .. The word ‘cleansed’ (Daniel 8:14), he added, is a poor translation and has no linguistic link to the description of the Day of Atonement service (Leviticus 16).”[ii] The assertion is that the Hebrew word (sdq) in Daniel 8:14 is a legal word that means ‘justified’, ‘restored’, or ‘vindicated’, while the unrelated sanctuary word for ‘cleansed’ (thr) in Leviticus 16 has to do with purification.[iii] In 2016, Des Ford is still pressing his questions about the Investigative Judgment and this translation issue.[iv]

If correct, this undermines the Danielic basis for the Day of Atonement typology of the ‘cleansing of the sanctuary’ as the end-time judicial review. That vital judicial investigation-review assesses three major issues in the universe: the destiny of professed believers (why these and not others are genuine and safe to pluck from sin’s infestation), the principles of good and evil (considered the ultimate cosmic perplexity, raising questions about the efficacy of God’s mode of governing the universe), and God’s character (the justice-mercy and law-love interrelations tied to the foregoing)—all seen through Seventh-day Adventism’s most distinctive teaching, the Investigative Judgment.

A number have succumbed to the critics and left Adventism in body or mind, some slipping into atheism, more into mere ‘church club’ socialisation. Have they made a tragic mistake in believing the glib assertion that it is simplistic to accept the KJV “cleansed” translation in Daniel 8:14 and link it to the Day of Atonement ‘cleansing of the sanctuary’ in Leviticus 16? Is our foundation so poorly laid in outdated, non-scholarly, “flimsy assumptions”[v] via proof-texting with a mistranslation?

We could say, “I’ll just keep things simple. If the good old KJV and some recent translations have ‘cleansed’ that is sufficient.” To such simplistic escapism, thinkers will respond as one former pastor: “We are expected to leave our brains at the door when we enter church.” It is actually in a judicial lawsuit passage that God says, “‘Come now, let us reason together …’” (Isa 1:18). God created us with minds that reason.

I would propose that biblical evidence and linguistic method abundantly support the translation “cleansed” and that the Daniel 8 context surely does link to Leviticus 16 and ‘the cleansing of the sanctuary’. The keys to the issue are context, semantic (or meaning) flexibility in word usage, and the fact that the concept of righting or restoring can be expressed by seemingly unrelated words, such as the legal term ‘justify’ and the sanctuary purification word ‘cleanse’. We will first view context, then the “cleansed” word.[vi] 

The Witness of Context

In the wider context, Daniel 7 and 8 are recognised as closely parallel for decisive reasons: They commence in the same way: “In the first year” (7:1) and “In the third year” (8:1) of King Belshazzar, with 8:1 referring back to the chap. 7 vision/dream. They continue with similar formulaic introductions to their visions (7:2; 8:2). They conclude in similar fashion with a perplexed prophet (7:28; 8:27). Their literary layout is identical (first half vision, second half interpretation). Both chapters are historical apocalypses with animal symbols. Finally, each chapter prominently features an arrogating Little Horn power that follows earlier nations and takes the reader into the final judgment (Dan 7) or the ‘cleansing/righting of the sanctuary’ in the end time (Dan 8; cf. vv. 14, 17, 19, 26).

Within this close connection, Daniel does give a notable contrast by moving from the ferocious, unclean beasts of Daniel 7 to the clean, sacrificial animals of the ram and goat in Daniel 8. This ‘contrast within correspondence’, together with other sanctuary references, sharply focuses the sanctuary as the counter to the Little Horn in Daniel 8. The vision climaxes with the ‘cleansing’/‘righting’ of the sanctuary reversing the work of the Little Horn power.

While evident that the cleansing/righting of the sanctuary is Daniel 8’s answer to the Little Horn and in Daniel 7 it is the judgment, Daniel 7 should be noted for its repetition and decisiveness. Three of the four times when the Little Horn is described in chapter 7, a judgment scene immediately follows (v. 8–>9-10; 20-21–>22; 24-25–>26). The one other depiction of the Little Horn in Daniel 7 implies that it is active during the Investigative Judgment and/or its activities are relevant to it (v.11a between vv. 9-10 and 13-14).

