The No Jot Pamphlet

[AnthonyNelson]

Hi everybody,

My name is Anthony Nelson, and I'm a student missionary currently serving overseas in Asia. I've grown up in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church my whole life; my father is the pastor at an SDA academy in California, and I've inherited his love for studying theology. However, the past few years of study have been more difficult than most, as I've found that many of my assumptions and beliefs have been challenged, leaving me hungry for the truth, wherever that may lead me.

My confusion can essentially be boiled down to a particular number of New Testament texts (some of which I will mention in this post). These, combined with a historically-informed approach, have led me to reconsider the SDA position on the Law. I'm, in fact, in the process of writing a pamphlet addressed to the Adventist church (with a few other contributors/collaborators) that makes a somewhat extensive argument in favor of the view that I am beginning more and more to lean towards (the title of said pamphlet is also the subject of this thread).

At my father's recommendation, I read Jacques Doukhan's book, The Mystery of Israel, and really appreciated his insights into the antisemitism and, as I would put it, antijudaism that has perforated the church. I've encountered a bit of this myself in my studies into Adventist views of the Torah. I really enjoyed the book overall, yet there were aspects of it that I found a bit confusing. On page 53, he wrote, correctly in my estimation, that, "Jesus and His disciples never intended to create a new dispensation, much less a new religion. The affirmation of Jesus as the Messiah did not imply another dispensation distinct from the Old Testament and the law. [...] Instead of implying the annulment of the law, Jesus testified that He would 'uphold' the law and make it blossom and mature. [...] Even when Gentiles decided to join the Christian community, they submitted to the law. The passionate discussions reported in Acts 15 clearly testify to the importance of the law in their theological thinking. Even the conclusion of the debate, which might at first glance seem to suggest a liberation from the law, still remains within traditional Judaism. We find similar discussions among the rabbis, who adopted the same legal measures for Gentiles wanting to join the Jewish community." All of this I found to be wonderful and a breath of fresh air—totally in line with what my studies had been yielding. Only seven pages later, however, it is written: "The sacrifice of Christ has made the animal sacrifices of the Levitical system obsolete."

Now, as I've learned throughout the past three years, conversations about the sacrificial system usually elicit feelings of disgust in most Gentile believers. I attribute this to the white-washing of God by western thinking, which I believe has all but obscured the picture He paints of Himself in the Hebrew Bible. I find in myself, in fact, many biases and natural aversions to religious thinking that would in any way suggest a continuation of the Levitical system, as animal sacrifice just seems so foreign and strange. Nevertheless, I believe that the contradiction is manifest. How can Jesus claim to not abolish a "jot or tittle" of the Torah, and demand that we obey "even the least of these" commandments, and yet utterly disassemble entire portions of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy? Furthermore, the apostle Paul continued to offer sacrifices, including sin offerings (as a part of the fulfilling of his Nazarite vow), as demonstrated by the narrative of Acts 21. It seems to me that we do not have any passages that even imply the annulling of the temple services outside of a few sentences in the book of Hebrews, and even those are by no means explicit. Citing the destruction of the temple, too, is weak in my view as God has judged Israel and destroyed the temple before. In fact, it was in the process of doing this that God made the promise to the Levites that as long as the sun and moon continued in their cycle, He would keep them as His priests (Jeremiah 33). Why is this? Why is this teaching about the Levitical priesthood being abolished so universally taught, yet so seemingly unclear so far as Scripture is concerned?

I think the issue is also bigger than just the sacrificial system. There are many aspects of the ceremonial law that Adventists assume are annulled or merely reduced to "principles." Tassels, for example. Furthermore, I think that, as Doukhan discusses in his book, the role of Israel in the SDA understanding of the Torah is a little confusing as well. My dad often tells me that we, Seventh-Day Adventists, are "spiritual Israel" and thus the entire Torah is binding to us, but this really only seems to mean that parts of the Torah are binding to us, and the rest are reduced to principles that we obey merely on a "spiritual level" (whatever that means). Not only does this seem to clearly contradict Acts 15 and 21, which explicitly mention a different expectation from the Jewish and Gentile believers, but it also, again, conflicts with Jesus' own teaching.

