Prophetic Writings (Further Thought)

There is something uncomfortable about this week's lesson that we should not rush past.
We believe the Bible is God's Word, that the Holy Spirit inspired its writers and that its message carries divine authority. Yet those writers were human beings, with different vocabularies, literary abilities, experiences, sources of information and limitations of understanding.

Paul captures this relationship in 2 Corinthians 4:7: “We have this treasure in earthen vessels.”

The treasure is divine. The vessels are human.

That sounds straightforward until we apply it to our own religious expectations.

Consider what this week's lesson has shown us. Moses was instructed to write God's words. Jeremiah employed Baruch. Paul used Tertius. Luke investigated existing accounts and carefully assembled his Gospel.
Jude drew upon material outside the biblical canon. Solomon searched out sayings and incorporated material that was not necessarily his own.

These examples challenge the assumption that inspiration always meant dictation or that the human personality disappeared during the process. God did not need to eliminate human participation to communicate divine truth.

Now consider Ellen White.
We sometimes speak of her as though acknowledging her prophetic ministry requires believing that every sentence came directly from heaven, every historical detail was beyond question and every statement represented an equally inspired pronouncement.

But that is not what she claimed.
She employed literary assistants, consulted other authors, adapted material, developed in her understanding and acknowledged that she was not infallible. She also cautioned against treating ordinary correspondence and everyday information as specially inspired messages.

Are we sometimes more protective of Ellen White's supposed perfection than she was of her own?
Her prophetic calling does not become more credible when we attribute to her claims she never made.

Acknowledging her humanity does not automatically invalidate her ministry. There is a danger in making her infallible in practice while insisting that only God is infallible in theory.

But this lesson brings another issue uncomfortably close to home: the church's interpretation of Scripture.
Our Fundamental Beliefs acknowledge that our understanding can develop and that our statements may be revised as the Holy Spirit leads us into a fuller understanding of truth.

Yet consider what sometimes happens in everyday church life.
A doctrine is taught, accepted and defended for generations. It becomes part of our identity. Pastors preach it, Sabbath School teachers explain it, and members learn to defend it.

Eventually, questioning the established interpretation can feel like questioning the Bible itself, or even resisting the Holy Spirit.

Have we inadvertently given our collective interpretations an authority we would never officially claim for them?
We readily identify errors in the interpretations of other Christian denominations. We can explain where they have misunderstood Scripture. But how comfortable are we when someone raises a serious question about one of our own established interpretations?
Do we investigate the question, or immediately defend our position?

A doctrine may be sincerely held, widely taught and supported by respected church leaders without every interpretation associated with it being beyond examination.
The Holy Spirit's guidance should make us more willing to investigate truth, not less willing. If our interpretations are sound, honest examination should strengthen them. If they need correction, our loyalty must be to truth rather than the comfort of being right.

This is not an invitation to abandon the foundations of our faith. It is an invitation to distinguish between defending Scripture and defending our understanding of Scripture.
The same principle applies to Ellen White. Do we study her writings to deepen our understanding of Scripture, or sometimes use selected statements to end discussions that Scripture itself invites us to examine?
Do we investigate difficult statements honestly, or become defensive because we fear what an honest investigation might uncover?

There is a final irony worth considering.
We believe God chose human beings as His messengers rather than sinless angels. He did not eliminate their humanity to communicate His truth. Yet we sometimes behave as though those interpreting that truth today, including ourselves, should be incapable of misunderstanding it.

Paul's picture should keep us humble. The treasure is not diminished because the vessel is earthen. But neither should we mistake the vessel for the treasure.

Perhaps the greatest danger is not acknowledging the humanity of God's messengers. It is refusing to acknowledge the limitations of our own understanding while defending what we believe.

If we believe the Holy Spirit is leading the church into truth, why should we be afraid of discovering that some things we have believed for generations need to be understood differently?

That is a question worth taking home this Sabbath.