It would be expected that the closely paralleled chapter 8 would similarly connect the Little Horn with judgment, particularly as the context calls for judicial redress of the Little Horn (8:10-12). Compare the parallel from a non-Adventist scholar:

The trampling down of the sanctuary . . . does have a term set to it [the 2,300 evening-mornings/days = years]. The forensic metaphor of judgment being given for the holy ones on high (7:22) reappears as the vision promises that the sanctuary will ‘emerge in the right’ ([sdq]), ‘be vindicated’.[vii]

So both the immediate context of Daniel 8 and the broader Daniel 7/8 context support the idea of a judgment coming upon the Little Horn’s activities. But how does this relate to professed believers? This Little Horn power claims religious rights (7:20-22, 25), displacing “the Prince of the host,” “the daily/continual” provisions of the Prince, “and the place of his sanctuary” (8:11) and persecutes “the saints” (7:25) or “the host”/“holy people” (8:13, 24). These are all religious activities or preoccupations, strongly suggesting that the context is dealing with those professing to be believers. Consequently, the “judgment” distinguishes “the saints of the Most High” from “the same horn” pretender who “made war with the saints” (7:21-22).

A related thought is that this judgment reveals to the universe a concrete picture of what Lucifer, if not evicted, would have perpetrated in heaven as the initial “man of sin” sitting “as God in the temple of God” (2 Thess 2:3-4; cf. Isa 14:12-14). Principles of good and evil, and God’s wisdom and character, are reviewed in the Arch-Deceiver’s ecclesiastical Little Horn/Man of Sin representative facing off against true believers.

So the context supports a judgment between professing believers, just as the Day of Atonement ritual prefigured through the earthly ‘cleansing of the sanctuary’. Then, the likes of Israel’s pretenders, such as the Nadab, Abihu, Korah, Dathan and Abirams, would come to justice. But what of Daniel’s use of a word (Hebrew root sdq) that normally is translated as “justified,” “restored,” or “vindicated,” and is not the verb used in Leviticus 16?

Words –> Meaning or Meaning –> Words or Both Directions?

The tendency of ‘cleansed’ critics is to take a sole ‘Words –> Meaning’ dictionary approach, treating words as the pre-packaged containers of meaning and unconsciously override historical, cultural and literary context. This is called the ‘Container Method’ or ‘Determinacy’ and is often implemented even when a writer professes to know better.

Such Lexical (or Word) Determinacy misunderstands how we conceive and express concepts. We typically do not lock in to one or more preconceived dictionary definitions (though they have their place, as do etymology and cognate languages). Rather, prior usage gives meaning potential that may be employed in varying ways, sometimes accenting one aspect relating to its semantic range, other times another, or occasionally a quite creative usage that the context shapes.

As we speak or write we are following a train of thought and our mind consults our store of words to structure the concepts being communicated. This is an ‘online process’ in which the flow of thought calls upon our mental lexicon or encyclopedia for words to express the concept at hand. It is the ‘Encyclopedic Method’ that is based on previous usage of terms, but, most importantly, permits the present context to direct usage, sentence structure and associations so that the intended meaning of the speaker/writer is ultimately context-determined.

We will give four positive examples bearing on our topic. The first reveals the shift in concepts within the usage of the same word; the other three illustrate the interchange of words and settings to express the same concept. The first manifests the flexibility in the semantic range of a word; the other three show how the same concept can be expressed by seemingly unrelated words taken from different realms of experience, literature and cultures.

The first example: The Hebrew verb ‘see’ (r’h or ra’ah in its simple active form) classically denotes physically looking with the eyes, visual sensory perception. This primary usage is sometimes called the ‘core’ or ‘basic meaning’ in a semantic range. Contexts of speech/writing, however, show that a great many of the 1300+ usages of ‘see’ (r’h) in the OT have called for a translation that reflects the faculty of understanding; e.g.: “And Abimelech said to Abraham, ‘What were you thinking [r’h] of, that you did this thing?’” (Gen 20:10, RSV, NRSV; CEB similar); “‘What was your reason.. .?’” (NIV); “‘have in mind’” (NABRE).

Given this figurative shift into conceptual perception, if the context called for the idea of evaluating, investigating, examining, then the verb ‘see’ could be utilised. So: “The priest shall examine [r’h] the disease on the skin of his body, . . . after the priest has examined [r’h] him …” (Lev 13:3; NRSV, NIV, etc.). “then the priest shall make an examination [r’h], . . . pronounce him clean [thr]” (v. 13, NRSV; ‘examine(s)’ in NIV, NLT).

These translations of r’h move from ‘see’ to ‘examine’ simply because the context required the idea of examining. The concept, utilising prior usage and the present setting, determined the translation. Likewise, sdq can move from ‘justify’ to ‘cleanse’ in the context of the righting of the sanctuary (Dan 8:14). We will now move to the New Testament (NT) to illustrate direct substitution of words for the same concept.

