Commentary on "Interpreting the Prophetic Writings"

CHRIS LEE

 

Day 6: Thursday, March 12, 2009

In this lesson the author discusses James 2:14-26 and the need to examine context when interpreting this passage. The author states that when we examine the “larger context” of other scriptures, such as Ephesians 2:8-9, we discover that James is saying that there are two types faith and the outworking of our faith shows whether our faith is valid or invalid.

The author applies his concept of the “larger context” to a quote from Ellen White in Counsels on Diet and Foods where she states, “Not an ounce of flesh meat should enter our stomachs.” The author then goes on to quote from another section of the same compilation book where White says, “Those who have feeble digestive organs can often use meat, when they cannot eat vegetables, fruit, or porridge.” The author asserts that, “When we look at the total body of what she [White] has written on a given topic, a balanced picture emerges that is invaluable for every Christian who takes religion seriously.”

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

The author’s comparison of the James 2 passage to White’s quote forbidding even “an ounce of flesh meat” is not completely apt. As the author suggests, comparing James 2 to Ephesians 2 may indeed help us avoid a gross misinterpretation of what James is actually saying. However, the difference between the passage in James and the quote from White, is that James’ meaning can readily be determined from the immediate context. The author of the Sabbath School lesson claims that when we examine the “larger context” of other scriptures, we discover that James is stating that there are two types faith, valid and invalid. But this information is gleaned from the immediate context of the book of James, not the other scriptures. One does not necessarily need to go outside of James’ letter to understand this truth. White’s quote appears to be quite absolute and there is nothing in the immediate context to suggest otherwise.

Counsels on Diet and Foods is a compilation of White’s writings. Such a compilation tends to confuse the reader because White frequently wrote things which were not consistent with her previous writings. The fact that White once wrote that not even “an ounce of flesh meat should enter our stomachs” and at another time suggested that some meat eating might be acceptable for “those who have feeble digestive organs” only demonstrates a confusing inconsistency in her writings which becomes more apparent when they are compiled.

Neither the immediate or larger contexts of Ellen White’s writings mitigate the fact that she demonstrated an inordinate focus on issues of diet. While a healthy diet may be important, the so-called inspired writings of White far exceed, or even contradict, anything the Bible has to say on this subject.

And He said* to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.) Mark 7:18-19 (NASB)

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 provided an exegesis of Romans 14:1-6 in Wednesday’s commentary. In today’s lesson we will deal with Colossians 2.

 

Colossians 2:13-17

In Romans 14 we saw how Paul addressed the issue of holy days in the Church at Rome. We saw that, for the New Covenant Christian, the observance of special days is a matter of personal choice that should not divide the Church. One person might consider one day more special than another, while another person considers every day alike. Whichever way a person chooses, it should not be a matter of judgment against others. It’s a personal choice, not an obligation or requirement for Christians.

In today’s commentary I would like to examine how Paul addressed the controversy in the Church at Colosse. Here the situation was different than in Rome. In Rome, Jewish and gentile Christians were learning to live together in love and needed basic instruction on what things were within the realm of Christian freedom. The Church in Colosse was largely gentile, but was being infiltrated by a few false teachers. Among the heresies these false teachers were spreading was the heresy that New Covenant Christians were required to keep food laws, observe annual festival Sabbaths, monthly new moon Sabbaths, and the weekly Sabbath day.

Paul addressed this heresy in a very firm way when writing to the Colossians:

13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him. Colossians 2:13-15 (NASB)

Jesus Christ canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, or as the New International Version translates the Greek, “having canceled the written code with its regulations”. Jesus Christ took the written code and it’s regulations out of the way by nailing it to the cross.

The author of Teacher’s Study Guide protests that this does not include the Sabbath day and that the Sabbath was never taken out of the way and nailed to the cross. But what does the inspired inerrant scripture say about this?

In transitioning from verse 15 to verse 16, Paul uses an important transitional Greek word, “oun”. “Oun” is usually translated into English as “therefore”, “then”, or “so then”. As a general biblical interpretive rule, when you see the word “therefore”, stop and see what it’s there for. By using this transitional word, Paul is telling us that what follows in verse 16 flows out of what was done in verses 13 -15. Or to put it another way, because Christ nailed the written code with its regulations to the cross, the things in verse 16 were taken out of the way and no one should judge on the basis of these things any longer.

