April 11–17

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 3: “How to Interpret the Bible”

This week continues the work of establishing God’s Word as truth and our only safe foundation of “doctrine, reproof and correction” (2 Tim. 3:16). Just as was stated in last week’s lesson, this week’s holds up the Bible as God’s message to us and affirms the utter truthfulness of that message; and it correctly claims that it contains the truth that leads to salvation.

Along the lines of last week’s comments, the lesson says this while talking about those who try to downgrade the Bible from the trusted words of God to just another good book:

“At the same time, the supernatural element has been either downplayed or even removed from the picture, turning the Bible into a document that, instead of being God’s view of humanity, has become humanity’s view of God.”

It is true that when we read into the Bible our view of God, all kinds of errors can begin to worm their way into our minds and lead to a faulty understanding of God and His will for us. That perversion happens because we are trying to understand the Divine through the lens of our human capabilities which are definitely not up to the task.

We start to believe that we have the right, even the obligation, to reinterpret and even the right to alter what God said so that it fits our understanding. After all, if we “know” something is true, isn’t that what God actually meant in the Bible? This error of thought is what leads to proof-texting, taking supporting verses out of context to prove a point while ignoring other texts which would disprove, or at least call into question, what we want to believe.

When our understanding is substituted for God’s clear meaning, we can fall into the same error as that of Lucifer who wanted to be like God—putting self and our beliefs in place of God’s authority. When that happens, the Bible is twisted to say whatever we want it to say.

Then it becomes easier to look to sources of authority outside of the Bible and outside the bounds of the leading of the Holy Spirit and, if they agree with our thoughts, we accept them as true. 

As the lesson so aptly states:

“This should be a powerful lesson to all of us: the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the ultimate standard and foundation of our belief.”

The lesson would have done well to stop right there because the truth of that statement becomes obscured when we look to any other authority to be the basis of our faith without being good Bereans and comparing that source to what the Bible says. When any extra-Biblical source becomes the final word and is considered to be the only reliable interpreter of the Bible, we have removed ourselves from the only safe foundation and put our entire basis for faith on dangerous ground—the thoughts of man rather than what God says.

Here we are coming up against some very contradictory statements which can’t all be true:

1. The Bible is the highest authority and the only safe basis and foundation for belief and doctrine.
2. An outside source is considered the highest authority when it comes to interpreting the Bible.
3. The outside source contradicts the Bible.

The lesson author agrees with #1 and states this belief clearly. Unfortunately, the author also seems to consider #2 to also be true. But look at the problem that creates. As long as one tries to hold the first two as absolute truths, you have a problem when you come to #3. There are many Bible commentaries available now, online and in print, but as good as they may be, they must always be compared to Scripture, with Scripture being the ultimate authority. Where they contradict the Bible or attempt to change it, add to it or distort it in any way, they must be be discarded as not reliable. 

In the section titled “Jesus and the Law” there is a long quote that needs careful consideration. Here it is, broken up into sections:

“In this statement to the lawyer, Jesus summarizes the Ten Commandments, given to Moses nearly 1,500 years earlier. It should be recognized how Jesus focuses on the Old Testament law and elevates it to the highest level.”

Yes, Jesus did elevate the Word of God “to the highest level” as that which spoke of Him and came from Him. Unfortunately, “the Old Testament law” is often taken to mean the 10 Commandments, contrary to what it actually means: the first 5 books of the Bible. The lesson then goes on to say:

“Many Christians incorrectly have concluded that here a new commandment is given, and thus somehow the Old Testament law is now replaced by the New Testament gospel.”

How is it “incorrect to conclude” that there is a new commandment given when Jesus Himself said He was giving a new commandment in John 13:34, 35, during His final message to the disciples before He was arrested:

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 

By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

He said that He was giving “a new commandment”, or command, so how can anyone say that He didn’t? And, by the way, notice that how the world knows we are His isn’t by how well we keep the Law but by our love.

