Previously examined were the complaints against the DVD and book, Searching for Truth, by brother John Moore of Dripping Springs, Texas. It has already been shown that Jesus did teach His disciples things other than what were in the Law of Moses, contrary to the reckless assertions of the one to whom we have given the name Shernel. Last week’s analysis of his assertions was based on one paragraph (except for a related passage that he cited on page 4), yet we could not cover all of the false statements in just that one paragraph, which concludes with these words:
“My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.” Psalms 89:34 The Old Testament is quoted more than 250 times in the New Testament. There are 50 prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the Messiah. How detrimental to be ignorant of such exalted truths and prophecies. The Saviour on the road to Emaus taught His disciples starting from Moses. He never said the Old Testament was done away with. John the Baptist, Stephen, Peter, Paul, all taught from the Old Testament. Only the ordinances and sacrifices and offerings were done away with. How can the book of Revelation be understood without the key, the book of Daniel in the Old Testament (1, all misspellings and spacing variations are Shernel’s).
In logic there is a fallacy known as the “straw man” argument. In Patrick J. Hurley’s A Concise Introduction to Logic, he defines this term:
Straw man: A fallacy that occurs when the arguer misinterprets an opponent’s position for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the misinterpreted argument, and then proceeds to conclude that the original argument has been demolished (661). [The publisher is Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, 2003.]
The statement by Shernel attributes to Moore what he never said. In particular, neither he nor any of us who teach on this subject have ever made the following statements:
1. God violated His covenant.
2. The New Testament never mentions the Old.
3. There are no prophecies about Jesus in the Old Testament.
4. New Testament writers never taught from the Old Testament.
5. Daniel cannot be used in understanding the book of Revelation.
No one among us has ever made these arguments, yet Shernel acts as if these are our positions so that he can conclude: “How detrimental to be ignorant of such exalted truths and prophecies.” To attribute to us positions that we do not hold is to use the “straw man” fallacy. He said that the sacrifices, ordinances, and offerings were done away. By his own “logic” he should be indicting and attacking himself as having rendered large portions of the Old Testament worthless, thus joining the ranks of the ignorant.
God does not break His covenants with man. He made three promises to Abraham, and He kept each one of them. Some of God’s covenants, however, are conditional. Jonah preached destruction coming on Nineveh in 40 days’ time, but the promised wrath to be poured out on them was withheld because of their repentance. Similarly, if God makes a conditional covenant with an individual (or a nation), and he does not keep the conditions assigned to him, He can nullify the agreement. When He does so, He has not violated the terms of the covenant; rather, He is adhering to them. He can also fulfill what He has promised. Jesus fulfilled the promise of Genesis 3:15 and Genesis 22:18. Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant, thus enabling God to establish the New Covenant.
What Jesus Never Said
Is it true that Jesus never said to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus that the Old Testament was done away with? First of all, Luke 24:27 says that Jesus “expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.” How does Shernel know that Jesus did not explain to them at that time how that the Law had been done away and nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14)? He was talking about the fulfillment of things relating to Him both then and afterward (Luke 24:44-45). Jesus had the opportunity to explain the termination of the Law and the fulfillment of all things (Matt. 5:17-19). Not having been present, Shernel cannot affirm what Jesus did or did not say on this subject.
Only the Ordinances
We come now to the heart of the Seventh-Day Adventist claim: “Only the ordinances and sacrifices and offerings were done away with.” The main question in response to this allegation is: “What verse teaches this doctrine?” We do not know how Shernel defines the word ordinances. It is, however, a profitable study to see the way the Scriptures use the word. More than one Hebrew word is translated “ordinance,” but we will just look at the two words that have the same meaning, according to Strong: 2706 and 2708).
1. The Passover is described as one: “You shall keep it as a feast by an everlasting ordinance” (Ex. 12: 14, 17, 24).
2. Sometimes the word is used of offerings and sacrifices (Num. 18:8; 19:2) and purification (Num. 31: 21).
3. It was made an ordinance for the singers to speak of Josiah in their lamentations (2 Chron. 35:25).
4. Ezekiel mentions that there was an ordinance concerning oil (Ezek. 45:14).
5. Israel was taught not to walk in the ordinances of the Egyptians but rather in God’s ordinances (Lev. 18:3-4).
6. God refers to “the ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night” (Jer. 31:35-36).
7. Jeremiah also records the Lord speaking about “the ordinances of heaven and earth” (33:25).
8. Ezekiel mentions the ordinances of the temple (43: 11; 44:5) and the “ordinances of the altar” (43:18).
9. In Malachi 3:7, God says: “Yet from the days of your fathers you have gone away from My ordinances and have not kept them….”
We have seen that this term is used in a variety of ways in the Old Testament; sometimes it does refer to ceremonial things such as items pertaining to the temple, purification, or the Passover. But probably no one wants God to do away with the ordinances of the moon or those of heaven and earth. If God had done away with these ordinances, in all likelihood we would not be here to discuss the matter. But there is more. The Hebrew words translated “ordinances” are also rendered “statutes,” and they refer to God’s teachings. Below are a few more samples.
10. God made a covenant with Isaac because his father “obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, my statutes, and My laws” (Gen. 26:5). These obviously were unrelated to the Passover, the offerings, the temple, or anything else that pertained to the Law of Moses.
11. Israel is told: “”You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the Lord” (Lev. 18:5). The same word translated as “ordinances” in the two preceding verses (see #5) is translated “statutes” here. Shernel even cited Leviticus 18:5 at the beginning of his next paragraph. He thinks that the ordinances were done away with and that the statutes remain but does not know they are the same word in the Hebrew!
