Leviticus: Arcane Rules or Important Truths for Today?

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

I don't have a problem with personal convictions. I do question those same convictions when they are translated to be requisite and salvational.

>>Where do you think that I've done this in a way unsupported by the Bible?<<

My statement addressed more the pronouncements of .orgs passed off as dogmas and doctrines – rather than your “personal convictions”.

[John317]

JOHN317: >>The whole point of this thread is that God had a good purpose in having Moses write the book of Levitcus just as he did in having Moses write the other books of the Torah and that we do well to read and study it in order understand and apply the lessons in those books that God has for us.

Quote:

JASD: I agree with the premise on generalities ? but, on particulars..., it?s hardly feasible, is it? I mean,

take for instance my post on ?moontimes? and cheese: she whom you avow prophet is quite specific regards the consumption of cheese, yes? (did I manage to work that in, or what?

I don't think the fact that somone believes Ellen White is a true prophet of God is any reason for them not to study the book of Leviticus. What Ellen White said in the the late 1800s and early 20th century about the eating of cheese seems to me to be totally unrelated to David's family's use of cheese in 1000 BC.

>>It looks to me, however, that you are saying there's nothing in Leviticus, particularly, in the eleventh chapter, to make it worth studying.

OK. As we make application, I invite you to give voice to those issues you take with any application that anyone makes. Feel free to show how they are wrong or perhaps make what you consider the correct application of the book of Levitcus.

>>You've quoted Leviticus 21: 17-19. What do those verses say about God? What do they say about worship? I'd like to see your viewpoint.

Quote:

My viewpoint is that there is the canon of OT literature and there is the NT. Sometimes,

there is an expressed divergence ? one from the other: sorta like, obsolete?.

Perhaps you are right that Leviticus is obsolete, but we really won't know that until we have looked closely and tried to find what that book has for us today. Since it is God's Word and was inspired by Him in order for people for read and understand it, and since Jesus said we would not believe in Him unless we first believe the books of Moses, it seems to me we can be fairly confident that God will bless our study of it.

Adventists are not the only ones who study Leviticus. There are hundreds, even thousands of books, written about Leviticus by Christians of many different denominations and viewpoints. They all recognize that by studying it we can learn important lessons concerning Jesus Christ and the way of salvation. See Luke 24: 44,46; Hebrews 6: 19; Lev. 16: 2; Hebrew 7: 27; Lev. 9: 7; 16: 6; Hebrew 8: 5,6; 9: 23, 24; Rev. 1: 13; 11: 19.

[John317]

Quote:

Quote:

...Anyway, there seems to be a bit of hustle and shuffle regards Leviticus and an implied obligation incumbent upon the Xtian of today.

You mean among all denominations and in all Christian groups?

I have also noticed quite a number of books written by Christians on Leviticus, but I didn't realize there was an "implied obligation." Much of the imagery and references to Levitucus found in books such as Ezekiel, Daniel, Matthew, Luke, John, Hebrews, and Revelation, cannot be fully appreciated without an understanding of Leviticus and other books of Moses. Any "obligation" to study Leviticus must come from one's own thirst to understand God's Word.

[jasd]

>>I don't think the fact that somone believes Ellen White is a true prophet of God is any reason for them not to study the book of Leviticus. What Ellen White said in the the late 1800s and early 20th century about the eating of cheese seems to me to be totally unrelated to David's family's use of cheese in 1000 BC.<<

I agree with you in part; however, I’ve take the direction above because I’ve followed the original Leviticus thread a bit and saw that, ultimately, it was taking an applicative turn rather than one simply of “study”. The applicative is represented somewhat by the following quotes:

“Cheese should never be introduced into the stomach.”

Testimonies, Vol. II, 68,

“Eggs should not be placed upon your table.”

Testimonies, Vol. II, 400.

I believe it was you who were advancing a “health message” seemingly contained in Leviticus.

>>OK. As we make application, I invite you to give voice to those issues you take with any application that anyone makes. Feel free to show how they are wrong or perhaps make what you consider the correct application of the book of Levitcus.<<

Far be it for me (or anyone else) to assert ‘correctness’ vis-à-vis law/Leviticus; however, another put it thusly:

Jn 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Should the above text be construed to mean that truth comes not by the law but by Jesus Christ? or might the question still be the same were we to substitute ‘legalism’ instead of law? or, inversely, those ‘having’ law or legalism haven’t truth?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:John317

>>You've quoted Leviticus 21: 17-19. What do those verses say about God? What do they say about worship? I'd like to see your viewpoint.<<

Quote:jasd

My viewpoint is that there is the canon of OT literature and there is the NT. Sometimes,

there is an expressed divergence ? one from the other: sorta like, obsolete?

>>Perhaps you are right that Leviticus is obsolete, but we really won't know that until we have looked closely and tried to find what that book has for us today.<<

Should that be the case, let me ask, “Do you support the blemished serving Gd from the pulpit?” Either the law/Leviticus obtains or it does not. It is not expositive to advocate only the portions we find agreeable with [our] established dogmas and doctrines: that is religiosity -- an improper offering to be laid upon the ‘altar’ to Gd imho.

>>Since it is God's Word and was inspired by Him in order for people for read and understand it, and since Jesus said we would not believe in Him unless we first believe the books of Moses, it seems to me we can be fairly confident that God will bless our study of it.<<

Yes, one receives a blessing from the “study” of the books of Moses. It is, again, how one applies those things gleaned (or understood) from the study of the books of Moses, that I take issue. It is relegating the Xtian to the position of servant rather than son or daughter of Gd.

