Precept Upon Precept
by Ron Corson
There is a common myth in Adventism which amazingly enough is used as a text for how to study the Bible; it is so contextually inaccurately that it would be funny if not so sad. The following is a section from the Immanuel Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) church website page entitled How to Study the Bible:
"Whom shall He teach knowledge? And whom shall He make to understand doctrine? For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line, here a little, and there a little." Isaiah 28:9, 10.
“We must study broadly, permitting the Bible to define its own terms. This will preserve us from the practice of some, in taking an isolated passage and twisting it to fit or "prove" their own ideas. We should always approach the Bible with an open and honest attitude, willing to lay aside any established beliefs and practices, whenever we find them to be without scriptural foundation.”
Most Adventists realize the Isaiah text above is also frequently used by Ellen G. White which probably explains why, even though the context in Isaiah has nothing to do with studying scriptures, it is still used by Adventists as if that is what the text is about. In the case of the Immanuel SDA church the text is used contrary to the statements before and after the text. This is actually just the process they seek to avoid: taking an isolated passage and twisting it to prove “their own ideas.”
This verse in context is not a description of how to study the Bible or any of the component parts of the Bible. As the Expositor's Bible Commentary states:
“Many commentators have been puzzled by verse 10 and have wrestled to make sense of the Hebrew. The truth of the matter seems to be, as the NIV margin suggests, that it is not meant to make sense. Isaiah's words had hardly penetrated the alcohol-impregnated atmosphere that surrounded his hearers. What they picked up were simply a few stray syllables, some of them repeated, like the baby-talk that delights the child but would insult the adult. They mouth this gibberish back at the prophet. The transmitter was as strong and clear as ever; it was the receivers that were at fault. Their judgment, meantime, lay in their failure to hear the word that could have led them back to God; but there was another judgment on its way, most appropriate in its form. Their sin had turned the word of God through Isaiah into a meaningless noise that might just as well have been a foreign language.”
We can grant that Ellen White held to a Christian tradition with her use of the “precept by precept” quote being common, however, this does not make it any more true or useful (see the article about the mis-translated text used as a catch phrase). Even if it were taken to be a description of proper Scriptural study, it is a very poor method. Simply take from here or there a precept or a line and add it to another precept or line. Context or meaning should not be mere obstacles we overcome with a bit of editing here and there.
The reality is that we have to do far more than comparing scripture verse with scripture verse. The Bible does not explain itself as in this article I have not explained to you what an article is. Language is like that. We use the terms of knowledge of our day and assume the listeners or readers will also understand those ideas from our common background. The Bible authors did this just like any other writers. The text does not spend much time defining itself. We determine the meaning from the context of the statements or stories. If we make wrong assumptions about certain forms of Biblical literature we can come to far different meanings then may have been the original intent — the original intent may no longer even have application in the world we live in.
It is the nature of inspiration the original intent may have different applications, its use for ancient Israel may be different from it use for modern Americans. For example, the concept of tithe rendered to a storehouse does not work apart from the nation and the support of Levities. Yet in modern times it is used by many denominations with the application of a tithe to support the church. An apocalyptic text may be interpreted differently depending upon where in history one is. One answer may not be correct at any one time, but there may be an application that can be used in multiple circumstances by different people in history to comfort or edify their situation as Christians. That inspiration aspect makes the Bible of use throughout history and stand as something that is deserving of continual study and reassessment. There is a kind of timelessness to some Bible texts, the idea of divine inspiration would seem to cover the idea that God expects that history and time advances, progressing with increases in knowledge and understanding. God continues to inspire His followers to understand useful applications for their lives.
