I would like to thank xxxxx for his comments on _Error in Bible Teaching_.
They have opened up some amazing truths for me which I will discuss briefly
in this mail but would like to explore further in more detail later.
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxxxxxxx
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.adventist
Date: 28 December 1998 18:17
Subject: Re: A source of Error in Bible Doctrine
My post about Error in Bible Doctrine gave the Dual Law theory as an
example. In this theory the Ten Commandments are given a role and meaning
because of the symbolism of their being "set in stone" and "written with the
finger of God", rather than studying the Bible to find their true meaning.
xxxxxx replies as follows (my original posting is marked >>,
xxxxx's reply with >).
>In article <766me1$jnc$1@remarQ.com>, "John Mann"
wrote:
>>A common source of error in Bible Doctrine is metaphor. The belief that
the
>>Ten Commandments are universal is a good example of this. Often people
argue
>>that because the Ten Commandments were written on stone this makes them
>>universally applicable. In other words, they are attributing a metaphor of
>>"set in stone" - meaning to last forever - to also mean to apply to
>>everyone.
>
>>With respect to the law written on stone, note that in Dueteronomy 27 God
>>commands Israel to set up stones and write on them all the words of the
law.
>>"And you shall write very clearly all the words of this law on these
stones
>>you have set up" (Deut 27:8)
>>
>>So what are often referred to as "ceremonial" laws were also written on
>>stone - does this make them universally applicable also?
>
>It's not important that they are written in stone, it is important that
they
>are written by God's finger.
xxxxx states that it is not important that they are written in stone.
However in a recent reply of his (The Seventh-day Advent(1): The law of
Christ) he uses this fact a number of times. He contrasts the Ten
Commandments and the Moses' law by stating one was written on stone, the
other on paper:
"The ten commandments were written by God's finger on stone tablets, and
placed
into the ark.
Moses' law was hand-written by Moses in a book, and placed in the side of
the
ark."
Similarly Zoltan Ladi, another defender of the Dual Law theory writes in his
recent posting:
"Written on the tables of stone, why? Because, it shall remain forever!"
So this is often listed as an important distinction by Dual Law theorists.
It is an interesting admission by xxxxx that he now does not regard it as
important.
>Obviously, the ten commandments cannot be
>identified as "the book of the law",
This is not "obviously". The Ten Commandments are part of the Book of the
Law.
2 Kings 22 describes the Book of the Law being found, in chapter 23 we read:
"the king stood by the pillar and renewed the covenant in the presence of
the LORD - to follow the LORD and keep his commands, regulations and decrees
with all his heart and all his soul, thus confirming the words of the
covenant written in this book" (2 Ki 23:3).
So "the words of the covenant" are in the Book of the Law. What are the
words of the covenant? The Ten Commandments! (Ex 34:28, "and he wrote on the
tablets the words of the covenant - the Ten Commandments").
>or a "handwritten law of ordinances".
> It was on stone tablets and did not deal with feasts and ordinances.
>
>Moses' law of ordinances is hand-written by Moses in a book and deals with
>ceremonies, sacrifices, feast days, ceremonial sabbath days, and meat and
>drink offerings. It is against the people ("that it may be there for a
>witness against thee" Deuteronomy 31:26).
The idea that the moral part of the law was contained in the Ten
Commandments and the ceremonial part in the rest of the law is incorrect.
When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, he did not quote
from the Ten Commandments, but from what xxxxx would call the "Book of the
Law", because in fact the law is one, not split into two.
To separate out these parts of the law from the Ten Commandments is not
doing justice to scripture. The law is given as part of God's covenant with
Israel. It is all one law, not two laws. There is no concept in the Bible of
separate "ceremonial" and "moral" laws, they are all one.
>
>Clearly, in Col 2:14-26, the "handwriting of ordinances that was against
us"
>that was "nailed to the cross" is Moses' handwritten law of ordinances.
>
>COLOSSIANS 2:14-16 "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was
>against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing
it
>to his cross"
Again, there is no "clearly" here. As someone interested in this issue,
xxxxx will no doubt be aware that the famous Adventist theologian Samuele
Bacchiocchi takes a different view. The term "cheirographon" of Col 2:14 is
not used elsewhere in the Bible, which leads Bacchiocchi to claim that it
doesn't refer to the law at all.
In my opinion Paul's argument in Colossians, although not directed against a
Jewish heresy but a proto-gnostic heresy, uses the same logic as against the
Jewish heresies (for example in Galatians), and so it is permissible to
understand "cheirographon" as a reference to the law as a whole, but not
just one part of it as xxxxx suggests. By comparing Paul's argument in
Colossians with other parts of the New Testament we can see that Paul is
making the same point here as elsewhere.