>>Adventists are not the only ones who study Leviticus. There are hundreds, even thousands of books, written about Leviticus by Christians of many different denominations and viewpoints. They all recognize that by studying it we can learn important lessons concerning Jesus Christ and the way of salvation.<<

I agree that there may be “important lessons concerning Jesus Christ ... “. That said, per the number of books written about Leviticus – some writers endeavour to make merchandi$e of the body of Jesus Christ.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

...Anyway, there seems to be a bit of hustle and shuffle regards Leviticus and an implied obligation incumbent upon the Xtian of today.

>>You mean among all denominations and in all Christian groups?<<

No, many .orgs utilize only the NT.

>>I have also noticed quite a number of books written by Christians on Leviticus, but I didn't realize there was an "implied obligation."<<

I’ve forwarded -- not that there were in the book of Leviticus obligations implied or stated -- but that there was the manufacture of ‘shibboleths’ attaching to the Xtian of today that were meant to be, by and large, applicable only to those under the specifics of the then existing Covenant: that Covenant being conditional. The other Covenants obtaining for the Xtian of today are unconditional per se – those being of the fathers and mothers of the OT and of Jesus Christ.

>>Much of the imagery and references to Levitucus found in books such as Ezekiel, Daniel, Matthew, Luke, John, Hebrews, and Revelation, cannot be fully appreciated without an understanding of Leviticus and other books of Moses. Any "obligation" to study Leviticus must come from one's own thirst to understand God's Word.<<

Again, I have nothing against study. It is with shibboleths having a portion of their origins in Leviticus that I have aught against – cheese/unhealthy, for instance.

[John317]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

...Anyway, there seems to be a bit of hustle and shuffle regards Leviticus and an implied obligation incumbent upon the Xtian of today.

>>You mean among all denominations and in all Christian groups?

Yes, true, but the vast majority use the whole Bible.

Do you favor only using the NT?

Remember that for the New Testament believers of Paul's and Peter's day, the main Scriptures were what we call the Old Testament. And Jesus said that people live not by bread but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. At the end of Luke, Jesus also said that if we didn't believe what Moses and the prophets wrote, we wouldn't believe in Him.

There's also the fact that there are important references to Leviticus in the New Testament, especially in the book of Hebrews as well as in Revelation. In fact, it seems to me one can't really understand or appreciate Hebrews and Revelation (or Daniel) without understanding Leviticus.

I hope you stay with the thread on Leviticus and keep giving your opinion as the discussion and analysis continues.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:jasd

...Anyway, there seems to be a bit of hustle and shuffle regards Leviticus and an implied obligation incumbent upon the Xtian of today.

Quote:John317

>>You mean among all denominations and in all Christian groups?<<

Quote:jasd

No, many .orgs utilize only the NT.

>>Yes, true, but the vast majority use the whole Bible.<<

Yes, true, but the question pertained to “implied obligation” found in Leviticus. Many .orgs do not even read Leviticus – let alone derive ritual obligations from it.

>>Do you favor only using the NT?<<

No. I use the OT, the Apocrypha, the NT, and bunches of other books, Bible translations, commentaries, etc, which are part of my library: including The SDA Bible Commentary and some few of EGW’s books.

I also “favor” Google

>>Remember that for the New Testament believers of Paul's and Peter's day, the main Scriptures were what we call the Old Testament.<<

Let’s remember, as well, that a large part of their ‘writings’ was the incipient Babylonian Talmud -- traditions. I think we’d refer to them as ‘extra writings’.

>>And Jesus said that people live not by bread but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. At the end of Luke, Jesus also said that if we didn't believe what Moses and the prophets wrote, we wouldn't believe in Him.<<

True; however, that “bread” was not so much to lay obsolete or arcane burdens upon the disciples and followers of Jesus Christ but rather -- to impart an increase in knowledge.

>>There's also the fact that there are important references to Leviticus in the New Testament, especially in the book of Hebrews as well as in Revelation.<<

Okay, removing from proscriptive health practices...: Leviticus reminds us of three Sabbaths remaining to yet be fulfilled – how so?

>>In fact, it seems to me one can't really understand or appreciate Hebrews and Revelation (or Daniel) without understanding Leviticus.<<

Please, expand upon that “appreciation”.

>>I hope you stay with the thread on Leviticus and keep giving your opinion as the discussion and analysis continues.<<

This was a small excursion as I’ve yet to invest a bit of time responding on the Salvation, Redemption, Restoration??? – thread. That said,

as time permits..., I’ll be addressing points that interest me.

[John317]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:John317

>>You mean among all denominations and in all Christian groups?

Quote:jasd

No, many .orgs utilize only the NT.

>>Yes, true, but the vast majority use the whole Bible.

Quote:

Yes, true, but the question pertained to ?implied obligation? found in Leviticus. Many .orgs do not even read Leviticus ? let alone derive ritual obligations from it.

1) Would you agree that much of Leviticus applies to Christians and that we are obliged as Christians to obey many of the instructions contained in that sacred book? For instance, almost the whole of Leviticus 18, and much of Lev. 19, 20, and 21, are moral laws that have permenant application in all ages. That fact that these are not laws uniquely applied to Israel is shown by Lev. 20: 23, which says that the reason God permitted the nations around Israel to be destroyed was that they also "committed all these [sinful] things" (cf. 18:22).

2) Would you agree that the sacrifices and offerings depicted in Leviticus symbolized, or pointed forward to, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ? If that is true, then it seems obvious that we can learn lessons about the sacrifice of Christ by studying Leviticus. For instance, compare Leviticus 17: 11 and Hebrews 9: 22, as well as Leviticus 16; Hebrews 7: 27 and Rev. 8: 5, etc.