The Immanuel Seventh-day Adventist church is quite correct when they say the study of the Bible must include everything the Bible says on a subject. But the Bible requires even more than that to truly be interpreted. As the website states, “we must study broadly”. Adventism has had a hard time with this idea, as we don't want to study broadly, we want to study in a restricted “Adventist only” perspective. This idea was emphasized by General Conference President Ted Wilson, in his opening sermon, Go Forward. He stated, “Look WITHIN the Seventh-day Adventist Church to humble pastors, evangelists, Biblical scholars, leaders, and departmental directors who can provide evangelistic methods and programs based on solid Biblical principles and The Great Controversy Theme." The Seventh-day Adventist church, even though barely 150 years old, is not the authority on all things Biblical and certainly not an authority on the context and language of the Bible. We have scholars, and those scholars learned from outside the Adventist church. There is no reason to stop this practice and we must resist those like Ted Wilson who want to direct Adventism back into themselves. It is those who have turned in upon themselves that have instilled the idea of “precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little there a little” as if this is a valid technique of Bible study.
So am I right in interpreting that Mr Carlson knows more then E G White who communicated directly with Jesus about what Isaiah 8: 10 means?
"We can grant that Ellen White held to a Christian tradition with her use of the “precept by precept” quote being common, however, this does not make it any more true or useful (see the article about the mis-translated text used as a catch phrase)" Mr Carlson
Dear Potter,
Evidently Mr Corson knows more than the Spirit of God Himself. 1Co 2:14 "But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
We make comparison between those who are drunk with alcohol and cannot understand much, to those who are drunk with the false doctrines of Babylon as they arrive and adhere to falsehood as we build our theological evidence to prove doctrines. My Corson’s article is not only a slam against the Bible and the Most High Himself—but also tears down the Spirit of Prophecy and God’s end-time church. The Bible is its own interpreter as well as stacking “line upon line” to build doctrine with overwhelming evidence. For example:
Rev 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying to me, Come here; I will show to you the judgment of the great whore that sits on many waters (AKJV).
“Sits’ means rules as a king does, so what does waters mean? We go to other verses to find out—especially ones that are topically sound.
Rev 17:15 And he said to me, The waters which you saw, where the whore sits, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
So here, the evidence builds to identify the whore, could it be a ruling power? What time period are we dealing with? Obviously, peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues must mean Europe where seven of ten nations still rule coming from divided Rome. The prophet Daniel saw;
Dan 7:3 And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another.
The “sea” of course also means “waters” but used here more in terms of becoming more populated in later years—certainly as Babylon, Greece, and Medo-Persia, with Rome arose out of relatively unpopulated countries as America did in Revelation 13:11. Thus the use of “earth” in vs. 17. In addition, the Chaldee and the Greek words are different and vs. 17— earth-can take on a more literal meaning.
Dan 7:17 These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.
Here the “beasts” are explained to be kings who rule nations.
“Those who are in responsible positions are not to become converted to the self-indulgent, extravagant principles of the world, for they cannot afford it; and if they could, Christlike principles would not allow it. Manifold teaching needs to be given. "Whom shall He teach knowledge? and whom shall He make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little." Thus the word of the Lord is patiently to be brought before the children and kept before them, by parents who believe the word of God. "For with stammering lips and another tongue will He speak to this people. To whom He said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken." Why?–because they did not heed the word of the Lord that came unto them.” {TM 418.2}
“This means those who have not received instruction, but have cherished their own wisdom, and have chosen to work themselves according to their own ideas. The Lord gives these the test, that they shall either take their position to follow His counsel, or refuse and do according to their own ideas, and then the Lord will leave them to the sure result. In all our ways, in all our service to God, He speaks to us, "Give Me thine heart." It is the submissive, teachable spirit that God wants. That which gives to prayer its excellence is the fact that it is breathed from a loving, obedient heart.” {TM 419.1}
“God requires certain things of His people; if they say, I will not give up my heart to do this thing, the Lord lets them go on in their supposed wise judgment without heavenly wisdom, until this scripture [Isaiah 28:13] is fulfilled. You are not to say, I will follow the Lord's guidance up to a certain point that is in harmony with my judgment, and then hold fast to your own ideas, refusing to be molded after the Lord's similitude. Let the question be asked, Is this the will of the Lord? not, Is this the opinion or judgment of—–? {TM 419.2}
Additionally, as a loyal Adventist that stands on all the pillars of faith, and loves God’s truth– I don’t use Babylonish Commentaries that hold the wine of Babylon—false doctrines. Using Sunday-oriented commentaries for certain topics can be an exercise in futility.
