<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" version="2.0"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>WWU Good Word Broadcasts</title>
		<atom:link href="http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/podcast.php" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/</link>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>&#x2117; &amp; &#xA9; Walla Walla University Theology. 2011</copyright>
		<itunes:subtitle>Exploring the SDA Bible Study Guide</itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:author>Walla Walla University Theology Office</itunes:author>
		<itunes:summary>Good Word is an invitation. An invitation to explore biblical and theological topics presented in regularly published Bible Study guides. The Bible awaits our continued study and investigation; Good Word provides one way to approach it.</itunes:summary>
		<description>Good Word is an invitation. An invitation to explore biblical and theological topics presented in regularly published Bible Study guides. The Bible awaits our continued study and investigation; Good Word provides one way to approach it.</description>
		<itunes:owner>
			<itunes:name>WWU Good Word</itunes:name>
			<itunes:email>goodword@wallawalla.edu</itunes:email>
		</itunes:owner>
		
		<itunes:image href="http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/images/podcast.jpg" />
		<itunes:category text="Religion &amp; Spirituality">
			<itunes:category text="Christianity" />
		</itunes:category>

			<item>
			<title>Trusting God’s Goodness (Habakkuk)</title>
			<author>goodword@wallawalla.edu (Good Word)</author>
			<itunes:subtitle>A Good Word Broadcast</itunes:subtitle>
			<link>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/show_lesson.php?qid=58&amp;lid=324</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Theme: Trusting God's Goodness
Leading Question: Does Habakkuk teach us how to ask questions, find answers or simply to trust?
The opening paragraph of J. P. Hyatt's commentary on Habakkuk in Peake's Commentary on the Bible (1962) is a good one to launch the study of the book:

"Habakkuk is the sceptic among the prophets. He raises the question of theodicy: how can a just God allow the wicked to oppress the righteous? His answer, given in 2:4 ["the righteous shall live by his faith"], has become one of the most frequently quoted verses of the Bible, but not quite in the meaning intended."

Discussion questions:

 Asking questions, finding answers, and trusting. Outside of Habakkuk, the books of Job and Ecclesiastes are known as the "skeptical" books in the Old Testament. Habakkuk's question to God is highly unusual for a prophet. More typically, the prophets bring warnings and admonitions to the people in God's behalf. How are we to understand a prophet who turns the tables and asks hard "moral" questions to God? Should we expect good, clear answers from Habakkuk - or, for that matter, from Job and/or Ecclesiastes? Or is it simply enough to be able to worship a God who allows us to ask our questions? The modern skeptic's perspective is suggested by this quote from C. S. Lewis through the mouth of one of his characters, Orual in his novel, Till We Have Faces (p. 249):


I say the gods deal very unrightly with us. For they will neither (which would be best of all) go away and leave us to live our own short days to ourselves, nor will they show themselves openly and tell us what they would have us do. For that too would be endurable. But to hint and hover, to draw near us in dreams and oracles, or in a waking vision that vanishes as soon as seen, to be dead silent when we question them and then glide back and whisper (words we cannot understand) in our ears when we most wish to be free of them, and to show to one what they hide from another; what is all this but cat-and-mouse play, blindman's buff, and mere jugglery? Why must holy places be dark places?

Just as Job "repented" from his questioning stance at the end of the book (Job 42:1-6), even though God told Job's friends that Job had spoken the truth about Him and the friends had not (Job 42:7) - so in Habakkuk, there is no clear answer. In the end (Hab. 3:17-18), the prophet simply declares his trust in God, a passage cited here in the NIV:

17 Though the fig tree does not bud
      and there are no grapes on the vines,
though the olive crop fails
      and the fields produce no food,
though there are no sheep in the pen
      and no cattle in the stalls,
18 yet I will rejoice in the Lord,
      I will be joyful in God my Savior.

In sum, maybe it is alright not to find all the answers, even though we have the freedom to ask our questions. Not all will be happy with that solution. But for those with questions it should be a comfort and relief.

 Creative recycling of inspired words. The NRSV translates Habakkuk 2:4 as follows: "The righteous person will live by his faithfulness," clearly referring to the faithful life of the righteous person. In the New Testament, especially in Romans 1:16-17 and Galatians 3:17, Paul quotes this passage, but seems to be shifting the emphasis away from human faithfulness to trust in divine faithfulness. Is it appropriate to be "creative" in citing biblical passages? Must the words of Scripture always be "according to context"? And should the New Testament make the final decision, if the Old Testament context seems to give a different emphasis?

In addressing that question, it would seem preferable to work toward a "both/and" solution rather that to try to force both the N ]]></description>
			<enclosure url="http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-05-25.mp3" length="9976232" type="audio/mpeg" />
			<guid>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-05-25.mp3</guid>
			<pubDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 00:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
			<itunes:duration>13:51</itunes:duration>
			<itunes:keywords>testament, old, ", new, god, one, context, hebrews, -, way, original, book</itunes:keywords>
			<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		</item>
				<item>
			<title>God’s Special People (Micah)</title>
			<author>goodword@wallawalla.edu (Good Word)</author>
			<itunes:subtitle>A Good Word Broadcast</itunes:subtitle>
			<link>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/show_lesson.php?qid=58&amp;lid=323</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Theme: God's Special People
Leading Question: What kind of messiah would one expect if one only had the book of Micah?
Introductory note: Micah's ministry spanned some four eventful decades, years that witnessed the end of the Samaria and the northern kingdom of Israel and Sennacherib's failed attack against Jerusalem. Micah and Isaiah were contemporaries, ministering in the southern kingdom of Judah. But Micah addressed some of his messages to Samaria and the people of the north:
Discussion questions:

 Sins against God or against humanity? Read through the book of Micah and note the primary accusations against the people. Was Micah more concerned about sins against God or sins against humanity? In our day, is it still possible to be religious while violating our fellow human beings? In our day, is it possible for people to minister to the needs of people without being consciously committed to God? The OT prophets don't seem to address this issue directly, but it is an issue suggested in the New Testament by the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25. In Ellen White's commentary on this parable in The Desire of Ages, chapter 70, are these two striking quotations:


Christ on the Mount of Olives pictured to His disciples the scene of the great judgment day. And He represented its decision as turning upon one point. When the nations are gathered before Him, there will be but two classes, and their eternal destiny will be determined by what they have done or have neglected to do for Him in the person of the poor and suffering. (Desire of Ages, 637)