3) It may be true that other groups pay no attention at all to Leviticus, but that can't be the measuring stick of how to properly or rightly relate to this book. Most other groups also pay no attention to the weekly Sabbath, which is also an important part of the book of Leviticus.Therefore, it goes without saying that truth can't be determined by taking a poll or by counting how many groups or people are doing something.

It goes without saying also that Adventists have some unique views of books such as Leviticus and Daniel, and this uniqueness is worth exploring, in order, first of all, to see if the evidence supports the validity to those unique views, and, secondly, to take a fresh view of the nature of Leviticus 11. This thread was created for the specific purpose of exploring the context of Leviticus 11 and understanding the relationship, if any, between that chapter and the "unclean" animals referred to in Genesis as well as in Acts 10. Another verse in the NT that needs examination in this context is Mark 7: 19, the last part of which the NIV translates, "In saying this, Jesus declared all food 'clean." What does this verse actually say and does it have any relationship to Acts 15 and Leviticus 11.

>>Do you favor only using the NT?

Quote:

No. I use the OT, the Apocrypha, the NT, and bunches of other books, Bible translations, commentaries, etc, which are part of my library: including The SDA Bible Commentary and some few of EGW?s books.

I also ?favor? Google

OK, sometime if you like we could also discuss the Apocrypha, which I also enjoy reading. By the way, in the early days of Adventism, James White quoted from a few of the books in the Apocrypha, showing that they were also familiar with at least some of those books. We can look at whether they are to be considered as authoritative as the Hebrew canon, and if not, why not.

>>Remember that for the New Testament believers of Paul's and Peter's day, the main Scriptures were what we call the Old Testament.

Quote:

Let?s remember, as well, that a large part of their ?writings? was the incipient Babylonian Talmud -- traditions. I think we?d refer to them as ?extra writings?.

There were some among the early Christians who evidently read the fictional stories of the early life of Jesus also. We can look at these issues as well.

>>And Jesus said that people live not by bread but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. At the end of Luke, Jesus also said that if we didn't believe what Moses and the prophets wrote, we wouldn't believe in Him.

Quote:

True; however, that ?bread? was not so much to lay obsolete or arcane burdens upon the disciples and followers of Jesus Christ but rather -- to impart an increase in knowledge.

I'd be interested to know how you understand and apply verses such as 2 Timothy 3: 15-17; 2 Peter 1: 21; 1 Peter 1: 22-25; John 17: 17; and Luke 24: 25-27, 44,45. Since we're talking about Leviticus on this thread, do you see those verses as applying in any way to that book?

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Yes, true, but the question pertained to ‘implied obligation’ found in Leviticus. Many .orgs do not even read Leviticus -- let alone derive ritual obligations from it.

>>1) Would you agree that much of Leviticus applies to Christians and that we are obliged as Christians to obey many of the instructions contained in that sacred book? For instance, almost the whole of Leviticus 18,<<

Yes. Pagans also. They call it taboo -- we call it Leviticus. (Why is it called Leviticus?) That said,

how do you approach...

Leviticus 18:28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that [were] before you.

Have the COI (Jews included) been spued out of the land? if so, was that spuing permanent or temporary?

>>...we are obliged as Christians to obey many of the instructions contained in that sacred book?<<

Yes, but as Xtians; that is, “instructions”, as found inscribed upon their hearts – not within a book, inclusively, declared obsolete.

>>...and much of Lev. 19, 20, and 21, are moral laws that have permenant application in all ages.<<

I’ll not disagree. There have always been the universal or the cross-cultural application of certain mores – much of which is thought ethically or morally obtaining.

What may be of note is that contained in Leviticus is one of several ‘proof texts’ utilized to connote a continuing tribal idiom regards the crucifixion event (verses 6 and 7, chapter 19).

>>2) Would you agree that the sacrifices and offerings depicted in Leviticus symbolized, or pointed forward to, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ?<<

In part, yes.

>>If that is true, then it seems obvious that we can learn lessons about the sacrifice of Christ by studying Leviticus.<<

I’ve already noted that I’ve naught against study.

>>For instance, compare Leviticus 17: 11 and Hebrews 9: 22, as well as Leviticus 16; Hebrews 7: 27 and Rev. 8: 5, etc.<<

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Where is the harmony between the first clause’s use of “almost” and the second’s “remission”? Does it state that there is that which is purged without blood? if so, is there other than remission? or does text speak of such things as “the unpardonable sin”? And speaking of Hebrews...,

KJV Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.

YLT Heb 8:13 in the saying 'new,' He hath made the first old, and what doth become obsolete and is old is nigh disappearing.

Is there a portion of a covenant/contract that is obsolete yet has binding or legal authority? In declaring the old covenant/contract obsolete..., would there still be that which is not obsolete – but for which one might expect exception made? that is, not done away? I proffer that

though there remains remnants of the obsolete covenant/contract, such as the fulfillment of the three remaining Sabbaths (Trumpets, Atonement, Tabernacles) – there remains nothing binding -- but must be reiterated in a New Covenant to continue effective.

Are not the terms ‘under the law’ and ‘under grace’, on the face of it, mutually exclusive?

(Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.)

Lev 16:13 And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the LORD, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that [is] upon the testimony, that he die not:

Rev 8:5 And the angel took the censer, and filled it with fire of the altar, and cast [it] into the earth: and there were voices, and thunderings, and lightnings, and an earthquake.

What is it about the two preceding verses that I should note?

>>3) ... Most other groups also pay no attention to the weekly Sabbath, which is also an important part of the book of Leviticus.<<

I’ve noticed that rather than “paying no attention to the weekly Sabbath” – they honor Gd by ‘paying attention to the weekly Lord’s Day’. Again,

the old covenant/contract is obsolete: though instructional, obsolete, that is, lacking authority.