THE 7TH DAY ADVENTIST BIBLE COMMENTARY
8. No place clean. The most revolting features of drunkenness are pictured (see v. 8). Priests and people were defiled, both literally and spiritually.
9. Whom shall he teach? The priests and prophets whose business it was to teach the people were themselves misled, and therefore in no position to carry out their responsibilities (see on Matt. 23:16). They were so befogged that God could not teach them. It was necessary, therefore, that they be put aside and new leaders chosen—men who were both meek and willing, alert and spiritual-minded. The old leaders whose minds were spiritually befogged must be replaced by men to whom God could speak His messages of truth and wisdom. These might be regarded as babes by the learned priests, but they were humble and teachable and able to learn the ways of God.
10. Precept upon precept. Truth must be presented clearly and logically, one point leading naturally on to another. Only thus can men become thoroughly acquainted with truth. Instruction must be given as if to children, by repeating the same point again and again, and going on from one point to another by easy and gentle degrees as men whose minds have been darkened by sin are able to follow. Such instruction may appear simple, but it is effective.
11. Another tongue. That is, “a foreign language.” God had spoken to His people in their own tongue through His messengers the prophets, but they did not listen. Now He would speak to them by other means, first the Assyrians and later the Babylonians, the Persians, and the Romans. In 1 Cor. 14:21 Paul applies this scripture to men whose speech was unintelligible to the hearers.
12. This is the rest. Only by hearing and obeying the revealed will of God may true rest be found. Jesus invited the weary to come to Him, and promised to give them rest (Matt. 11:28). But Israel and Judah refused to listen (see on Isa. 6:9, 10), and thus did not find the rest that might have been theirs. See also on Heb. 3:18, 19; 4:1–11.
13. Fall backward. God had spoken to His people clearly and simply, and they were without excuse. But His counsels, which were intended to bring blessing, now stood to witness against them. The “chief corner stone” of truth had become to them “a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence” (1 Peter 2:6–8; cf. Isa. 28:16). What had been given to help men became the occasion of their fall (see on Rom. 7:10).
[1] Nichol, Francis D.: The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 4. Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978; 2002, S. 210
Wow if that is really what the SDA Bible Commentary says, it must be one of the poorest commentaries in existence. I mean it may be even worse than Falwel's Liberty Bible Commentrary. Just look at that:
"13. Fall backward. God had spoken to His people clearly and simply, and they were without excuse. But His counsels, which were intended to bring blessing, now stood to witness against them. The “chief corner stone” of truth had become to them “a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence” (1 Peter 2:6–8; cf. Isa. 28:16). What had been given to help men became the occasion of their fall (see on Rom. 7:10)."
How can we say there was not a clearer message of God then Jesus Christ and yet say that God spoke to them clearly and simply (by the way the Bible makes no such claim about the gospel being clearly and simply taught to people in the Old Testament). But what does even bringing in the New Testament have to do with the Old Testament verse? They had not rejected the cheif cornerstone (Jesus Christ) then. This commentary is not even dealing with the text. What a surprise.
Precept building on another precept is fine, Here a little there a little is not fine, line upon line is not fine, I can easily take a line out of context and place it next to another line and make something seem to say something that was never close to the intention of the original author. Yet amazingly enough it is those who think themselves the most spiritually discerning who have the most unreasonable positions. But of course who needs reason, they are spiritually discerning…at least in their own eyes and they have an excuse to use against anyone who uses reason or who has a different idea.
In short don't believe anyone that accuses others of not having spiritual discernment. It is a passive aggressive ploy, where they pretend to have the spiritual discernment, it is much like the con man that says "trust me"
Ron,
Once again you are off the mark considerably. I really thought I was too easy on you previously-I was simply disturbed and appalled at your article which attacked the very foundation of Bible understanding. I've known for some time that AT is very liberal and much of the time opposed to what is Bible truth, and here I cannot tell if you are Adventist or not–I certainly hope not!