The second example: Gordon Wenham briefly states, “According to Paul we are justified by Christ’s blood; according to John we are cleansed by it.”[viii] Paul characteristically uses Greek words with the dik– stem that come from the language of the law court and translate as ‘justify’, ‘just/righteous’ ‘righteousness’. So: “… being now justified (dikaiothentes) by his blood (Rom 5:9; cf. 3:25-26). When John expresses the same concept of righting or justifying by Christ’s blood, he employs the sanctuary vocabulary of cleansing: “. . . and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses (katharizei) us from all sin” (1 Jn 1:7; cf. v.9).

The analogy with Daniel 8:14 of the sanctuary and its adherents being ‘justified’ (sdq), and with Leviticus 16:19, 30 where the sanctuary and its adherents are ‘cleansed’ (thr) is clear. The same idea of righting or restoring is the meaning being conveyed by both expressions, by the legal term ‘justified’ and by the sanctuary purificatory word ‘cleansed’. The concept of righting/restoring is central. Moreover, when the context of sdq is the sanctuary, the translation ‘cleansed’ is quite appropriate.

The third example, from anthropology, manifests the same interchange of ‘legal’ and ‘cleanse’ terms and ideas to express the shared concept of righting or restoring. Discussing the characteristics of worldviews, Paul Hiebert lists three cultures with their varying “Images of Moral Order.”[ix] We will concentrate on two, to represent the West and the East. In this oversimplification we can understand that right relationships, shame, etc. would also feature in different sections.

Focus Legal Order Cleanliness
Response Guilt Repugnance
Salvation Punishment,
Restore Moral Order
Washing, Purification,
Restore Cleanliness
Image Righteousness Holiness, Purity
Example United States India

So we have two cultures seeking the same righting/restoring outcome through different paradigms. Righting is accomplished through both the Legal focus (cf. sdq ‘justified’ Dan 8:14) and through the Cleanliness focus (cf. thr ‘cleansed’, Lev 16).

When we think of the diversity of atonement metaphors in the NT (legal, ‘cultic’ [a technical term for religious ritual and worship, as in the sanctuary], ransom, victory, redemption, adoption, exemplarist, etc.), the inclusive double approach of justify/cleanse should not surprise. It reaches into varying literary, metaphorical and cultural backgrounds through the different associations and connotations linked to the complementary sdq/thr concepts.

Since atonement (kpr) and cleansing (thr) overlap in Leviticus 16 (see vv. 18, 20: kpr; v. 19: thr; cf. v. 30) and since, even though in a neutral setting, Daniel associates atonement and righteousness (Dan 9:24: kpr and a sdq noun form), the connection of righting/cleansing with atonement is pertinent. The NT (and OT) atonement metaphors coalesce around the legal and the cultic/sanctuary (which two are actually more analogical than metaphorical)[x]:  The “cultic and legal images must be regarded as providing the objective foundation of a doctrine of atonement,” “the objective core.”[xi] This is seen in the OT: e.g., Isa 53: sanctuary expiatory sacrifice (v. 10) immediately following by the judicial act of justifying (sdq, v. 11); and in the NT: Rom 3: the sanctuary idea of propitiation through sacrificial blood (v. 25) in the midst of legal language involving overt justice (vv. 24, 26).

It could be said that Hebrews and any Bible students with a tendency to left-brain activity would grasp the more propositional sdq; others with right-brain activity would gravitate to the thr sanctuary symbolism. However, they should be allowed to complement and fortify each other whatever personal tendencies we have. The “sacrificial and judicial … have a special relationship to the event they interpret.”[xii]

Our fourth example is one of Scripture’s interchanges. We now compare Leviticus 13 (priestly laws regarding a scale, leprosy-like disease) with Ezekiel 18 (regarding individual responsibility for right doing, moral accountability)—two differing topics in different genres (types of literature), but each approach having the same idea: investigation to determine fitness:

Leviticus 13: Investigation of physical fitness for sanctuary ritual/spiritual life in the community, leading to the declaration: “He is clean (thr) / unclean (tm’).” See Lev 13:13, 17, 37; cf. vv. 6, 23, 37: “and the priest shall pronounce him clean.”

Ezekiel 18: Investigation of moral fitness for moral and spiritual/sanctuary life in the community, leading to the declaration: “He is just (sdq) / wicked (rš‘).” See Ezek 18:9.