>>Therefore, it goes without saying that truth can't be determined by taking a poll or by counting how many groups or people are doing something.<<

No one is advancing statistical theology.

>>...secondly, to take a fresh view of the nature of Leviticus 11. This thread was created for the specific purpose of exploring the context of Leviticus 11 and understanding the relationship, if any, between that chapter and the "unclean" animals referred to in Genesis as well as in Acts 10.<<

A coupla things: first; ah, “a fresh view” – my raison d’etre. Second, relationship per Leviticus 11? mebbe about as much as Leviticus 13 may have? that is, more ceremonial than not?

Genesis? why might Noah have been told to take of every clean beast and fowl by sevens (do you have a problem with Genesis 7:2 ... by sevens, the male and his female:?) – when shortly thereafter he was told

Genesis 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you;

Those ‘clean’ beasts and fowl may have been intended to serve as burnt offerings..., no more than that.

Third, the subject of Acts 10 is St Peter, Jew, before he began to sit to meat with gentiles.

>>Another verse in the NT that needs examination in this context is Mark 7: 19, the last part of which the NIV translates, "In saying this, Jesus declared all food 'clean." What does this verse actually say and does it have any relationship to Acts 15 and Leviticus 11.<<

The translation of choice with the .Org, yes? What does this verse actually say? “Because it entereth not into his heart...” – the intended thrust of the passage. Some argue that it addresses the washing of hands; however, food eaten with washed hands or with unwashed hands matter not in the least – where the matter turns upon the heart of a person and not his belly.

1 Cor 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, [that] eat, asking no question for conscience sake:

What was sold in the shambles?

1 Cor 10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you [to a feast], and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

Should we attend a non-Xtian or other -- friend’s pre-fixe wedding feast?

Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean.

By whom did persuasion come?

Rom 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with [thy] meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink;

Rom 14:20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed [are] pure; but [it is] evil for that man who eateth with offence

Per Acts 15 (I believe you reference verse 20): Most peoples shy (with few exceptions) from blood and meats strangled. The blood and the meat of animals not killed quickly and in a humane manner is tainted with uric acid (from fright) rendering the meat nearly unfit for consumption if not completely so. A wise and cross-cultural practice.

[jasd]

>>OK, sometime if you like we could also discuss the Apocrypha, which I also enjoy reading. By the way, in the early days of Adventism, James White quoted from a few of the books in the Apocrypha, showing that they were also familiar with at least some of those books. We can look at whether they are to be considered as authoritative as the Hebrew canon, and if not, why not.<<

“... I saw that the Apocrypha was the hidden book, and that the wise of these last days should understand it. I saw that the Bible was the standard Book, that will judge us at the last day.” —EGW; 16 Manuscript Release Page 34

Of course one runs into the convoluted – “She really meant ‘reject’ where she uttered ‘should understand it’ ”.

Authoritative? Depends upon its use. Do we really want to heal our cataracts with the smoke of burnt gall of fish? No. However, might we be enlightened to find the disposition of the COI after the decline of the Assyrians? By all means, yes.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:John317

>>Remember that for the New Testament believers of Paul's and Peter's day, the main Scriptures were what we call the Old Testament.<<

Quote:jasd

Let’s remember, as well, that a large part of their ‘writings’ was the incipient Babylonian Talmud -- traditions. I think we’d refer to them as ‘extra writings’.

>>There were some among the early Christians who evidently read the fictional stories of the early life of Jesus also. We can look at these issues as well.<<

Not saying that all ‘extra writings’ are “fictional”

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:John317

>>And Jesus said that people live not by bread but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. At the end of Luke, Jesus also said that if we didn't believe what Moses and the prophets wrote, we wouldn't believe in Him.<<

Quote:jasd

True; however, that "bread" was not so much to lay obsolete or arcane burdens upon the disciples and followers of Jesus Christ but rather -- to impart an increase in knowledge.

>>I'd be interested to know how you understand and apply verses such as 2 Timothy 3: 15-17; 2 Peter 1: 21; 1 Peter 1: 22-25; John 17: 17; and Luke 24: 25-27, 44,45. Since we're talking about Leviticus on this thread, do you see those verses as applying in any way to that book?<<

I’m not going to address all these texts so will dwell upon only

Jn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

It is, as I’ve said, the problem is the unwarranted laying of the burdens of law upon the body of Jesus Christ where it is uncalled-for. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is one of freedom from that which is obsolete. The laying-on of excessive burdens was specifically attributed to Pharisees. Not good.

Perhaps it is that

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Tim 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

provides the proper counterpoint: nowhere is there mention of the burden of ritual obligations contained in a covenant/contract that is obsolete – incumbent upon the Xtian. That said, note:

2 Tim 3:15 ... salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Does the text speak to a faith that is our own work, which is placed in Christ Jesus -- or is it faith that is abidingly Christ Jesus’?

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN317: >>There were some among the early Christians who evidently read the fictional stories of the early life of Jesus also. We can look at these issues as well.

Quote:

Not saying that all ?extra writings? are ?fictional?

No doubt there are elements of some truth in those stories about Jesus, but by fiction I was referring to the stories about our Lord's supposed Infancy. One story tells about how Jesus is said to have given life to clay birds and another portrays baby Jesus talking like an adult.

For some in the early church, the question they had to answer was, were these stories part of God's inspired Word and were they willing to die rather than give them up to the soldiers of the Emperor. When you compare them with the rest of Scripture, do they ring true? Do they agree with the rest of the what God inspired the prophets to write? Are they self-authenticating?