There has never been another gospel save that of Jesus Christ on the cross in which its doctrine has existed before the creation of the earth;
Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
While it is true that the gospel was not taught as it is now or in Paul’s day—there was sufficient Old Testament light on its prophecies so that the entire nation of Israel should have known when the time would be fulfilled, and the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting (Mic 5:2). All Israel should have been waiting to receive Him—instead of 3 foreign wise men!
Every time a lamb was slain in the sanctuary—whether the tent in the wilderness, or the magnificent temples of Solomon and the one destroyed in 70 AD—it served to teach the people that the wages of sin is death, and soon would come the One these lambs pointed to, “The next day John sees Jesus coming to him, and said, Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).
Had the teachers in Israel been true to their calling and had not perverted the prophecies concerning Christ, once again the people would have been ready for Him down to the exact year and town He was born in.
The 70 Weeks of Years (490 literal years. See on Numbers 14:34, and Eze. 4:6).
Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined on your people and on your holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem to the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
Dan 9:26 And after three score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and to the end of the war desolations are determined.
Dan 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the middle of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured on the desolate.
The starting date (2300 years, Daniel 8:14) has been determined at 457 BC, from the 7th year of Anaterxes reign. Christ was “cut off” in AD 31—Stephen was stoned in AD 34 which ended the Jewish dispensation. However, AD 27 marks the beginning of the 70th week of 7 years and the beginning of Christ’s ministry, because that time was fulfilled.
Mar 1:15 “And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.”
Jesus Christ was the God of the Old Testament and it was He with whom Israel had to do. He also gave the OT. That is what the 7th Day Adventist Commentary speaks of.
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
It was Jesus Christ at the burning bush.
Every time a sacrifice was made it pointed toward something that they had never been told of or about. If so why would not the descriptions of the sacrifices include statements about the coming sacrifice of the messiah? It does appear the you don't know what the Bible actually says. You are well aware of certain traditions however but the two are not the same.
Where, in all of Jewish history, was there a recognition that the sacrifices represented a Messiah who was coming? They had no belief in a Messiah until much later in their history, nor was there a hope that their sacrifices were anything but an offering to atone for sins.
Have you read your Bible recently? Abraham looked forward to the Messiah. Jesus said that Abraham looked forward to His time, and was glad. Admittedly most of the Jews lost sight of the purpose of the sanctuary system, but if nothing else, the Passover was clearly symbolic of the Messiah. Job understood that a Redeemer was coming. The fact that it wasn't spelled out specifically, as in the NT, doesn't mean that the faithful didn't understand it. The argument from silence proves nothing.
Jesus' statement is restricted to Abraham, it is not a statement about Israel and it had nothing at all to do with the sacrificial system. The Jews could not have lost sight of something they never knew. It is not an argument from silence to point to the records in the Bible about the sacrificial system and see that it is not connected to the coming Messiah, They could have written it at the time, they did not. To say they lost sight of it is to say they had sight of it at one time. But you can't point to that in the Bible so you are using an argument from silence. Isn't it funny how you accuse others of what you do yourself?
From the Expositior's Bible Commentary on John 8:56:
"56 Jesus claimed that Abraham had a preview of his ministry and had rejoiced in it. This may refer to the promise God gave Abraham that his seed should become the channel of divine blessing to all the nations (Gen 12:3). By "my day" Jesus may have been referring to his redemptive work, which would summarize his career. Perhaps Isaac represented to Abraham the "seed" through which God would fulfill his promise: the miraculous birth of the son, his unquestioning trust in his father, his willingness to become a sacrifice to fulfill the command of God, and his deliverance from certain death. These may have spoken of the later Seed who cooperated in obedience to his Father, surrendered himself to the Father's will, and emerged victorious from death. Although this interpretation is not founded on any specific statement of Scripture, it would mean that Abraham's personal experience at the sacrifice of Isaac could have been an object lesson to him of the coming incarnation, death, and resurrection of the promised Seed (see Gen 22:1-18; Heb 11:17-19)."