Those whom Christ commends in the judgment may have known little of theology, but they have cherished His principles. Through the influence of the divine Spirit they have been a blessing to those about them. Even among the heathen are those who have cherished the spirit of kindness; before the words of life had fallen upon their ears, they have befriended the missionaries, even ministering to them at the peril of their own lives. Among the heathen are those who worship God ignorantly, those to whom the light is never brought by human instrumentality, yet they will not perish. Though ignorant of the written law of God, they have heard His voice speaking to them in nature, and have done the things that the law required. Their works are evidence that the Holy Spirit has touched their hearts, and they are recognized as the children of God. (Desire of Ages, 638)
 


 A Messianic hope: Micah 5:2. Four verses in Micah 5, speak of the coming Deliverer (5:2-6). The most memorable verse for Christians is 5:2 for it mentions the birthplace of the Messiah as Bethlehem in Judah. In Matthew 2, it is the Jewish priests and teachers who quoted this passage to Herod when he asked where the new king would be born. One could read the Micah passage as promising deliverance from earthly enemies, and Christ would eventually do that. Yet the keynote for Christ's own ministry would be the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. In other words, if one wants to know the true nature of the Messiah, one may have to look past some of the more traditional "deliverance" passages to the deeper spiritual mission which Christ came to fulfill. It is worth noting that when Jesus said that he would suffer and die, no one believed him - until after the resurrection.
  
 An important conditional prophecy: Micah 3:12. "Jerusalem shall be plowed like a field, Jerusalem will become a heap of rubble, the temple hill a mound overgrown with thickets" (NIV11). This verse was actually instrumental in saving Jeremiah's life, for when Jeremiah said that Jerusalem would be destroyed if the people would not repent (Jeremiah 26:4-6), the people accused him of treason for preaching against the city and state. Yet Jeremiah was not speaking an absolute message, but a conditional one! Finally, as the debate over Jeremiah continued, some of  ]]></description>
			<enclosure url="http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-05-18.mp3" length="10086254" type="audio/mpeg" />
			<guid>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-05-18.mp3</guid>
			<pubDate>Sun, 12 May 2013 00:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
			<itunes:duration>14:00</itunes:duration>
			<itunes:keywords>micah, god, people, one, human, christ, jeremiah, lord, price, sins, israel, jerusalem</itunes:keywords>
			<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		</item>
				<item>
			<title>Eager to Forgive (Jonah)</title>
			<author>goodword@wallawalla.edu (Good Word)</author>
			<itunes:subtitle>A Good Word Broadcast</itunes:subtitle>
			<link>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/show_lesson.php?qid=58&amp;lid=322</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Leading Question: When Jonah threatened Ninevah with destruction in 40 days, did he do that on his own nickel or at the direction of the Lord?
Note: Three of the minor prophets are especially important for exploring the meaning and application of prophetic predictions.

 Joel. In the book of Joel, we saw how a local event (a grasshopper plague) could foreshadow later ones. Peter, for example, in Acts 2 actually quotes Joel as applying to the events surrounding Jesus' death and resurrection. Revelation 6 repeats much of the same imagery with reference to the second coming itself. Thus the idea of multiple applications is confirmed within the Bible itself.
  
 Jonah. The book of Jonah vividly illustrates how human repentance can trigger divine repentance. Put another way, Jonah shows how willing God is to trade a failed prediction for a successful prophecy. Jonah wanted fulfillment of the judgment; God wanted the repentance of the people. Remarkably, God was able to use the stubborn Jonah to bring the divine agenda to fruition. Jonah's "vision" of a torched city was hung out to dry, but the Lord still used him to further God's ends. "Conditional" prophecy is a good label for what we see in Jonah.
  
 Zechariah. Without explanation, Zechariah envisions an end-time scenario that differs significantly from the one presented in the book of Revelation. We could perhaps say that Zechariah and Revelation share a common goal, but the events leading up to the fulfillment of that goal could be quite different. In short, the ultimate goal is fixed while the steps that take us to that goal are conditional. In this particular series of lessons, Zechariah is covered in lessons #11 and #12.

Discussion Questions:

 A Prophet with Bad Theology? As the book of Jonah so richly shows, God and his messenger weren't always singing off the same page. Does this book give us some indication as to how far God will go in his willingness to use a messenger whose theology is distorted?
  
 A Rare Example of a Successful Prophet. Even though the story of Ninevah didn't turn out to Jonah's satisfaction, it is one of the most vivid examples of a successful prophetic mission. And is it not remarkable that this illustration of success involves the repentance of one of Israel's greatest enemies, Ninevah in Assyria? Prophets are not without honor except in their own country!
  
 Absolute or Conditional Message: The Prophet's Choice. According to the book of Jonah, Jonah's successful prophecy was spoken as an absolute rather than as a conditional prophecy. In other words, Jonah gave the people no "if" in his message. And yet it worked. The people repented. Is there any indication in Scripture as to whether God always directs the prophet to use one approach or the other? In this case, Jonah preached an absolute message: "In forty days, Ninevah will be destroyed" - no ifs, ands, or buts. But it turned out to be conditional after all. Might he have been less successful if he had actually preached the "if" as Jeremiah did in Jeremiah 26? Jeremiah barely escaped with his life when he preached the "if." Here is the story:

