Monday: The Process of Inspiration
Because God uses the medium of language to reveal His will to man, divine revelation is capable of being written down. Yet, as we already have seen, the Bible is the result of God’s revealing truth to us through the work of the Holy Spirit, who transmits and safeguards His message through human instruments. This is the reason why we can expect the fundamental unity that is seen in all of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation (for example, compare Genesis 3:14-15 to Revelation 12:17).
Read 2 Peter 1:21; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; and Deuteronomy 18:18. What do these texts say about the inspiration of Scripture?
Image © Lars Justinen at Goodsalt.com
All of Scripture is divinely inspired, even if not all parts are equally inspiring to read or even necessarily applicable to us today (for example, the sections about the Hebrew feasts were inspired even though we’re not required to keep them today). Yet we need to learn from all of Scripture, even from those parts that are not so easy to read and understand or that are not specifically applicable to us now.
Also, not everything in the Bible was directly or supernaturally revealed. Sometimes God used biblical writers who carefully investigated things or used other existing documents (see Josh. 10:13, Luke 1:1-3) to communicate His message.
Even then, all Scripture is inspired (2 Tim. 3:16). This is the reason why Paul states that “whatever” was written, was written for our instruction, so that through “the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (Rom. 15:4, NASB).
“The Bible points to God as its author; yet it was written by human hands; and in the varied style of its different books it presents the characteristics of the several writers. The truths revealed are all ‘given by inspiration of God’ (2 Tim. 3:16); yet they are expressed in the words of men”. — Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 7.
| Today there are biblical scholars who deny divine authorship of many parts of the Bible, even to the point where many crucial teachings — Creation, the Exodus, the resurrection — are denied. Why is it so essential that we not open that door, even a bit? After all, are we to pass judgment upon the Word of God? |
(24)
Circumcision initiated by God in the Old Testament; however, Paul was against circumcision in the New Testament. Why? Because Jewish Christians were teaching without circumcision one could not be saved. In this context, Paul was against circumcision.
Is there anything wrong with circumcision? Absolutely not.
There are medical benefits for circumcision.
The person who understands salvation by grace alone can get circumcised because he is not adding any merit to the circumcision.
When we read the bible, we must take the historical reasoning of the argument of the writer. If we miss the principle of the argument, we would arrive at the wrong conclusion all circumcision binds us with the old covenant.
Paul was not against circumcision! His arguments was you cant use circumcision as a means of salvation! You must highlight that!
We have to be wary of the serpent's tricks - he said to Eve - did God really say you can't eat of every tree (straw man), so Eve corrected him, no only this tree or die, Serpent- God didn't mean what he said, you won't die, in fact God doesn't want you to experience good and evil, the last part was true, but he made sound a negative. Does that sound familiar? Yes,some say this text says so and so but that is not what it really means, because God won't do that.
"...some say this text says so and so but that is not what it really means, because God won't do that."
Hi Shirley
Before I comment on this issue, how familiar are you with the literary concept of Ancient Near Eastern/Hebrew idioms in general and the 'causative - permissive' idiom in particular?
Today's lesson asks in its final question "are we to pass judgment upon the Word of God?"
In answering this question for yourself, please keep 2 Tim 2:15 in mind.
When we ask if we are to "pass judgment" upon the Word of God, what do we mean by ‘pass judgment’ as there are two meanings for this phrase. Is it being suggested/implied that we are not to think and question as we read - that we are merely to take what the English/modern languages translation says at face value?
People say that the Word of God clearly states such and such. But keep in mind that English/modern languages translations have already been interpreted by someone who has interpreted the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek through their world-view. For those of you who are familiar with these original languages, you will note that their words are numerically less because each word is much broader in its range of potential meanings.
For example, the Greek word translated "perish" in John 3:16 and 2 Peter 3:9 can mean (a) to be destroyed by an outside source or (b) to come to complete and utter ruin due to corruption from the inside. How do we know which meaning was intended by John or Peter? For example, is John saying that God and Jesus are trying to save us so they don't have to destroy us? Or is John saying God and Jesus are trying to save us from something that is already destroying us and will continue on to totally destroy us if left unremedied? (This is an example of a situation where it cannot be a bit of both options because if it is, then it is in fact the former option).