So your're saying that the Jews performed all the rituals connected with the Sanctuary for over 1400 years, and didn't have a clue what it all meant? That's wild. I've never heard that one before. That calls into question the character of God, in my opinion. Do you also believe that no one before NT times understood why they were sacrificing animals? Or had they forgotten by the time of Moses, and God neglected to remind them?
So really that is something new to you? Have you never read the Jewish writings about their own history and religion?
Actually it calls nothing into question about the character of God…well your view might because you think that the sacrifices meant something pointing to a future that no one knew about. But it is the very nature of progressive knowledge that God meets us where we are and works within our contemporary understandings. A step by step process in growing knowledge. But granted it is far different then traditional Adventisms unwarrented assumptions that they began with all kinds of knowledge but were not sufficiently inspired to write such knowledge down and then just continued to drift away from the vast understanding of God that they began with. Talk about an argument from silence.
It is one of the tragedy's of Christianity and Adventism that they neglect to actually pay attention to history, Well I guess that is not limited to Christains and Adventists just look at the political world, most people pay little notice to history.
Apparently, Adventists got most, or all of their history of both Judaism and Christianity from EGW or official SDA publications. It would be most helpful for those who are so certain that the Jews when making sacrifices were fully aware that those acts were pointing to a Messiah who would also be sacrified some day. What are the sources for these statements?
Nobody knows more than EGW. She is the one interpreter of Scripture for all Adventists. Whether they know Hebrew or Greek, and whether they use the KJV or another translation, she had the benefit of being shown in vision as a prophet of God. To challenge her is to challenge Adventism, they are so closely conflated that one cannot tell whether she or the Bible is being quoted.
Elaine,
On a number of occasions Ellen White firmly admonished pastors, church leaders and the editors of publications that her writings should NEVER be used as the foundation for any belief or practice or as an authority by which to interpret scripture. So your statement is both incorrect and contrary to her specific instruction.
It was written tongue in cheek, but it cannot be denied that EGW has been both used and useful for Adventists.
Bible language scholars and theologians may have a rightful and valid place in Christendom; but they do NOT supersede the inspiration, authority and guidance of the Holy Spirit who fully represents the Master ‘Rabbi’ Himself: Jesus Christ. Is not the Holy Spirit the only true interpreter and revealer of what is truth? For example, do Bible scholars start their lessons at college or university with a prayer of convocation, where one HUMBLY pleads for the Holy Spirit to illuminate their minds and 'teach' them what is been read as they search and study the scriptures? The view that scholars are to be the sole or exclusive custodians of interpreting scripture is very much in line with the sentiments of Catholicism which eventually gave rise to the horrendous Dark Ages brought on largely by this type of reasoning and thinking.
The Immanuel SDA Church is quite correct in using the Isaiah verses to illustrate ways to study the Bible by using a systematic comparison of scripture with scripture by subject, topic or theme. They, (and Ellen White), have been falsely accused of using the scriptures incorrectly and out of context. The blog itself misinterprets the very same verses!
Here is an excerpt from the JFB Bible Commentary regarding these verses which is a far cry from what Mr. Corson purports on this blog:
♥T
I challenge (yet again) Mrs. Nelson or any other Traditional SDA detractors to show an official SDA church statement OR Ellen White statement which unambiguously states that her writings are EQUAL or SUPERSEDE the authority of the Holy Bible – OR, that 'nobody knows more than Ellen White'. No ducking please, come on … speak up!
♥T
Trevor
Do you know any traditional adventists who are prepared to say Ellen White is less inspired, less infallible or less inerrant, or less authoritative than the Bible? It does not take an offical pronouncement to make something true. If the majority of SDAs equate Ellen White's inspiration, infallibility and authority with that of the Bible, is it not true to say that most SDAs believe Ellen White's writings are equal to the Bible? If Ellen White is an infallible commentator on what the Bible 'really' means, does that not actually place her above the Bible?