Let us look in a little more detail at the second chapter of Colossions to
see what Paul is saying.
"In him [Christ] you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful
nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the
circumcision done by Christ" (Col 2:11)
Why is Paul insisting the believers have been circumcised? Because
circumcision was required by the law, it was a sign of the covenant. If
xxxx is correct, Paul should not need to bother with showing that
believers were circumcised, as this was no longer required of Gentiles.
However Paul treats the law as a single whole, and therefore argues that the
requirements of the law are still binding. For this reason believers still
have to be circumcised, but under the new covenant this is done by Christ.
The same logic holds true of unclean foods. Jesus declares all foods clean
yet keeps the law - how? Because we are unclean by what comes out of our
mouth, not by what goes in. So the requirement of the law (what xxxxx
would call a ceremonial requirement) remains for believers, but we obey it
through Christ.
Paul goes on to state that formerly the believers were "dead in your sins"
(Col 2:13) because they were outside of the covenant ("in the uncircumcision
of your sinful nature" Col 2:13). Failure to obey the law of course leads to
condemnation (see Deut 38-31, this deals with the covenant - which includes
the Ten Commandments - not just the ceremonial law).
"See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction"
(Deut 30:15)
So we are under death and destruction because we have failed to keep the law
required by the covenant. Does the covenant require us to obey only the
ceremonial law or all the law? All the law. What then condemns us? The whole
law.
Paul writes:
"He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the written code, with its
regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it
away, nailing it to the cross" (col 2:13b-14)
So the written code stood opposed to us, and in nailing it to the cross
Christ "forgave us all our sins". Does that sound like a ceremonial law? To
suggest such a thing is out of line with the rest of the New Testament, and
in conflict with the argument made by Paul here. Sin is transgression of the
law. Just the ceremonial law? No, the whole law.
Compare what Paul says here with what he states in Galatians. He writes of
two covenants:
"One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves"
(Gal 4:24)
"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written
'Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the
Book of the Law'. Clearly no-one is justified before God by the law, because
'the righteous will live by faith'. The law is not based on faith, on the
contrary 'the man who does these things will live by them'. Christ redeemed
us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us" (Gal 3:10-13)
We have already shown that the Book of the Law contains the Ten
Commandments, but the fact that Paul shows that it is the "covenant .. from
Mount Sinai" which produces "slaves" shows that the whole law is meant. The
Ten Commandments are the "words of the covenant" and not separate from it.
2 Corinthians Chapter 3 makes it even more plain. Paul contrasts the old
covenant and the new covenant (the two covenants spoken of in Galatians). Of
the old covenant he writes "the letter kills" (2 Cor 3:6), as in Galatians
he wrote that the old covenant law placed one "under a curse" and in
Colossians "the written code.. that stood opposed to us". So Paul is making
the same point here that he made in Galatians and Colossians. What is this
"letter" - is it the ceremonial law? NO! Paul writes:
"the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters of stone" (2
Cor 3:7)
Paul contrasts the new covenant with the old:
"written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets
of stone but on tablets of human hearts" (2 Cor 3:3)
So Paul is taking both the Book of the Law placed beside the ark and the Ten
Commandments placed inside the ark and treating them as both part of the old
covenant. It is this covenant that condemns, that kills, that brings us
under a curse. This it is incorrect to simply argue that only the ceremonial
law brings us under a curse.
>
>>So the Bible states that the Ten Commandments were simply part of God's
>>covenant with Israel. They were "the words of the covenant" (Ex 34:28),
they
>>were kept in the "ark of the covenant", with the book of the covenant.
>
>That's incorrect. The book of the covenant was kept "in the SIDE of the
ark",
>not inside the ark. (Deuteronomy 31:26)
If you read my earlier posting _21 Issues Still Unanswered on the law_ I go
into this in more detail:
"Often those arguing for the ten commandments applying to gentiles say the
TORAH is divided into the "moral law" and the "ceremonial law". I have shown
that these terms do not appear in Scripture and that the Bible never divides
the law in this fashion. Indeed it goes against the whole concept of a
covenant with Israel, whose details are contained in the book of the law,
whose agreement is signed by God in the words of the covenant, and which is
kept in the ark of the covenant. No one has shown the law can be separated
from the covenant."