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: >>I'd be interested to know how you understand and apply verses such as 2 Timothy 3: 15-17; 2 Peter 1: 21; 1 Peter 1: 22-25; John 17: 17; and Luke 24: 25-27, 44,45. Since we're talking about Leviticus on this thread, do you see those verses as applying in any way to that book?

Quote:

JASD: I?m not going to address all these texts so will dwell upon only

Jn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

It is, as I?ve said, the problem is the unwarranted laying of the burdens of law upon the body of Jesus Christ where it is uncalled-for. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is one of freedom from that which is obsolete. The laying-on of excessive burdens was specifically attributed to Pharisees. Not good.

Yes, the Pharisees made up their own rules and compelled people to obey them even when these traditions contradicted the Scriptures. The Pharisees didn't study the Bible sincerely in order to know God's will and follow it. They made up rules and gave people burdens in order to gain more power, and they thought nothing of murdering the Savior if it meant holding onto their power.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: >>OK, sometime if you like we could also discuss the Apocrypha, which I also enjoy reading. By the way, in the early days of Adventism, James White quoted from a few of the books in the Apocrypha, showing that they were also familiar with at least some of those books. We can look at whether they are to be considered as authoritative as the Hebrew canon, and if not, why not.

?

Quote:

JASD: "... I saw that the Apocrypha was the hidden book, and that the wise of these last days should understand it. I saw that the Bible was the standard Book, that will judge us at the last day.?" ?EGW; 16 Manuscript Release Page 34

Of course one runs into the convoluted ? ?She really meant ?reject? where she uttered ?should understand it? ?.

Authoritative? Depends upon its use. ...

Here is

MR No. 1148 - Ellen G. White and the Apocrypha

[A STATEMENT PREPARED BY ARTHUR L. WHITE IN 1969 AND NOW REQUESTED FOR CLASSROOM USE BY RON JOLLIFF, RELIGION TEACHER AT SOUTHWESTERN ADVENTIST COLLEGE. THE PARAGRAPH FROM MANUSCRIPT 4, 1850, HAS NOT HERETOFORE BEEN RELEASED.--R. W. OLSON.] {15MR 65.1}

WHILE ELLEN G. WHITE IS NOT KNOWN TO HAVE QUOTED FROM THE APOCRYPHA THERE IS SOME DOCUMENTATION OF THE EARLY YEARS WHICH MAY BE OF INTEREST IN CONNECTION WITH A STUDY OF HER RELATIONSHIP TO IT. JAMES WHITE, IN HIS PAMPHLET. A WORD TO THE LITTLE FLOCK, IN HIS FIRST ARTICLE ENTITLED "THE SEVEN LAST PLAGUES" INCLUDES TWO REFERENCES TO THE APOCRYPHA. {15MR 65.2}

PAGE 2: "THE SEED IS ROTTED UNDER THEIR CLODS, THE GARNERS ARE

LAID DESOLATE, THE BARNS ARE BROKEN DOWN, FOR THE CORN IS

WITHERED."--SEE JOEL 1:15-18; JER. 30:23, 24; DAN. 12:1; HAB. 3:12,

13; ZEPH. 1: 17, 18; 2ND ESDRAS 15:10-13. {15MR 65.3}

PAGE 3: "I WILL BRING THEM (THE SAINTS) WITH A MIGHTY HAND AND A

STRETCHED-OUT ARM, AND SMITE EGYPT WITH PLAGUES AS BEFORE," ETC.

--2 ESDRAS 14:11. {15MR 65.4}

AS HE FURNISHED SCRIPTURE REFERENCES TO TWO ELLEN G. WHITE VISIONS, INCORPORATED IN A WORD TO THE LITTLE FLOCK, HE ALSO INCORPORATED SOME REFERENCES TO THE APOCRYPHA. HIS EXPLANATION WHICH PRECEDES THE PUBLICATION OF THE FIRST VISION STATES: {15MR 65.5}

"THE FOLLOWING VISION WAS PUBLISHED IN THE DAY STAR,

MORE THAN A YEAR AGO. BY THE REQUEST OF FRIENDS, IT IS RE-PUBLISHED

IN THIS LITTLE WORK, WITH SCRIPTURE REFERENCES, FOR THE BENEFIT

OF THE LITTLE FLOCK."--A WORD TO THE

LITTLE FLOCK, P. 13 {15MR 65.6}

AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGES 15 AND 17 THERE ARE REFERENCES KEYED TO THE E. G. WHITE TEXT, ONE REFERENCE TO 2 ESDRAS 2; 43, (P. 15) AND THE OTHER TO 2 ESDRAS 2:19, (P. 17).

-66- {15MR 65.7}

IT IS CLEAR THAT JAMES WHITE SAW SOME SIMILARITIES BETWEEN WHAT ELLEN WHITE WROTE AND SOME THINGS HE HAD READ IN ESDRAS, AND SO USED THESE REFERENCES AS HE DID SCRIPTURE REFERENCES WHICH HE SAYS HE SUPPLIED. {15MR 66.1}

THE HIDDEN BOOK

IN A REPORT SIGNED BY THREE EARLY BELIEVERS REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE HIDDEN BOOK AS ELLEN WHITE UTTERED CERTAIN WORDS IN VISION. HERE IS THE ACCOUNT: {15MR 66.2}

"AT ANOTHER TIME AT A MEETING HELD AT BROTHER CURTIS'

IN TOPSHAM, MAINE, SHE WAS TAKEN OFF IN VISION, AND AROSE TO

HER FEET, TOOK THE LARGE FAMILY BIBLE FROM THE TABLE, AND HELD

IT ON HER HAND SOME TIME AT AN ANGLE OF FORTY-FIVE DEGREES, AND

SAID THE HIDDEN BOOK WAS NOT THERE. WHEN SOME ONE ASKED IF THE

APOCRYPHA WAS NOT IN THE BIBLE, BROTHER CURTIS REMARKED IT WAS

NOT. SHE TALKED SOMETIME ABOUT THE HIDDEN BOOK. NO ONE KNEW

BUT BRO. CURTIS FAMILY THAT THE APOCRAPHA [APOCRYPHA] WAS NOT THERE.