As the GC inquired very early on in our history, if Ellen White does indeed speak for God, how can she be less inerrant or infallible, or her her authority be less than the Bible's in practical terms? I don't believe we have ever answered that question to anyone's satisfaction. Rather, in recent years, we have asserted (and the GC has approved) that Ellen White is a lesser authority, and is not infallible or inerrant, but in practice we refuse to believe she has ever erred, or that she is mistaken in anything she asserts or denies. Somehow, our practice does not line up with our assertions.
For what it’s worth, here is my make on EGW’s authority in juxtaposition with the Bible’s authority: the Bible is inerrant and effectively infallible, whereas EGW’s writings are neither inherently inerrant or infallible; although this doesn’t therefore mean that anything she has written is necessarily in error or untrue.
The difference is that whereas she can be wrong, the Bible cannot be wrong.
The only position I am aware that our church has ever taken on the Bible is that it is not inerrant. Of course, as with Ellen White, we are prepared to move heaven and earth to prove there is no error in the Bible. But we do allow there could be. We do say the Bible is infallible, but there has long been an argument over how it is infallible.
Each individual does, in actuality, determine for themselves what the Bible, inerrancy, or infallibility mean for purposes of determining scriptural authority.
For me inerrancy means that the Bible is essentially always right, though not always applicable to every circumstance and time; in which case the Holy Spirit informs us. I should probably have actually said that the Bible is effectively inerrant and infallible.
When there are discrepancies of accounts, these differences have no salvific relevance—to me. Details that conflict are for the most practical of purposes eternally irrelevant—to me.
The following site (http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran4.htm) says 64% of SDAs believe the Bible to be inerrant; whatever that means to each of us.
You cannot determine what the SDA church believes by a count. It takes a vote at the GC. The last large survey I know of that asked SDAs about their beliefs on salvation recorded that a large majority believe we are saved by grace, and almost as many believe we can be saved only if we keep the law. So, effectively, we therefore believe we are saved by grace if we are good enough. Which is a good illustration of why we don't determine our doctrines by opinion poll. The book on the 28FB indicates we don't accept inerrancy, and that is about as official as we get.
A common complaint of those who do research on our church (including me) is that it is so hard to find out what our 'official' belief is on so many areas. Outside the 28FB it is usually a case of finding either a position paper on the GC website, or following a textbook from one of our institutions and hoping it represents somethng like the church's view. Finding an official statement on inerrancy is difficult – I think we only voted once – but most of the experts believe we don't support it as a church, even though most members do.
In the book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe, the statement that EGW is an "authoritative source of truth." She is the most liberally quoted commentator in the SS quarterly, and in most SDA articles in the official publications. That is sufficient to demonstrate her very authority in Adventism.
Elaine,
That such a statement is in a book published by the church does not make it factual or correct. Her exhortation on many occasions was "The Bible and the Bible only."
Getting beyond the issue of Ellen White, there is a new book out by Christian Smith that many here may find interesting. It is called "The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture". You may not agree with his recommendations on how to read the Bible, but his criticism of biblicism will have to be aswered if biblicism is to remain viable. And before anyone jumps in without having read his book, he is not denying that the Bible is inspired, nor that it is the final authority for Christians. He is simply arguing – and doing so very well – that the most popular way of reading the Bible among conservative Protestants simply does not work.
I am not sure what our official position is on biblicism, but in practice, as an organisation, we work on the assumptioon it does not work. And I won't pursue that here as it will get us off-track somewhat. However, it is obvious that most of our members operate as if it does work. I am not sure anything will change that, short of a concerted effort by the organisation, which I can't see happening.
Actually Trevor the JFB commentary is consistent with the context and the explaination of the Expositors Commentary. What neither one does is say that the verses are to be used as the standard for studing scripture.
