In the Old Testament there are numerous feasts and holy days: Firstfruits, the Feast of Weeks, the Feast of Trumpets, the Feast of Tabernacles; there are various forbidden foods: pig, rabbit, eagle, vulture, anything living in water that does not have fins and scales etc.; there are various offerings to God: the burnt offering, the grain offering, the sin offering, the guilt offering etc. with rules as to what is an acceptable offering and what is not, and numerous other laws: do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard, do not yoke an ox and a donkey together, do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together, make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear etc. In the New Testament we see a debate about where God must be worshipped - the temple in Jerusalem or the temple in Samaria, the Jews don't allow Greeks into the temple area (e.g. Acts 21:29), and the laws given in the Old Testament have become more refined and detailed. For example Jeremiah 17:21 says "be careful not to carry a load on the Sabbath day", but how heavy was a load ? For the Pharisees a bed was considered big enough to be a load.

Yet while this attention to religion is clearly an important part of the Old Testament, for the prophets a different sort of righteousness is described. In the prophets God does not want religious deeds, such as holy days and sacrifices, but moral deeds, feeding the poor, defending the oppressed (e.g. Amos 2:6-7,6; Mal 1:10-11, 3:5; Hos 9; Is 1 etc.).

Jesus and Paul continue this teaching of the prophets. Jesus opposes the Jewish religion of 'righteous' and 'sinners' by mixing with the sinners; he does not behave any differently on the Sabbath to other days; he declares all food 'clean'; he announces the abolition of the temple. For Paul we do not become acceptable to God through religious deeds such as circumcision, eating special foods or worshipping on special days but through faith, and the 'works' God requires are those of love, mercy and justice, not religious works. In the theology of the New Testament this 'abolition' of religion is explained by saying that these religious acts where all shadows of Christ, and have been fulfilled and abolished with him (for example "it is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not ceremonial foods" Heb 13:9; "circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code" Rom 2:29). We do not need a Priest on earth to mediate for us, for Christ is our High Priest in Heaven.

But more than showing that 'good deeds' are better than religious deeds, which perhaps no one would dispute, Paul and Jesus show that religious deeds are actually harmful. Take Jesus' parable of the Pharisee and the Tax-Collector in Luke 18:9-14. In this parable Jesus shows the ideal Jewish pious man, which everyone listening to the description would have thought "yes, that is what one should be like!". This man can appear before God with thankful joy: with God's help he has succeeded in avoiding any serious transgression of God's commandments. But more than that, he is one of those to whom it has been granted to fulfil God's Law completely. While the Law lays on every Jew to one fast day a year as a day of repentance, he vicariously makes atonement for the sins of his people by fasting twice a week. To do this he has to give up not only food but also drink completely from sunrise to sunset, which in the heat of the east is a great act of self-denial. Also with the tithe that the law lays on him this pious man prefers to do too much than too little. He gives tithes of everything he has bought, thereby ensuring that he uses nothing that has not been tithed, although new corn, new wine and oil should already have been tithed by the producer. He makes a great economic sacrifice so that God may have what is his own undiminished.

His prayer "I thank ye God that I am not like..." is not hypocritical arrogance but a genuine prayer of thanks for God's gracious guidance. But the verdict of Jesus is that the tax collector "went home justified". For Jesus if we use the law as the measure of our self-judgement we cannot but help judge those who fail to live a religious life of tithes and fasts; but if we count on the grace of God, we count on the grace of God for our neighbour too, and direct ourselves towards our neighbour. If the written law is our standard how can we not help but judge those who do not show the same "religious" life. But Christ says "judge not that ye be not judged", God's standard of righteousness is not a written law, he looks at the heart and he is the only one who can.

For Paul religious works result in boasting, and also those who claim "wisdom" (1 Cor 1:29, 2:2, 3:18-23). If we perform religious works of tithes, fasts, circumcision etc. we cannot but "boast" of our superior religious works to those who do not tithe, fast etc.; but "it is not the man who commends himself who is approved but the man who the Lord commends" (2 Cor 10:18). Paul says "let him who boasts, boast in the Lord", in other words, not what you do but what God has done for all of us.

