2000 Annual Council - Timm Devotional

The devotional message entitled "The Unity of the Word of God" was presented by Alberto R Timm, Profesor of Historical Theology and Director at Brazil Adventist College in Coelho, Brazil, and Director of the Ellen G White Research Center.

The Christian religion was originally built upon the platform of the Word of God. Christ and His apostles regarded the Scriptures as an accurate revelation of God, with an "underlying unity" among its various teachings (cf. Matt 5:17-20, Luke 24:27, 44, 45, John 5:39). Many church fathers and great reformers of the sixteenth century continued to uphold the unity of the Scriptures. As stated by Gerhard Maier, "the more that the Reformation took sola scriptura as its basis, the stronger its interest in the unity of Scripture had to be."^[1]

But, unfortunately, the concept of the unity of God's Word was eventually rejected by several Christian denominations of the post-Reformation era. Under the strong influence of the historical criticism of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, the Bible began to be reread as a mere product of the ancient cultures in which it was conceived. Consequently, the Bible was no longer seen as a book consistent and harmonious in its various teachings, but rather as a complex collection of different sources in straight disagreement between one another. An additional blow on that unity appeared in the second half of the twentieth century through the reader-oriented criticism of post-modernism. The new emphasis was no longer on the actual meaning of Scriptures, but on the various pluralistic meanings attributed to it by its readers.

The forefathers of Seventh-day Adventism saw themselves as a people commissioned by God to the end-time eschatological restoration of the unity of the Scriptures. William Miller, the founder and main leader of Millerism, realized that the Bible could be "its own interpreter"^[2] only for those who recognized that it has "a general connection through the whole"^[3] and that "all its parts" can be harmonized.^[4] This view of the Scriptures shaped not only Millerism itself, but also the post-1844 Sabbatarian branch that would be eventually organized into the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The founders of Seventh-day Adventism perceived the overall unity of the World of God, and even set it as the hermeneutical foundation upon which they built their doctrinal system.^[5] Major Seventh-day Adventist doctrinal expositions continue to emphasize the unity of the Word of God. But such emphasis has been more openly challenged since 1970 by some explicit appeals for cultural-conditioned rereadings of the Scriptures.

If we, as Seventh-day Adventists, want to keep our confidence in the unity of the Word of God, we need to address honestly the following four questions: What basis do we have to speak of agreement within the Scriptures? How do we deal with some major problem areas in which that agreement is not always evident? In which way did the miracle of inspiration safeguard the unity of the Word of God? And what is the role of the Holy Spirit in helping us to recognize that unity?

At this opportunity I would like to share with you a few insights on basic issues involved in each one of these questions.

There are at least two foundational issues that have to be addressed by those interested in understanding the unity of the Scriptures. The first one is the relationship between the Word of God and the contemporary cultures in which the Word was originally delivered. By studying the Scriptures, one can easily perceive a constant dialogue between universal principles and specific applications of those principles within a particular cultural setting. Although the language and other components of some ancient cultures are taken into consideration, such applications of the principles cannot be considered as cultural conditionings that distort the underlying unity of the Word of God. Behind those specific applications are universal principles that transcend any specific culture.

There are several instances in the Scriptures in which God tolerated some kind of human departure from His original plans, as in the cases of polygamy (see Gen 16:1-15; 29:15-30; Genesis 24, etc) and divorce (see Matt 19:3-12; Mark 10:2-12). There are also other cases in which early Christians were counseled to respect some specific cultural elements, as in regard to women wearing a veil while praying or prophesying (1 Cor 11:2-16) and women being silent in the church (1 Cor 14:34, 35). But the overall tenor of the Scriptures is that its religion was

G Ernest Wright explains that "the Old Testament bears eloquent witness to the fact that Canaanite religion was the most dangerous and disintegrative factor which the faith of Israel had to face (cf Deut 7:1-6)^[7] Floyd V Filson adds that, in the first century AD, the Jews and later the Judaizers "sensed the fact that the Gospel was a different thing from the religious messages which they had known" and that "it was breaking the limits of current Judaism" (cf. Matt 5:20).^[8] Thus, it is very important to understand clearly the relationship between the Word of God and the contemporary cultures in which that Word was originally delivered.

The second foundational issue that has to be addressed by those interested in understanding the unity of the Scriptures is the methodological perspective from which one looks into the Scriptures. From the self-testimony of the Scriptures, one can see that the Bible is much closer to the Eastern world, a more systematic and integrative view of reality, than to the Western world, a more analytical and compartmentalized perspective. This is an important hint to be taken into consideration in the process of defining our methodological approach to the Scriptures.