The list of virtues in verses 5-9 of Ezekiel 18 “is patently an elaboration of what ‘righteous’ means.” This calls to mind Psalms 15 and 24 and “a liturgical ceremony conducted at the sanctuary gate . . . the declaratory verdict ‘He is righteous [sdq]’ pronounced by the priest after the pattern of similar such declaratory pronouncements in Leviticus 1:17, 2:15, 13:3 [sic., assume v. 13].”[xiii] “Ezekiel’s ‘mirror of virtue’ ends with a declaratory formula of priestly vintage: he is righteous [sdq], he will surely live.”[xiv]

The important point for Daniel 8:14, is that the ‘justify’ (sdq) – cleanse (thr) conceptual interchange seen here is made in sanctuary contexts of investigating/examining the fitness or right standing before YHWH at the sanctuary. Space forbids listing other scriptural examples of a cleanse/sdq interchange, save an abbreviated footnote,[xv] but it is significant that quite often this happens in the context of investigation, reflecting Daniel 7 and 8. As Blocher affirms regarding the atonement images which

exhibit the same structure (isomorphism), so that they naturally translate into one another—hence the intertwining in so many passages. As soon as one discerns that cultic holiness can be translated ‘righteousness’ in the ethical-juridical sphere, one understands that the danger of the Presence’s devouring fire, the danger of being struck dead by sacred intolerance [such as sanctuary presumption: Lev 10:1-11; 16:1-2ff], is the danger of being condemned and punished by divine justice. With the biblical God (not any numen [non-personal divine spirit/power]), what is the stain to be covered or wiped out if not the guilt incurred by sinning?—actually ‘sin’ and ‘sin-bearing’ belong to both sacrificial and judicial languages.[xvi]

Blocher adds how the spotless “slaughtered animal . . . together with the priest. . . satisfies the demands of justice,” and “the worshipper . . . declared to be in the right by him who judges justly.”[xvii] The worshipper being declared to be in the right by One who judges justly is quite applicable in the context of Daniel 8 where the ‘religious’ Little Horn subjugates the true people of God, eliciting the cry “How long . . . ?” (v. 13). We have just seen in Leviticus, Ezekiel and Psalms that “cultic holiness [with its ‘cleansing’] can be translated ‘righteousness’ in the ethical-juridical sphere,” so with Daniel 8:14 (sdq) and Leviticus 16 (thr). 


In sum, the immediate and wider contexts of Daniel 8:14 call for judgment on the Little Horn power. Since this symbol represents a religious body that persecutes the saints, Daniel and Leviticus reassure us that there comes a time when all will be righted through the Investigative Judgment and its verdicts.

Linguistics explains how lexical meaning is not to be pre-determined. There is far more flexibility. We gain the sense of words by noting the context in which the ‘on-line’ production of the speaker/writer is communicating. The setting sparks or drives a person to seek a word from their mental encyclopedia–the ‘Encyclopedic Method’–to best portray the sense intended, rather than resorting to a mere dictionary ‘Determinacy’ approach. It is a combination of previous usage plus present context, with the context being the final determinant of meaning.

We noted the interchange between the word used in Daniel 8:14 (sdq) and that used in Leviticus 16 (thr), and most importantly the sharing of the same concept of righting/restoring in order to be able to freely make the interchange. It is connected, concurrent and complementary, rather than oppositional, thinking. In Daniel 8:14 the sanctuary context naturally takes us to the ‘righting’ or ‘cleansing’ of the sanctuary that engages the symbolic Day of Atonement ritual of Leviticus 16.


[i] Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14: The Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgment (Casselberry, FL: Euangelion Press, 1980), 312.

[ii] Milton Hook, Desmond Ford: Reformist Theologian, Gospel Revivalist (Riverside, CAL: Adventist Today Foundation, 2008), 228. See also pp. 230, 254, 357-358, 378. Hook quotes a 1971 Ford article acknowledging that this “key word of the text” links to judgment (123), but soon quotes another claiming “cleansed (wrong translation)” (125).

[iii] Cf. Ford, Daniel 8:14…, 63, 292.