I find it profoundly disturbing that a Bible study by someone claiming to be a Christian would actually make that astounding statement that directly contradicts Jesus’ clear words and which refuses to see the fact that the New Testament gospel actually has replaced the Old Testament Law! 

To claim that the gospel has not replaced the Law is to deny everything that Jesus said and did and what He came to do. It leaves you in the hopeless condition of having to obey a system of Law that can bring only death because of the sheer impossibility of perfectly obeying the Law (Galatians 3:1-14). 

Furthermore, this claim ignores the fact that that very Law was to be our tutor (Galatians 3, particularly verses 23, 24) to show us our sin and lead us to Christ, the Messiah, Who would become our substitute by fulfilling that Law on our behalf and dying to pay the penalty—death—for our sin. And it completely ignores the plain words of Galatians 3:25 which says that we are no longer under that tutor.

Continuing with the lesson quote:

“But the fact is that what Jesus is teaching is based on the Old Testament law. Christ had unveiled and revealed the law more fully so that “ ‘on these two commandments’” (summarizing the Ten Commandments, the first four of which focus on the human-divine relationship, and the second six of which focus on human interpersonal relationships) “ ‘depend all the law and the prophets’ (Matt. 22:40, RSV).”

This not so subtly subverts the gospel and says that Jesus came merely to enforce the Law, (meaning the 10 Commandments), by showing how it can be kept. And yet that entire Law is called “the law of sin and death” (Romans 8:1-4). A law of sin and death can do nothing to save and give life; by its very definition, it does exactly the opposite. Its purpose is to show us that fact and make us realize that we need God to do what we are utterly unable to do.

It is true that Jesus lived under the Old Covenant Law as stated in Galatians 4:4, and He kept it perfectly. But He didn’t do that to prove that it could be done! He fulfilled the demands of the Law to redeem those who are under that Law (also Gal. 4:4).  Even though we are not Jews under the Old Covenant Law, until we came to Christ, we were still under the curse of the Law due to our separation from God.

Furthermore, the lesson twists the words of Jesus into an almost unrecognizable form. Jesus said that “love God and love your fellow man” are the basis “on which hang all the Law and the Prophets”; that is, it is the fundamental foundation on which all of it is grounded. Instead, the lesson turns Jesus’ command to “love God and fellow man” into nothing more than a summary of the 10 Commandments, as if the command to love is less important the the entire Law of outward behavior, stated as do and don’t.

More from the lesson comment:

“In this way, Jesus also uplifts the entire Old Testament when He says, “the law and the prophets,” for this is a shortened way of referring to the law, prophets, and writings, or all three divisions of the Old Testament.”

Jesus did lift up, endorse and express the truth of the entire Old Testament, but the lesson is ignoring the reality that the entire Old Testament is more than just history and laws; it also points forward to Jesus, the coming Messiah, Who would do what no fallen, sinful human was able to do—be perfect as God is perfect, pay the penalty for our sins and by that, rescue us from the penalty of the law.

This inconsistency of thought is seen further down in the lesson where we see these consecutive statements:

1. “How can we learn to be just as reliant on the Word of God, and as submissive to it?”
2. Then, there is a quote from Ellen G. White from Christ’s Object Lessons, pp. 39, 40; obviously quoted as a ‘reliable authority’.
3. The Ellen statement is followed immediately by this statement:

“What (if any) competitive sources of authority (family, philosophy, culture) might be pitted against your submission to the Word of God?”

Do you see the inconsistency of claiming to rely on the Bible and the Bible only and the need to submit to it, then quoting from Ellen White as an authority, then immediately asking how outside authorities might be “pitted against” the Bible? By doing that, the author is blindly doing exactly what he warned against in question #3. An outside source is considered necessary to enforce the claim that the Bible only is to be our basis for truth. That reference for EGW is self-contradictory, and with even a little discernment, it makes no sense.