I fear that, as Peter warned, the "error of lawless men" in relation to the writings of Paul has swept the body of Messiah. If I have been deceived in the past, I don't want to be deceived any longer. After all, the believers described in Revelation "keep the commandments of God," and limiting this to the Ten Commandments, I fear, is an egregious error.

I welcome your thoughts and feedback.

 

[Tolworth John]

Yet Jesus overturned centuaries of traditional views of worship when he told the Samaraten women that 'we must worship in Spirit and in Truth.' He indicated there that ceremony and rites have no value in worship.
He also said that it is faith/belief in him that saves, again no mentionof the need for the believer to do.....

What did Jesus mean when he cried 'It is Finished.'
Yes his life was about to end. Yes he had keep the whole moral and cerimonial law perfectly, fulfilling all its requirements. Yes he had paid the price to redeem us from the laws penalty for our sin.
Yes he ended anything else that might hinder out relationship with himself.

So in the light of that why do you assume that the law must be followed?

I would argue it is redundant for the Christian, but that the Christian shows something of his love for Jesus by his keeping of the 10C.

 

[Norbert L]

Hi everybody,

My name is Anthony Nelson, and I'm a student missionary currently serving overseas in Asia. I've grown up in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church my whole life; my father is the pastor at an SDA academy in California, and I've inherited his love for studying theology. However, the past few years of study have been more difficult than most, as I've found that many of my assumptions and beliefs have been challenged, leaving me hungry for the truth, wherever that may lead me.

My confusion can essentially be boiled down to a particular number of New Testament texts (some of which I will mention in this post). These, combined with a historically-informed approach, have led me to reconsider the SDA position on the Law. I'm, in fact, in the process of writing a pamphlet addressed to the Adventist church (with a few other contributors/collaborators) that makes a somewhat extensive argument in favor of the view that I am beginning more and more to lean towards (the title of said pamphlet is also the subject of this thread).

At my father's recommendation, I read Jacques Doukhan's book, The Mystery of Israel, and really appreciated his insights into the antisemitism and, as I would put it, antijudaism that has perforated the church. I've encountered a bit of this myself in my studies into Adventist views of the Torah. I really enjoyed the book overall, yet there were aspects of it that I found a bit confusing. On page 53, he wrote, correctly in my estimation, that, "Jesus and His disciples never intended to create a new dispensation, much less a new religion. The affirmation of Jesus as the Messiah did not imply another dispensation distinct from the Old Testament and the law. [...] Instead of implying the annulment of the law, Jesus testified that He would 'uphold' the law and make it blossom and mature. [...] Even when Gentiles decided to join the Christian community, they submitted to the law. The passionate discussions reported in Acts 15 clearly testify to the importance of the law in their theological thinking. Even the conclusion of the debate, which might at first glance seem to suggest a liberation from the law, still remains within traditional Judaism. We find similar discussions among the rabbis, who adopted the same legal measures for Gentiles wanting to join the Jewish community." All of this I found to be wonderful and a breath of fresh air—totally in line with what my studies had been yielding. Only seven pages later, however, it is written: "The sacrifice of Christ has made the animal sacrifices of the Levitical system obsolete."

Now, as I've learned throughout the past three years, conversations about the sacrificial system usually elicit feelings of disgust in most Gentile believers. I attribute this to the white-washing of God by western thinking, which I believe has all but obscured the picture He paints of Himself in the Hebrew Bible. I find in myself, in fact, many biases and natural aversions to religious thinking that would in any way suggest a continuation of the Levitical system, as animal sacrifice just seems so foreign and strange. Nevertheless, I believe that the contradiction is manifest. How can Jesus claim to not abolish a "jot or tittle" of the Torah, and demand that we obey "even the least of these" commandments, and yet utterly disassemble entire portions of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy? Furthermore, the apostle Paul continued to offer sacrifices, including sin offerings (as a part of the fulfilling of his Nazarite vow), as demonstrated by the narrative of Acts 21. It seems to me that we do not have any passages that even imply the annulling of the temple services outside of a few sentences in the book of Hebrews, and even those are by no means explicit. Citing the destruction of the temple, too, is weak in my view as God has judged Israel and destroyed the temple before. In fact, it was in the process of doing this that God made the promise to the Levites that as long as the sun and moon continued in their cycle, He would keep them as His priests (Jeremiah 33). Why is this? Why is this teaching about the Levitical priesthood being abolished so universally taught, yet so seemingly unclear so far as Scripture is concerned?