9, 10. Here the drunkards are introduced as scoffingly commenting on Isaiah's warnings: "Whom will he (does Isaiah presume to) teach knowledge? And whom will He make to understand instruction? Is it those (that is, does he take us to be) just weaned, &c.? For (he is constantly repeating, as if to little children) precept upon precept," &c.
line–a rule or law. [MAURER]. The repetition of sounds in Hebrew. tzav latzav, tzav latzav, gav laqav, gav laquav, expresses the scorn of the imitators of Isaiah's speaking; he spoke stammering ( Isaiah 28:11 ). God's mode of teaching offends by its simplicity the pride of sinners ( 2 Kings 5:11 2 Kings 5:12 , 1 Corinthians 1:23 ). Stammerers as they were by drunkenness, and children in knowledge of God, they needed to be spoken to in the language of children, and "with stammering lips" (compare Matthew 13:13 ). A just and merciful retribution.
11. For–rather, "Truly." This is Isaiah's reply to the scoffers: Your drunken questions shall be answered by the severe lessons from God conveyed through the Assyrians and Babylonians; the dialect of these, though Semitic, like the Hebrew, was so far different as to sound to the Jews like the speech of stammerers (compare Isaiah 33:19 , 36:11 ). To them who will not understand God will speak still more unintelligibly. http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/jamieson-fausset-brown/isaiah/isaiah-28.html?p=2
It seems you are drawing an inference from one line in their commentary about Gods mode of teaching which in this case is by foreing nations conquring them. But either way the context as well as the many commentaries make it plan that there is nothing here to be used as if it is to be the method for the study of scriptures.
We all tend to bestow our own interpretation of the Bible as correct; "we" meaning individually and as a church. This is a form of Bibliolatry:
1. The worship of the Bible, making of it an object of veneration and ascribing to it the glory due to God.
2. The worship of the text, in which the letter is given an inappropriate superiority over the spirit.
3. The worship of the culture, in which the Bible is forced to conform to the norms of the prevailing culture.
Scripture is invariably used to support the status quo, no matter what the status quo, and despite the revolutionary origins and implications of scripture itself. An early twentieth-century African proverb puts it well: "When the missionaries came, they had the Bible and we had the land. Now we have the Bible and they have the land."
Appeal to scripture has supported slavery and segregation, as well as the subjugation of women.To assume that the structures and the systems the Bible describes are as sacred and authoritative as the principle it affirms it idolatrous, even blasphemous when it is used affirm and maintain human privilege.
Good points Elaine. Let's see…what immoral, wrongheaded opinions have been supported by appeals to science and reason? Umm… slavery, eugenics, euthanasia, segregation, communism, fascism, abortion, denial of gender differences, the Holocaust? That's a small beginning. Certainly science and reason would never presume to claim a privileged position in the realm of moral reasoning… would they?
I'm afraid, Elaine, that virtually every criticism you level at those who advance agendas in the name of scripture apply with double force to agendas advanced in the name of science and reason.
Perhaps the medical advances the Bible advocated would be preferred to that today?
Perhaps the scientific advances that have been made since the Canon closed should be dismissed and return to the level known in the Bible?
Would you be willing to consult the priests for diagnosis of any skin problems in your family? If the Bible is sufficient, that would be the choice, wouldn't it? Or is only SOME science dismissed?
Did the Bible ever condemn slavery? Did it ever condemn polygamy? Euthansia? What was the elimination of tribes ordered by God is no euthanasia?
The science of Bible times would prevent most of all the advances that have been made in society today: non-acceptance of slavery, subjugation of women, murder of those who were not in the favored tribes, and worst of all, God killing all his creation in the flood. Not exactly based on science, but on the Bible.
Not using reason is to remove all the benefits of our God-given powers he gave us.
