|
||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
Commentary on "Interpreting the Prophetic Writings"
Day 5: Wednesday, March 11, 2009
This lesson opens with the author discussing Isaiah 65:17. The author states that the promise in Isaiah 65:17 of a new heaven and new earth was a conditional prophecy to Israel which was never fulfilled due to their disobedience. The author further states that this prophecy can be applied in a secondary sense to a time following the millennium, but we must not press the details too far.
The author then goes on to quote a well known passage from Ellen White saying that Christians “should never be taught to say or to feel they are saved.” The author states that an exploration of the context of this passage shows that White was warning that Christians may always fall from grace and that she was against the doctrine of “once saved always saved”. The author concludes that this does not mean that we can’t have “day-by-day assurance of salvation”.
As a further exploration of context, the Teacher’s Edition Study Guide encourages Sabbath School teachers to consider the contexts of Romans “15” and Colossians 2. The author then asserts that context will show that these passages are not dealing with the weekly Sabbath.
Problems
It is often difficult to understand the relationship between the biblical illustrations the author chooses and the points made in regards to the writings of Ellen White. The author’s interpretation of Isaiah 65 is debatable as many theologians believe this is a prophecy which will be fulfilled in part through the reign of Christ on earth during the millennial age. It also appears that Isaiah is compressing events in the millennium and events in the final state into one prophecy. A person’s interpretation of this passage will be greatly affected by their overall eschatology, perhaps even more so than by the immediate context, so it is unclear why the author chose this debatable passage to illustrate immediate context.
The author’s appeal to the context of White’s condemnation of saying or even feeling that you are saved does little to help salvage her credibility. Even in context, it is clear that White did not believe there was any lasting assurance of salvation and that a Christian might become unsaved at any moment if they fall to temptation. The most the author can offer is that White’s statement allows for a “day-by-day assurance of salvation”. What kind of assurance is it when you wake up each morning, confess your sins, then hope and pray that you can stay sin free that day so as not to fall from grace and be lost? This type of “day-by-day assurance” is roughly akin to a cancer patient on chemotherapy who can be said to have “day-by-day health”. If health can be defined as “not having died yet today”, then they could be said to have “day-by-day health”. Likewise, if “assurance” can be defined as “not having sinned and fallen from grace yet today”, then adherents to White’s writings can be said to have “day-by-day assurance”. We will spend time in the scripture studying this topic more thoroughly on Friday.
The Teacher’s Study Guide claims that an examination of context will show that Romans “15” (presumably the author is actually referring to Romans 14 as chapter 15 would not seem to be pertinent to the discussion) and Colossians 2 do not deal with the weekly Sabbath. Unfortunately, the author’s analysis largely ignores context and instead relies on a priori presuppositions and a hypothetical analogy in which Canada conquers the United States. This is exactly the opposite of doing good exegesis, which involves getting the intended meeting out of a passage. This is eisegesis, which is the error of reading one’s own biases, presuppositions, or meanings into a passage. The errors made by the author are so serious that both these passages deserve a thorough treatment here. We will exegete the pertinent passage from Romans 14 today and deal with Colossians 2 in Thursday’s commentary.
Romans 14:1-6
This passage addresses the question of observing holy days. The Roman Church was a mixed church made up partly of Jews living in Rome who had accepted Jesus as Messiah and partly of gentile Romans who had forsaken Paganism and come to Christ. As you can imagine there were some tensions as cultures clashed and as the Old Covenant began to give way to the New Covenant. Many Jewish Christians were clinging to their customs of observing Old Covenant annual feast Sabbaths, New Moon monthly Sabbaths, and the weekly Sabbath day. In addition, they were clinging to Old Covenant food laws. The gentiles, who were not circumcised, had never entered the Old Covenant and did not observe holy days or food laws. These differences were dividing the Church and they needed direction on how these differences should be handled.
It is in this climate that the Apostle Paul wrote the book of Romans under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Now if gentile Christians were required to observe any Sabbaths (annual, monthly, or weekly) or if they were required to observe food laws, this would have been the perfect time for the Apostle to say so. There was obviously a debate in the Church and Paul had the perfect opportunity here to set the record straight for the rest of the entire Church age. Paul’s inspired direction clarified the situation not only for the Romans, but for all New Covenant believers who would come after.
1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. - Romans 14:1-6 (NASB)
Paul could have taken this opportunity to tell the gentiles that they really were required to observe Old Covenant Sabbaths, but he did not do so because it was not true. Instead Paul sought peace in the Church by saying that the observance of any holy day is purely a personal matter, not an obligation. If a person decides to observe a particular day, then they’re doing it for the Lord and that’s okay. If a person decides to regard everyday alike, that’s okay too!
For New Covenant Christians, the observance of days is a non-issue. It’s not a salvation issue. It’s not a sanctification issue. It’s not a holiness issue. It’s not an obedience issue. It’s not a truth issue. It’s not an issue of special blessing. It’s not an issue at all. At most, it’s just a personal choice. Paul stresses that we are not to judge others based on their personal choice. That command cut both ways for both Jews and Gentiles. The Jews weren’t supposed to judge the gentiles for not observing food laws and not observing holy days. The gentiles were not supposed to judge those who Paul called “weak in faith” (the Jewish Christians) for continuing in their traditions of food laws and observing Sabbaths. There was to be harmony and unity in the Church even though there were different practices between Jews and gentiles.
The only thing that would break that unity is if someone began to teach that these Old Covenant traditions were actually required for New Covenant Christians, rather than just being a matter of personal choice. Such false teaching required a stronger response. In Thursday’s commentary we will see how the Apostle Paul responded to such false teaching.
Summary
- The author’s use of Isaiah as an illustration for immediate context is confusing and his interpretation is debatable.
- Examination of White’s quote forbidding saying or even feeling that you are saved does not improve the poor theology contained in her quote. It merely confirms that White made this statement because she did not believe there was any lasting assurance of salvation despite the many biblical assurances which will be explored later.
- Romans 14:1-6 teaches us that New Covenant Christians may decide to observe a particular day or to regard everyday alike. Neither option should cause us to judge others or be a point of division in the Church.
Copyright 2009 BibleStudiesForAdventists.com. All rights reserved. Revised March 6, 2009. This website is published by Life Assurance Ministries, Glendale, Arizona, USA, the publisher of Proclamation! Magazine. Contact email: BibleStudiesForAdventists@gmail.com.
The Sabbath School Bible Study Guide and the corresponding E.G. White Notes are published by Pacific Press Publishing Association, which is owned and operated by the Seventh-day Adventist church. The current quarter's editions are pictured above.
Official Adventist Resources
Standard Edition Study Guide Week 11
Teacher's Edition Study Guide Week 11
Easy Reading Edition Study Guide Week 11
Search the Complete Published Ellen G. White Writings