I think the issue is also bigger than just the sacrificial system. There are many aspects of the ceremonial law that Adventists assume are annulled or merely reduced to "principles." Tassels, for example. Furthermore, I think that, as Doukhan discusses in his book, the role of Israel in the SDA understanding of the Torah is a little confusing as well. My dad often tells me that we, Seventh-Day Adventists, are "spiritual Israel" and thus the entire Torah is binding to us, but this really only seems to mean that parts of the Torah are binding to us, and the rest are reduced to principles that we obey merely on a "spiritual level" (whatever that means). Not only does this seem to clearly contradict Acts 15 and 21, which explicitly mention a different expectation from the Jewish and Gentile believers, but it also, again, conflicts with Jesus' own teaching.

I fear that, as Peter warned, the "error of lawless men" in relation to the writings of Paul has swept the body of Messiah. If I have been deceived in the past, I don't want to be deceived any longer. After all, the believers described in Revelation "keep the commandments of God," and limiting this to the Ten Commandments, I fear, is an egregious error.

I welcome your thoughts and feedback.

Have you given thought about this in practical terms? Are SDA capable of and responsible for rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem and maintaining it? Are there enough certifiable Levites in your church to learn their priestly duties?

The sacrificial system served to deal with sin when they appeared before Jesus prior to being born from a woman as a man. "Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe." Jude 1:5 ESV

The way I see, what is being explained in Matthew 25:14-19 isn't being factored into Jeremiah 33:17-18. After a long time at some point this present civilization will on a much bigger scale go the way previous civilizations, from the Roman Empire to Babylon, we too should be aware that at some time this all comes crashing down. Revelation 18

 

[BobRyan]

The fact is that Hebrews 7 and Hebrews 10:4-11 put a dead-end to the earthly priesthood, the sacrifices, and all the annual services that are defined by them. This is irrefutable in scripture alone.

some laws are "predictive" like Passover... and some are "prescriptive" like "do no take God's name in vain"

As for "the house of Israel and the house of Judah" - do you really think that SDAs are the only Christians out there claiming to be under the New Covenant??

 

[AnthonyNelson]

Yet Jesus overturned centuaries of traditional views of worship when he told the Samaraten women that 'we must worship in Spirit and in Truth.' He indicated there that ceremony and rites have no value in worship.
He also said that it is faith/belief in him that saves, again no mentionof the need for the believer to do.....

What did Jesus mean when he cried 'It is Finished.'
Yes his life was about to end. Yes he had keep the whole moral and cerimonial law perfectly, fulfilling all its requirements. Yes he had paid the price to redeem us from the laws penalty for our sin.
Yes he ended anything else that might hinder out relationship with himself.

So in the light of that why do you assume that the law must be followed?

I would argue it is redundant for the Christian, but that the Christian shows something of his love for Jesus by his keeping of the 10C.

I don't deny in any way that we are saved by grace through faith alone, so we fully agree on that point.

Have you considered Matthew 5:17-20? Jesus seems to declare pretty clearly that He sees the commandments as continually binding on believers. What is your reading of this?

 

[AnthonyNelson]

Have you given thought about this in practical terms? Are SDA capable of and responsible for rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem and maintaining it? Are there enough certifiable Levites in your church to learn their priestly duties?

The sacrificial system served to deal with sin when they appeared before Jesus prior to being born from a woman as a man. "Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe." Jude 1:5 ESV

The way I see, what is being explained in Matthew 25:14-19 isn't being factored into Jeremiah 33:17-18. After a long time at some point this present civilization will on a much bigger scale go the way previous civilizations, from the Roman Empire to Babylon, we too should be aware that at some time this all comes crashing down. Revelation 18

I'm having trouble following the point you're making in the last paragraph. I'd like to understand if you're willing to clarify.