MRS. S. HOWLAND

REBECCA HOWLAND WINSLOW

FRANCES HOWLAND LUNT" {15MR 66.3}

IN THE REPORT OF A VISION GIVEN TO ELLEN WHITE AT OSWEGO, NEW YORK ON JANUARY 11, 1850, AND CARRYING A COPYING DATE OF JANUARY 28, 1850, ELLEN WHITE MAKES A REFERENCE TO THE HIDDEN BOOK. HER DESCRIPTION OF WHAT WAS SHOWN TO HER IN THE VISION CONTAINS MANY ITEMS AND AS ON FILE COMPRISES FOUR AND A QUARTER TYPE-WRITTEN PAGES. NEAR THE CLOSE OF HER STATEMENT WE FIND THESE WORDS: {15MR 66.4}

"All, all who keep the commandments of God, will enter in

through the gates into the city and have right to the tree of

life and ever be in the presence of that lovely Jesus whose

countenance shines brighter than the sun at noon day. I then

saw the word of God pure and unadulterated, and that we must

answer for the way we received the truth proclaimed from that

word. I saw that it had been a hammer to break the flinty

heart in pieces, and a fire to consume the dross and tin, that

the heart might be pure and holy. I saw that the Apocrypha was

the hidden book, and that the wise of these last days should

understand it. I saw that the Bible was the standard book, that

will judge us at the last day. I saw that heaven would be cheap

enough, and that nothing was too dear to sacrifice for Jesus,

and that we must give all to enter the kingdom."--Manuscript 4,

1850, (A copy of E. G. White's Vision which she had at Oswego, N.Y.)

-67-

ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE APOCRYPHA IN ARTICLES IN THE REVIEW AND HERALD. THESE ARE OF INTEREST, AND COPY OF THE MATERIALS IS ATTACHED. {15MR 66.5}

THE FULL MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE E. G. WHITE STATEMENT OF 1850 IS NOT CLEARLY SEEN. IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED THAT ELLEN WHITE MAKES NO REFERENCE TO THE APOCRYPHA AT ANY TIME IN HER WRITINGS IN THE SUBSEQUENT 65 YEARS. IF WHAT WE HAVE IS A CORRECT COPY OF WHAT SHE WROTE, AND AT TIMES THERE IS SOME UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE ACCURACY OF SOME OF THE STATEMENTS BEARING THESE EARLY DATES, AT NO TIME SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, DID SHE HAVE OCCASION TO CALL THE ATTENTION OF THE CHURCH TO THE APOCRYPHA TO URGE ITS READING OR TO EXPLAIN ITS SIGNIFICANCE. THIS BEING THE CASE, OUR COUNSEL WOULD BE TO GIVE THE MATTER A MINIMUM OF ATTENTION. SURELY THE SILENCES IN HER PUBLISHED WRITINGS ON THIS SUBJECT CARRY SIGNIFICANCE.

ARTHUR L. WHITE

Ellen G. White Estate Washington, D. C. Release Date June 6, 1985 {15MR 67.1}

[jasd]

“I saw that the Apocrypha was the hidden book, and that the wise of these last days should understand it. I saw that the Bible was the standard book, that will judge us at the last day.”

Were it that the above statement (given in vision) could not be understood to read as straightforwardly as it is written but is meant to convey a contrary sense – one wonders at the absence of a forthcoming

recant

What I’ve generally run across is, instead, second-guessing and editorializing. That being the case, one questions just how proficient the good woman’s ability to express herself may really have been. That aside,

I think the proffered statements provided in the above are pleasantly measured.

[John317]

?I saw that the Apocrypha was the hidden book, and that the wise of these last days should understand it. I saw that the Bible was the standard book, that will judge us at the last day.?

Were it that the above statement (given in vision) could not be understood to read as straightforwardly as it is written but is meant to convey a contrary sense ? one wonders at the absence of a forthcoming

recant

What I?ve generally run across is, instead, second-guessing and editorializing. That being the case, one questions just how proficient the good woman?s ability to express herself may really have been. That aside,

I think the proffered statements provided in the above are pleasantly measured.

I don't think that the "problem" with her statement here about the Apocrypha results from any inability on her part to express herself. I frankly haven't yet come to any conclusions about it. But several things have to be kept in mind when looking at this:

1) Ellen White grew in her understanding of theological and doctrinal matters just like anyone else. Remember that even prophets of God in the Bible did not always fully understand these things. For them it must have been a bit like seeing a few snapshots instead of being able to see the whole film, as we are able to do today. For instance, John the Baptist was confused about Christ's first advent. And Daniel didn't always understand the things he saw in vision. In this connection, it is best to remember that the statement about the Apocrypha was written in 1850. Since she was born in 1827, she couldn't have been more than about 23 years old at the time of the vision. And then considering the fact that she had to quit school when she was nine years old, it becomes obvious that in 1850 she could not have been considered an educated woman. In fact, at that time, her husband James helped her write out her visions. I believe in some instances, she would tell him what she saw in vision and he would write it out and Mrs. White would make some changes if necessary and then approve it.

2) She never again mentioned the Apocrypha in her writings or in her talks. As Arthur White says, this fact alone must be seen as significant.