2 Tim 2:15 says that we are to rightly divide/accurately handle the Word of God. The only reason Paul needed to raise this caution is because there is a risk of mishandling the Word of God. Otherwise the statement would be irrelevant. Is taking the English/modern languages translated bible at face-value an example of accurately handling or is does it pose the risk of mishandling the Word of God?
Here is what one of Adventism's founding pioneers had to say on the topic:
Now for the sake of focus, I have not also reproduced the paragraph that Ellen White wrote prior to the one reproduced above as a careless reading of it would risk drawing a conclusion that is opposite to the one I have reproduced above. However, for those who wish to research the preceding paragraphs, keep in mind that they must be interpreted as being consistent with the final paragraph that I have reproduced where the need to dig and search out - "closely investigate" (which involves questioning and wrestling) - is emphasised. And the results of such investigation is that we may discover that errors of interpretation have arisen from a more superficial 'face-value' approach.
Am I saying that we should tear down the word of God like many modern Christian theologians have and are doing? Absolutely not! Rather, I am proposing that there is both Biblical and early Adventism basis for taking a more evaluative approach to Bible reading/interpretation whereby we do question and 'wrestle' with scripture in an effort to know more fully and deeply the truth/s it contains. And this to inform "how then shall we live?"
Should we pass judgment on God's Word. In one way, absolutely not. But in another way, absolutely (1 Thessalonians 5:21; 2 Timothy 2:15). Like in so many instances, it comes down to the motive of our hearts (1 Samuel 16:7): is my motive to tear down or to learn and grow (Jeremiah 9:24)? So what I am advocating is not petty arguing over trivial matters. It is the search to do precisely what 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 2 Timothy 2:15 and Jeremiah 9:24 is talking about.
If anyone believes I am in error in what I am proposing, I welcome your critique. However I do ask that any critique be presented in a reasoned out and evidence-supported 'peer-review' manner so all may examine the evidence for themselves and come to their own personal conclusion on the matter (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit of course).
I am not trying to tell anyone what they must believe. I am only outlining what I have learned (and continue to learn) over the past decade that is making such a constructive difference in my walk with God, my service to others and in the lives of others I have been and continue to be privileged to share with that is resulting in their walks also being transformed for the better. Why do I do this? Because I wish I had come to learn this decades ago but where there was unfortunately no-one at the time to help me see what I can now see.
Guide me O Great One- THE I AM THAT I AM.
Well said Bro Phil but suppose I tried to critique, how will you know? Do you always see my critique? What makes seasoned SDA change their way of thinking even if new light is given. I see a verse in the Bible as a general heading of a subject but the subject doesn’t stop there, actually it goes beyond the pages. Is a verse a means to an end? As well as what God has revealed to you/others he might not revealed to me and visa versa. Many times we struck down others ideas but what if they are right and we are wrong? What if it is God who sent that person to us with the true interpretation? Do we still hold on to our old teaching like the Jews in Bible times?
Hi Lyn
I would encourage you to go ahead and write constructive critiques and we will see what happens... I already have been reading your comments for a while now as often as I can.
When I use a verse, it is because I have found that verse to be an accurate and succinct summary of the subject I have studied - or of a dimension of a subject.
With regard to the idea of right/wrong, the main thing is that we have a healthy love and respect for others even when we may see things differently. Hopefully we are all seeking to grow and develop in our understanding so that we mature more and more in our walk with God and our service to others - and that such is what is motivating our studying out and sharing of our ideas.
Phil
Considering the last question of today’s lesson, I would like to have some explanations on this verses: “Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says. If they have any questions, they should ask their husbands at home, for it is improper for women to speak in church meetings.”
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 NLT.
I know in some commentaries people say it was cultural. But at the same times, I see so many cultural things or traditions or even rituals, (like circumcision) that Paul said were no longer necessary because we are all in Christ now. How come in the New Testament he was still saying that WOMEN should be silent during church services? And no where in his books that he clarified this statement.
If we are all one in Christ, as he said in certains of his writings: Gal.3:28; 1 Corinth 11:11, why there is a difference when we are in church?
- Since there is no where in the Bible that Paul modified his declaration, however we do it differently, isn’t that a judgement, even though we don’t really say it?