As for your first set of questions: yes, I absolutely have! The rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem is an interesting concept that I am still mulling over. I definitely don't think that responsibility belongs to any one denominational group, especially a predominately Gentile one. The temple services, after all, belong to Israel according to the flesh, as Paul explicitly states in Romans 9. I currently lean towards believing that Jesus will rebuild the temple Himself at the start of the millennial reign, as that accords with Old Testament prophecy, first-century Jewish eschatology, and fits well with Revelation and the teachings of Jesus; but I'm far from dogmatic about that. I'm open to the idea that the temple will never be rebuilt; I just don't see any reason to assume that.

What needs to be a foundational understanding in these discussions about the Torah is the difference between Jew and Gentile in relation to its commands. Paul explicitly states that if one is circumcised (i.e. if one changes their legal status to Jew) they are obligated to obey the entire Torah (Galatians 5:3). He makes a similar statement in 1 Corinthians 7. This was the traditional Jewish understanding, the apostolic council concurred with it in Acts 15, and in my view there is no indication that God wrought an explicit change in this area. Therefore, the temple services are not a matter that Gentile Seventh-Day Adventists or any other Christian denomination should be practically concerned with. Nonetheless, the theology of antinomianism often pivots to these discussions, like the surety of the temple services' abolishment, in order to make their point, so I think our conclusions in this area have an impact beyond the temple mount in Israel.

 

[AnthonyNelson]

The fact is that Hebrews 7 and Hebrews 10:4-11 put a dead-end to the earthly priesthood, the sacrifices, and all the annual services that are defined by them. This is irrefutable in scripture alone.

some laws are "predictive" like Passover... and some are "prescriptive" like "do no take God's name in vain"

As for "the house of Israel and the house of Judah" - do you really think that SDAs are the only Christians out there claiming to be under the New Covenant??

That's fascinating. I don't see how Hebrews teaches the end of the earthly priesthood at all, let alone chapter 7, which coincides with the author's statement in Hebrews 8 that, "Now if He [Jesus] were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Torah." I think it's clear that the author is simply contrasting the earthly and heavenly realities, and demonstrating the superiority of the latter. In my understanding, one's superiority over the other in no way indicates an abolishment or abrogation.

As for calling Passover "predictive" and the third of the 10C "prescriptive," I don't see how that holds up either. God commands them to keep Passover in the same way He commands them to observe the 10C. A breaking of the Passover commands was punishable by death or banishment, in fact. Jesus Himself indicates that He will keep Passover with us when He returns (Luke 22:15-16), so I don't see how the commandments with predictive elements are in any way transitory or "old news."

And I, unfortunately, am too daft to understand what you're getting at about the New Covenant. I agree that all Christians are under the New Covenant, and I think that's possible because of the Gentiles being grafted into Israel as described in Romans 11. The New Covenant closes with God's promise to be faithful to physical Israel, after all.

 

[Norbert L]

I'm having trouble following the point you're making in the last paragraph. I'd like to understand if you're willing to clarify.

As for your first set of questions: yes, I absolutely have! The rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem is an interesting concept that I am still mulling over. I definitely don't think that responsibility belongs to any one denominational group, especially a predominately Gentile one. The temple services, after all, belong to Israel according to the flesh, as Paul explicitly states in Romans 9. I currently lean towards believing that Jesus will rebuild the temple Himself at the start of the millennial reign, as that accords with Old Testament prophecy, first-century Jewish eschatology, and fits well with Revelation and the teachings of Jesus; but I'm far from dogmatic about that. I'm open to the idea that the temple will never be rebuilt; I just don't see any reason to assume that.

