Furthermore, the envelope was not personally addressed; it simply reads: “Attn: Pastor.” Apparently, the sender does not know very much about churches of Christ. There is no personal note or letter included; it presumably was sent at random to several churches. The only reason for replying is that a return address was included.
It may be that members of the body of Christ will periodically come in contact with erroneous information such as is contained in the nine, afore-mentioned pages. Therefore, the errors need to be refuted.]
Below are the quotes of brother Moore, which declare Biblical truths.
The Old Testament is called “old” because it is the law that is no longer in force. According to the Bible, that law was given to Israel. It was temporary law that prepared the way, and had the foundation for the New Covenant given by Christ.
But does this mean that we are under the Ten Commandments as contained in the book of Exodus? Strictly speaking, no, we are not. The Ten Commandments were a part of the Old Law, and that Law was abolished by Jesus. . . Ten Commandments – along with the Levitical system of blood sacrifices, tabernacle worship, burning of incense, and special feast days – were temporary in nature. . . The Old Covenant has been abolished.” — John Moore (1).
The first line of the document in question, appearing even before the previous quotation, says: “The following is a righteous assessment” of John Moore’s book. How nice for the author of these pages to provide such an “objective” view of his own analysis! The reader will not have to wonder how well he did in offering a Biblical case for his beliefs; he has already informed us that it is “righteous.” Truly, as the Scriptures teach, “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Pr. 16:18). His position is full of error; and we invite the reader to see if we have proven our case or not.
Brother Moore’s critic errs in his very first argument and then wanders all over the place, trying to string together unconnected verses to prove his case—much the way premillennialists do. He writes:
In the ministry of our Savior on earth, He never taught His disciples any other Law, than that given in the Old Testament.
Really? Perhaps the writer of such “wisdom” can explain where the Old Testament teaches that one must forgive his brother who transgresses against him seventy times seven (Matt. 18:22). Where does Moses teach that a man may only divorce his wife for fornication and marry another (Matt. 19:9)? What in the Law says, “Love your enemies” (Matt. 5:44)? Where is “the Golden Rule” (Matt. 7:12) to be found in the Old Covenant? What Old Testament Scripture says, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16)?
Perhaps the critic has overlooked the first verse of the gospel according to Mark: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (1:1). Notice that the verse does not read: “The continuation of the law of Moses in which Jesus will teach His disciples ‘no other law, than that given in the Old Testament.’” It is amazing that anyone with any basic Bible knowledge could make such an incredible statement.
Jesus even contrasted His teaching with that in the Ten Commandments—twice.
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder.’ … But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be in danger of the judgment…” (Matt. 5:21-22).
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:27-28).
Both of the things that they had heard were from the Ten Commandments. Jesus pits His teaching against what Moses taught. It is not the same teaching. The Lord’s is different. It was not lawful to commit the act of adultery, according to the Ten Commandments. Jesus says that a person commits sin when he lusts in his heart. Hatred of someone, under the gospel system, is sinful. Where did the Law say that being angry without a cause put one in danger of the judgment? The Gospel is different from the Law. To say that these are the same is to ignore the meaning of words—not to mention the messages of Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews.
What Jesus Taught about the Law
Seventh-Day Adventists always trot out two passages to try to substantiate their views. The first of these revolves around Matthew 5:17-19, which the writer of this paper (henceforth referred to as Shernel) waited all the way until page 4 to mention (such restraint!). Jesus taught, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.” He contrasted destroying with fulfilling, but these folks always miss that comparison, so focused are they on the not destroying part. The next verse says that not even the tiniest, seemingly most insignificant part of the Law will not pass away TILL all be fulfilled. Somehow they miss the word till, also.
When Jesus died on the cross, He said, “It is finished,” signifying that He had fulfilled all that had been written of Him. But in case anyone missed the import of those words, He explained to the two disciples He met on the road to Emmaeus: “These are the words that I spoke to you while I was with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me” (Luke 24:44).
Since He had fulfilled all things, the Law was nailed to the cross with Jesus and taken out of the way (Col. 2:14). Now that the Law was completely fulfilled by the Lord, it was done away with so that mankind could be under the Gospel, which Jesus had been teaching for three years. Just because the new system was being taught in advance, however, did not mean that the Law was no longer in effect; it had to be obeyed until such time as it was no longer valid. Since Jesus was about to contrast His teachings (on hatred and mental adultery) with the Law, He first explained that the Law had not been destroyed yet; it was still in force. Notice that Matthew 5:17-19 (which upholds obedience to the Law) immediately precedes the new teachings concerning hatred and lust (5:21-28).
The second passage (1) usually mentioned to try to circumvent the replacement of the Law with the Gospel is Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:17. In verse 16, a man asked what good thing he should do to have eternal life. Jesus answered that, if he wanted to enter into life, “keep the commandments.” What would anyone expect that Jesus should say, since they were still living under the Mosaic Law—and would until His death?
However, consider the question posed to Him by a lawyer not too long afterward. He asked what the greatest commandment was. The answer came not from Exodus 20 but from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 and involved loving God and one’s neighbor. These two were greater than the ten because they encompass them. Paul makes this point in Romans 13:8-10. For the rest of us, this conversation poses no problem; however, it serves as an embarrassment for those who overly venerate the Ten Commandments.