- Let’ s say, we would do it as he (Apostle Paul) wished it, would it be a normal thing as well, when in our church now, we have more women than men and our church is founded by a woman due to lack of courageous men in her time?
- Women continue to play a great role in our Churches today, and even go further than men sometimes in their consistency.
- And the same reason why Paul rebuked Peter ( Galatians 2:11-14), why wasn’t it the case in 1 Corinthians 14: 34-35, knowing that we are in the New Testament and Christ died to end our discrimination?
The author indicates here that the Hebrew Feasts do not need to be kept now. And, yes, I fully agree with this because every aspect of the "Ceremonial Law" was symbolic of what Jesus would accomplish with His life and death. So my question here would be that if Jesus Himself only celebrated "The Passover Feast" with His desciples according to the "Once a Year" and only as it pertained to His own sacrificial death for sin, why then do we go on to celebrate this feast of the past even more than "once a year?" We go on to celebrate this "Four times a year." Jesus Himself was recorded as just counseling His followers to do this in remembrance of Him. And the Apostle Paul just indicates that whenever this is done we show His death until He returns. So again, if back then His people were only requited to do this "once a year" why do we go on to impose this on ourselves for "Four times a year?"
Hi Pete. By "we" I assume you mean Seventh-day Adventists in general. We have many on Sabbath School Net who are not Adventists but are our good Christian friends, and not all Adventists join in communion. You ask why we celebrate the Passover four times a year. We do not celebrate the Passover. We celebrate the Lord's Super which replaced the Passover. Neither Jesus nor Paul told us how often to celebrate the Lord's Super. Nowhere does it say every year. We choose to do it every quarter because that seems the right amount of times to keep it meaningful rather than doing it every week as some other denominations do. Still we can't say others are wrong to do it every week because nowhere does the Bible say how often to do it.
Hey, William Earnhardt, something else to consider now with this COVID-19 social distancing: Looks like we are probably not going to be celebrating this ceremonial event any time soon in our churches. And yes I was mainly referring to SDA's in my previous comment. I mean Catholics celebrate this every week with their wafer at their Mass. And The Lord's Supper came from "The Passover Feast" that was celebrated once a year. Jesus Himself was celebrating this Feast and it was in reference to this Feast and what it symbolized that Jesus then took the bread and the grape juice to represent His body and His blood in place of The Passover Lamb and in place of "The Passover Feast."
Hi Pete,
Yes I was just talking with one of our conference officials the other day about equipping families to do their own communion service.
Hey, William, this sounds great! However, I would only celebrate this on a "Once a year basis" within our family unit as per the "Passover Feast" of the Old Testament.
I became a SDA in 1965. I was only 21 years old then and I was also a single man then too. Since then I was made an a Deacon and then an Elder. Then I was made Head Deacon and served as a Head Deacon once in one SDA Church and twice in another SDA Church. Trying to get deacons to help for the Communion Services sometimes was a real challenge as a Head Deacon. And here again, from what I read of the account of the feet washing in the four Gospels and how we now celebrate this (for humility ritualism) and also the Bread and Grape Juice (for body and blood of Jesus ritualism) I have come to the conclusion that we also "multitask" these two ordinances too much.
I seem to see that there were about 2 days between these two rituals by Jesus and they were not done on His Seventh Day either The Passover Feast was celebrated during a two week period, I believe. But here we are now imposing on ourselves these two separate occasions of Jesus and lumping them together on a Sabbath Day and making the deacons work harder than the Elders too on these rituals and on the Lord's Seventh Day Sabbath too.
Guided by the Holy Spirit.
Fred you asked a question about women keeping silent in church. I think there was a dispute in that specific church at that specific time which caused Paul to come to that conclusion.
Paul also said men should not wear long hair and women should have long hair as her covering. Also said the hair should not be braided. He encouraged men to be single like him but to get married if they have to burn. Would anyone say Paul was a eunuch because he encouraged men to be single?
In Genesis God said to Adam and Eve be fruitful and multiply, do people think the scriptures contradict?
Pete
You asked above the communion every quarter. There is no steadfast rule in the Bible about times. 1 Cor 11:23-26 Paul quote the words of Jesus, “ As often as ye do this” the SDA choice is even quarter.