If one starts looking inductively for discrepancies within the Scriptures, he or she will end of "finding differences rather than agreement and unity."^[9] As a matter of fact, according to Ellen White, "all who look for hooks to hang their doubts upon will find them" (GC 527). But if, on the other hand, one starts looking deductively for the self-testimony of Scripture, he or she might end up disclosing an underlying unity capable of binding together its various parts. Many apparent inconsistencies might be harmonized by moving from the broad thematic frameworks of the Scriptures into their smaller details, rather than by starting already with those details without understanding the basic frameworks to which they belong.

There are, however, some major areas of alleged internal "inconsistencies" of the Bible that people use oftentimes to undermine the concept of an underlying unity of the Scriptures. There is not enough time to go into details on this matter, but I would like at least to point out five of these areas and to indicate how those problems might be solved.

a. Tensions between the Old and the New Testaments. Some people speak of several dichotomous tensions between the Old and the New Testaments by referring usually to such subjects as the justice of God versus the love of God and obedience to the law versus salvation by grace. Those tensions can be solved if we recognize clearly the typological relationship between both Testaments and if we acknowledge that justice and love, and law and grace, are concepts developed throughout both Testaments.

b. Imprecatory Psalms. There are those who see the imprecatory Psalms, with their prayers of vengeance and curse for the wicked (see Psalms 35, 58, 69, 109, 137, etc) as directly opposed to the lovely prayers of Christ and Stephen in favor of their own enemies (Luke 23:34, Acts 7:60). In trying to solve this problem, we should not forget that the New Testament quotes the imprecatory Psalms as inspired and authoritative, and that in the Old Testament the enemies of God's covenant people were considered as enemies of God Himself. It seems, therefore, quite evident that those Psalms have to be understood within the same theological framework of the holy-war motif of the Old Testament.

c. Synoptic Problem. Probably no other area has been so controversially discussed in regard to the unity of God's Word that the so-called synoptic problem. We will never be able to fully explain how the first three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written, what has really been their indebtedness to one another, and how to harmonize some minor discrepancies in parallel accounts. Yet, Robert K McIver states in his book titled The Four Faces of Jesus that there is no reason to suppose that the data brought out by a careful investigation of the synoptic problem provides any basis for doubting the basic historicity of the events reported by the Gospels. In fact, it probably does quite the opposite. Rather, it is evidence of their reliability.^[10]

d. Paul and James on Justification. Another problem area that has not always been clearly understood by some people (including Martin Luther) is the classic tension between Paul's statement that "a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (Rom 3:28, RSV) and James' words that "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24, RSV). But serious studies have shown that also this tension can be solved if one keeps in mind that while Paul is responding to the legalistic use of the "works of the law" as a means to be saved (Rom 3:20, RSV; cf. 3:31, 7:12), James is criticizing the antinomian profession of a "dead" faith as fruitless as the uncommitted faith of the demons (James 2:17, 19).

e. Factual Errors. There are also those who deny the underlying unity of the Word of God under the allegation that it contains a large amount of so-called "factual errors." There is no doubt that many of those alleged errors are not actual errors, but only misunderstandings of the real issues involved. A classic example of this is the way Edwin R Thiele demonstrated in the 1940's that many of the alleged gaps and discrepancies in the biblical chronology of the kings of Israel and Judah could be well synchronized. But, on the other hand, we have to realize that we are unable to solve all the difficulties of the Scriptures.

According to Ellen White: "Men of ability have devoted a lifetime of study and prayer to the search of the Scriptures, and yet there are many portions of the Bible that have not been fully explored. Some passages of Scripture will never be perfectly comprehended until in the future life Christ shall explain them. There are mysteries to be unraveled, statements that human minds cannot harmonize. And the enemy will seek to arouse arguments upon these points, which might better remain undiscussed."--GW 312

Despite the existence of some inaccuracies in minor details, I believe that there are enough evidences to assume that those inaccuracies do not distort the basic concept conveyed by the text in which they appear, and they do not break the underlying unity of the Word of God.

After discovering such major problem areas as the ones we just mentioned, some people might ask: Why did God allow these kind of problems to remain in the Scriptures? Could He not have straightened some of them out so that our interpretation task would be much easier? If He could, why than did He not do it? Those are not easy questions to be answered, but I think that there are some important reasons behind God's decision to not straighten out such problem areas Himself.

We have to realize, first of all, that the heavenly message was entrusted by God to "earthen vessels" (2 Cor 4:7, KJV) and communicated to human beings in their imperfect language (1SM 20, 26). Besides this, the Word of God was intended to serve as a light for the path (Ps 119:105) of all human beings of all ages and of all places. As the spiritual bread (Matt 4:4) that testifies of "the living bread which came down from heaven (John 6:51), the Bible had to speak to both rich and poor, learned and unlearned.