Many terrible atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. From primitive man sacrificing humans to appease the wrath of the gods to the Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists of today, people can justify any evil if committed for a greater good (e.g. out of service to God). No doubt the primitives would have justified their sacrifice because greater evil would have occurred (they thought) if they disobeyed the gods, and the terrorists of today see the west as evil, and themselves as the instruments of God's punishment. Christianity has not avoided these sins of religion, the mass tortures and executions of the Inquisition are well known, and many died in the "Witch Trials" by the literal obedience to the text "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". However what is less well known is that at the time of the Reformation Protestantism was more brutal than Roman Catholicism, (which had simply grown decadent). Not only did Henry VIII followed later by the Puritans destroy many churches and persecute Catholics, but Protestants were persecuting themselves also. In 1525 the Swiss Reformer, Zwingli, launched a campaign to drown Anabaptists. Luther did not oppose this dreadful program, although he refused to propose such a solution for religious differences. In 1536 Melanchthon drafted a memorandum demanding death for Anabaptists, in the same year Fritz Erbe died after being incarcerated in the Wartburg solely for his religious convictions. Luther did not express one word of sympathy, respect or regret. A few years later the brilliant and somewhat eccentric Servetus was brought to the stake in Calvin's Geneva. Farel was present at the dreadful execution to pronounce God's blessing on the wretched procedure. Servetus was offered a reprieve if he would confess that Jesus was the eternal son of God. He said 'I confess that Jesus is the Son of the eternal God.' But that was not good enough for these guardians of the faith, and so Servetus was committed to the unspeakable agonies of a slow fire. Finally he fell down in the flames crying, "Oh Jesus, thou Son of the eternal God, have pity on me!"

Martin Luther was no more tolerant:

"Concerning the Jews and their lies, he advised his followers to eradicate Jewish homes and synagogues by burning them to the ground and covering the site with dirt; prayerbooks and Talmuds were to be destroyed, rabbis silenced on pain of death, travel forbidden, wealth seized, and usury stopped; young Jews were to be enslaved to hard tasks. As a final step, Luther advocated expulsion: "Let us drive them out of the country for all time". He concluded, "To sum up, dear princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains, if this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better one so that you and we may all be free of this insufferable devilish burden- the Jews."" (Richard E. Grade, "A Historical Survey of Anti-Semitism", p.51)

The Protestant historian, Roland H. Bainton says, "at the moment of its beginning Protestantism was more intolerant than contemporary Catholicism." There are examples of strict Adventism being a yoke that some were unable to bear. Mrs White's youngest son tried to commit suicide because he felt unable to live up to the standards his mother required. Peter Shaffer's play "Equus" is based on a true story about a boy who is brought up in a strict Adventist home and told that God is always watching him. During the play it is clear the boy is disturbed as he hangs a horrific picture of the crucified Christ over his bed and beats himself with a riding whip, but later when he starts to make love to his girlfriend in a stable he sees the horses looking at him and snaps: he blinds six horses and has to have psychological help. The film "Sybil" is based on the true story of a young girl who has split herself into eleven different personalities. During the film the story of her psychiatric treatment reveals the terrible punishments and strict upbringing the girl received from her Adventist mother, which resulted in the fragmentation of the little girl's mind. Only after many years of treatment was she "made whole" again.

Jesus recognised the evils of religion and spoke out uncompromisingly against it. Yes, he was surrounded by evils, the Roman oppressors, tax collectors who swindled the people, the "mob" who knew nothing of the law, but Jesus did not preach against these "sinners" but those who considered themselves righteous, the religious Pharisees.

"You Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness...And you experts of the law, woe to you, because you load the people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not life one finger to help them... Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering." (Luke 11)

Even in the Old Testament we see that the Torah may be broken to do good. Ex 20:4 says "you shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or in the waters below. YOU SHALL NOT BOW DOWN TO THEM or worship them". Yet in 2 Kings 5 after Elisha has healed Naaman, Naaman says "for your servant will never again make burnt offerings and sacrifices to any other God but the LORD. But may the LORD forgive your servant for this one thing; When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I bow there also- when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the LORD forgive your servant for this", "Go in peace" Elisha replies (2 Kings 17-19). Similarly Jesus justifies his breaking the Sabbath because the Priests work on the Sabbath, even David ate the consecrated bread when he was hungry, circumcising a child takes precedence over the Sabbath commandment and God himself is working on the Sabbath (Matt 12:1-8; John 7:22-24; John 5:17-18). Paul spells out the implications of this by stating that believers are not required to keep one day more sacred than another.