You can personally do same once a year. It is our heart with God. What is my relationship whether every mths or once a year.
I'll share my thoughts on the lesson before reading other comments.
So, the Bible tells me it is inspired. Is this to be the only proof, or is it encouraging me to see for myself? I like what Proverbs 22:20,21 tells me. I believe the proof is found in what comes from God, not in what someone tells about it. Paul and Peter are speaking their convictions, but where did those convictions come from? I believe the Divine inspiration is self-evident to all who learn from personal experience in proving them(as God encourages in Mal 3:10). Paul also wrote that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God", which is given to us that we "might know the certainty of the words of Truth".
As an example: Jupiter has been observed from earth for hundreds of years, and scientists have formed opinions from these observations and made claims. In the late 70's - early 80's, they got a closer look, and this closer experience led them to "toss out the book and start over". In the past few years an even closer look has been ongoing and they find themselves starting from scratch again. Imagine if they actually get to land on it! The closer we look at something with honest objectivity, the more we will know the certainty of it, and the false ideas will just fall away.
Does this make sense?
Jesus says to all: "Follow ME", not someone else's opinion. A branch will only bear fruit if attached to the Vine itself.
I appreciated the very final question in today’s lesson. Where I live, which is near an Adventist college campus, there seems to be a lot of questioning along these lines. There are several of the college staff, that also teach Sabbath School classes, that question the validity of a literal 7 day creation. The fact that Genesis says “and the evening and the morning were the ... day, leads me to believe that you would have to throw out the book of Genesis to believe it’s not literal. I have heard from the mouth of a very dear friend, who has been Adventist their whole life, that there is no way the flood of the Bible could have happen as it’s described in Genesis.
There has been more, which could be discouraging, but the good news is, I can turn to scripture, and know that the Holy Spirit will guide me to the truth. If we can’t trust the Bible as being God’s inspired word, then what do we have?
O that men will praise the Lord.
Pete, I feel your pain. I know of someone who is experiencing the same problem. The SDA church is the SDA church. Whether you live in Australia. Europe, Asia, Africa or where, the struggle is real and the same. Sometimes there is a power struggle in the church. Do what you can do, leave the rest to God.
The guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Phil, As I was about to respond to your writing (critique), is like the Holy Spirit shew me 2 Tim 2: 14: 16-17, 23-26. Shall we pass judgment on the word of God?
You asked a question, should we pass judgment on the scriptures, absolutely? I don’t think we can or should. You used 1 Thessalonians 5:21. and 2 Timothy 2:15. The 1st spoke about proving all things. What does ALL means in this context. Can humans prove all things in the Bible? How do humans prove all things? Can ALL means a part of? If in the English language all means everything or the total sum, then can we return and used ALL as part of the sum? Do you think ALL might not be what we thought it to be? I definitely knew the scriptures didn’t contradicted itself.
E.g Numbers 14:1-2 and All the congregation.........and All the children of Israel, and the whole congregation said to Moses. Compare with Heb 3:15-19. Paul is saying For some.......... howbeit not all that came out of Egypt.
Therefore can Prove all things means different than we 1st thought?
Thanks Lyn for your comments
The passage in 2 Tim 2 reflects a tendency to creating debate for the sake of creating debate and/or for the sake of drawing attention to the supposed cleverness of the debator. The Pharisees as a group had a tendency to doing this and judiasers carried this tendency into the first century Christian gatherings motivated by jealousy at the followings that early Christian teachers were attracting. Ellen White also cautions against the same tendency as it was also around in her day too. Discussion and debate that is nothing more than semantic issues that do not have significant practical relevance for 'how then shall we live' (or for how then shall we believe that also underpins how then shall we live) is a distraction and detraction. I am open to being held accountable against doing this in my postings. So if you or anyone else feels that what I am saying makes no practical difference, please raise you concern. However, please at the same time be aware that what can seem like a trivial matter can actually have a profound impact upon people's lives. I see this on virtually a daily basis in my occupation/ministry.
With regard to 1 Thessalonians 5:21, have you investigated the Greek word that is translated by some translations as "prove" to see what that word means? I will await your response before sharing what my research uncovered...
Phil