[iv] Ford asks: “Why is this controversy important? Firstly, it strikes at the very vitals of Adventism.” (Desmond Ford, The Investigative Judgment and the Everlasting Gospel: A Retrospective on October 27, 1979 [n.p., 2016], 6). Ford then lists AD1844, Ellen G. White writings (which connect Daniel 8:14 with the Leviticus 16 ‘cleansing of the sanctuary’; e.g., GC 409–436) and Historicism. In this 2016 compilation with brief update comments, Ford reproduces his 1979 PUC forum talk that includes, “On the basis of that word, our pioneers linked this prophecy with Leviticus 16, but the word isn’t there. You say, ‘Of course it’s there.’ No, it’s not there. The KJV is a mistranslation. The word translated ‘cleanse’ there is not found in Leviticus 16. It’s a different word altogether. That’s why almost all modern translations do not use ‘cleanse,’ and therefore, from all other translations, you are crippled as a way of getting back to Leviticus 16. Now let me state it again. Adventists have traditionally jumped from Daniel 8:14 to Leviticus 16 on the basis of the word ‘cleanse.’ ‘Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.’ The point is, the word ‘cleanse’ isn’t there. It’s a mistranslation” (ibid., 12).

[v] Hook, 288. Hook’s assertions seem prejudiced by his disdain for what he calls “the fabricated doctrine of the Investigative Judgment” (224; cf. 215-217, 223-231, 238, 241-244, 345-346, 379). Even the liberal Spectrum blog questioned Hook’s caricaturing (David Larson, “Why Does Desmond Ford’s Biographer Lament our Wesleyan Heritage?,” Spectrum, 15 September , 2008;; accessed 25th Oct, 2015). The narrowed justification/forgiveness truncated ‘gospel’, particularly proclaimed within Western SDAsm since the 1970s, has been re-broadened in the wider Evangelical world by the influence of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP). Despite the flaws and excesses in NPP, the way has been opened to return to a biblical gospel that is inextricably tied to obedience and a final judicial review: Rom 2:12-16; 10:16; 14:1-12; 2 Thess 1:5-8; 1 Pet 4:17-19.

[vi] This essay can only include a fraction of available evidence. There is (or was!) an academic publisher waiting for a longer version, but continued agitation calls for a brief response on a more popular level.

[vii] John E. Goldingay, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 30: Daniel (Dallas, Texas: Word Publishing, 1987), 212.

[viii] G. Wenham, “The Perplexing Pentateuch,” in Vox Evangelica, 17 (1987): 18.

[ix] Paul G. Hiebert, Transforming Worldviews: An Anthropological Understanding of How People Change (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 62.

[x] Henri Blocher, “Biblical Metaphors and the Doctrine of the Atonement,” in Journal of the Evangelical Society 47/4 (December 2004), 643, in relation to the judicial language of atonement, “probably the least metaphorical of all” (645).

[xi] Nico Vorster, “The Nature of Christ’s Atonement. A Defence of Penal Substitution Theory,” in Strangers and Pilgrims on Earth: Essays in Honour of Abraham van de Beek, ed. E. Van der Borght and P. van Geest (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012), 140, 146. Compare the Reformers generally and Calvin specifically (130-131). “Why, then, does Paul use legal and sacrificial terms more often than family ones? Probably because of the deeply-ingrained Pharisaic [and biblical: Zech 3; Dan 7] notion of an afterlife lawcourt. Judgment Day is a compelling metaphor for Paul . . .” (Stephen Finlan, The Background and Content of Paul’s Cultic Atonement Metaphors [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Lierature, 2004], 158; cf. 190, 229: “The significance of the Messiah’s martyrdom is interpreted through cultic metaphors; even justification and reconciliation emanate from the place of sacrifice”).

[xii] Blocher, 641, where the writer is suggesting their elucidating the meaning of the death of Christ. So, too, we will see how they interact around the concept of investigation in our next example.

[xiii] R. M. Hals, “Methods of Interpretation: Old Testament Texts,” in Studies in Lutheran Hermeneutics, ed. John Reuman (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1979), 272.

[xiv] Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1990), 83.

[xv] For example, Job 15:14-16 with 25:4-6 that relate sdq to the ‘cleanse’ field of words, this time through zkh, a synonym of thr. What is striking is the threefold relationship: by substitution between the passages and speakers, by synthetic parallelism, and by a chiasm between the passages. Also, more generally, see Elias Brasil de Souza, The Heavenly Sanctuary/Temple Motif in the Hebrew Bible: Function and Relationship to the Earthly Counterparts, ATS Dissertation Series (2005), 446-450, 464 (drawing on H.T. Fletcher-Louis), regarding sanctuary imagery of fire and clouds and the Son of Man as a priestly figure in Daniel 7:9-14 paralleling, with Day of atonement imagery, 8:9-14; and the interweaving of judicial and cultic elements and procedures in Zech 3:1-10 and Lev 16 (deferring to R Gane) (328).

[xvi] Blocher, 643-644 (Blocher’s italics).

[xvii] Blocher, 644.