Given the context of this statement in the lesson:

“By referring to the totality of Scripture, Jesus is teaching the disciples by example. As they go forth to spread the gospel message, they, too, were to expound all Scripture to bring understanding and power to the new converts throughout the world.”

It is clear that the author believes that the “gospel” the disciples taught was merely an expansion of the Old Covenant Law, with a little grace thrown in to make it effective.

If that was so, why did Paul say what he did in 1 Cor. 11 about his experiences in preaching the gospel? In verses 24 & 25 he lists all of the abuse he received from the Jews and in verse 26 he says that he had “dangers from my countrymen”. 

If his countrymen, the Jews, thought he was preaching the Law, they would not have been any danger to him; but since He was preaching Jesus and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2), they were constantly following him and trying to undo his work by pressuring converted Jews to return to the Law. If Paul had not been leading them away from the Law, the Jews would not have worked so hard to return the converts to Jewish Law and they would not have tried over and over to kill him.

On all of his missionary journeys, he followed the same pattern. In a new city, he would first go to the synagogue and he taught the Jews that the Messiah had already come and had been crucified and was risen (1 Cor. 15:1-8). That was his entire gospel preaching, and he said in Galatians 1:8, 9 that if anyone preached any other gospel than that, he (the one teaching something else) was to be accursed. 

Once the Jews threw him out, he would go to the Gentiles and preach to them. The very fact of the opposition of the Jews makes it clear that Paul was not teaching the Old Covenant Law at all. but rather, something completely contrary to the Law. He was teaching grace without Law which is why they were so mad at him, why they kept attacking him, and why they kept trying to subvert his teaching to fellow Jews.

Here is one final comment from the lesson from the section titled The Apostles and the Bible:

“We find nothing, anywhere, in what these men say or do that challenges either the authority or authenticity of any part of the Bible.

“All of this confirms that the Old Testament Scriptures are the foundation upon which the teachings of Jesus and the apostles rest.”

That statement is so very true, but probably not quite as the author of this lesson thinks. In Adventist theology, the New Covenant is merely the Old Covenant written “on our hearts” instead of on stone. But nothing could be further from the truth.

The book of Hebrews goes to great lengths to show:

• Jesus is superior to the angels (chapter 1).
• Jesus can help us because He became a man like us (chapter 2).
• Jesus is our greater High Priest and the danger of disbelief (chapter 3).
• Our rest is in Christ, not the Law (chapter 4).
• The true perfection of Jesus as our High Priest (chapter 5).

The dangers of trying to return to the Law and the permanence of Jesus’ status as our Priest; but a Priest “in the order” of Melchizedek, not Aaron (chapter 6).

The fact that the old order, the priesthood of Aaron, has passed away to give way to the new order of Priest (chapter 7).

And the peak of this whole argument is found in verse 12 which says: “For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.”

Jesus is a priest but not like the priests of Aaron’s line. They sinned and had to offer sacrifices for themselves as well as others, and they served until death; but Jesus, Who never dies, is an entirely different order or kind of priest. The critical point here is what verse 12 says about the law—when that change took place, the change of priesthood, the law also has to change. The old Law, summarized in the writing on the stone tablets, the Law of “sin and death”, passed away when the priesthood changed and is replaced by the Law of love. 

The law of love was the basis of the entire old Covenant Law but now, instead of just outward behavior, it becomes an internal change. That change is what Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7. The old Law could govern outward behavior but could do nothing to change the heart. The new law, written on our hearts, is the transforming love of God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which is the only way that change is possible.

So, to cling to the Law is to continue in the law of death, while the only way to life, eternal life, is to let go of the old and accept the new law, the law of love and life. The clear message of Hebrews as well as much of what Paul wrote, is that there is no valid combination of the two. Rather, they are in direct opposition to each other.

You either have an old law that brings death by its very inability to make any real change or to bring a dead spirit to life, or you can embrace the new law which is the law of love. This new law brings life and it alone, through the working of the Holy Spirit, has the ability to bring about true change and bring life to your dead spirit.†