If the Bible were a monotonously uniform book, people would read it once or twice and then put it aside as we do with old newspapers. But the Bible has a deep and rich and colorful diversity of harmonious testimonies of rare and distinct beauty that make it so attractive. Although its basic message is perfectly understandable even for common people, the Bible has such a deepness of thought that all those scholars and simple people who studied it throughout the ages were not able to exhaust its meaning and to solve all its difficulties. Yet, the existence of such difficulties was regarded by Ellen White, not as "an argument against the Bible," but as "a strong evidence of its divine inspiration" (SC 107).

But in which way did the miracle of inspiration safeguard the unity of the Word of God? Up to what extent might we expect agreement within the Scriptures? Should we assume, as some people do, that the Bible is trustworthy only in matters of Salvation?

In the August 1999 issue of Ministry I pointed out that "crucial in this discussion is the interrelationship between the content of the inspired writings and their ultimate purpose. There is no doubt that salvation is the major purpose of Scripture (John 5:39). But the real question is: Can we isolate some chronological, historical, and scientific portions of Scripture from its overall salvific purpose? If we were to develop a soteriological-inspiration canon within the general biblical canon, would such an approach not break the unity of God's Word?

"The Bible claims for itself that it is wholistic in nature, forming an indivisible unity (Matt 4:$4; Rev 22:18, 19) and pointing to salvation as its objective (John 20:31; 1 Cor 10:11). Furthermore, Scripture portrays "salvation" as a broad historical reality, related to all other biblical themes. And it is precisely this overall thematic interrelationship that makes it almost impossible for someone to speak of the Bible in dichotomous terms as being reliable in some topics and not in others.

"Because the primary purpose of the Bible is to build up faith for salvation (John 20:31), its historical, biographical, and scientific sections often provide only the specific information needed to achieve this goal (John 20:30; 21:25). In spite of its selectiveness in some areas of human knowledge, it does not mean that the Scriptures are untrustworthy in those areas. 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God' (2 Tim 3:16) and our understanding of inspiration should always uphold this wholistic, all-encompassing scope."^[11]

If we look through the various statements of Fundamental Beliefs produced by Seventh-day Adventists over the years, we will notice that the Scriptures have been qualified in those statements as the only "infallible" (1872, 1889, and 1897),^[12] "inerrant" (1897)^[13] and "unerring" (1931)^[14] "rule of faith and practice," and, more recently (1980), as "the trustworthy record of God's acts in history."^[15]

Without subscribing to Calvinistic inerancy, I think that we have enough reasons to believe that the Bible is both infallible in its salvific purpose and trustworthy in its whole thematic interrelationship. According to T H Jemison, in the Scriptures "there is unity in its theme--Jesus Christ, His cross and His crown. There is complete harmony of teaching--the doctrines of the Old Testament and those of the New are the same. There is unity of development--a steady progression from the creation to the Fall and on to the redemption and the final restoration. There is unity in the co-ordination of the prophecies."^[16]

The underlying unity of the Word of God was brought about by the direct role of the Holy Spirit in the production of the Scriptures. Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16 (RSV) that "all scripture is inspired by God." Peter adds in 2 Peter 1:20, 21 (NKJV) that "no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

Since it was the Holy Spirit who generated the unity of the Word of God, only He an enlighten our minds so that we might perceive the wonderful unity that lays beneath the surface of the Bible. Christ promised His disciples that the Holy Spirit would come to guide them "into all the truth" (John 16:13, RSV). Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 2:13 (NKJV) that "the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual." Ellen White adds that "God can teach you more in one moment by His Holy Spirit than you could learn from the great men of the earth" (TM 119).

Ellen White touches the core of the problem of agreement versus disagreement within the Scriptures in the following two statements:

"There are many things apparently difficult or obscure, which God will make plain and simple to those who thus seek an understanding of them. But without the guidance of the Holy Spirit we shall be continually liable to wrest the Scriptures or to misinterpret them. There is much reading of the Bible that is without profit and in many cases a positive injury. When the word of God is opened without reverence and without prayer; when the thoughts and affections are not fixed upon God, or in harmony with His will, the mind is clouded with doubts; and in the very study of the Bible, skepticism strengthens. The enemy takes control of the thoughts, and he suggests interpretations that are not correct. Whenever men are not in word and deed seeking to be in harmony with God, then, however learned they may be, they are liable to err in their understanding of Scripture, and it is not safe to trust to their explanations. Those who look to the Scriptures to find discrepancies, have not spiritual insight. With distorted vision they will see many causes for doubt and unbelief in things that are really plain and simple."--SC 110, 111

