April 4–10

This weekly feature is dedicated to Adventists who are looking for biblical insights into the topics discussed in the Sabbath School lesson quarterly. We post articles which address each lesson as presented in the Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, including biblical commentary on them. We hope you find this material helpful and that you will come to know Jesus and His revelation of Himself in His word in profound biblical ways.

 

Lesson 2: “How To Interpret Scripture”

This second week sets out to establish the origin and ‘nature’ of the Bible. That is an important starting point as its very authority is the fact that it came directly from God. When we don’t accept that, it is quite easy to discredit, change, or reinterpret any part with which we don’t agree. As the directly inspired word of God, it has the authority that must be trusted and followed if we are to know His will and how He wants us to live.

In the introduction to the week’s study, this idea is stated quite clearly:

“How we interpret the Bible is significantly shaped and influenced by our understanding of the process of revelation and inspiration. When we want to understand Scripture correctly, we first of all need to allow the Bible to determine the basic parameters of how it should be treated.”

The lesson follows that statement by saying:

“According to the apostle Peter, the interpretation of the divinely revealed Word of God is not a matter of our own opinions. We need God’s Word and the Holy Spirit to rightly understand its meaning.”

And here is where “the Bible and the Bible only” is so important! Any time we add to what the Bible says, take away from it, or change it to fit our theology, we are calling God’s very words into doubt. This opens the door to substituting the thoughts of man for the thoughts of God, and it is a very dangerous thing to put ourselves before God. This subjective interpretation is exactly what is strongly warned against in Revelation 22:18, 19.

So, since the lesson began with this strong endorsement of the inspiration of Scripture, we need to carefully consider how this lesson handles the Bible and whether it adds to, takes away from, or in any other way changes the clear words of God.

With that in mind, this quote from Monday’s lesson is troubling, particularly the highlighted phrases:

“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.”

This statement suggests that we are left to decide which part of Scripture apply to us. Yet if it is true that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness,” as 2 Timothy 3:16 says, then we cannot say that some parts of Scripture are not applicable to us. What we have to say is that all Scripture is for our training and instruction, even the parts that specifically applied to the nation of Israel. We must understand what those passages meant to the first audience before we can understand what they mean to us. If certain passages were fulfilled in the Lord Jesus, we have to know how they instruct us from the position of the new covenant instead of the old. They will still have meaning, but the application will be different. 

The quotation above suggests that the Bible is written to reveal how we are to live, and we must decide which passages are for us and which are for people in another time and place. This view of Scripture is upside-down, however. Scripture reveals God’s dealings with sinful man, and it shows how He relates to us. Scripture is not about us but is about God. Our question should not be, “What does this passage mean to me?” It should be, “What does this passage reveal about God, and how would the first audience have understood it?” Only after asking those questions can we seek to apply Scripture to ourselves, and no meaning of Scripture can be wildly different for us than it was for the first audience.  

The lesson mentions the “Hebrew feasts” as an example of what does not apply to us now, which is true, as far as it goes. What the lesson, and Adventist theology in general, fails to acknowledge is that the feasts are just part of one large whole Law. It cannot be separated into different parts with some parts still relevant and others no longer applicable to us. It is all or none, one complete, whole Law. For a statement on that fact, look at James 2:10:

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

If you are going to quote the Old Covenant Law, you must not leave out parts of the text that make you uncomfortable or which contradict your theology. 

With that in mind, let’s look at Deuteronomy 5:1-6:

Then Moses summoned all Israel and said to them:

“Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I am speaking today in your hearing, that you may learn them and observe them carefully. The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today. The Lord spoke to you face to face at the mountain from the midst of the fire, while I was standing between the Lord and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the Lord; for you were afraid because of the fire and did not go up the mountain. He said, ‘I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

This introduction was followed immediately by the second listing of the 10 Commandments. 

First of all, Deuteronomy calls the commandments the “covenant” God made with them at Horeb. 

Second, then it says that God did not make this covenant with anyone before He made it with Israel at Horeb, or Sinai. 

Thirdly, this passage specifically ties the Israelites’ part in this covenant to the fact that God brought them out of the land of Egypt, making it clear that this covenant is applicable to those people only. 

The very words of the covenant, what we call the Old Covenant, are the 10 Commandments. This statement, therefore, limits their application to the Children of Israel. The words were specifically addressed to them, not the rest of the world. In fact, if anyone wanted to have a part of that covenant, they had to first joint the nation of Israel; only then would they be allowed to practice the Law, including keeping the Sabbath.

Many Christians today are loathe to give up the 10 Commandments as a rule of life; in error, they try to say that without them, there would be total anarchy and no rule of living or behavior. But that ignores the strong language of Romans 6 and 7 which refutes that idea. As for how one will govern behavior without the 10, there are many things written that show what replaces the Law. 

To list a few, see Galatians 5:16-18

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.

