A prophet or a loss: dealing with issues

She gave up Adventism because of one word, the preposition: “with.” Let me explain. Many years ago she had graduated from an Adventist university as a medical professional. Then one day a close relative asked her a simple question: “Where was Adam when Eve got tempted by the Serpent in Eden?” Her immediate response? Eve had wandered away from Adam’s side when she encountered the devil at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Then, that medical professional was asked to read Genesis 3:6. “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” If the Bible says that Eve “gave also unto her husband with her,” what does one do with the following statement from Ellen White? “The angels had cautioned Eve to beware of separating herself from her husband while occupied in their daily labor in the garden; with him she would be in less danger from temptation than if she were alone. But absorbed in her pleasing task, she unconsciously wandered from his side. . . . Unmindful of the angels’ caution, she soon found herself gazing with mingled curiosity and admiration upon the forbidden tree” (Patriarchs and Prophets, 53-54). After Eve had eaten from the tree, Ellen White notes that, “with her hands filled with the forbidden fruit, she sought his [i.e., Adam’s] presence, and related all that had occurred” (Patriarchs and Prophets, 56).

Ellen White’s clear statement that Eve was not with Adam when tempted seems to directly contradict the Bible’s account that her husband was “with her.” How should Adventists respond when confronted with such challenges? Just the way we have consistently done in the past – by means of “careful research and prayerful reflection” (see Steps to Christ, 91). For example, when challenged with the words of Jesus to the dying thief (“Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise”), we have correctly pointed out that the original Greek language had no punctuation. Hence, based upon the rest of the Bible’s teaching that humankind is mortal, we conclude that Luke 23:43 should read: “Verily I say unto thee today, shalt thou be with me in paradise.”

So then, how does “careful research and prayerful reflection” resolve the apparent contradiction of the Adam and Eve accounts of Ellen White and the Bible? Interestingly, it all centers on that English preposition “with.” The Hebrew language has two completely different terms for “with:” ’eth and ‘im, each with its own distinct primary meaning. The standard Hebrew dictionary points out that ’eth is a preposition “denoting proximity;” then, it adds “together with.” For example, speaking about the wicked, God says to Noah: “I will destroy them with the earth“ (Genesis 6:13b). The word “with” in this text is a translation of the Hebrew ’eth, which means “together with,” because it denotes “proximity.”

However, consider for a moment Genesis 3:12, where Adam is vainly seeking to excuse his sin: “And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Immediately, one will recognize that vital preposition “with.” However, instead of the Hebrew term ’eth, the completely different word ‘im, is used. Why? Because, this latter term is one which refers to “fellowship and companionship.” Hence, the New English Bible, accurately capturing the specific meaning of this different Hebrew term for “with,” renders Genesis 3:12 as follows: “The man said, ‘The woman you gave me for a companion, she gave me fruit from the tree and I ate it.’” Obviously, God did not give Eve to Adam to be physically “together with” him wherever he went. But, He did give Eve to Adam “for a companion,” which is an accurate translation conveying what the Hebrew term ‘im means.

So, guess which Hebrew term for “with” is used in our “problem text” of Genesis 3:6? Right, it’s the word ‘im, the term that means “companionship.” In brief, using “careful research” we can correctly conclude as follows: By inspiration, Moses stated that, after she had taken and eaten of the forbidden tree, Eve gave some fruit “unto her husband, [literally] companion of her.” Actually, nothing in the text (or especially the context) suggests that Adam was “together with” Eve. On the contrary, the use of the specific term denoting “companionship” reveals that there is no contradiction between the Bible and Ellen White!

If only that medical professional had engaged in “careful research and prayerful reflection” – she may not have abandoned Adventism, when her surface reading of Scripture led her to the inaccurate impression that Ellen White is a false prophet. Our faith need not falter when faced with any challenge, if we are willing to do “careful research and prayerful reflection.”

But, what are we to do when Ellen White’s declarations seem to be directly contrary to published historical “facts”? Recently, the fifth and sixth trumpets of Revelation 9 have become a topic of intensive investigation. In the Great Controversy (pp. 334-335) Ellen White states: “In the year 1840 another remarkable fulfillment of prophecy excited widespread interest. Two years before, Josiah Litch, one of the leading ministers preaching the second advent, published an exposition of Revelation 9, predicting the fall of the Ottoman Empire. According to his calculations, this power was to be overthrown ‘in A.D. 1840, sometime in the month of August;’ and only a few days previous to its accomplishment he wrote. . . . [that since] ‘the 391 years, fifteen days, commenced at the close of the first period, it will end on the 11th of August, 1840, when the Ottoman power in Constantinople may be expected to be broken. . . .’