3) I think it's also highly significant that Mrs. White makes a distinction between the Apocrypha and the Bible. The latter she says is "the standard" and "will judge us at the last day." About the Apocrypha she simply says that "the [spiritually] wise should understand it." I take all that to mean that while the Apocrypha is not the standard, we should read it and understand it. I agree with her on that point.

4) Many of the Bible's of her day still contained the Apocrypha. In fact, I have a copy of the 1611 edition of King James Version that contains the Apocrypha. It's printed between Malachi and the New Testament.

Even from early times, however, it was recognized that the Apocrypha was not of the same authority as the Hebrew Canon. There are various reasons for this. Most importantly, the Hebrews never accepted them as inspired. Second, Christ and the New Testament writers never refer to it or quote from it. Third, some of the books admit that at the time they are being written, no prophet was even in existence. That is the same as saying the the writer is not a prophet. The Catholic church notes in their introductions to them that they contain many inaccuracies and cannot be depended on. Some of the book in the Apocrypha are obviously false and fanciful, and one portrays an angel of God as lying.

Be that as it may, though, I find the books are interesting and worth reading because they help us to understand what was going on in Judea shortly before the time of Christ.

All this means that Ellen White no doubt grew in her knowledge of the problems involved in recommending the Apocrypha to her readers, which almost certainly accounts for her complete silence on those books during the rest of her life.

[jasd]

>>I don't think that the "problem" with her statement here about the Apocrypha results from any inability on her part to express herself.<<

Exactly. If she had had a “problem” with her previous statement regarding the wise understanding the Apocrypha – she, of all people, would certainly have been able to find the words with which to ‘set the record straight – providing she had misstated the fact. That she didn’t

speaks volumes of itself. That said,

it does not translate that EGW was acting as an apologist for the Apocrypha.

>>1) Ellen White grew in her understanding of theological and doctrinal matters just like anyone else. ... Since she was born in 1827, she couldn't have been more than about 23 years old at the time of the vision.<<

Yet, her vision of the upward path a half-decade earlier has since been established as a hallmark in Adventism, has it not?

>>... it becomes obvious that in 1850 she could not have been considered an educated woman.<<

But that should not have influenced a vision from Gd, should it?

>>2) She never again mentioned the Apocrypha in her writings or in her talks. As Arthur White says, this fact alone must be seen as significant.<<

Why might it be seen as significant? If a thing is properly formed – there is no need for nuancing and romancing the matter further...

>>3) I think it's also highly significant that Mrs. White makes a distinction between the Apocrypha and the Bible. The latter she says is "the standard" and "will judge us at the last day."<<

A very large number of “standard Bibles” (the 1611 KJV was perceived to be the standard) of the day contained the Apocrypha – it being, that it was finally ‘omitted’ from further inclusion in the Bibles by publishers in AD 1826/7 at the behest of the American and the London Bible Societies.

>>About the Apocrypha she simply says that "the [spiritually] wise should understand it."<<

Curiously; where is the qualifier -- “the [spiritually] ...” to be found? or is that an unwarranted emendation from an outside source?

>>...we should read it and understand it. I agree with her on that point.<<

Yes, among the many things the Apocrypha yields to the ‘wise’ perusal is the issue of the ‘forced conversions’ of the Idumean/Edomites, Itureans, Galileans... who were corporately part of the Jewish economy at the time of Jesus Christ – Herod being its most notorious member.

>>Even from early times, however, it was recognized that the Apocrypha was not of the same authority as the Hebrew Canon.<<

I don’t know that she intended it regarded on par with Writ. The most straightforward reading of her statement implies that the wise should understand it – in addition to what she called the “Bible was the standard book”.

>>...the Hebrews never accepted them as inspired.<<

It was during this intertestamental period that the Hebrew ‘canon’ was organized so as to place the Book of Daniel among the historical ‘writings’ rather than among the prophets – though you and I agree to its proper placement, yes

>>Second, Christ and the New Testament writers never refer to it or quote from it.<<

Isn’t the Pseudepigrapha Enoch Apocryphal?

>>Some of the book in the Apocrypha are obviously false and fanciful,<<

True.

>>...and one portrays an angel of God as lying.<<

1 Kings 22:22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade [him], and prevail also: go forth, and do so. v23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, ...

>>Be that as it may, though, I find the books are interesting and worth reading because they help us to understand what was going on in Judea shortly before the time of Christ.<<

They may help us to understand even that which is contemporary...

>>All this means that Ellen White no doubt grew in her knowledge of the problems involved in recommending the Apocrypha to her readers, which almost certainly accounts for her complete silence on those books during the rest of her life.<<

Given in vision, was it not? or, are utterances in vision inconsequential and of no account?

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN 3: 17: >>... it becomes obvious that in 1850 she could not have been considered an educated woman.

No, it wouldn't influence her vision from God at all. I was referring to her communication of the vision. It was the reason that James White at that time helped her in writing out the visions. We shouldn't forget that Jeremiah and other prophets also had secretaries who helped them in their writing.

A comparison of her early writing style with that of her later style shows how she matured as a writer.

>>About the Apocrypha she simply says that "the [spiritually] wise should understand it."

It's obvous when either the Bible or Ellen White are talking about "the wise," or "wisdom," they are not describing the worldly wise, i.e., the wise as the world see wisdom, but as God sees it. That wisdom is always the kind that is from God, not the kind that comes from education or from IQ.

See, for instance, the use of "wisdom" in Daniel 12: 10; Proverbs; 2 Corinthians 1: 12, 13; and 1 Corinthians 1: 17 to 2: 16. All these contrast human wisdom with spiritual wisdom. Mere human wisdom is incapable of either appreciating or understanding God's Word. 1 Cor. 2: 14.