John explains that Jesus is the real Torah. All the titles given by the Jews to the Torah: bread, water of life, light of the world, shepherd, the way, the truth and the life, all these John applies to Christ. The opening of John's gospel is taken from a pre-Christian Jewish hymn of praise to the Torah, in the Jewish hymn it is the Torah that is "in the beginning", "the Word", "with God", "the world was made", "light", "life", "the true light that enlightens every man", "grace and truth", "in the bosom of the Father", but John applies all these to Christ. All that Judaism had claimed for the law, John applies to Jesus Christ, he, rather than the Torah, is the final revelation of God's will. The Jewish Torah was only a shadow of the real Torah, which was made flesh in Jesus of Nazareth (Col 2:16,17;Heb 10:1).

Paul's opponents are those who have misunderstood this basic truth. Paul is writing to those who are already Christians, and telling them not to keep the law! He says "did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?" (Gal 3:2) - clearly we receive the Spirit by belief, even Adventists admit this, but what does Paul conclude from this ? "after beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort ?" After you become a Christian you don't start keeping the law, says Paul, he calls such a teaching "a different gospel" (Gal 1:6). Anyone who has died is not under the supervision of the law (Rom 7:1), we have "been crucified with Christ" (Gal 2:20), "I no longer live" (Gal 2:20) says Paul, hence "we have been released from the law so that we may serve in the new way of the Spirit, not the old way of the written code" (Rom 7:6).

About his opponents Paul writes:

"These people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may be zealous for them" (Gal 4:17)

"Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of the world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have the appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence." (Col 2:20-23)

Religion with its human rules of special foods, special places, special days etc. is opposed to the true Christianity of life in the Spirit, living in the new age of the Spirit. No sooner do people start to believe in Christ than there appear teachers of the law with rules and regulations telling them how to live a religious life. A new law from Sinai appears, administered by holy men, who appear as mediators between the people and God. Adventism questioned Catholicism when it said the law commands Christians to worship on Sunday, but they didn't question deep enough. Roman Catholicism was wrong on two counts. FIRST because it said there was a law that Christians had to keep, and secondly because it claimed that law said worship on Sunday. Adventism only questioned the second non-biblical claim, it should have questioned whether Catholicism was right to claim Christians were under the law at all. Such rules and commands have the "appearance" of wisdom, but lack the power of God.

"AS he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. "I tell you the truth" he said "this poor widow has put in more than all these others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on." (Luke 21:1-4)

Religion takes the place of God in the life of the believer, the two become indistinguishable. Adventism claims a whole lists of beliefs: Saturday is the Sabbath; Adventism is the remnant church; do not eat unclean food; pay tithe; Christ entered the Holy of Holies in 1844; Ellen White was a prophet from God; prophecy shows Sunday worship will be the mark of the beast; the Millennium; the Ten Commandments are God's Law; the Investigative Judgement etc. etc. Now when you enter Adventism you are explained these doctrines, you are taught them in Sabbath school and other meetings. The whole emphasis is on a Body of Truth which the believer must understand. It is hoped that people will learn the reasons for these doctrines, and be able to explain what Adventism stands for, but at no time is there ever any question of the believer questioning these doctrines. Questioning and doubting is from the Devil, the strong in faith never question. Hence the individual has never sat down and gradually sorted out each belief for him or her self, and never listened to the various arguments for different ideas and then finally decided what one they believe, but simply had faith in the church. What does this result in ? Believers who can "recite" the truth but they never have any truth, they are not allowed to grow, differ, question, study, believe in themselves and their own judgement, in establishing their own relationship with God and letting God explain his truth to them at their own speed and in His own time. They can only "study" the already certain truths of Adventism, they can only "grow" by learning more Adventism. The human religion of Adventism becomes an Ultimate Value, which is indistinguishable from God.

Ask yourself, how long after I became an Adventist did I believe all the doctrines of Adventism ? And even now, how many Adventist doctrines have I really studied so that I am familiar with the various alternative non-Adventist view points ? Adventists haven't tested Adventism, they don't KNOW it is true, they just believe in it. But believing in Adventism is putting your trust in man, not God. You see the SDA Bible Commentary and think, "I might not understand it, but I know it has all the answers". The impressive speakers every week fill you with confidence that THEY understand Adventism and they believe it, so it must be right. Numerous articles and books defend Adventism from every angle, you might not understand what the arguments are all about, but the authors seem to understand, and they say Adventism has the answers, so they must be right. At every turn the Adventist puts his trust in men, in Adventism, he can't imagine that having staked his whole salvation on the church that the church might be wrong ! But Paul says "if anyone is preaching you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" (Gal 1:9).