"Who Can Change the Mind of God?"
By Alden Thompson
Signs of the Times, Feb. 1992, 25-27
God is in the business of changing people's minds, especially the minds of sinners. That's not surprising. But it is worth a raised eyebrow or two to hear God ask sinners to help Him change His own mind.
You heard right. God asks sinners to help Him change His mind. Jeremiah 26 tells the story, shedding important light on the purpose of God's prophetic messages in the Old Testament.
In the chapter, the spotlight is on Jeremiah himself, a prophet in misery, prophesying in a miserable time. The Lord has sent him a bad news/good news message to pass on to the people of Judah. The bad  ]]></description>
			<enclosure url="http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-05-11.mp3" length="9996284" type="audio/mpeg" />
			<guid>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-05-11.mp3</guid>
			<pubDate>Sun, 05 May 2013 00:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
			<itunes:duration>13:53</itunes:duration>
			<itunes:keywords>god, jeremiah, jonah, people, lord, one, mind, change, prophecy, conditional, king, world</itunes:keywords>
			<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		</item>
				<item>
			<title>Seek the Lord and Live! (Amos)</title>
			<author>goodword@wallawalla.edu (Good Word)</author>
			<itunes:subtitle>A Good Word Broadcast</itunes:subtitle>
			<link>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/show_lesson.php?qid=58&amp;lid=321</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Discussion issues:
1. Is the Day of the Lord good news or bad? Both in biblical times and in our day, "judgment" is a very ambiguous words . Psalm 96 and 98, for example, represent the positive side of the word. Both psalms climax in an exuberant exclamation that the Lord is coming to judge the earth. Psalm 98:7-9 in the NRSV puts it this way: "Let the floods clap their hands; let the hills sing together for joy at the presence of the LORD, for he is coming to judge the earth. He will judge the world with righteousness and the peoples with equity."
But over against that impulse to rejoice in the hope of the "Day of the Lord" is the stark reminder, especially in Amos, that the "day" is not always a happy one. Indeed his words in that connection are some of the most vivid in the book: "Alas for you who desire the day of the LORD! Why do you want the day of the LORD? It is darkness, not light; as if someone fled from a lion, and was met by a bear; or went into the house and rested a hand against the wall, and was bitten by a snake. Is not the day of the LORD darkness, not light, and gloom with no brightness in it?" (Amos 5:18-20, NRSV).
Discussion Question: In light of Amos's stark words, can we know when it is safe to look forward to the "Day of the Lord" with rejoicing? Or is it safer simply to tremble in fear?
2. Judgment as gracious warning, not as final destruction. Often the language of the prophets is so strong that we are inclined to dread them or even to turn away from them entirely.
But there is a gracious word lurking in the hard "judgment" words of Amos 4:6-12. The last line is a somber indictment: "Prepare to meet to your God, O Israel." But preceding that last call to judgment is a list of quite a different kind, a list of warning judgments, not final ones. The prophet lists all the "judgments" that had been intended to awaken the Israelites so that they would not have to face the final judgment: famine, drought, blight and mildew, pestilence, destroyed cities. Yet after each of these "judgments," the line is repeated, "Yet you did not return to me."
Discussion Question: How is it possible to present "judgments" in this more hopeful way? Or is human nature such that even "warning" judgments are usually seen simply as threats of a final judgment?
3. Party Time and Poverty. One of the starker images in Amos involves the contrast between party goers in the midst of poverty. In Amos 4:1, for example, the prophet talks about the fat "cows of Bashan" who "oppress the poor, who crush the needy," but at the same time call to their husbands, "Bring something to drink." In Amos 6:1-7, the contrast between rich and poor is less vivid, though the party-goers are described in some detail. They "lie on beds of ivory," "eat lambs from the flock," "sing idle songs to the sound of the harp," "drink wine from bowls," "anoint themselves with the finest oils." Then the stinger - "but are not grieved over the ruin of Joseph." Clearly these are people who are reveling in all kinds of creature comforts while their brothers and sisters are languishing in genuine poverty.
Discussion Question: How can conscientious Christians enjoy any creature comforts at all when there is so much want and poverty in the world? Is Jesus' visit to the wedding at Cana (John 2) any help? Or is our appeal to that example likely to lull us into the very experience condemned by Amos?
4. Sinful Religion: Amos does not content himself with contrasting party goers who live at ease in the midst of poverty-stricken people. These party-goers are apparently also deeply religious, at least in the external sense. In one passage, Amos allows himself to slip into sarcasm and scorn. &ldquo ]]></description>
			<enclosure url="http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-05-04.mp3" length="10019800" type="audio/mpeg" />
			<guid>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-05-04.mp3</guid>
			<pubDate>Sun, 28 Apr 2013 00:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
			<itunes:duration>13:55</itunes:duration>
			<itunes:keywords>amos, ", lord, -, discussion, god, judgments, party, world, question, day, poverty</itunes:keywords>
			<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		</item>
				<item>
			<title>Lord of all Nations (Amos)</title>
			<author>goodword@wallawalla.edu (Good Word)</author>
			<itunes:subtitle>A Good Word Broadcast</itunes:subtitle>
			<link>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/show_lesson.php?qid=58&amp;lid=320</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Leading Question: What happens when God's people hear that they are no better in God's eyes than the more obvious "sinners" in the world?
Discussion Issues:
1. Startling Comparisons: Israel and her neighbors. The book of Amos opens with a string of judgments against Israel's neighbors, a subtle introduction to the prophet's primary message: warnings and judgments against the northern kingdom of Israel. The prophet Amos was actually a farmer from the southern kingdom of Judah who responded to God's call to minister up north. But before dropping his bombshell on the prosperous regime of Jeroboam II, he tantalized his primary audience with his sharp criticisms of seven of Israel's neighbors. The first three were traditional enemies: Syria to the northeast, Philistia to the southwest, and Tyre to the northeast. Then he inches closer with pronouncements against three of Israel closer relatives: Edom, the descendants of Esau, Jacob's brother; then Ammon and Moab, the descendants of Lot through his two daughters. Finally, he strikes out against Judah, Israel's immediate neighbor to the south, the other kingdom whose national deity was the same as Israel's: Yahweh.
Of all the recipients of Amos's wrath, however, Judah is the only one whose judgment was strictly religious: Judah has "rejected the law of Yahweh" (Amos 2:4, NRSV). In other words, Judah had broken her covenant with her God. The same charge could have been laid against Israel, but for all the other enemies and also for Israel herself the judgment focused, not on religious sins, but on sins against humanity. Two questions emerge from this sequence of judgments:

 Which is the more damning judgment, the religious one of breaking the covenant with Yahweh (Judah), or the more secular one, of sinning against one's fellow creatures (all the other neighbors and Israel herself? Later in his book, Amos will utter scathing rebukes against Israel for practicing religious rituals while abusing the poor and the needy, but his opening salvo calls Israel to account for selling the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals; for trampling the heads of the poor into the dust, and for pushing the afflicted out of the way (Amos 2:6-7). For the church today, which would be the more damning charge: sins against God, or sins against humanity?
  
 What would have been the psychological effect on Israel of hearing the judgments against her neighbors first, then watching them come ever closer to home, with the last one against Judah, then finally on Israel herself? Would the judgment on Israel have come as a surprise, or as an ominous last word?

2. The Remnant: An Unhappy Label. In the history of God's people, the idea of being called a "remnant" is a loaded concept. There are at least three potential applications, all of them with unhappy overtones:

 The Blessed and Superior Remnant. While the prophets constantly told their listeners that God had called them for responsibility rather than for privilege, the natural temptation for a religious remnant is to see themselves as superior to the non-remnant around them. This idea of a privileged remnant was exploded by Amos's carefully crafted sequence of judgments in Amos 1-2. As the last word, Israel is finally confronted with judgment for committing the same sins against humanity as her neighbors had.
  