They Never Taught a “New Will”
According to the writer, Jesus’ disciples “never taught a ‘New Will,’ another way, a New Commandment, only ‘the way the truth and the life.’ John 14:6” (1, the lack of punctuation is Shernel’s). The first problem the reader might see is the misapplication of John 14:6. This verse records Jesus saying, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” In other words, this Scripture does not say anything about what the disciples taught; Jesus is speaking to them about Himself! Thus, it does not apply to the point Shernel made, and he is without proof of his assertion.
A check of a concordance, however, will show that he is also wrong on other counts. He had asserted that Jesus only taught the Law, yet Jesus Himself says, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another” (John 13:34). This “new commandment” was not part of the law of Moses. John also wrote: “Again, a new commandment I write to you…” (1 John 2:7-8). Whoops! Well, who are we to believe—Shernel, or the inspired apostle? But beyond the direct statement of a new commandment, anyone familiar with the New Testament knows it is not the same as the Old.
Where in the Old Testament are instructions regarding the observance of the Lord’s death (Matt; 26:26-30; 1 Cor. 11:23-29)? Where are all the passages of eschatology, the fact of Jesus’ second coming (1 Cor. 15; 1 Thess. 4:13-18), and the end of the world (2 Peter 3)? Which book describes the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23)? Where is the message of salvation explained and taught in the Old Testament? The Law of Moses is not the same as the Gospel of Christ.
The entire purpose of the book of Hebrews is to show that Jesus and the Gospel are far superior to anything previously given, including the law of Moses. The reason the book was written was that some brethren were being called back into Judaism from Christianity, and to leave the New Covenant for the Old was “to draw back into perdition” (Heb. 10:39). Those who did so were crucifying the Son of God all over again and putting Him to an open shame (Heb. 6:6). Hardly anything could be clearer, however, than Hebrews 8:6-7.
But now has He obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for the second.
Some of these verses are acknowledged on page 3. If Shernel admits the validity of these verses, he loses his argument; if he denies them, he is in the unenviable position of trying to make the Word contradict itself. The fact is that there is a new covenant, and it contains new teaching.
Another important point on this topic is that Jesus had not revealed all of the gospel, the faith, the truth, the new system by the time of His death. He told His apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them “into all truth” (John 17:13). Both Peter and Jude claimed that Jesus kept His Word. Peter said that God had given them “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3); Jude exhorted brethren “to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (3). The very fact that all truth was revealed to them shows that it had not been delivered in the Law of Moses previously. Since all things that Jesus taught were going to be brought to their remembrance (John 14:26), He was, therefore, providing new teaching. The Savior never promised that the apostles would be reminded of everything taught in the Law.
God Doesn’t Change
As with all false teachers, Shernel misinterprets and misapplies the Scriptures. The reason that such people do so is that they are arguing a position and use (actually, misuse) Bible verses to try to prove their point—instead of studying Scriptures in their context to see what they teach. In the same paragraph in which all of these other points appear is this one, also: “The Ten Commandments…are the foundation of our Heavenly Fathers throne, unchangeable, because He is unchangeable. ‘With whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.’ James 1:17)” (1, missing apostrophe in Father’s is Shernel’s error).
First, where are the Scriptures that teach that the Ten Commandments are the basis of the Heavenly Father’s throne? No Scripture is cited to prove this allegation—and for a good reason: no passage of God’s Word so teaches. Does the way this statement is worded not imply that Deity is subservient to the Law? God’s attributes far transcend the Ten Commandments. His moral laws are based on His holiness; they are not the foundation for His throne. One could just as easily say that the two greatest commandments (found in Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18) are the foundation of His throne (Matt. 22:34-40), but the point is that the Bible makes neither this statement nor the one made by Shernel. He must think no one will be able to distinguish between Bible truths and his own personal opinions.
Second, the Ten Commandments (this “foundation of the heavenly Father’s throne”) are allegedly unchangeable because God is unchangeable. These two statements are not properly connected. Whereas the Bible says that God is unchangeable (Mal. 3:6; James 1:17), no passage says that the Ten Commandments are unchangeable. The one concerning the Sabbath day was part of the Law of Moses. It was not observed in the Patriarchal Age, nor is it commanded in the Christian era. (More will be discussed on this point later.)
The Seventh-Day Adventists make the same mistake with the Father that the Pentecostals do with Jesus: they are fond of quoting, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8). Therefore spiritual gifts are in operation today. Putting it the way the Adventists do, they would say: “The use of miracles and spiritual gifts in the church is unchangeable because Jesus is unchangeable.” The character of Jesus refers to His essence; the miraculous gifts were a technique to accomplish certain goals (Eph. 4:11-16). God is eternal and does not change, yet He has given different laws and commandments to different men at different times. Anyone who does not believe that fact should invite us all over to view the ark he is building. People are confusing who God is with methods that He uses and covenants that He makes.
Shernel has an explanation for the contrasts of the Old and New Testaments, which, though interesting, are erroneous. These will be examined in part two of this series, along with the remainder of the errors found in the same paragraph analyzed in this article. Is it not amazing how much falsehood can be crammed into one paragraph?
All Christians should be able to observe the way false teachers operate. They join together two statements, even in one sentence: the true one lends credibility to the erroneous part. For that reason Bible students must read carefully what everyone writes and not be impressed by the use of Scriptures—unless they are pertinent and properly applied to the argument being made.