12. The book of Deuteronomy uses “statutes” 28 times, and it is obvious that these refer to things other than ceremonial laws. The first one, for example, calls for Israel to listen to the statutes and judgments which they must observe in order to live. The very first one of these is: “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2). Clearly, this is an admonition to be careful in handling the Word of God—all of it. It is wrong to change any part of God’s law—whether it pertains to the Passover or the Ten Commandments. To try to add leaven to the bread of the Passover would be just as serious an error as removing the not from: “You shall not commit adultery.”
The death blow to the “only the ordinances have been done away” argument is that even the Ten Commandments are included in the ordinances. Deuteronomy 5:1 had Moses telling Israel: “Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your hearing today, that you may learn them and be careful to observe them.” After describing the conditions at Mount Horeb, Moses then repeats the Ten Commandments (Deut. 5:6-21).
If Shernel wants to argue that only the ordinances were done away with—okay. That would include, however, the Ten Commandments (see Deut. 5:1-33), the very thing he insists was not done away.
13. To make it an even “Baker’s Dozen,” it should also be noted that “statutes” is used 22 times in Psalm 119, which is an extended praise—not of the sacrifices and offerings—but of the Word of God.
“Ordinances” in the New Testament
The Greek word that is translated “ordinances” in the New Testament is dogma, from the verb, meaning “to think.” The noun appears five times and the verb once. It is translated “decree” in three passages (Luke 2:1; Acts 16:4, 17:7). The verb form of dogma is found in Colossians 2:20, and the noun is used in Ephesians 2:15 and Col. 2:14, both of which are cited below:
Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in himself one new man from the two, thus making peace (Eph. 2:15).
Having wiped out the handwriting of requirements [ordinances] that was against us, which was contrary to us. And he has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross (Col. 2:14).
The question is: “To what do these ordinances refer?” Probably the best way to determine the answer to that question is to first read the entire context of Ephesians 2:11-22 and Colossian 2:11-15. After drawing a conclusion based on the context, then it might be safe to read Shernel’s opinion, reproduced below:
The Saviour at His death on the cross, broke down the partition wall with its unnumbered human enactments that had been placed on the law in the form of ordinances (civil, ceremonial, ecclesiastical decrees). The ordinance here specified are not the moral law of the ten commandments (4, all errors Shernel’s).
The first question to ask, in response to this statement, is, “Where does the context so define the word ordinances?” It does not. This assertion is part of Seventh-Day Adventist doctrine, but it is not taught in the New Testament. The text is talking about uniting Jews and Gentiles. Why were they divided? The first thing that is mentioned is circumcision; in fact, Paul calls the Jews by that name and the Gentiles he calls the Uncircumcision (v. 11). He adds that the Gentiles, up to the time of Christ, were strangers from the covenants of promise (not ceremonial observances) (v. 12).
What, then, was the middle wall of division between Jew and Gentile: human enactments? Such is folly. The difference between them was God’s holy Law; the Jews had it, and the Gentiles did not. The two are brought to peace in Christ because there is now one law for all, the Law of Christ, the Gospel system. The two groups are reconciled to God through the cross. For that reason there is no more Jew nor Greek; all are one in Christ (Gal. 3:28). The physical differences remain (just as with male and female), but spiritually all are united. For that reason it no longer matters if males are circumcised or not; those were distinctions of a now bygone era. “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything…” (Gal. 6:15). Only “keeping the commandments of God is what matters” (1 Cor. 7:19).
That which separated Jews and Gentiles (the Law) was abolished and put to death. Colossians 2:14 expresses it this way—that the Law was nailed to the cross. The handwriting of ordinances was against us and thus it was taken out of the way. Were these merely humans enactments that were taken way? How could any of this discussion refer to anything invented by men, since those things were never recognized by God nor valid in the first place! God took away what He had given His people in the first place—the Law which now hopelessly separated the Jews from the Gentiles, including the observance of the Sabbath day.
What were the options God had when bringing Jesus into the world to die for the sins of mankind, realizing there was great hatred between Jew and Gentile?
1. The Jews could retain their Law, but they would have gospel “additions” to it. The Gentiles could maintain their old customs and be free from the Jewish observances, but they had to accept the gospel “additions,” also. The only problem with this system is that Jews and Gentiles end up partly united and partly divided.
2. The Jews retain their law with its gospel “additions,” and the Gentiles must embrace both the Law and its additions. This is the actual position of the Judaizing teachers (Acts 15:1, 5); the apostles rejected it.
3. God does away with the Law of Moses and the customs of the Gentiles and inaugurates an entirely new system, which is what the New Testament teaches.
4. Shernel’s argument is that God retained part of the Law, gave up parts of it, and then made additions to it. Jesus talked about sewing a piece of unshrunk cloth to an old garment for a reason (Matt. 9:16).
Jesus taught that no one can serve two masters (Matt. 6:24). So did Paul. He argued that the Law could not be valid at the same time the new covenant is. He wrote to the Romans: “Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another, even to Him who was raised from the dead” (7:4).
Furthermore, if the Law is still in effect, Jesus could be neither priest nor king. He could not be a priest because He is from the tribe of Judah, whom Moses did not authorize to be priests (Heb. 7:13-14). Therefore, for Jesus to be our high priest, “there had to be a change of the law” (Heb. 7:12). There could be no future king from the line of David on an earthly throne (Jer. 22:20). Jesus can, however, rule from the spiritual throne of David (Acts 2:40-33).
God did not modify the Law that He gave to the Jews. He put it to death, did away with it, and nailed it to the cross. No one is under that covenant; we are all under the New Testament of Jesus Christ. The Law of Moses, including the observance of the Sabbath day, has not been in force since our Savior died on the cross. May all have the desire to obey the Lord’s New Covenant.