The authentic Christian puts his trust in God, not men. He knows that God is not impressed with a whole string of different doctrines that you can boast about and use to judge other Christians. Doctrine has become a new law that you can use to measure your righteousness. The authentic Christian will study the Bible, but slowly and in his and God's own time. When he accepts a doctrine it is not because he believes he 'ought' to, or because he has learned it parrot fashion, but because it has come about as a result of effort, painstaking study, not leaving aside any detail. He tests all things, he doesn't try to fool himself or God that he understands more than he does. Like the widow's small offering, God does not want believers to display the "proud riches" of knowing the "True Doctrine", but just give to him that which they have. Some are not interested in spending hours studying theology, for in the new age of the Spirit not all are the same, having to follow the same blueprint, but we can be ourselves (that is why we are free). Others will study and seek (in humility) to understand a little of God's plan.

But for Adventists this freedom of the gospel is denied them. How many doctrines have you actually sat down and worked out from the Bible with concordances and Lexicons ? How many theologians have you read through to understand election, creation or redemption ? For the Adventist "Bible Study" means reading 5 proof texts already given to you; you seem to get a long way in a little time, but like so many other "time saving" tricks, what you end up with is a deception. "Learn all about English Literature in 3 hours!"- the moment someone asked you a question on Shakespeare’s "Othello" you'd realise how little you were told. Similarly the Adventist has no understanding of the Bible, but only faith that Adventism understands the Bible. If I were defending myself in a war and someone gave me a gun, I think I'd check it was loaded; especially if someone else told me it wasn't, but the Adventist puts all his faith and hope in his church and never dares check that what the church says is true !

Ask yourself, could I sit down with a non-Adventist Christian and go through Daniel and Revelation explaining every text and proving every interpretation ? Could I sit down and explain to them the Adventist understanding of the law and prove to them from the Bible that the law is the Ten Commandments ? Could I prove to them that Adventism is God's Remnant church, do I know what texts to quote, what passages to turn to ? Could I prove to them the sanctuary doctrine and explain what happened in 1844 ? Could I prove to them that Christians are obliged to conform to the Jewish dietary restrictions ? Could I show them that the Sabbath will be the great divide between the saved and the lost (except for Jews presumably) ? For 99% of Adventists the answer would be a straight 'no', or 'well I'd have to do a lot of study and preparation first'. In other words they never did the study and preparation for themselves, they just believed what they were told ! (And by "study and preparation" most Adventists mean just learning the Adventist arguments, not seriously studying whether the Adventist interpretation is correct). This is why many Adventists put on such a "liberal" front to non-Adventist Christians, not because they think it doesn't matter what you believe, but because they have never troubled themselves to understand why they actually believe what they do.

Look at what happened in 1844. The Millerites told other Christians that they knew the date of Christ's coming. The other Christians (naturally) pointed out that no one knows the date of Christ's coming. Ignoring this basic fact, the Millerites declared that anyone who didn't accept their teaching would be lost, that this was a "test" between the true Christian and the false Christian. When 1844 came and went what do we get ? The Millerites admitting they were wrong ? Not a bit of it ! Ellen White claims that God deliberately misled the Millerites and that he gave them the "Great Disappointment" as a test ! The early Adventists had an "us-and-them" attitude to all non- Adventists and refused to admit they had been wrong. Yet if you told the story of the "sanctuary in heaven" explanation to a non-Adventist, 99 out of 100 would tell you it was made up to save face. Yet Adventists just can't see this. They never question whether what the church says is complete rubbish or sounds true. For them, BECAUSE the church says it cannot be complete rubbish and MUST be true ! They cannot separate God from the church, to doubt and question Adventism they see as doubting and questioning God. To those who don't believe Adventism they think they must be "shutting out" the Holy Spirit, and think that God will "reveal" the truth of Adventism to them if they just surrender themselves to him a little more (!!!) They mistake absolute surrender to the church for absolute surrender to God, and so themselves sin against the Holy Spirit, making man equal with God.

For the Adventist the alternative is believing the Bible or believing Adventism. If you chose the former it requires hard work, the will to put aside long cherished beliefs if the Bible shows them to be false, but the joy of having the author of the Bible as your teacher and guide. If you chose the latter there is little effort involved, you have the "appearance of wisdom", boasting lists of True Doctrines given to you by the church, you never have to give up long cherished beliefs because all difficulties you can safely ignore, putting all your trust in the church having all the answers. But the guide you will be following will be one who cripples the mind, who maims the intellect, who deforms humanity into a shadowy replica of the one created in the image of God. "The law kills but the Spirit gives life ! " (2 Cor 3:6)

© John Mann 1983