"At the very time specified, Turkey, through her ambassadors, accepted the protection of the allied powers of Europe, and thus placed herself under the control of Christian nations. The event exactly fulfilled the prediction. (See Appendix.) When it became known, multitudes were convinced of the correctness of the principles of prophetic interpretation adopted by Miller and his associates, and a wonderful impetus was given to the advent movement. Men of learning and position united with Miller, both in preaching and in publishing his views, and from 1840 to 1844 the work rapidly extended.”

The above two paragraphs have recently come under increasing scrutiny, due to the fact that the generally accepted historical records did not appear to support Ellen White’s account. Over the past two years, as a result of several visits to five research centers in four states, original newspapers from 1840 have been located and documented. Several newspapers in the United Kingdom record the fact that the arrival of ambassador Rifat Bey “from Constantinople, on the 11th instant [i.e., of August, 1840], with the ultimatum of the four Powers, produced a great sensation here [in Alexandria]” (London Morning Chronicle, September 5, 1840).

Those living at that time (and those aware of events in Europe) rightly understood the significance of that “ultimatum.” This significant news was reported here in the USA in the New York Spectator, of September 26, 1840. In fact, according to A Short History of Islam (published by Oxford University Press in 1960), once this ultimatum had been signed by these “Christian nations,” “the death-knell had rung for the Ottoman Empire” (p. 581). By the end of November of 1840, the London Morning Herald stated that: “We fear that the Sultan [i.e., the ruler of the Ottoman Empire] has been reduced to the rank of a puppet” (December 1, 1840, p. 4).

Additional evidence is now surfacing, showing once again that Ellen White was right all along. Indeed, no truth will lose anything by means of the closest investigation. We, as Adventists, have not “followed cunningly devised fables” (see 2 Peter 1:16). With even greater gusto, Adventists can now boldly distribute that classic volume, the Great Controversy, knowing that God inspired this important book, for sharing His love, at such a time as this in world history.

Adventist or fragmentist?

Let’s begin with two basic affirmations: First, as committed Christians we take seriously our Savior’s prayer for unity among His followers: “that they may be one, even as we are one” (John 17:22). Second, we have personally chosen to be members of this divinely-directed movement—the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Since these facts are true, then why do we encounter evermore dissonance and disparity of both belief and practice among us? Allow me to illustrate, from recent personal experience. In the fall of 2009, while attending a communication workshop in another state, I decided to visit a local “emerging” church which had been positively promoted as a model of “how to do church.” Up on the platform was a contemporary band of about ten performers—and they were just that! Besides the sensually overpowering cacophony (notice, I did not call it “music”), these individuals looked as though they’d been brought in from a rock concert—some men even had caps pulled low down over their eyes, while the woman lead singer had a golf ball-size pendant in front of a low-cut revealing dress. “An Adventist church?” you wonder. Yes, at least that’s what they claim, even though their Sabbath “worship” time was a blatant betrayal of a biblically-based, Christ-centered, sacred service. Seeking to be “relevant,” they’re morphing into becoming just like the world.

Contrast that experience with one I had just a few months earlier, in the same state, where I spent a long weekend at an Adventist feast-keeping “camp meeting,” in order to attempt to understand why some are insisting on observing festivals that have already met their fulfillment in Jesus Christ. They held a so-called Passover seder, complete with ancient Jewish traditions and rituals, with a growing focus on referring to God as “Yahweh,” and Jesus as “Yahshua.” Many of the men sported long, full beards; and a couple of them even wore tassels. Interestingly, while they publicly professed allegiance to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, they also underhandedly undermined this Remnant Church and its leaders. Wanting to be more “biblical,” are they retrogressing into becoming Judaizers, as described in Galatians?

I share these experiences merely to illustrate that, as one looks around, it becomes obvious that there are some individuals who, while claiming to be genuine Seventh-day Adventists, are practicing and promoting views and values that are not only “outside the mainstream,” but clearly contrary to the fundamentals of our faith.

After that sermon by Elder Ted Wilson on July 3 at the 59th General Conference Session, in which he made a prophetic call for “revival and reformation” among us so as to share the good news of the imminent return of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I paused to ponder on the challenge the church is confronting from within. Quickly I jotted down more than a dozen different “discussions” that are distracting us from our mission. For example, some impose the historical-critical method upon Scripture, thereby denying its divine inspiration and neutralizing its spiritually-transformative impact. Others engage in highly imaginative allegorizations and subjective symbolic suppositions, thereby distorting and destroying any definitive and defensible biblical basis for our basic beliefs. Some lean toward pushing the apocalyptic prophecies into the past, while others find futuristic fulfillments for that which has already happened in history.

