The four recent articles (May 3, 10, 17, and 24) that reviewed material on the “The Law and Its Binding Requirements” drew two responses: The first was seven more pages of text from the one who sent the original material; the second was a book with a brief letter of explanation from a man in Dongola, Illinois. Since a few new issues were raised, concerning which a discussion may profit the reader, a little more space will be devoted to this topic.
The additional pages sent by Shernel (my pseudonym for him) were respectful, and we do not intend to be mean in return, but he is advocating a position that will cause people to be lost! No one has the right to attempt to bind on others what God has not bound, and all who insist on the Sabbath day being kept under the new covenant are guilty of the same sin that the Judaizing teachers were in the first century when they attempted to bind circumcision and the Law upon Gentiles. Much of Romans and Galatians is written to fight against that mentality. Paul makes it clear that Gentiles were never under the Law, nor are they bound by it under the Gospel of Christ. This effort of trying to bind the Sabbath day falls in the same category.
How to Approach the Scriptures
Shernel’s approach to the Scriptures is different from responsible exegesis. He writes: “…as I continue to study, the Spirit opens up more and more exalted truth as the Saviour has promised to everyone that is seeking to follow His will and way” (1) He cites James 1:5 as support. Of course, the problem is that we all pray for wisdom, and yet these disagreements over the meaning and interpretation of the Word of God continue. Either many people’s prayers are not being answered, or we are relying on God to do more for us than we should. One prerequisite of receiving wisdom is the fear of the Lord (Pr. 9:10). Some may not fear God as much as they think they do.
The fear of God will cause us to reverence His Word and the message He is communicating, which means that we will draw out of it (exegesis) what He put into it—not what we would like it to say. Shernel may not have intended to make this accusation, but he did in these words: “In Part 2 of your assessment you went into more detail of the words ordinances and statutes, in order to support your understanding…” (5). Part Two did deal with a study of the Hebrew words translated “ordinance” and “statute.” But I had no idea what I would find when I began the research!
That is the difference between Shernel and me—between one who studies to support a position and one who studies the truth and follows where it leads. Those who reverence God’s Word study to see what God actually communicates to us in the Scriptures. Only the dishonest look for Scriptures to support their position. Shernel had argued that only the “ordinances” had been done away—not the “statutes.” His case was destroyed by the fact that both English words are translated from the same Hebrew word. Thus, he was making a distinction that the Bible did not make. What did he say in response to the research that was provided for him on this subject? Nothing!
Is that the fear of God? Can one expect to obtain wisdom when he ignores the facts? Praying for wisdom is appropriate, but it does not come to those who wish to manipulate the Word to fit a doctrine rather than find out the truth and abide by it. Knowledge and wisdom come from earnest study of the Word. The Bereans searched the Scriptures to be certain that Paul’s teachings were true (Acts 17:11). They did not just pray and hope that God would reveal something to them. Paul said that through reading his revelation, the Ephesians would understand his knowledge in the mystery of Christ (Eph. 3:1-7). Prayer is not a substitute for diligent study; it is an addition to it, and God may grant us wisdom by means of honest study.
Did Jesus Just Explain the Law?
In my first article, I responded to Shernel’s position that Jesus never taught His disciples any other Law than that given in the Old Testament. I gave five examples, and he spent most of his time on these. He kept repeating that Jesus was making the Law more clear, which is an unsupported assertion. Where is the verse in which Jesus said, “I am just making the law more clear”? In Matthew 5:44, Jesus said that we are to love our enemies. Shernel contends that this teaching was just making clearer what it means to love one’s neighbor as oneself. He may convince himself that it is clarification, but Jesus did not say that it was, nor, in fact, is it. Loving one’s enemies is not an explanation of loving one’s neighbor; it is a new and different teaching. The illustration of the “good Samaritan” is a clarification of loving one’s neighbor (Luke 10:30-37).
Shernel commented briefly on Matthew 18:22 but did not write one word about the command that Jesus gave about marriage and divorce (Matt. 19:9), nor did he comment on Mark 16:16 (1). It would be difficult to explain what command of Moses Jesus was clarifying when He taught that people should believe and be baptized. One who fears God and reverences His Word would not duck the responsibility of standing by his statements rather than overlooking things that fail to fit his theory.