 The Tragic Remnant. The idea of tragic remnant is expressed in Amos 3:12: a shepherd finds only "two legs or a piece of an ear" after a lion has attacked and the homeowner returns to his destroyed property and finds only "the corner of a couch and part of a bed." It would be like Joseph's brothers bringing a blood-soaked garment as the only "remnant" of their lost brother.
 The Restored Remnant. While there is a tragic backdrop to this view of the remnant, ]]></description>
			<enclosure url="http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-04-27.mp3" length="10052711" type="audio/mpeg" />
			<guid>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-04-27.mp3</guid>
			<pubDate>Sun, 21 Apr 2013 00:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
			<itunes:duration>13:58</itunes:duration>
			<itunes:keywords>amos, israel, god, remnant, lion, book, ", one, judah, judgments, judgment, neighbors</itunes:keywords>
			<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		</item>
				<item>
			<title>A Holy and Just God (Joel)</title>
			<author>goodword@wallawalla.edu (Good Word)</author>
			<itunes:subtitle>A Good Word Broadcast</itunes:subtitle>
			<link>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/show_lesson.php?qid=58&amp;lid=319</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Leading Question: What do natural disasters tell us about the God we serve?
Note on the book of Joel: The book of Joel offers several "special" themes that are worth pursuing in a Sabbath School study:

 Theology: What is God's role in the appearance of natural disasters?
 Note: Three basic positions are possible: A) They are simply "natural" with no direct intervention by God; B) they are demonic with God choosing not to intervene; C) they are punishments from God on those who disobey him. Those who are inclined toward the third option would be advised to remember the book of Job. Job's friends were convinced that misfortune was a judgment from God. But the message of the book is clear that a personal disaster does not indicate that the one involved has departed from God's way.
  
 Eschatology: Day of the Lord. In this series of lessons, the "Day of the Lord" is a recurring theme. In this study guide, the fuller picture will be discussed in connection with the study of Zephaniah. A succinct summary would be that in the Old Testament, the "day of the Lord" could refer to any day of judgment. The local judgments then serve as a type or a harbinger of the final Day when Jesus returns.
  
 Eschatology: Multiple Applications. The imagery of the dark day and the signs in the heavens are images that appear frequently in the prophetic books of the Old Testament. Indeed, they are almost "standard" equipment whenever the "day of the Lord" is mentioned. This being the case, how can we understand the "dark day" and the falling of the stars that caused such a stir in the 18th and 19th centuries? In Adventist prophetic interpretation, the three great signs of the advent are given specific dates: earthquake (Lisbon, 1755), dark day (New England,1780), falling stars (New England,1833).
 
 Such an approach is vulnerable to the "secularist" who points out that there have been numerous dark days and numerous meteorite showers through history. Why should believers single out the 18th and 19th century events as if they were unique?
 
 The discussion of the "last days" and the events connected with it is one of the most contentious topics among Christians. The study of Joel should be informed by the four basic approaches to "last days" discussions in our era. Here is a brief synopsis of each:

Eschatology : Four Perspectives

 "All-time Road Map": HISTORICISM: The single road-map through history leading up to the end-time events. The traditional Adventist perspective, rooted in Daniel 2 and 7 and shaped by the teaching of the great reformers.
  
 "Yesterday": PRETERISM: Predicted "end-time" events were in the author's own day. In its pure form, held by "liberals" who deny any predictive element in prophecy or any "real" end of time.
  
 "Tomorrow": FUTURISM: "End-time" events yet to come. In its pure form, futurism denies conditional prophecy. It is the most popular view of eschatology among conservative Christians today (cf. "Left Behind" [movie]). Unfulfilled events in the Bible (especially from the OT) are predicted to take place at some future point to a literal and restored Israel (the temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem at the present site of the Moslem mosque, Dome of the Rock. The best-known modern form of futurism is Dispensationalism. Note the seven-fold division of history (fully developed in the Scofield Bible notes):
 
  Innocence: Before the fall
  Conscience: Before the flood
  Human government: Before Abraham
  Promise: Before Sinai
  Law: Before the Cross
  Grace: Before Second Advent
  Kingdom: 7 years and millennium.
  
  Note: The seven year period falls between the secret coming of Christ ("rapture" [parousia]) and the public coming [ep ]]></description>
			<enclosure url="http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-04-20.mp3" length="10051770" type="audio/mpeg" />
			<guid>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-04-20.mp3</guid>
			<pubDate>Sun, 14 Apr 2013 00:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
			<itunes:duration>13:57</itunes:duration>
			<itunes:keywords>god, ", one, people, adventists, human, testament, time, adventist, coming, free, world</itunes:keywords>
			<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		</item>
				<item>
			<title>Love and Judgment: God’s Dilemma (Hosea)</title>
			<author>goodword@wallawalla.edu (Good Word)</author>
			<itunes:subtitle>A Good Word Broadcast</itunes:subtitle>
			<link>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/show_lesson.php?qid=58&amp;lid=318</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Theme: Love and Judgment: God's dilemma (second of two lessons on Hosea)
Leading Question: How do we know when to use the heavy hand instead of the gentle hand with dealing with God's people?

 The sharp contrasts between the threat of judgment and the promise of undeserving grace are everywhere present in the prophets. Does the text of Scripture give us any help on knowing when to use one or the other?
  
 What are the most vivid examples and metaphors of judgment in Hosea?
  
 What are the most vivid examples of grace?
  
 How can Matthew 2:9 say that Jesus' going to Egypt with his parents "fulfilled" the words of the prophet, "out of Egypt have I called my son?"


Note: "Fulfill" can best be seen as "filling [the prophet's words] full of new meaning." It is not a prediction that has been fulfilled with precision. Chapter 7 of Who's Afraid of the Old Testament God? comments on the whole question of messianic prediction and is an important consideration when the New Testament writers apply OT words to Jesus.  That chapter is excerpted here.