You really don't understand the big picture, do you? The Bible improved the lot of the slave, as well as women. It dealt with the existing conditions and improved them. Why God didn't move sooner to eliminate some of these things, I don't know. You'll have to ask Him someday. The principles laid out in the NT would naturally eliminate slavery and polygamy, if implemented. It just took longer than one might have expected. As for the elimination of the various pagan tribes, either you're woefully ignorant of their cultures, or you've chosen to ignore it. They were about as degraded as mankind can get, and their probation had closed. It's no different from what will happen after the end of the millennium, when the wicked are destroyed in the lake of fire. God is the Creator. He can do what He wishes with His creation; and since His nature is love, we can know that, even though we may not understand it, His actions are always for the best.
My intention was not to slam anyone. I could have phrased it differently: "It appears that you don't understand . . . " My apologies to Elaine if she was offended.
The claim that someone does not see the "big picture" is little different that "it appears that you don't understand," both are indicating that not seeing or understanding is to claim superiority in that the writer does understand and sees the big picture, whatever it is claimed to be. If something is far too difficult to understand, such as quantum physics for the average individual, this could be a true evaluation; but unless the "big picture" is far too difficult to explain to a reasonable person, how important could it be?
Elaine,
There is really only one Bible reason for not being able to see the "big picture"… SIN. But as you've written in other blogs, we focus to much upon that. Nonetheless, that is the problem… according to the Bible. To paraphrase Jesus, unless your born again, you can't see / percieve the "big picture" (the kingdom of God). It's not about reason when it comes to big picture, it's about revelation… seeing what God sees.
Sin has distorted our perceptions from it's entrance into the human family / our world. So if we, like Eve, want to look at the "forbidden fruit" thinking that our wisdom is greater then God's word / revelation… we have to live with the results. As to your catagorical list of issues with the Bible, they are only the result of sin's presence in the human family… there is no other reasonable explanation.
Of course, sin is emphasized in the Bible. The overriding theme is that regardless of sin, God is love and does not want anyone to perish, making sin impotent. One chooses what is seen: many things are mentioned in the Bible, but the only motive for defeating sin is God's love. So regardless of the overriding theme of sin, without God's love, it would be, as it has been for millions, a very discouraging doctrine. The inability to reach perfection when sin is overcome has driven many from a church that emphasizes this doctrine.
Ron,
I had to read your piece a second and third time for the real emphasis to sink in and to fully appreciate your admonition for us to resist looking inward to more fully understand the meanings of scripture. My particular appreciation for that message comes from a transformation God worked in my life where He led me to view the Bible not as the be-all and end-all source for inspiration and direction, but as the primer to train me so I could become a mature Christian who is connected with the Holy Spirit and thus continually receiving guidance from God. There really is very little specific direction in the Bible about how we are to live our lives. What we have most of is the stories of how people lived, connected with God and followed (or didn't follow) Him in their time and place. They came to know God intimately by walking with Him, not by seeking the inferior "wisdom" of men to interpret what has been written about God.
Elaine said:
[quote]The science of Bible times would prevent most of all the advances that have been made in society today: non-acceptance of slavery, subjugation of women, murder of those who were not in the favored tribes, and worst of all, God killing all his creation in the flood. Not exactly based on science, but on the Bible.[/quote]
Rodney Stark, THE VICTORY OF REASON: hOW CHRISTIANITY LED TO FREEDOM, CAPITALISM AND WESTERN S UCCESS. Random House, 2005, 281 pages.
I have just begun to read the above book. I would not agree with everything that the author states. The thesis of his book is stated in the following quotation:
[quote] The success of the West, including the rise of science, rested entirely on religious foundations, and the people who brought it about were devout Christians. page xi[/quote]
I find it interesting and challenging.
Gregory, I have read four of Rodney Stark's books and found them very informative. In his Rise of Christianity he cites many great developments introduced by Christianity.
Yes, Christianity brought great advances to western civilization, including scientific studies.
My previous statement about relying on the Bible for scientific information was based not on Christian religion but the primitive beliefs even before the Israelites, and afterward as found in the Torah. This is premised on many Christians who fervently believe in the literality of the Creation story and others told in the Bible. Since Christianity came into existence at least a millennium later, they cannot be compared.