Incidentally, regarding both the above issues, most laity and leadership are well aware that the Seventh-day Adventist Church promotes and practices a careful searching of Scripture, in which the inspired Word of God is its own interpreter (i.e., the historical-grammatical method); also, we believe in the appropriate manner of interpreting apocalyptic prophecies—the method used by Jesus Himself (i.e., the historicist approach, in which the prophecies of the pivotal books of Daniel and the Revelation cover the span of history, culminating in the second advent of Jesus Christ). Sadly, this fragmentation of foundational aspects of our faith has begun to affect not just some of our core beliefs, but it is also starting to impact our interaction with the world around us. This erosion has become increasingly evident in the variety of aberrant lifestyle choices, whether it be in private or in public, in dress or in demeanor, at work or at worship.

Some of those causing fragmentation want the church to become a “larger tent” so as to include “tolerance” of secularism within the family of God, mistakenly thinking that accommodating worldliness will cause church growth. Others reason that we must return to a rigid ritualism, to find and follow “new light” from the Scriptures, so as to bring about the latter rain.

Ellen White, who warns of the “ice of indifference” and the “fire of fanaticism,” gives some timely counsel on this matter: “God is leading a people out from the world upon the exalted platform of eternal truth, the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus…. They will not be at variance, one believing one thing, and another having faith and views entirely opposite, each moving independently of the body. Through the diversity of the gifts and governments that He has placed in the church, they will all come to the unity of the faith. If one man takes his views of Bible truth without regard to the opinions of his brethren, and justifies his course, alleging that he has a right to his own peculiar views, and then presses them upon others, how can he be fulfilling the prayer of Christ? And if another and still another arises, each asserting his right to believe and talk what he pleases without reference to the faith of the body, where will be that harmony which existed between Christ and His Father, and which Christ prayed might exist among His brethren?” (Testimonies, 3:446). True, the preamble to our “Fundamental Beliefs” rightly maintains that “Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed.” The preamble also continues to state that we as a church “hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture.” In brief, those 28 fundamental beliefs are the warp and woof of who we are—they indicate our interpretation of key theological concepts; they identify how to lovingly live for our Lord; and they inspire us to the undertaking of our worldwide work.

So, in view of the danger of either minimizing so-called “inconvenient” truths that our church stands for, or of adding to our denominational doctrines, each one of us needs to ask ourselves: “Am I an Adventist or a Fragmentist?” Isn’t it time to participate in practicing that prayer of Jesus: “that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17:21)? I concur with a friend of mine, when he recently wrote: “For Seventh-day Adventists, our facts and our faith are found in the Bible. I invite all in our church family to embrace and support its teachings.” (Adventist Review, 5/27/10, p. 7).

Recognizing our constant need of spiritual revival and reformation, let’s live as Bible-based, Christ-centered, kingdom-directed, lovingly-loyal and active members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, raised up by God “for such a time as this.” Be, an Adventist!

Originally published in the Michigan Memo September 2010.

The method of Jesus Christ for interpreting scripture

There are so many different books on biblical hermeneutics available, and so many ways in which various scholars have suggested for interpreting the Scriptures, that some ordinary believers may become confused and disillusioned by the apparent enormity of the task of “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). So, where then shall we find the best, mostly reliable method for interpreting this divinely-inspired document? The best method of interpretation is to examine the way in which Jesus Christ interpreted the Scriptures when He was on this earth. Perhaps the clearest, most concise illustration of the hermeneutical methodology of Jesus, can be elucidated from a meticulous analysis of one text in the New Testament, the one located in Luke 24:27: “And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.”

Short three-word phrases from Luke 24:27 have been selected from various Bible versions, so as to clearly illustrate the seven-part method used by the Savior in His interpretation of Scripture. A brief overview of the basic seven-part approach, including the Action Steps to be taken, is outlined below.

Phase 1: “Jesus quoted passages;” i.e., it is Christ-Dependent Interpretation Phase One recognizes that, on our own, we cannot understand the Bible. The words of Jesus to His disciples are as true today as when He originally spoke them: “With God all things are possible” (Matt 19:26). Later on, in His ministry, He repeated that universal truth, in another six-word sentence: “Without Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). But really, this short clause is really the end of a passage of Scripture saturated with divine promise: “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit” (John 15:5). It was only after that incredible assurance, that Jesus then added the vital postscript: “for without Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5).