[melvin mccarty]

Do we have any recorded instance where Ellen, after she "matured", ever went back and qualified an earlier statement? Did she ever admit to having been in error at any time?

mel

[Guest charis]

John317 said

Quote:

No, it wouldn't influence her vision from God at all. I was referring to her communication of the vision. It was the reason that James White at that time helped her in writing out the visions. We shouldn't forget that Jeremiah and other prophets also had secretaries who helped them in their writing.

A comparison of her early writing style with that of her later style shows how she matured as a writer.

How could James White *help* Ellen White write out her visions? She couldn't find the right words? How would James White know what Ellen saw? A secretary, such as Jeremiah and other prophets had, I think would be there as scribes to write down the words of the prophets....not give them suggestions on what they *meant* to say.... but I may be way wrong.

[phkrause]

I don't believe that your way off at all. But I would think that unless the Prophet was actually dictating what to write down that the secretary was writing stuff down in there own words but as close to how it was said obviously (I hope).

pkrause

[jasd]

>>It's obvous when either the Bible or Ellen White are talking about "the wise," or "wisdom," they are not describing the worldly wise,<<

Perhaps, however... there is wise and there is wise, yes?

Lu 16:8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.

[John317]

>>It's obvous when either the Bible or Ellen White are talking about "the wise," or "wisdom," they are not describing the worldly wise,

Perhaps, however... there is wise and there is wise, yes?

Lu 16:8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.

For the best understanding of "wisdom" as used by the Bible, particularly in the "wisdom" literature, and by Ellen White, look up it up in the concordance. It will be seen that Ellen White uses it the same as the Bible does, to refer to knowledge of God and of spiritual insight, as in the text, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline [instruction--NASB]."

Much of the wisdom referred to in the Wisdom literature also is knowledge that proceeds from human experience and observation. But while human effort is necessary to gain wisdom, it is recognized that true understanding is a gift of God.

Often the wisdom of the world is just the opposite of wisdom as God sees it. See 1 Cor. 1: 17-25. Christ is the wisdom of God, but this wisdom looks foolish to the worldly wise.

[John317]

John317 said

Quote:

No, it wouldn't influence her vision from God at all. I was referring to her communication of the vision. It was the reason that James White at that time helped her in writing out the visions. We shouldn't forget that Jeremiah and other prophets also had secretaries who helped them in their writing.

A comparison of her early writing style with that of her later style shows how she matured as a writer.

How could James White *help* Ellen White write out her visions? She couldn't find the right words? How would James White know what Ellen saw? ...

Good questions.

Ordinarily Ellen White would write out a vision and then James White would help in preparing it technically for publication. Her son Willie wrote about his memories of his father coming home from the Review office and listening to his mother read what she had written, and his father would then point out weaknesses in composition and faulty grammar. Mrs. White always regretted that her education had been very brief and that her knowledge of the technical rules of writing was therefore limited.

[John317]

Do we have any recorded instance where Ellen, after she "matured", ever went back and qualified an earlier statement? Did she ever admit to having been in error at any time?

mel

See 1 Selected Messages 59-76.

There are a few minor differences between the Spiritual Gift books and the final versions of the Conflict Series. Compare, for instance, SG volumes 1-2, p. 55 and DA 728-731.

One thing in this regard that needs to be kept in mind is that historical background and dates would not be included in visions and dreams but would need to be studied and researched in order to place events within their proper context. Similarly, in her health visions, the explanation as to why certain things are unhealthy would not necessarily be given. In other words, the "what" was given, not the "why."

As in the case with the Bible, so with the writings of Ellen White, the best way to study a subject is to read everything written about it.

Of course she made errors as a human being. She gave her private opinion or advise as an individual just like anyone else. On occasion this advise turned out to be incorrect, as did the prophet Nathan's. But that was different from receiving divine counsel through visions and dreams.

I don't know of any time when she gave a message that she said was the result of a vision or a dream which she later said was in error. However, there were times, as with Bible prophets, when she did not understand every detail about the vision. Sometimes visions would need to be repeated. At times she might be in the middle of a sermon when she could not remember part of a vision and God would give her the vision again, as if in a moment of time, to refresh her memory. I know of at least one vision where she was not sure if it concerned the past or the future.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

:John317

>>It's obvous when either the Bible or Ellen White are talking about "the wise," or "wisdom," they are not describing the worldly wise,<<

Quote:jasd

Perhaps, however... there is wise and there is wise, yes?

Lu 16:8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.

>>For the best understanding of "wisdom" as used by the Bible, particularly in the "wisdom" literature, and by Ellen White, look up it up in the concordance.<<

Umm, “wisdom” literature? You mean like “Eccl 3:3 A time to kill, ... a time to break down, ...?

and not a sort of ‘spiritual science’?

>>It will be seen that Ellen White uses it the same as the Bible does, to refer to knowledge of God and of spiritual insight, as in the text, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline [instruction--NASB]."<<

That may be so; however, rather, it may be that her statement regards the Apocrypha – was meant to be understood by the simple folks, you know, the masses.

>>Often the wisdom of the world is just the opposite of wisdom as God sees it. See 1 Cor. 1: 17-25. Christ is the wisdom of God, but this wisdom looks foolish to the worldly wise.<<

Seems like a roundabout way of discrediting the very utterance of a vision...

It is generally conceded that 1st and 2nd Maccabees were the most historically accurate accounts of that period in Jewish history. (there is probably no book in the Bible which is truer to the history of its period)

Recommendation (read EGW) of such resources can hardly be faulted as either worldly or unwise.

One can only assume that absent a retraction or clarification - EGW's statement concerning the Apocrypha was advanced in a straightforward manner.