Who's Afraid of the Old Testament God? Chapter 7
(Biblical quotations are from the Revised Standard Version )
The Best Story in the Old Testament: the Messiah 

The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light ...
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given... (Isaiah 9:2, 6)

My choice of best story in the Old Testament is not a specific episode like the worst story, but rather a great theme which springs from deep roots in the Old Testament and finally bursts into bloom in the New. Certainly one of the most insistent and obvious claims of the New Testament is that Jesus of Nazareth came as the fulfillment of the Old Testament messianic hope, John has recorded how Jesus chided his Jewish hearers: "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me" (John 5:46). And after the resurrection, Jesus expounded to the disciples on the Emmaus road the real meaning of the Old Testament: "And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" (Luke 24:27).  Not too long afterwards  he appeared to the eleven disciples and said: "These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you,  that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled. Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures" (Luke 24:44-45).
So the claim of the New Testament seems to be clear enough, but having said that, a couple of interesting and potentially distressing observations must not be over-looked. First, the Jewish Community as a whole has not accepted Jesus of Nazareth as the fulfillment of the Old Testament hope. From the Jewish point of view, Christianity is a breakaway movement which has pinned its hopes on a messianic pretender.  Never mind the fact that the Christian movement has been reasonably popular and successful; the point is that Judaism has rejected, the claim of the New Testament that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament messianic hope.
The second observation that we must not neglect is that Jesus' own disciples so radically misunderstood his mission. The synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, in particular, highlight the contrast between Jesus' grasp of his mission and that of his disciples. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in Matthew 16 where Peter openly proclaims to Jesus: "You are the Christ (Messiah), the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus was pleased with Simon's confession, though he warned the disciples that the time was not yet ripe to share this conviction (Matt. 16:20). Then he opened to them the real nature of his mission: "From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the el ]]></description>
			<enclosure url="http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-04-13.mp3" length="9993522" type="audio/mpeg" />
			<guid>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-04-13.mp3</guid>
			<pubDate>Sun, 07 Apr 2013 00:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
			<itunes:duration>13:53</itunes:duration>
			<itunes:keywords>testament, jesus,  , new, old, god, one, prophecies, messiah, ", first, christian</itunes:keywords>
			<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		</item>
				<item>
			<title>Spiritual Adultery (Hosea)</title>
			<author>goodword@wallawalla.edu (Good Word)</author>
			<itunes:subtitle>A Good Word Broadcast</itunes:subtitle>
			<link>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/show_lesson.php?qid=58&amp;lid=317</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Theme: Spiritual Adultery
Leading Question: "Why should modern Christians read the "minor" prophets?
All of our lessons this quarter focus on the so-called "minor" prophets, the last 12 books of the Hebrew Bible. The official study guide takes us through 10 of the books, leaving out only Obadiah and Nahum, and we study them in the order in which they appear in our English Bibles. In the Hebrew Bible, they are considered one book, "The Twelve," and extend from the last few decades of the kingdom of Israel (Amos, Hosea) - Israel fell in 722 to the Assyrians - to some 150 years after the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon (586 BC) the time Nehemiah (Malachi).
Lesson Focus: (Hosea - a total of two lessons)
Introduction to the Minor Prophets:

 Why study the minor prophets?
 Should we leave out the tough stuff? Why and why not?
 The story of Gomer and Hosea:
 
  The sexual imagery is so stark - spiritual adultery. How can that be of value to a gentle Anglo-Saxon community?
  Does the story suggest that we should be less rigid when a pastor or his spouse go astray?
  What should we do with the OT law that declares no re-marriage for a divorced woman (Deut. 24.4). Are sexual mores more flexible in the Bible that we have imagined them to be?
 
 
 ]]></description>
			<enclosure url="http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-04-06.mp3" length="9993465" type="audio/mpeg" />
			<guid>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-04-06.mp3</guid>
			<pubDate>Sun, 31 Mar 2013 00:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
			<itunes:duration>13:53</itunes:duration>
			<itunes:keywords>prophets, -, bible, study, hosea, hebrew, last, spiritual, adultery, israel, sexual, story</itunes:keywords>
			<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		</item>
				<item>
			<title>Creation, Again</title>
			<author>goodword@wallawalla.edu (Good Word)</author>
			<itunes:subtitle>A Good Word Broadcast</itunes:subtitle>
			<link>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/show_lesson.php?qid=57&amp;lid=316</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Major texts: Rev 21:1-5, Gen 3:19,1 Cor 15:52-58, Gen 6:11-13, Isa 11:6-9, John 14:1-3
The final lesson for this quarter invites us to think of creation once again. In this case, it is not about creation as it once happened however long ago, but about the creation of a new world as depicted in the first few verses of Revelation 21. Thinking about this may run on the following lines:

 Read over Revelation 21:1-5,6 and delineate what differences you see between what is promised and what currently exists? Notice in particular the words attesting to the true and certain nature of the promise.
  
 Think and talk about the various restorations that will be part of this new creation:
 
  Nature itself will be restored to its original condition.
  Good health will be restored
  It must be that relationships will be fixed. In particular, there will be the restoration of the relationships that were permanently broken by death, permanently In a human sense, at any rate.
  The relationship between God and man that was summarily broken in Eden will be restored. According to Revelation, God will be with his people and be their God! Here is reflected that fact that brokenness that has been so endemic to history, that has caused so much misapprehension of God, will be fixed and God and humans, as they did in Eden, will commune face to face once more!
  Death and pain will be no more.
  The universe will no longer suffer from the loss of its pristine nature. All will beat with a single pulse of harmony once more.
   
 
 
 One of the great debates that has gone on has to do with the nature of heaven itself. Is it a realm with physical attributes, physicality, or is it just a spiritual realm where beings exist beyond the physical realms? What texts can you cite in support of your position.
  
 The final picture of Revelation is one that involves the eradication of all evil, its perpetrators, its results, even its residues. Think for a few moments of what kind of God could pull off such a magnificent eventuality while at the same time retaining the love of other beings who are volitional. In other words, how does one obtain willing compliance to a grand design?
  
 Many people are afraid of God particularly because of the biblical fact that God will one day destroy all evil and wreak havoc on this sin-damaged earth (2 Peter 3, for example). How do you reconcile a loving God with such behavior?
  
 In life and in the cosmos, there seems to be a great tension between love and justice. Where one prevails, the other seems to suffer and lose ground. How do you see this tension being played out in God's actions toward this planet the beings who live on it for, if God pursues justice inordinately, then sinners die. But if God pursues love alone, then justice seems to be negated. How can this tension be resolved?
  
 Imagine an unending existence in a paradise where all evil is gone!
  