Referring to the Scriptures, Peter noted that it “never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet 1:21). When we acknowledge that it was the Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures, then we will similarly recognize that we need to be open to that same Spirit in order to appropriately understand the inspired Word. Hence, the first Action Step clearly states:

Ask Jesus, the Supreme interpreter of the sacred Scriptures, to guide in your study of His Word; then, willingly follow.

Phase 2: “Starting with Moses;” i.e., it is Chronological Interpretation The importance of this intentional chronological approach can perhaps be best explained by means of an illustration. Over the years various individuals have pointed to the experience of David, and have concluded that God must have condoned polygamy to some degree since it was practiced by one who was called “a man after His own heart” (1 Sam 13:14).

According to 1 Samuel 13, it was immediately after King Saul had presumptuously officiated as priest in offering up a burnt sacrifice at Gilgal that Samuel informed him that he would lose his kingdom. In this context Samuel stated: “The Lord has sought out for Himself a man after His own heart” (1 Sam 13:14).

This young shepherd David, selected by God to replace Saul, was handsome, healthy, and harmoniously living within the will of God (1 Sam 16:7, 12). Evidently, at this time David was a single man. The narrative indicates that it was while David was still an unmarried man, and before he becomes embroiled in polygamy, that God called him “a man after His own heart.”

Several years earlier God had personally selected Saul to lead His people (1 Sam 10:24). However, even though Saul had for a while been a devout follower, he eventually rejected God. Similarly David was chosen by God as the next king when he was living within God’s will. Chronologically, it was at this point in time that God classified David as a “man after His own heart.”

Phase Two, a Chronological Interpretation of the Bible, seeks to set out a scriptural manner of coherently addressing such issues. Its basic Action Step is as follows:

Start at the beginning, then examine the topic through time, observing any changes over time; finally, draw conclusions.

Phase 3: “Interpreted for them;” i.e., it is Careful Interpretation More than two decades ago an Adventist magazine published a pro-abortion article, in which Exodus 21:22-25 was mentioned as justification for the position taken. Even a cursory glance at Bible versions brought to light an interesting phenomenon: Many translations, such as the Revised Standard Version, interpreted this passage as a “miscarriage” in which a fine was to be paid for the dead fetus, while the death of the mother called for capital punishment. On the other hand, some versions translated this same passage as a “premature birth” in which the death penalty applied equally for either mother or fetus.

Since this is the only passage in Scripture that deals with the legal responsibility in relation to the early termination of a pregnancy, its interpretation is obviously of vital import. Literally hundreds of hours of careful research was needed in order to discover which versions were the most reliable on this controversial matter. The conclusions of the careful investigation of this passage have been validated, by the virtually unanimous manner in which modern versions have rendered this passage, as dealing with a premature birth, and not a miscarriage.

Phase three aims at a detailed investigation of words and phrases in context. Its essential Action Step is as follows:

Examine the biblical passage meticulously, considering the words in the full context, to determine the proper meaning.

Phase 4: “In every part;” i.e., it is Comprehensive Interpretation The kind of careful interpretation of the specific passages of Scripture as identified and illustrated in Phase Three, however, must not be done in isolation from the rest of the Bible. In fact, the importance of seeing passages within their larger spiritual contexts is emphasized by Jesus on His walk to Emmaus. here Jesus “explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). Or, as other versions express this vital phrase: “In every part of the Scriptures” (NEB); i.e., “in the whole of Scripture” (REB).

Phase Four, a Comprehensive Interpretation, examines texts within their broader contexts so as to find coherence in Holy writ. The main Action Step is the following:

Consider the evidence from the broader context of the Bible, compare scripture with scripture; then see coherent themes.

Phase 5: “Of the scriptures;” i.e., it is Canonical Interpretation As is well-documented, Jesus referred to the Scriptures repeatedly in His life. Jesus believed in the authority of the Scriptures (e.g., Matt 4:4). He not only taught from them (e.g., Matt 12:7-8), but He also lived by them (e.g., Matt 4:8-10). In His communication He frequently quoted from or alluded to them (e.g., Matt 11:10, 21-24; 13:14-16; etc.). He responded to temptation by quoting from the Scriptures (see Matt 4). When He was talking to the Pharisees, He answered their concerns by quoting from the Scriptures (e.g., Matt 12:3-8). He went virtually nowhere without talking about the Word of God. He constantly pointed people to the true meaning of the Scriptures (e.g., Matt 23:23).