At this point as I was reading xxxxx's post God really opened up to me
what was happening here. I have often asked myself how the Bible can be so
clear and plain on this issue yet traditional Adventists are unable to see
what the Bible is saying. Why is xxxxx unable to see that the one
definition the Bible makes of the Ten Commandments is that they are the
"words of the covenant"? Why can't he treat them the same as the rest of
that covenant? Suddenly I knew the answer:
"But their minds were made dull, for to this day when Moses is read, a veil
covers their hearts" (2 Cor 3:15)
This text came into my head, together with a phrase: "the veil of the law".
Now I understand, traditional Adventism has the veil of the law over its
eyes and over its heart which prevents it from seeing the truth. This is
what Sister White realised in 1888 and what is stopping the church receiving
the full outpouring of the spirit. What is the former and latter rain? The
old and new covenants! Traditional Adventism is unable to receive the latter
rain because of the veil of the law!
This shows the importance of this issue. Why is the New Testament full of
these debates about the law? As a history lesson of what happened in the
Early Church? Is it not rather to do with the state of the remnant church,
who, under the veil of the law are unable to receive the Spirit, for "only
in Christ is it taken away" (2 Cor 3:14)
>
>Clearly, in Col 2:14-26, the "handwriting of ordinances that was against
us"
>that was "nailed to the cross" is Moses' handwritten law of ordinances; the
>book of the covenant.
>
We have shown above that this is not the case.
>The ten-commandment tablets themselves were placed in the ark. That same
>ark resides in the temple of God in heaven (Rev 12:19) "The Temple of God
was
>opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his
testament."
>
>Obviously, the ten commandments are for all mankind and for all time as
they
>are seen here at the end of time.
>
The law was a copy of things in heaven. The Book of Revelation shows not
simply the ark but many items from the law in heaven, the golden
candlesticks, the seven trumpets, Christ appears at the beginning of
Revelation dressed as a High Priest. Revelation is important and we need to
understand what this symbolism means. xxxxx suggests:
"Obviously, the ten commandments are for all mankind and for all time as
they are seen here at the end of time"
But let us look at this logic. xxxxx is saying that because something is
seen in vision at the end of time, this means it is directly applicable to
all mankind and for all time. If this is true we need to apply it to the
temple, the golden candlesticks, the trumpets, the high priest and so on.
Are we to go through the Book of Revelation to see which parts of the old
covenant it refers to, and then announce that these must be applicable to
all mankind for all time? (Isn't this what some Adventist off-shoots have
done when they have re-introduced old covenant practises?) From xxxxx's
logic, this we need to be consistent. If this argument applies to the ark of
the covenant it applies to other symbolism taken from the old covenant also.
However there are a number of reasons for rejecting this interpretation:
1. Revelation, like other books of prophecy such as Daniel, Ezekiel and
Zechariah uses symbolism in which objects stand for or represent other
objects, such as beasts represent kingdoms. Thus we should not automatically
take some aspect of prophecy literally - from the genre it is more likely we
should take it symbolically.
2. Revelation is not concerned with explaining doctrine, but with revealing
what must come to pass. We should not therefore derive doctrine such as the
relation between the old and new covenants from the Book of Revelation but
look to the letters of Paul for example where this is dealt with explicitly
and non-symbolically.
3. To follow xxxxx's logic everything from the old covenant referred to in
Revelation must be literally obeyed by Christians, but we know from the rest
of the New Testament that this is not the case, hence xxxxx's originally
assumption cannot be true.
Why then do we see these symbols frem the old covenant in heaven? In what
sense do they still apply? We have seen from Christ in the gospels that
there is a higher law that the old covenant law was only a shadow of. The
old covenant spoke of unclean foods, which was but a shadow of the true
clean/unclean distinction which Christ taught us concerns having a clean
heart. Similarly the old covenant spoke of circumcision, but Paul shows this
referred to circumcision of the heart, not of the flesh. So from the rest of
the New Testament we know that the law of the old covenant was a shadow or
symbol of God's true law. So this symbolism in Revelation actually shows us
what the rest of the New Testament teaches, that there is a higher temple, a
higher covenant, a higher law of which the old covenant was a shadow.
>Moses' law was throw out: That means:
>We do NOT have to be circumsized. We do NOT have to kill a lamb at
passover.
>We do NOT have to return to Jerusalem once every year.
Not at all. The New Testament does not say Moses law was thrown out. Instead
it says "not one jot nor tittle shall pass from the law", Paul also speaks
of the law as "holy and just and good". So there is no justification for
claiming that the law is thrown out. Instead as Paul shows we are
circumcised by Christ, not by human hands, Christ is our passover lamb and
so on.