He misunderstood entirely the point of Mark 1:1, which declares that the inspired writer is discussing the gospel. He does not say that this is the beginning of the clarification of the Law. The new covenant is different from the old. It is established on better promises (Heb. 8:6-7). It is final and complete (2 Peter 1:3; Jude 3). The new covenant is different—not an elaboration of the old—hence the word new—not improved or clarified. The inspired writers use the words old and new. Nobody uses the word clarified except Seventh-Day Adventists. No one has ever picked up a reliable translation and discovered that it is divided into two parts—the Old Testament and the Clarified Old Testament. Perhaps, if we point out this truth in fifty ways, it will eventually dawn on folks like Shernel. Reading the Scriptures is much more instructive than reading the books of men—and women.
Next, Shernel affirms that Jesus did not contrast His teaching with that of the Law: “He is simply giving the interpretation of the Law” (2). Yes, he does seem to be stuck in this one groove. Perhaps a dictionary would help resolve this dispute. After quoting two of the Ten Commandments, which the people had heard (and knew quite well), Jesus said, “but I say to you….” The definition of the word but is: “1. On the contrary.” Hello! Do we really need a dictionary to point out what everyone knows in the first place? The word but “introduces a statement in opposition to what precedes it” (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 180). The Greek conjunctive particle, de, is translated as “but” by all major translations. The idea that Jesus was not making a contrast is just plain false.
Although it is hard to imagine, the argument gets even worse. Shernel writes: “The expression ‘ye have heard’ implies that the majority of the audience upon this occasion had not read the Law for themselves” (2). Whether or not they had personally read it might be debatable, but they certainly knew their own Law. No one in the entire New Testament shows any ignorance of the main teachings of the Law. They sometimes did not realize the significance of a particular verse, but they were not without rudimentary knowledge. The idea that the majority of people present for the Sermon on the Mount did not know the Ten Commandments is a baseless and faulty assumption.
The Law and the Gospel
More statements along these same lines are included in the letter, but they merely repeat what has already been stated—as if repetition might make them true somehow. Shernel next asserts that “the Law and the gospel are in perfect harmony” (2), which is true if by that expression one means that they complement each other—that the Law was a tutor to bring us into Christ (Gal. 3:24), or something of that nature. Shernel does say that is the case (3), but he does not mean it in the sense that most do. He argues that the Law condemned but could not save (which is true), but then he adds: “The gospel without the Law is insufficient and powerless” (3). Whoa!
People do not need the Law of Moses in order to sin. The Law was not given until around 1,000 years after the Flood—and then it was only given to the Israelites. God was able to punish those before the Flood without the Law of Moses, and He does not need it today for people to be guilty of sin, either. Yet, Shernel must have it that way; so he makes this statement: “The law of God existed before the creation of man or else Adam could not have sinned.” (3). Does anyone think this statement is true?
One could argue that all law existed before man was created in the sense that God knew what He was going to do and had everything in readiness. In that sense Christ was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8). Adam did not sin, however, because he violated the Law of Moses, which had never been given to him; he sinned because he violated the command that God had bound upon him, which was that he was not allowed to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Any violation of a commandment of God is sin. The Law of Moses did not enter into this transgression in the slightest.
Seventh-Day Adventists absolutely obsess over the Law. They cannot go anywhere else to find a Sabbath commandment; therefore, they must somehow establish the Law’s validity even though it is old and has been done away with. They try to have it in operation before it was given as well as after it has been taken out of the way and nailed to the cross of Christ (Col. 2:14). This attachment blinds them to what the Scriptures teach and puts them at odds with the Word.
Matthew 5:17-19 Again
The text of Matthew 5:17-19 surfaces again because it is one of the few passages that Shernel thinks he can hang his hat on. Due to his inability to get past the word destroy, Shernel could not understand the point made concerning TILL even though it was in bold letters. Nothing in the Law would pass away TILL all was fulfilled. The Scriptures proclaim that all was fulfilled, but all he could say was that I gave nothing to establish my assertions. Really? I cited John 19:30 (“It is finished”), Luke 24:44 (all things had been fulfilled concerning Him), and Colossian 2:14 (the law was taken out of the way and nailed to His cross). So, first he claims I failed to give anything to establish my assertions; then he begins to disagree with those very Scriptures. Obviously, then, I did provide a basis for my “assertions.”