When Jesus met those two disciples on the way to Emmaus, what could he have done right away, if He had wanted to convince them of who He was? Could He not have held of his hands and said, “Gentlemen, it is I”? But what did He do?

According to the account in Luke 24, we see very clearly that Jesus did not provide any such physical evidence to begin with. He was more concerned about going to the Word of God. As Luke 24:27 puts it: “And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.” Or as another translation has phrased it: “He explained to them the passages throughout the Scriptures that were about himself” (NJB).

Thus, only after they were convinced from the clear canonical interpretation done of the written Word of God -- that the Messiah was indeed this Jesus who had died -- did the risen Christ then reveal His identity through the breaking of the bread.

Phase Five, a Canonical Interpretation, seeks to demonstrate the indispensability of the Word of God in the life of the believer. The Action Step, therefore declares:

Acknowledge and use the Old and New Testaments of the Bible as the fundamental basis for belief and practice in life.

Phase 6: “The passages which;” i.e., it is Contextual Interpretation When the risen Christ spoke with the two men on their way to Emmaus, “He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself” (Luke 24:27), or as another version has it, “the passages which referred to himself in every part of the Scriptures” (NEB). Simply put, Jesus took the context into account.

For a practical example on the importance of context, consider the oft-quoted passage from Jesus’ famous Sermon on the Mount:

Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled (Matt 5:17, 18).

This passage is often used as strong evidence that Jesus Himself did not set aside or annul the law, that is, the Ten Commandments. This idea appears even clearer in some modern versions, such as the Revised Standard Version’s rendering: “‘Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

In brief, a contextual study of the terms “law” and “prophets” in Matthew 5:17 indicates that these terms refer to the Scriptures as a whole during the time of Jesus. Since the word “law” in this couplet clearly means the five books of Moses, it naturally includes the Ten Commandments, located in Exodus 20 as well as in Deuteronomy 5. However, to refer to the word “law” in Matthew 5:17, as though it were simply a synonym for the moral law (i.e., the Decalogue), is a misuse of the Bible.

Phase six, a Contextual Interpretation of the sacred Scriptures, will explore the dynamics of such a hermeneutical methodology. Thus, the Action Step to take, is as follows:

Analyze every issue by taking into account both the broader and immediate contexts, to reach the best interpretation.

Phase 7: Referred to himself;” i.e., it is Christ-Centered Interpretation In 1981 an article appeared in Insight Magazine, titled “It’s a Sin to Tell a Lie.” While the author mentioned that “God is a God of truth,” and that Satan is called the “father of lies,” he basically presented his points from a consequentialist perspective, using humanistic logic. Amazingly, even though this essay was published in a Christian magazine for young people, less than four percent of the article dealt with biblical information. Essentially ignoring the relationship of truth-telling to Jesus Christ, it was not surprising therefore that the writer concluded that sometimes “a lie is fully justified.”

Sadly, this type of Christless, and atheistic rationalization, has been infiltrating the ranks of Bible-believers over the decades, especially since the rise of so-called “situation ethics.” While there have been several challenges to these types of relativistic and humanistic ideas that have been creeping into the church as a whole, some well-respected, powerful communicators continue to indirectly undermine the moral law of God, as found in the Ten Commandments.

Jesus is our example: “For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: ‘Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth’” (1 Pet 2:21, 22). Thus, the Action Step simply declares:

Witness the way in which every biblical teaching relates to, and focuses on Jesus Christ, Savior and Lord of all humanity.

Like two attractive bookends, this seven-part system of biblical interpretation, begins and ends with a deliberate, intentional focus on Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world.

By way of reminder, Phase One emphasized the vital necessity of a Christ-Dependent Interpretation, in which the Bible student is to, “Ask Jesus, the Supreme interpreter of the sacred Scriptures, to guide in your study of His Word; then, willingly follow.” In a similar manner, Phase Seven, a Christ-Centered Interpretation, underlines a crucial and utterly indispensable aspect of proper biblical hermeneutics -- that of searching the Scriptures with the realization that every biblical teaching relates to and centers upon Jesus Christ.

What are the soul-satisfying results of such study of Scripture? “And they said to one another, ‘Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?’” (Luke 24:32). Hearts will indeed feel “strangely warm” when we emulate the methods of the Messiah. We too will become excited when we see the true meaning of the Scriptures. _______________ Adapted from the book Warriors of the Word: Methods of the Messiah for Searching Scripture by Ron du Preez.