"There is not always perfect order or apparent unity in the Scriptures. The miracles of Christ are not given in exact order, but are given just as the circumstances occurred, which called for this divine revealing of the power of Christ. The truths of the Bible are as pearls hidden. They must be searched, dug out by painstaking effort. Those who take only a surface view of the Scriptures will, with their superficial knowledge, which they think is very deep, talk of the contradictions of the Bible, and question the authority of the Scriptures. But those whose hearts are in harmony with truth and duty will search the Scriptures with a heart prepared to receive divine impressions. The illuminated soul sees a spiritual unity, one great golden thread running through the whole, but it requires patience, thought, and prayer to trace out the precious golden thread."--1SM 20

Today, unfortunately, "the notion is widely prevalent that biblical revelation exhibits no unity."^[17] The strong waves of the historical criticism of the Enlightenment and of the reader-oriented criticism of post-modernism are trying to undermine the sola Scripture principle. Many Christians today have lost their confidence in the Bible, and are rereading it from the perspective of their own human traditions (traditionalists), or human reason (rationalists), or personal experience (existentialists), or even modern culture (culturalists). Tired of the dryness of such human ideologies, many people are looking for a safer ground where to anchor their faith.

God has raised the Seventh-day Adventist Church, within the challenges of these "last days" (1 Tim 3:1) to restore the unity and the normative authority of His Word (see GC 593-602). The mission of this Church is well described in the prophetic statement that in the last days God would "have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms" (GC 595).

There is no doubt that God has intrusted us with the mission of showing to the world (1) that there is agreement within the Scriptures; (2) that there are honest solutions to those major problem areas in which that agreement is not always evident; (3) that the miracle of inspiration safeguarded the underlying unity of the Word of God; and (4) that the Holy Spirit who generated that unity can also enlighten our minds to recognize it.

This end-time restoration task is the very core of our Adventist identity and the platform upon which our doctrinal system of "present truth" was built. There is no way of replacing our prophetic hermeneutical foundation without disintegrating our system of beliefs. Therefore, our understanding of the Scriptures cannot be subserviently exposed to the drying winds of human theories (Eph 4:14), but it has to be grounded on and protected by the unmovable Word of God. According to the prophet Isaiah, "The grass withers, the flower faces; but the word of our God will stand for ever" (Isa 40:8, RSV).

^[1]Gerhard Maier, Biblical Hermeneutics (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994), 188.

^[2]William Miller, Apology and Defense (Boston: Joshua V Himes, 1845), 6.

^[3]William Miller, Evidence from Scripture and History of the Second Coming of Christ, about the Year 1843 (Troy, NY: Kemble & Hooper, 1836) 5.

^[4]Miller, Apology and Defense, 5, 6.

^[5]See P Gerhard Damsteegt, Foundations of the Seventh-day Adventist Message and Mission (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B Eerdmans, 1977); Alberto R Timm, "The Sanctuary and the Three Angels' Messages, 1844-1863: Integrating Factors in the Development of the Seventh-day Adventist Doctrines" (PhD dissertation, Andrews University, 1995).

^[6]See G Ernest Wright, The Old Testament Against Its Environment, Studies in Biblical Theology, [No 2] (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co, 1950); Floyd V Filson, The New Testament Against Its Environment, Studies in Biblical Theology, No 3 (London: SCM Press, 1950).

^[9]Ekkehardt Mueller, "The Revelation, Inspiration, and Authority of Scripture," Ministry, April 2000, 22-23.

^[10]Robert K McIver, The Four Faces of Jesus: Four Gospel Writers, Four Unique Perspectives, Four Personal Encounters, One Complete Picture (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2000), 220; see also 183-221.

^[11]Alberto R Timm, "Understanding Inspiration: The Symphonic and Wholistic Nature of Scripture," Ministry, August 1999, 14.

^[12]A Declaration of Fundamental Principles Taught and Practiced by the Seventh-day Adventist (Battle Creek, MI: Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1872), 5; "Fundamental Principles of Seventh-day Adventists," in Seventh-day Adventist Year Book of Statistics for 1889 (Battle Creek, MI: Review & Herald, 1889), 148; "Fundamental Principles of Seventh-day Adventists," Words of Truth Series (Battle Creek, MI: Review & Herald), No 5 - Extra, July 1897, 3-4.

^[13]Fundamental Principles of Seventh-day Adventists," Words of Truth Series, 3-4.

^[14]"Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists," in 1931 Year Book of the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination, (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1931), 377.

^[15]"Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists - Church Manual Revision," Adventist Review, May 1, 1980, 23.

^[16]T H Jemison, Christian Beliefs: Fundamental Biblical Teachings for Seventh-day Adventist College Classes (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1959), 17.