This article is called "Cherry Picking the Commandments" and is written by Scott Klusendorf, an ex SDA. It appeared in Christian Research Journal. Please note that I am not singling out SDAs for criticism, but the thrust of this article is important in order to clarify the assertion that many Sabbathkeepers logically make...that if the Ten Commandments are applicable as a whole, then why don't "other Christians" keep the seventh-day Sabbath, especially Christians who claim the Ten Commandments as "the standard"?
It is a fair question, but the premise is invalid. The Mosaic Covenant cannot be split between the Ten Commandments and the "Book of the Covenant" as SDAS attempt to do. This issue also affects other Sabbathkeepers, not just SDAs. The key is viewing the Mosaic Covenant as a unified law. "Torah observers" claim to keep the entire Torah, but in reality they do not as they do not observe the entire Torah; only their pick and choose, cafeteria plan version of it.
SYNOPSIS
Evangelicals who engage Seventh-day Adventists on the question of Sabbath observance are stepping into a minefield if they don’t first clarify the nature of the Mosaic law and its relationship to Christians today. At issue are fundamental questions about the scope of the law, its purpose in the new covenant, and whether we can distinguish between those aspects that are morally binding (eternal) and those that are not.
Adventists have persuasive answers to these questions. Indeed, my own thesis is that evangelicals who contend for the continuity of the Mosaic Law in whole or in part and, at the same time, argue for the discontinuity of the Sabbath command, lack biblical support and face an almost intractable consistency problem. Conversely, evangelicals who argue for discontinuity—namely, that within the context of salvation history, the entire Mosaic law is fulfilled in Christ and thus has no direct claim on the believer—provide a biblically sound foundation for addressing the Sabbath question.
[HR][/HR]It is a fair question, but the premise is invalid. The Mosaic Covenant cannot be split between the Ten Commandments and the "Book of the Covenant" as SDAS attempt to do. This issue also affects other Sabbathkeepers, not just SDAs. The key is viewing the Mosaic Covenant as a unified law. "Torah observers" claim to keep the entire Torah, but in reality they do not as they do not observe the entire Torah; only their pick and choose, cafeteria plan version of it.
SYNOPSIS
Evangelicals who engage Seventh-day Adventists on the question of Sabbath observance are stepping into a minefield if they don’t first clarify the nature of the Mosaic law and its relationship to Christians today. At issue are fundamental questions about the scope of the law, its purpose in the new covenant, and whether we can distinguish between those aspects that are morally binding (eternal) and those that are not.
Adventists have persuasive answers to these questions. Indeed, my own thesis is that evangelicals who contend for the continuity of the Mosaic Law in whole or in part and, at the same time, argue for the discontinuity of the Sabbath command, lack biblical support and face an almost intractable consistency problem. Conversely, evangelicals who argue for discontinuity—namely, that within the context of salvation history, the entire Mosaic law is fulfilled in Christ and thus has no direct claim on the believer—provide a biblically sound foundation for addressing the Sabbath question.
Does the Mosaic law, most notably the Ten Commandments, continue to make direct claims on the believer and, if so, what does that mean for the Sabbath command in particular?
Before leaving the Seventh-day Adventist Church during my senior year of high school, I routinely stumped evangelicals with two questions taught me in middle school Bible class: “Tell me why you consider nine of the Ten Commandments still binding on the Christian, but not the fourth?” When my critics stumbled explaining a change of Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, a change that is difficult to justify from Scripture, I pulled out the dagger: “ When it comes to the Sabbath command, what right do you have to change the eternal law of God to something you like better?”
Indeed, I was convinced then, as I am now, that evangelicals who contend for the continuity of the Mosaic law in whole or in part and, at the same time, argue for the discontinuity of the Sabbath command, lack biblical support and face an almost intractable consistency problem.
Nevertheless, many evangelicals argue for some form of continuity between the Ten Commandments and what’s required of believers today. Willem VanGemeren’s Reformed perspective is a case in point. For VanGemeren, the continuity of God’s moral law is established from creation forward. One expression of that law is the Mosaic law, specifically, the moral aspects expressed in the Ten Commandments. Though Christ nullified the ceremonial and penal aspects of the law meant only for Israel, He elevated its moral requirements, calling for a more radical observance. In short, Jesus linked the Mosaic law to His own teaching on the kingdom of God, thus preserving the ethical demands of the former: “Under both covenants, the Lord has one standard for ethics, namely holiness or wholeness of life.… Under both administrations, God wants his people to love Him, keep his law, and to depend on Him wholly for life. The Ten Commandments, as a summary of the moral law, are a guide in the imitation of God.”[SUP]1
[/SUP]
VanGemeren is no legalist and nowhere does he suggest the law can save anyone under either covenant. His focus is sanctification for the believer, and he’s clear that under the new covenant, the law can never be interpreted apart from Christ. Moreover, while Christ modeled perfection, it is only by the Spirit that “the letter of the law becomes alive and powerful within the hearts of the Godly.”[SUP]2
[/SUP]
VanGemeren’s continuity thesis is not the only one in play. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., contends that faith and law are intertwined in both old and new covenants. While Christ fulfilled the ceremonial requirements on the cross, the moral law is based on God’s character, and since God’s character does not change, neither does the moral law. Thus, the law remains obligatory for Christians today. This shouldn’t trouble us, however, for God has promised to put His law into the hearts of new covenant believers. Moreover, the law points us to Christ and helps us know the will of God.[SUP]3
[/SUP]
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY “ADVENTIST”?