Now look at Galatians 3:5:

So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

And, in fact, study all of Romans 6 and 7 where Paul beautifully lays out the reality that when we are in Christ, we are not longer living in the flesh, but have died and been raised with Christ and are now to live by the Spirit, not the flesh, which he had already taken great pains to equate with the Law. A verse-by-verse study of those chapters leaves no doubt how we are to live, so there should be no fear at giving up the 10 Commandments—what Paul calls “living by the flesh”—in favor of living by the Spirit and allowing Him to guide our behavior. 

In Matthew 5 –7, what we call the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus makes it very clear that the Law (which many like to restrict to just the 10 Commandments) is useless to make us right with God. It isn’t about our outward behavior but it is about the changed life and heart. With that change comes the promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit Who alone is able to change us—from the inside out—and Who promises to govern our behavior.

The lesson goes on to say:

“Just like Jesus Christ, the Bible is not time-conditioned (i.e., limited to a specific time and location); instead, it remains binding for all people, all over the world.”

And yet, as quoted above, the lesson previously said this:

“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.””

So, which is it? All of it is binding for all people, or some of it is limited to specific times and circumstances? This kind of double-talk indicates the presence of a weak argument that has to change to fit the circumstances.

To say that it (the Bible) remains binding for all people is misleading—much of it is time specific and applicable to a specific people. Otherwise, why don’t we observe all the feasts? 

It would be correct to say the entire Bible is useful for all people for correction, instruction, and training in righteousness. “Binding”, however, is not a term the Bible uses for itself; to say it IS binding or it is NOT binding is confusing. 

Much of the Bible is descriptive, not prescriptive. When it tells us how mothers who had just given birth were to separate themselves from the camp of Israel for 30 or 40 days of cleansing (depending upon the sex of their babies), for example, it is not prescribing such separation for every person. Rather, it is describing the law’s demands for the women of Israel. 

In the New Testament we learn how the Lord Jesus fulfilled all the law’s requirements for righteousness and cleansing. In HIM all uncleanness vanishes. The law becomes a vivid illustration of human depravity and uncleanness before God for which He provided a Savior. He spelled out His requirements for ritual cleansing and ritual observances that would be made obsolete when the Lord Jesus took all sin and unlceanness to the cross and died the death our sin deserved.

It is clear, however, that the above quote from the lesson is one that is held dear because it is the only way to impress the 10 Commandments on people as their rule of life.

Perhaps the worse statement made by the lesson is this:

“Jesus’ human nature showed all the signs of human infirmities and the effects of some 4,000 years of degeneration.”

While it is true that Jesus’ body did have all the effects of 4,000 years of degeneration, it is certainly not true that His nature was degenerated! He was then as He always has been—God. When He appeared in human form, His divine nature was unchanged. If He had a fallen human nature, He would no longer have been the sinless, perfect Lamb of God and would not have been qualified to be the sacrifice on our behalf. In fact, if He had had a “fallen human nature”, He would have needed a Savior Himself! To say otherwise is blasphemous and totally out of place in a supposed Bible study.

One of the questions at the end of Friday’s lesson deserves some consideration:

“Some Bible scholars reject many of the teachings of the Bible, seeing them as mere myths. Teachings such as the Creation story, a literal Adam and Eve, the Exodus, and the stories of Daniel are just a few examples (from the Old Testament) of teachings that are dismissed as nothing but made-up stories designed to teach spiritual truths. This is what happens when humans pass judgment upon God’s Word. What should this tell us about how dangerous such an attitude clearly is?”

In light of that statement, which is entirely true by the way, how can anyone justify drastically altering the Bible the way that was done with The Clear Word Bible? Even though they removed the word ‘Bible’ from its title, it is still seriously altered and a total perversion of God’s Holy Word. With it selling in every ABC, they should be too embarrassed to even write this lesson!

So, although the lesson started off well enough in attempting to establish the true nature of the Bible as God’s Word, it almost immediately starts qualifying it in an apparent attempt to establish Adventist theology where it contradicts the Bible. 

All in all, the trajectory of the editorial arguments is not an auspicious start to this lesson.

How much better it would be to take the Bible for what it is: the very Word of God. God cannot lie, so we know that what is in the Bible is true. We may not like all of it, but as God’s word, if we profess to love and obey Him, we have to accept what He said.

Some things in the Bible are for Israel while some things are is for the Church. All of it is inspired, but the specific commands must be understood in the light of the first audience and in the reality of the work of Jesus. Today, believers can learn from all of it, but we are to live by the commands hat are specifically for the Church. Unbelievers—those who have never placed their faith and trust in the Lord Jesus alone—must know that the Bible reveals their sin of unbelief. It calls them to lay down what they most love—just as Jesus asked the rich young ruler to do—and follow Him. Even if that most-loved “thing” is one’s Adventist identity, we must be willing to lay it down so that Jesus can be all that we honor. 

Try to keep that in mind as we delve further into this quarter’s lesson. †