What needs to be a foundational understanding in these discussions about the Torah is the difference between Jew and Gentile in relation to its commands. Paul explicitly states that if one is circumcised (i.e. if one changes their legal status to Jew) they are obligated to obey the entire Torah (Galatians 5:3). He makes a similar statement in 1 Corinthians 7. This was the traditional Jewish understanding, the apostolic council concurred with it in Acts 15, and in my view there is no indication that God wrought an explicit change in this area. Therefore, the temple services are not a matter that Gentile Seventh-Day Adventists or any other Christian denomination should be practically concerned with. Nonetheless, the theology of antinomianism often pivots to these discussions, like the surety of the temple services' abolishment, in order to make their point, so I think our conclusions in this area have an impact beyond the temple mount in Israel.

To clarify, I got the impression that temple sacrifices is something that could be done now for both Jew and Gentile from your last two complete paragraphs. What I would say is presently we don't have or see what Jeremiah 33:17-18 is writing about as a future. The closet thing to resemble it would be the The Temple Institute in Israel, but even with that there are problems. Israel is not being run by a religious theocracy, the Knesset is not the Sanhedrin seeing that Arabs take seats in that government.

What remains to be seen is exactly how Jesus return will physically play out in the land of Israel and its' relationship with the entire world when the implications of Matthew 25:14-19 play out. The way I see it, the world and culture we know now will be drastically changed.

I believe the early Church also struggled with a type of antinomianism as referred to in Jude 1:3-4. Given the fact that they were in much closer contact with the eye witnesses and they had problems with it, such a thing makes it that much harder to remind people of the consequences of their behavior Jude 1:5. The only tools we have to work with is discussion and our own behavior.

 

[BobRyan]

That's fascinating. I don't see how Hebrews teaches the end of the earthly priesthood at all, let alone chapter 7, which coincides with the author's statement in Hebrews 8 that, "Now if He [Jesus] were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Torah." I think it's clear that the author is simply contrasting the earthly and heavenly realities, and demonstrating the superiority of the latter.

Hebrews 7 points to a "transition" - rather than a dual priesthood. We have type meeting antitype.

Heb 7
11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Heb 10
11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet.

8 After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

As for calling Passover "predictive" and the third of the 10C "prescriptive," I don't see how that holds up either.

1 Cor 5 "Christ our Passover has been slain" - Passover is predictive - christ died on Passover - which was a "shadow of things to come" Col 2.

Compare that to "do not take God's name in vain".

The speed limit law is "prescriptive" not "predictive" -- it does not get "taken away" as soon as one person obeys the speed limit just as "do not take God's name in vain" does not vanish as soon as someone does not take God's name in vain.

But when the shadows meet their antitype - they no longer point forward to it - so then Christ gives us the Lord's Supper as a replacement for the fulfilled Passover.

And I, unfortunately, am too daft to understand what you're getting at about the New Covenant. I agree that all Christians are under the New Covenant, and I think that's possible because of the Gentiles being grafted into Israel as described in Romans 11. .

Indeed - all Christians under the New Covenant -- and thus all of them "Israel" -- spiritual Israel.

Rom 2
27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

The Dan 9 - 490 years of physical Israel's probation ended in the first century. All you have there today is "literal Israel still in rebellion against the Messiah" in addition to all their animal sacrifices made null-and-void according to the Word of God and a "change in law" regarding the priesthood - transferring it to Christ "our High Priest" which is the Hebrews 8:1 "main point".

 

[AnthonyNelson]

To clarify, I got the impression that temple sacrifices is something that could be done now for both Jew and Gentile from your last two complete paragraphs. What I would say is presently we don't have or see what Jeremiah 33:17-18 is writing about as a future. The closet thing to resemble it would be the The Temple Institute in Israel, but even with that there are problems. Israel is not being run by a religious theocracy, the Knesset is not the Sanhedrin seeing that Arabs take seats in that government.

What remains to be seen is exactly how Jesus return will physically play out in the land of Israel and its' relationship with the entire world when the implications of Matthew 25:14-19 play out. The way I see it, the world and culture we know now will be drastically changed.

I believe the early Church also struggled with a type of antinomianism as referred to in Jude 1:3-4. Given the fact that they were in much closer contact with the eye witnesses and they had problems with it, such a thing makes it that much harder to remind people of the consequences of their behavior Jude 1:5. The only tools we have to work with is discussion and our own behavior.