>
>If God's 10 commandments were thrown out: That would mean:
>We do NOT have to refrain from murder. We do NOT have to refrain from
>worshiping other gods. We do NOT have to refrain from stealing and lying,
and
>so on.
>
This is the veil of the law in its purest form. How often do traditional
Adventists deny Christ like this! The number of times I have read postings
in which traditional Adventists write as if Christ had never come.
Here xxxxx writes that if we are no longer under the old covenant then we
are free to break all the laws of the old covenant. The "veil of the law"
has hidden the simple fact that Christ has come and given us a new covenant!
>>Yet why should something written by God be more important than
>>something said by God? Jesus did not leave any writings, yet does this
make
>>his words less important?
>
>That's right! What God wrote with His finger and what Jesus said are
equally
>important.
>
This is inconsistent with what xxxxx wrote earlier. Above he writes:
"it is important that they are written by God's finger."
And again we have the "veil of the law" - what are equally important? "What
God wrote with His finger and what Jesus said are equally important" - so
the old and new covenants are equally important! What sort of Good News is
this?
>Upon writing the ten commandments, God said, "...love me, and keep MY
>commandments." (Exodus 20:6) Jesus said, "If you love me keep MY
>commandments." (John 14:15)
>
Yet another example of the veil of the law!! The number of times I have
covered the law and commandments in the Gospel of John, yet still xxxxx's
heart is covered with a veil. The old and new covenants are not the same!
The Gospel of John is constantly *contrasting* Jesus with the old covenant,
and this is an example!
Here are the details **yet again** (this is from "21 Issues still unanswered
on the law"):
The term "commandments" in the writings of John
Quotes from John, where Jesus says "keep my commandments" are cited as
referring to the ten commandments. However I have often pointed out that
"the law" and "commandments" in John mean two totally different things. Law
always refers to the Jewish TORAH, "commandments" to Jesus new commandments.
No one has replied to this fact.
The law refers to the old covenant, it is the law of Moses: "the law was
given through Moses" (1:17), "Moses wrote about in the law" (1:45), "it is
the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat" (5:10), "has not Moses
given you the law, yet not one of you keeps the law" (7:19), "the law of
Moses" (7:23), "this mob knows nothing of the law" (7:49), "the teachers of
the law" (8:3), "in the law Moses commanded us to stone..." (8:5), "we have
heard from the law that the Messiah will remain forever" (12:34), "we have a
law and according to that law he must die" (19:17), "judge him by your own
law" (18:31).
But "command" is the new commandment of Christ: "a new commandment I give
you: love one another" (13:34), "if you love me you will obey what I
command" (14:15), "whoever has my commands and obeys me, he is the one who
loves me" (14:21), "I do exactly what my Father has commanded me" (14:31),
"if you obey my commands you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed
my Father's commands and remain in his love" (15:10), "my command is this:
love each other as I have loved you" (15:12), "you are my friends if you do
what I command" (15:14), "this is my command, love one another" (15:17),
"this command I received from my Father" (10:18), "for I did not speak of my
own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to
say it. I know his command leads to eternal life" (12:49-50).
Indeed, John shows that "the law" belongs to the Jews and has nothing to do
with the new age, "the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came
through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17), the Jews speak of "our law" (7:51), Jesus
calls it "your own law" (8:17) and "your law" (10:34), hence Jesus new
commandment of love is for Christians under the new covenant, the old
covenant of the law of Moses is passed away. These meanings of "law" and
"command" are repeated in John's writings: "we can be sure we know him if we
obey his commands, the man who says 'I know him' but does not do what he
commands is a liar" (1 John 2:3-4, see 1 John 2:7-8, 3:21,23-24,4:21,5:2-3,
2 John 1:4-6, also Revelation "keep God's commandments" Rev 12:17,14:12).
So although "commandment" ("entole" in the Greek) is generally synonymous
with "law" ("nomos" in the Greek) in the New Testament, this is not the case
in the writings of John. As we have seen above, in John the term "law" and
"commandments" are used to have specifically different meanings. It is
misleading to simply quote "commandments" from John and imply it is used in
the same sense as the rest of the New Testament. In particular, it most
certainly is *not* the same as the Jewish law!
>xxxxxxx
>(Seventh-Day Adventist)
>xxxxxx
If only Seventh-Day Adventists could experience the Seventh-day Advent!
Thank you for opening up the truth about the veil of the law,
this is an important truth, I am sure.
John