 How will the universe be made safe from a second appearance of sin? 
 ]]></description>
			<enclosure url="http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-03-30.mp3" length="13420259" type="audio/mpeg" />
			<guid>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-03-30.mp3</guid>
			<pubDate>Sun, 24 Mar 2013 00:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
			<itunes:duration>13:58</itunes:duration>
			<itunes:keywords>god,  , one, revelation, creation, nature, restored, evil, love, tension, seems, justice</itunes:keywords>
			<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		</item>
				<item>
			<title>Creation and the Gospel</title>
			<author>goodword@wallawalla.edu (Good Word)</author>
			<itunes:subtitle>A Good Word Broadcast</itunes:subtitle>
			<link>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/show_lesson.php?qid=57&amp;lid=315</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Major texts: Gen 3:21; Ps 104:29,30; John 1:4; Rom 5:6-11; Gal 3:13, Matt 27:46
This week, the lesson invites us to look at the connections between creation and the gospel. If this is to happen, several connections of thought need to be made between the two. Discussion may be had along the lines below:

 In order for there to be any discussion or any need for salvation, there first must be some adverse condition or circumstance in which someone is caught and from which they need to be saved. Just such a scenario is laid out in Genesis 3. Discuss the adverse effects of sin, the immediate consequences, the intermediate ones, and the ultimate ones.
  
 In Ephesians 2, Paul delineates the plight of humans. In the first few verses he points out we are dead spiritually, we are enslaved by the devil, the world, and our own human natures. In addition, we are condemned by birth. Together, this is a serious plight indeed, one from which no human can extricate themselves. Only a Savior will do!
  
 Salvation is by grace through faith. Read over the Genesis 3 story looking for evidences of God's grace right from the point of the appearance of sin. How was God gracious to Adam and Eve? How does that grace play out into history?
  
 Notice that God's creative power is not limited, in scripture, to the making of material or physical things. His creative power extends to the creation of a new heart, too.
  
 Think of the plan of salvation as it is played out throughout the Bible. How was salvation obtained in OT times? What methods of demonstration or education did God use in the OT? How did people learn about and participate in the plan of redemption?
  
 In Romans 5, Paul speaks of Jesus becoming sin for us. Can you explain the dynamics by which salvation was wrought out for humans? What do you think of the issue of substitutionary atonement?
  
 Spend a little reflective time with the text, "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us..." What thoughts come to your mind after reflecting on that for a while?
  
 How does God's grace get evidenced in today's world?
  
 The Bible promises a new creation, one where the old order of things has passed away. Talk about what that new creation will be like? What will the most dramatic difference between this world and the new world be?
  
 Do not neglect to notice the grand scope of redemption. It begins right with the appearance of sin in Eden, and it continues until even the residues of sin are eradicated at the very end of time. What kind of God could or would do such a thing as this?
 ]]></description>
			<enclosure url="http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-03-23.mp3" length="13420259" type="audio/mpeg" />
			<guid>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-03-23.mp3</guid>
			<pubDate>Sun, 17 Mar 2013 00:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
			<itunes:duration>13:58</itunes:duration>
			<itunes:keywords> , god, salvation, sin, new, world, grace, creation, need, plight, adverse, one</itunes:keywords>
			<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		</item>
				<item>
			<title>Sabbath: A Gift from Eden</title>
			<author>goodword@wallawalla.edu (Good Word)</author>
			<itunes:subtitle>A Good Word Broadcast</itunes:subtitle>
			<link>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/show_lesson.php?qid=57&amp;lid=314</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Major texts: Gen 2:1-3; Heb 4:3,4; Deut 5:12-15; Ezek 20:12; Mark 2:27,28; 2 Pet 3:3-7
One can hardly complete a reading of the creation account in Genesis without noticing the last act of the drama, namely the establishment of the Sabbath as a memorial within time. There are several things to notice about this:

 Notice that the Sabbath shows up as the capstone of creation. It completes the creation event. It is established in order to rest man from his/her labors, and also to commemorate the creation event and the God who initiated life. Ontologically, it stands as a reminder of the Creator/creation dynamic that is so much a part of the creation story.
  
 It Is being more widely acknowledged now in the Christian community that the 7th day was the original day of Sabbath. That comports with Saturday in our calendar. Sunday is now revered because of the Christian Interest in commemorating the resurrection. What should be said about this?
  
 Consider the genius of God who made a memorial out of time rather than out of some material substance like rock or gold. Think of how enduring a memorial in time would be, and how difficult to eliminate.
  
 What kind of difference would you see between "keeping" Sabbath, and "celebrating" Sabbath? Would consideration of these differences make any difference in the way you observe Sabbath?
  
 What do you think of Sabbath as a day of rest? What does that mean? How broadly could you interpret and apply this injunction? Would you include nature itself in this mandate to rest?
  
 Some discussion could be had on Sabbath as a sign between God and those who believe in him. What do you think of the signatory nature of Sabbath?
  
 Think about the many incidents in the Gospels telling of Jesus and the Sabbath. How did He envision Sabbath? How did He use the Sabbath hours? How similar are your activities to his? How do the activities of Jesus change what you might think is "permissible" to do on Sabbath?
  
 How do you understand the statement that "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath?"
  
 Look at Psalm 92, a Psalm for the Sabbath. What do you learn from this?
  
 How do you think human life would be different/better if everyone acknowledge and kept the Sabbath as a day of rest and worship?
  
 Do you think It is necessary to go to some kind of worship event on the Sabbath in order to properly revere it?
 ]]></description>
			<enclosure url="http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-03-16.mp3" length="13367596" type="audio/mpeg" />
			<guid>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-03-16.mp3</guid>
			<pubDate>Sun, 10 Mar 2013 00:00:00 PST</pubDate>
			<itunes:duration>13:55</itunes:duration>
			<itunes:keywords>sabbath,  , think, creation, day, god, event, memorial, time, man, christian, difference</itunes:keywords>
			<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		</item>
				<item>
			<title>Stewardship and the Environment</title>
			<author>goodword@wallawalla.edu (Good Word)</author>
			<itunes:subtitle>A Good Word Broadcast</itunes:subtitle>
			<link>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/show_lesson.php?qid=57&amp;lid=313</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Major Texts: Ps 8, Gen 2:15, Rev 4:11, Ex 20:8-11,1 Cor 3:16
One of the eventualities that emerge from the story of creation is that all living creatures on earth, indeed all living things on earth, share a common origin and a common journey through life. In other words, all life on earth had the same Originator, and all life is inter-linked in that it is lived out in a common biosphere. This interconnectedness is unavoidable and, to a very large sense, unalterable at least to the extent that no living thing can avoid the effects of its living on other things around it. At the same time, no living thing can find a place where it is immune from the effects of the living of other things around it. In short, all living things on this planet are doing life together. There are not a few implications that emerge from this understanding of things.
A second category of thought is that there are living things on earth that have what is called "sentience," that capacity that allows for some degree of self-awareness and for a sense of the self-awareness of other beings. Certainly, there are degrees of sentience with humans sitting at the pinnacle of sentience. This important to consider because sentience is a mark of higher levels of thinking, even of the capacity for moral function. Those beings with higher levels of sentience have higher levels of responsibility, moral responsibility in particular.
Now comes to bear that familiar verse near the end of the Genesis account of beginnings where God left word to Adam and Eve that they were to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" and, further, that they were to have "dominion" over the fish, the birds, and over every living thing. This statement about having dominion is very significant. It has been variously understood in history. Quite often, it has been understood to support the notion that humans have a God-given mandate to do as they please with the earth and everything in it. This has caused some Christians to claim that humans can simply do whatever they want with the planet, including tear it up and use it however they please. Some had even thought that the earth will find a way to recover from misuse on Its own. The big question of this week has to do with whether or not this understanding of the relationship of humans to the rest of the biosphere is right and good.
Profitable discussion can be had around at last the items listed below:

 Notice that included in the creation story is the instruction for Adam to "keep," or "watch over" the garden. What kind of stewardship is suggested by this instruction?
  
 If, in fact, the earth was the creation of someone else, what might that suggest about humans and their right to use the earth simply as they please? If the earth is not owned by humans, would that not place them In the position of being stewards, or managers, or another's assets? How would you compare the actions of owners vs. that of managers? On what grounds would you fire a manager?
  
 Since all humans share the planet, and since all things are connected by virtue of creation, what kind of obligations do you see toward living in such a manner as to allow all other things to have space for their own being? What criteria might you use to determine when It Is OK for one form of life to Infringe on the living of another? What are the moral consequences of "killing" non-sentient life as compared to killing sentient life?
  
 Think of the Impact of your way of living on the rest of the biosphere? What might you change to ease the burden you create?
  
 Talk about the tensions that arise from the fart that, according to the biblical model established by creation, the earth is both to be "tended" and used for the purpose of producing provisions necessary for life.
  
 It is a sad truth that a person who is an atheist may well have more Interest in the well-be ]]></description>
			<enclosure url="http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-03-09.mp3" length="13393091" type="audio/mpeg" />
			<guid>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-03-09.mp3</guid>
			<pubDate>Sun, 03 Mar 2013 00:00:00 PST</pubDate>
			<itunes:duration>13:56</itunes:duration>
			<itunes:keywords>earth, living,  , life, things, humans, planet, sentience, think, biosphere, creation, christians</itunes:keywords>
			<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		</item>
				<item>
			<title>A Gift From Eden</title>
			<author>goodword@wallawalla.edu (Good Word)</author>
			<itunes:subtitle>A Good Word Broadcast</itunes:subtitle>
			<link>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/show_lesson.php?qid=57&amp;lid=312</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Major Texts: Gen 2:18-25, Mark 10:7-9, Eph 5:22-25, Matt 5:27-30, 2 Cor 3:18
One of the notable things that emerges from the creation account in Genesis, something that is and has been ubiquitous in human experience, is marriage. It is to this that we turn our attention this week.
The biblical account of the first marriage is very well-known, how, after creation was all but over, and after everything had been pronounced "good," a single and very obvious exception was noted - "It is not good for man to be alone." This observation provides the precipitating cause and explanation for marriage, at least from a biblical perspective.
Profitable discussion may be had using the following items:

 What would it mean that "man should not be alone?" What does this imply about humans? What does it imply about marriage?
  
 Notice the difference between the way God made Adam (formed from the dust) and then the way he made Eve (formed from a rib taken from Adam). What do you think the significance of this might be?
  
 The English word "helpmeet" is fascinating because it Is a derivative of the word "helpmate" which is a derivative of two words, "help" and "meet." It is quite interesting to note that, in KJV English, the word "meet" means "suitable," or "fitting." With this in mind, how would you understand the story now? In KJV English, God was not making a little helper for Adam. He was making a fully-fledged companion, every bit his equal, with whom he could share the business of living. This realization is reflected in Adam's joyous reaction to his first meeting of Eve.
  
 What do you make of the statement that "therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife?" In a patriarchal setting, a man does not leave his family of origin. Rather, the woman leaves her family to come live with her husband's family.
  
 Consider the many possible models of marriage that can be seen in human experience - the patriarchal system, a brittle social contract, 50/50 marriage, marriage as a magical matching, hierarchical marriage, polygamous marriage, open marriage, marriage as a civil right, marriage as a wedding ceremony, marriage as a covenant, to name a few possible ideas. What do you think the "biblical" model for marriage is? Is there such a thing as "biblical marriage?"
  
 Marriage, as it is found in early Genesis, was given for the benefit of human kind. Why do you think it has become so difficult a thing to do well? Is that the fault of marriage, or is it the fault of current understandings of marriage?
  
 The Bible clearly indicates that sex is to be indulged only by those who are married, at least if it is to approach the ideal. The reason why marriage has been the boundary for sexual activity Is that marriage is the only institution known that protects BOTH purposes for sex, namely to create a close bond between two humans, and to allow for procreation. These two items have only been separated quite recently, primarily after the invention of the pill.
  
 In the adult quarterly, the writer (or Editor?), when referring to the Ephesians 5 passage on marriage, began the section with v. 22. What happens if the discussion begins with v. 21? Certainly, beginning with v. 21 makes the marriage passage into an example of deferential reciprocity between humans because of love for God. This is quite a different view than one would get if one began with the submission passage.
  
 Can companionship really grow between people who are not equals? What happens if two people in marriage are not perceived to be of equal value or status? If marriage involves companionship, think about what abuse within marriage does to that dynamic!
  
 Would you agree that marriage as covenant Is the ideal of Scripture? If so, would it not be true that what ]]></description>
			<enclosure url="http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-03-02.mp3" length="12873150" type="audio/mpeg" />
			<guid>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-03-02.mp3</guid>
			<pubDate>Sun, 24 Feb 2013 00:00:00 PST</pubDate>
			<itunes:duration>13:24</itunes:duration>
			<itunes:keywords>marriage,  , man, think, people, god, covenant, biblical, adam, way, human, humans</itunes:keywords>
			<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		</item>
				<item>
			<title>Jesus, Provider and Sustainer</title>
			<author>goodword@wallawalla.edu (Good Word)</author>
			<itunes:subtitle>A Good Word Broadcast</itunes:subtitle>
			<link>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/show_lesson.php?qid=57&amp;lid=311</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Major Texts: Heb 1:3; Col 1:16,17; Job 42; Matt 5:45, 6:25-34,10:28
The lesson this week seeks to make the point that the Creator, whom it identifies as Jesus, was not just involved with creation at the beginning. He is also involved in the continuing care and sustaining of it. We will explore this assertion in the following way:

 At the point of creation, God was not enmeshed with His work as in He did not share His essence with creation. In other words, God and creation are not of the same essence. To argue for that would be to set up the basis for pantheism. The creation story sets up a form of reality that manifestly disallows for pantheism. God is depicted as being separate from what he created.
  