I simply do not believe that the temple services were annulled at the cross. There is no evidence of this in Scripture at all unless one considers the tearing of the veil as a sign that the temple had lost its significance, and the problem with that is that it's ad hoc. There is no place in Scripture where anyone extrapolates from that event that the temple is annulled. On the contrary, the gospel of Luke ends with the disciples praising and worshiping God in the temple, and the book of Acts (as well as the work of Josephus) clearly shows that the disciples were in the temple after Christ's death even more so than before (and not just for evangelistic efforts as demonstrated in Acts 21).

However, the question of eschatology, whether the temple should be rebuilt now or if it will be rebuilt later by Jesus, is all a secondary question that I find less interesting. The point is simply that if a temple were at some point or in some way to exist on the Temple Mount (that fit the contextual requirements of a temple as described in the Torah), there is no indication from Scripture that its significance or efficacy would be lost due to it existing post-Cross. Hebrews (especially chapter 9) demonstrates that the Levitical system simply serves an entirely different function when compared to the death of Jesus (which in Scripture is merely compared to a Levitical sacrifice).

If one studies Leviticus, the claims often made by evangelicals and Adventists alike concerning Jesus' sacrifice and how it abolishes or does away with the Levitical system seem strange. To give just one example, many assume that the sacrificial system deals exclusively with sin, but that is simply not the case. In fact, just as many sacrifices (if not more) have nothing to do with sin at all. Even the "sin offering" would be better translated as a "purification offering," and it is offered anytime someone becomes defiled (even though defilement is not considered a sin by God). Facts like this demonstrate, in my view, how simplistic an understanding most evangelicals have of the Torah.

In short, I take Jesus at His word when He says that not one jot or tittle will by any means disappear from the Torah until all is accomplished. What that means for us today is a secondary (but nonetheless important) question.

 

[Norbert L]

I simply do not believe that the temple services were annulled at the cross. There is no evidence of this in Scripture at all unless one considers the tearing of the veil as a sign that the temple had lost its significance, and the problem with that is that it's ad hoc. There is no place in Scripture where anyone extrapolates from that event that the temple is annulled. On the contrary, the gospel of Luke ends with the disciples praising and worshiping God in the temple, and the book of Acts (as well as the work of Josephus) clearly shows that the disciples were in the temple after Christ's death even more so than before (and not just for evangelistic efforts as demonstrated in Acts 21).

However, the question of eschatology, whether the temple should be rebuilt now or if it will be rebuilt later by Jesus, is all a secondary question that I find less interesting. The point is simply that if a temple were at some point or in some way to exist on the Temple Mount (that fit the contextual requirements of a temple as described in the Torah), there is no indication from Scripture that its significance or efficacy would be lost due to it existing post-Cross. Hebrews (especially chapter 9) demonstrates that the Levitical system simply serves an entirely different function when compared to the death of Jesus (which in Scripture is merely compared to a Levitical sacrifice).

If one studies Leviticus, the claims often made by evangelicals and Adventists alike concerning Jesus' sacrifice and how it abolishes or does away with the Levitical system seem strange. To give just one example, many assume that the sacrificial system deals exclusively with sin, but that is simply not the case. In fact, just as many sacrifices (if not more) have nothing to do with sin at all. Even the "sin offering" would be better translated as a "purification offering," and it is offered anytime someone becomes defiled (even though defilement is not considered a sin by God). Facts like this demonstrate, in my view, how simplistic an understanding most evangelicals have of the Torah.

In short, I take Jesus at His word when He says that not one jot or tittle will by any means disappear from the Torah until all is accomplished. What that means for us today is a secondary (but nonetheless important) question.

When it comes to something being physically annulled in a sense you get Jesus statement about the destruction of the temple and yet while it was still standing you read that those Jesus literally chose to be His apostles, they decide one of them should go there to perform a traditional vow. Indeed it's not as simple as these things are annulled across the board. It strikes me that a number of Christians today believe such an act on their part would be in error for a Christians to follow because what oftentimes what get taught about abolishing the law today would make Christ's apostles look like their not practicing what their preaching.