16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. - Colossians 2:16-17 (NASB)

In verse 16 Paul uses a familiar sequence to describe all the prescribed Sabbaths. This sequence is used in either ascending or descending order throughout scripture, but it always encompasses all the Jewish Sabbaths; annual, monthly, and weekly Sabbaths. The gist of the argument that Paul is making is this; Christ nailed the written code to the cross, therefore the following shadows have been taken out of the way: food laws, annual festival Sabbaths, monthly new moon Sabbaths, and the weekly Sabbath day.

The author of the Teacher’s Study Guide argues that Paul is not referring to the weekly Sabbath here, but only to what Adventists sometimes refer to as “ceremonial Sabbaths”, which they assume to be limited to annual festival Sabbaths and monthly new moon Sabbaths. But this argument does not hold up to scrutiny for three reasons:

1. When this familiar sequence is used in scripture it is used to encompass all the prescribed Sabbaths, not just the annual and monthly Sabbaths. This sequence always includes the weekly Sabbath day as well.
2. To insist that the weekly Sabbath day is excluded from Paul’s statement turns his sentence into redundant nonsense. Such an assertion would make the Apostle Paul say something like, “Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival Sabbath or a new moon Sabbath or a festival Sabbath day or a new moon Sabbath day.” This makes no sense at all. Why would Paul mention the annual festival Sabbaths and new moon Sabbaths, and then refer to them again by saying “or a Sabbath day”? Paul is not being redundant; he is listing all three types of Sabbaths; annual festival, monthly new moon, and weekly day.
3. The Greek word Paul uses here for “Sabbath day” is “sabbaton”. “Sabbaton” is translated as “Sabbath” 61 times in the New Testament. Adventists would agree that the other 60 times all, without fail, refer to the weekly Sabbath day. Only here in Colossians 2 would Adventists want to argue that “sabbaton” no longer means the weekly Sabbath day, but something else. This is highly inconsistent. Upon what linguistic basis should “sabbaton” mean something different here when it always means the weekly Sabbath elsewhere? This is merely an attempt to avoid and deny the plain teaching of scripture.

There does not seem to be any good contextual, logical, or linguistic reason to understand Paul’s statement to mean anything other than that all the Sabbaths; annual Sabbaths, monthly Sabbaths, and weekly Sabbath day were taken out of the way and were nailed to the cross. All the Sabbaths were only shadows of Jesus Christ and all were completely fulfilled in Him. Jesus is the substance, not the shadow. This is consistent with what is said in scripture about other Old Covenant rituals.

1 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. - Hebrews 10:1 (NASB)

Sabbath observance is in the same category as animal sacrifices. It was only a shadow, not the very form of things, not the substance. Because we now have the substance, Jesus, there is no need to continue to cling to shadows like Sabbath observance or animal sacrifices. Now that the real thing has come, continuing to cling to shadows is a form of spiritual adultery.

This reminds me of an illustration from Pastor J. Mark Martin. Imagine that your spouse has been gone for a very long time and all you have had is a picture to help you think of him or her. You go to the airport and he or she gets off the plane. You go running towards your spouse, but when you get there you fall on the ground and start kissing his or her shadow and trying to hug the shadow. You start saying, “Oh I love you shadow, I love you so much shadow!” Your spouse would probably look at you like you were nuts. He or she would probably say, “Hey, I’m right here! Love me, not my shadow!” If you persisted in clinging to the shadow he or she would probably get pretty frustrated with you. In fact, if you kept trying to make love to the shadow instead of your spouse, you would be engaging in a form of adultery. In order to embrace your spouse, you would have to let go of his or her shadow first. In order to truly embrace Jesus, we must first relinquish our grip on the shadows that only pointed to him.

 

Summary

1. The author’s comparison of the James 2 passage to White’s quote forbidding even “an ounce of flesh meat” is not completely apt. The difference between the passage in James and the quote from White, is that James’ meaning can readily be determined from the immediate context. White’s quote appears to be quite absolute and there is nothing in the immediate context to suggest otherwise.
2. The conflicting quote provided from Counsels on Diet and Foods only demonstrates a confusing inconsistency in White’s writings.
3. White’s writings often put the focus on external things such as diet and far exceed, or even contradict, anything the Bible has to say about diet.
4. Colossians 2:13-17 teaches that Christ nailed the written code to the cross, therefore the shadows of food laws, annual festival Sabbaths, monthly new moon Sabbaths, and the weekly Sabbath day have been taken out of the way and fulfilled in Jesus.

 

 

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

DOWNLOAD
DOCUMENT
FOR PRINTING