 At the same time, God is shown to be taking pains to ensure the preservation and continuance of what he made. We might first look at the fact that creation was so 	constituted as to provide food and provision for all created things. Plants were to bear fruit and seed and herbs were to be edible. Noticeably absent from the Genesis story is any form of predation. Given the nature of things today, it is all but impossible for us to imagine a biosphere without predation, but that is what is indicated. For example, what would a vegetarian hawk look like? Or a vegan lion? And what is to be said about whole sub-systems in our biosphere that rely on predation of some kind? Yet, this is the picture of Eden, to be replicated again in the new earth where, as Isaiah envisioned it, God points to the day when ''the lion and lamb will lie down together, and there will be no hurt on my holy mountain." The foundational point is that creation, as it came from God's hands, was constituted so as to provide sufficient resources for the continuation of life.
  
 There is the matter now, of the fall. How did the emergence of sin affect creation itself? Clearly, there are indications in the Bible (the whole creation groans awaiting its redemption) that nature itself has been damaged by sin. And there is the biblical record that after the flood humans were given leave to eat animals which is an event that radically changes the dynamics of earth when compared to what they were after creation. Yet, in spite of the changes, earth still provides.
  
 We point to the fact that, after sin's appearance, it might be said that nature itself became capable of doing damage as in natural disasters, storms, earthquakes, and the like. Yet, In the face of these, we have verses like Matthew 4:45, and Psalm 65:9,10, and Matthew 6:25-34 (a very challenging set of verses to take at face value!) that suggest that behind the scenes, God is still actively providing for his creation. Seedtime, and harvest, God has promised to preserve.
  
 An interesting question to explore here would be one that asks about the relationship of the supernatural and the natural. How do they inter-relate? Should we expect such inter-actions regularly? What shall we say to those who think "everything" is a miracle?

  ]]></description>
			<enclosure url="http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-02-23.mp3" length="13329980" type="audio/mpeg" />
			<guid>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-02-23.mp3</guid>
			<pubDate>Sun, 17 Feb 2013 00:00:00 PST</pubDate>
			<itunes:duration>13:52</itunes:duration>
			<itunes:keywords>creation, god,  , point, nature, sin, predation, earth, itself, verses, pantheism, essence</itunes:keywords>
			<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		</item>
				<item>
			<title>Through a Glass Darkly</title>
			<author>goodword@wallawalla.edu (Good Word)</author>
			<itunes:subtitle>A Good Word Broadcast</itunes:subtitle>
			<link>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/show_lesson.php?qid=57&amp;lid=310</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Major Texts: Job 12:10; 1 Cor 6:19,20; Gen 3:17; John 12:31; 1 Cor 1:18-21
The lesson this week delves into some very interesting and important territory. If its essence were to be distilled into a single, primary question, it would be, subsequent to the fall, how well does the natural world reflect God? Or, put another way. Just how much can we learn about God from the natural world subsequent to the effects of the fall?
We will proceed here along two lines of thought. First, we will look at what theologians refer to as "General Revelation," that kind of information humans can get about God from the study of what God has made. Then we will ask the question about how accurately scientific observations and conclusions would be in terms of telling us about God and the way God made things given the effects of the fall on the natural world.
The question of general revelation postulates that the things a person makes tell something of that person. Extended to God, the postulation is that, since God made the universe, we might learn some things about Him by studying creation Itself. The postulation has been powerful in the western world because it can be said that science as we know it emerged from precisely this idea, that empirically driven data gathering could ultimately tell us something about the Creator. The initial conclusions tended toward the idea that the universe was a vast, highly precise machine made and operated by God. This postulation has fallen on hard times because the universe it not so precise as originally thought. Nevertheless, it can still be said that the natural world reveals some things about God. Because the information in the natural world is generally available to any who will look, and because it is believed that the information gleaned from such study does not get beyond generalities, this category of knowledge is called "General Revelation."
Several points should be made about general revelation:

 It is usually said that this information can be found in four or five places:
 
  The Cosmos itself
  Human beings and human nature
  History, but looking for providences
  Aesthetic beauty
  Humor
   
 
 
 General revelation has several characteristics:
 
  It is general in content and general in availability.
  It is of most benefit when someone who already believes looks at some event or phenomenon and sees not only the event but "something more," the hand of God. For example, when the rains finally comes and ends a drought, the unbelieving farmer is likely to say, "It's about timel" while the believing farmer is likely to say, "Thank God, the rains have finally cornel" The believer saw something more than Just the natural phenomenon.
  There is a very big debate as to just how effective general revelation can bein terms of bringing people to a saving faith in God. This debate goes unabated with some thinking it is sufficient, and others vociferously denying such a prospect. We cannot settle that debate herel
 
 

The second line of thought proposed at the start of the lesson had to do with the question of how accurately science might be able to reflect God given the effects of the fall. Or, how similar is the cosmos now to the way it was created and what effects has the fall had on the nature of creation? This is actually a very big question that has not been explored very much. It needs a whole lot more consideration:

 Notice that the earth is now not only post fall, but also post flood. How have these two events tarnished or spoiled the capacity of earth to reveal accurate things about its Maker?
  
 These matters, it could be argued, could nearly totally dismiss science from the playing field when it comes to investigating and learning about God.
  
 The effects of the fall could possibly skew scientific findings when compared to what they might have been in Eden to the point that what we have as scie ]]></description>
			<enclosure url="http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-02-16.mp3" length="13458293" type="audio/mpeg" />
			<guid>http://www.wallawalla.edu/academics/departments/theology/goodword/audio/2013-02-16.mp3</guid>
			<pubDate>Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:00:00 PST</pubDate>
			<itunes:duration>14:00</itunes:duration>
			<itunes:keywords>god, general, world, natural, effects, revelation, made, things, question,  , something, information</itunes:keywords>
			<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		</item>
	
	<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
	</channel>
</rss>