I believe one of the big problems within Christianity is it get's reduced to what I would call cliche doctrine such as the law has been done away with period There's far more to examine on the subject than such an abbreviated version of Christianity would tell. Likewise things concerning a rebuilding of a temple isn't exactly straightforward either.

 

[Soyeong]

Hi everybody,

My name is Anthony Nelson, and I'm a student missionary currently serving overseas in Asia. I've grown up in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church my whole life; my father is the pastor at an SDA academy in California, and I've inherited his love for studying theology. However, the past few years of study have been more difficult than most, as I've found that many of my assumptions and beliefs have been challenged, leaving me hungry for the truth, wherever that may lead me.

My confusion can essentially be boiled down to a particular number of New Testament texts (some of which I will mention in this post). These, combined with a historically-informed approach, have led me to reconsider the SDA position on the Law. I'm, in fact, in the process of writing a pamphlet addressed to the Adventist church (with a few other contributors/collaborators) that makes a somewhat extensive argument in favor of the view that I am beginning more and more to lean towards (the title of said pamphlet is also the subject of this thread).

At my father's recommendation, I read Jacques Doukhan's book, The Mystery of Israel, and really appreciated his insights into the antisemitism and, as I would put it, antijudaism that has perforated the church. I've encountered a bit of this myself in my studies into Adventist views of the Torah. I really enjoyed the book overall, yet there were aspects of it that I found a bit confusing. On page 53, he wrote, correctly in my estimation, that, "Jesus and His disciples never intended to create a new dispensation, much less a new religion. The affirmation of Jesus as the Messiah did not imply another dispensation distinct from the Old Testament and the law. [...] Instead of implying the annulment of the law, Jesus testified that He would 'uphold' the law and make it blossom and mature. [...] Even when Gentiles decided to join the Christian community, they submitted to the law. The passionate discussions reported in Acts 15 clearly testify to the importance of the law in their theological thinking. Even the conclusion of the debate, which might at first glance seem to suggest a liberation from the law, still remains within traditional Judaism. We find similar discussions among the rabbis, who adopted the same legal measures for Gentiles wanting to join the Jewish community." All of this I found to be wonderful and a breath of fresh air—totally in line with what my studies had been yielding. Only seven pages later, however, it is written: "The sacrifice of Christ has made the animal sacrifices of the Levitical system obsolete."

Now, as I've learned throughout the past three years, conversations about the sacrificial system usually elicit feelings of disgust in most Gentile believers. I attribute this to the white-washing of God by western thinking, which I believe has all but obscured the picture He paints of Himself in the Hebrew Bible. I find in myself, in fact, many biases and natural aversions to religious thinking that would in any way suggest a continuation of the Levitical system, as animal sacrifice just seems so foreign and strange. Nevertheless, I believe that the contradiction is manifest. How can Jesus claim to not abolish a "jot or tittle" of the Torah, and demand that we obey "even the least of these" commandments, and yet utterly disassemble entire portions of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy? Furthermore, the apostle Paul continued to offer sacrifices, including sin offerings (as a part of the fulfilling of his Nazarite vow), as demonstrated by the narrative of Acts 21. It seems to me that we do not have any passages that even imply the annulling of the temple services outside of a few sentences in the book of Hebrews, and even those are by no means explicit. Citing the destruction of the temple, too, is weak in my view as God has judged Israel and destroyed the temple before. In fact, it was in the process of doing this that God made the promise to the Levites that as long as the sun and moon continued in their cycle, He would keep them as His priests (Jeremiah 33). Why is this? Why is this teaching about the Levitical priesthood being abolished so universally taught, yet so seemingly unclear so far as Scripture is concerned?