Believe it or not, he returns to his “there is no new teaching by Jesus” mantra. Concerning what Jesus taught about hate and lust in Matthew 5:21-22 and 5:27-28, he moans: “What new teaching? Where does it say new?” (4). Most people know what new means. Anything that has not been taught before is new. Does Jesus have to say, “Now I have something to say that is new, and I’m saying it is new because some of you are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears”? How silly!! If Shernel thinks they are teachings repeat-ed from the Old Testament, let him tell us all where they may be found.
The Old Testament taught against both murder and adultery; Jesus, however, condemns going beyond the physical commission of the act. He aims at the heart, and says that this is the source of the problem. This is not an explanation of the Law; it is not even remotely implied in the Law. It is a new teaching. They were to control the anger and the lust that might be in their minds that would lead to the acts of murder and adultery. These prohibitions are not identical; those taught by Jesus do not clarify or explain the Law; they express a new concept not taught previously.
Fulfilled?
Jesus said His work was finished and that all the things written concerning Him had been fulfilled. Shernel disagrees. After citing Hebrews 5:6 and 10 about Jesus being a high priest after the order of Melchizedek, he evidently thinks he has proved something. He writes in bold letters: “All has not yet been fulfilled” (4). Huh? Yes, when Jesus ascended into heaven, He became both king and High Priest—in fulfillment of 2 Sam. 7:12-16, Zechariah 6:13, and Psalm 110:4.
Occasionally, my Seventh-Day Adventist opponent will make a “straw man” argument—taking issue with something that I did not say. This type of argumentation works really well against someone who has no opportunity for a reply; otherwise it can be pointed out, in which case the argument falls flat. One of those “straw man” arguments involves Luke 24:44.
All that I wrote was: “He [Jesus] explained to the two disciples He met on the road to Emmaeus…” and then quoted Luke 24:44. Shernel, concerning this matter, wrote: “With all due respect, neither can you assert that [he may have meant what, gws] the Saviour might have told the disciples on the way to Emmaeus” (5). I never said that He told them anything except what the text says. How can that be an assertion? Jesus told them “that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning” Himself. Nobody knows specifically what Jesus told them or what prophecies He might have explained, but the point is that they were fulfilled, which is the reason that the Law could be done away. It had to remain in force TILL all was fulfilled. It was fulfilled; therefore, it is destroyed, and the New Testament is now in force.
Another “straw man” statement the writer made was:
Those who profess to cling to Christ, centering their hope on Him, while they pour contempt upon the Law, and the prophecies, are in no safer position than were the unbelieving Jews (3).
No one has poured contempt on the Law or the prophets. This is a wild and reckless assertion—one that the respondent himself made. He acknowledged the following points:
The Law without faith in the gospel of Christ cannot save the transgressor of the Law (3).
There was no power in the Law to pardon its transgressor. Jesus alone could pay the sinner’s debt (3).
It is true that the Law could not save; it had no power to pardon the transgressor, but does Shernel realize that he has admitted that no one could be saved under the Law? And if he realizes that point, is he himself not guilty of pouring contempt upon the Law? To say that the Law, which could not save the Jews, was taken out of the way and replaced by the Gospel is not pouring contempt on the Law—it simply recognizes that God did not design the Law to save mankind. The gospel, however, is designed for that express purpose (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-4).
Neither do we denigrate the prophets. What they wrote is of vital importance as we study to see the ways in which Jesus fulfilled them. Shernel confuses the two concepts of salvation being foretold and being explained. Isaiah 53 does foretell the death of Jesus for our sins in a graphic way, but it does not mention crucifixion (although the results of it are portrayed), nor does it describe the way in which one is to respond to Jesus in order to be saved (Mark 16:16). Yes, many things are foreshadowed about the Christian system (Ex. 25-27, 30), but they are not explained until the New. No one has ever denied the value of the Old Testament. We study it because of its richness. We do not examine it, however, because it is binding upon us; it is not. To state the truth about the Law is not contempt.