I think the issue is also bigger than just the sacrificial system. There are many aspects of the ceremonial law that Adventists assume are annulled or merely reduced to "principles." Tassels, for example. Furthermore, I think that, as Doukhan discusses in his book, the role of Israel in the SDA understanding of the Torah is a little confusing as well. My dad often tells me that we, Seventh-Day Adventists, are "spiritual Israel" and thus the entire Torah is binding to us, but this really only seems to mean that parts of the Torah are binding to us, and the rest are reduced to principles that we obey merely on a "spiritual level" (whatever that means). Not only does this seem to clearly contradict Acts 15 and 21, which explicitly mention a different expectation from the Jewish and Gentile believers, but it also, again, conflicts with Jesus' own teaching.

I fear that, as Peter warned, the "error of lawless men" in relation to the writings of Paul has swept the body of Messiah. If I have been deceived in the past, I don't want to be deceived any longer. After all, the believers described in Revelation "keep the commandments of God," and limiting this to the Ten Commandments, I fear, is an egregious error.

I welcome your thoughts and feedback.

Hello,

I am complete agreement. According to Jewish methods of interpretation, commands always had the straightforward literal meaning. The Law is also spiritual (Romans 7:14) in that it is meant to teach us deeper spiritual principles in accordance with the character of God, of which the written laws are just examples, but the deeper spiritual meaning never detracted from the literal meaning. If we correctly understand the deeper spiritual principles and if we have faith in God to guide us in how to rightly live, then it will lead us to do things that are examples of those principles. For example, in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that justice, mercy, and faith are weightier matters of the Law, so the Law was intended to teach us how to live according to these characteristics of God. The Law is also intended to teach us how to live according to God's holiness, righteousness, goodness (Romans 7:12), and other fruits of the Spirit. So if we understand the spiritual principle of righteousness, then it will lead us to do the things that God instructed in His Law are righteous, not be exempted from having to do those things.

 

[Tolworth John]

I don't deny in any way that we are saved by grace through faith alone, so we fully agree on that point.

Have you considered Matthew 5:17-20? Jesus seems to declare pretty clearly that He sees the commandments as continually binding on believers. What is your reading of this?

What does Jesus mean when he says untill the laws are fulfilled
Why did Jesus cry 'It is finished!' when on the cross.

Our keeping of the law can have Nothing to do with how we are saved. It can only be a means of our showing our devotion to him and of a way of showing how different we are from the rest of society.

 

[Soyeong]

What does Jesus mean when he says untill the laws are fulfilled
Why did Jesus cry 'It is finished!' when on the cross.

Our keeping of the law can have Nothing to do with how we are saved. It can only be a means of our showing our devotion to him and of a way of showing how different we are from the rest of society.

Pleroo: to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

Jesus said not the least part would pass from the Law until heaven and earth passed away and all is accomplished, both of which refer to end times or are ways of saying that it is never gonna happen. After saying he came to fulfill the law, then proceeded to fulfill it six times throughout the rest of the chapter by causing God's will as made known in the law to be obeyed as it should be. This is what Jesus gave himself to accomplish on the cross:

Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

Note that is does not say that he gave himself to redeem us from the Law, but to redeem us from all Lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, and God's Law is His instructions for how to equip us to do every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17, Acts 21:20). Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is the transgression of of the Law (1 John 3:4), so our salvation is from living a life in disobedience to God's Law so that we can be free to live in obedience to God (Romans 6:16-19). While I agree that we are saved by obeying the Law, our salvation is from disobedience to the Law, so obedience to it certainly has something to do with it, and as Titus 2:11-14 says, our salvation involves being trained by grace to do things that are in accordance with the Law. The one and only way that there has ever been to become saved is by grace through faith, and by the same grace through the same faith we are required to be careful to live in obedience to all of God's commands.

 

[Tolworth John]

No where in the bible does it say we are savedby obeying the law.
Our salvation is a free gift from God.
Rather our keeping of the law or trying to keep them is only a sign that we love Jesus.

 

[Dave-W]

Anthony - first off, WELCOME TO THE FORUMS!!!

Secondly - you are treading on some dangerous ground there. (similar to where I was about 25 years ago...) The questions you have are very legit. I would like to reply, but for me to do so here in the SDA forum would be a violation.

Perhaps you could re-post your questions in the Messianic forum?