Despite the fact that many evangelicals hold to some form of continuity, they aren’t sure what to make of Adventism and its claims for continued Sabbath observance. Should we treat it as a non-Christian cult or debate its theological claims in-house? After dialoguing with Adventist leaders in the late 1950s, evangelical scholars Walter Martin and Donald Grey Barnhouse essentially gave one answer: That depends.[SUP]4
[/SUP]
Martin and Barnhouse found that a majority of Adventists fell roughly into one of two camps: traditional and evangelical. Briefly, traditional Adventism rejects foundational Protestant beliefs, such as the imputed righteousness of Christ, the authority of Scripture (insisting instead on the authority of alleged prophetess Ellen G. White to interpret biblical truth), the sinless humanity of Christ, and the Reformation’s understanding of “once and for all” atonement. The rejection of these fundamental beliefs, coupled with Adventism’s early flirtation with the Arian heresy, convinced many evangelical scholars that Adventism was cultic.[SUP]5
[/SUP]
That judgment was turned on its head with the emergence of evangelical Adventism in the late 1950s. Largely due to their dialogues with Martin and Barnhouse, evangelical Adventists either revised or repudiated the problematic teachings of traditional Adventism while affirming foundational Protestant beliefs on justification, atonement, and the authority of Scripture (viewing E. G. White as a helpful guide to the Bible, but not infallible). True, they retained Sabbath keeping as morally binding for Christians today, but Martin in particular argued that this belief, though errant, did not disqualify them from inclusion in the community of faith.[SUP]6
[/SUP]
The emergence of evangelical Adventism rocked the entire denomination and culminated in the 1957 volume Questions on Doctrine (QOD), which affirmed key evangelical beliefs. For traditional Adventists, QOD was a devastating blow to church distinctives, symbolic of a full surrender to the evangelical criticisms of Martin and Barnhouse. Evangelicals outside the church, meanwhile, hailed it as proof that Adventists were moving toward theological orthodoxy despite holding heterodox views on some lesser points of doctrine.
But the movement toward orthodoxy stalled when traditionalists staged a campaign against QOD shortly after its publication in 1957. Their efforts paid off. In 1963, the denomination stopped printing the volume and it remained out of print until Andrews University Press independently republished it in 2003 as part of its “Adventist Classic Library” series. According to respected SDA historian George R. Knight, the 1957 publication of Questions on Doctrine “did more than any other single event in Adventist history to create what appear to be permanently warring factions within the denomination.”[SUP]7[/SUP] In 1980, traditionalists scored again when the denomination fired leading evangelical spokesperson Desmond Ford and forced the resignation of 120 pastors who shared his views on forensic justification. Walter Martin was deeply troubled by these events and warned that the denomination would soon face doctrinal collapse. Thankfully, the persistent presence of evangelicals within the denomination is keeping the doctrinal debate alive.
Given the ongoing debate within Adventism, defining exactly what individual SDA congregations teach is tricky. For the purpose of this article, I will use the 2005 statement Fundamental Beliefs published by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.8 At least on paper, if not always in practice, those beliefs reflect many of the theological positions found in QOD.
THE ADVENTIST CASE FOR
A SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH
Official Adventist teaching affirms that while salvation is entirely by grace and not by works, the Ten Commandments represent God’s immutable moral law and apply directly to believers at all times and places:
The great principles of God’s law are embodied in the Ten Commandments and exemplified in the life of Christ. They express God’s love, will, and purposes concerning human conduct and relationships and are binding upon all people in every age. These precepts are the basis of God’s covenant with His people and the standard in God’s judgment. Through the agency of the Holy Spirit they point out sin and awaken a sense of need for a Savior. Salvation is all of grace and not of works, but its fruitage is obedience to the Commandments.[SUP]9
[/SUP]
Again, Adventists are clear that salvation is by grace alone, not grace plus works of the law. However, the “fruitage” of salvation by grace is obedience to the eternal law of God as expressed in the Ten Commandments, including the Sabbath command. This command was no accident: God affirmed it from the beginning as a memorial to His creation and, later, as a symbol of His redemptive work in Christ:
The beneficent Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of God’s unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of delightful communion with God and one another. It is a symbol of our redemption in Christ, a sign of our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our eternal future in God’s kingdom. The Sabbath is God’s perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people.[SUP]10
[/SUP]
The Adventist position on Sabbath observance and its relationship to God’s moral law can be put formally as follows:
P1: God’s immutable moral laws are expressed in the Ten Commandments.
P2: Because these commands are immutable, they apply to God’s people in all places and times.
P3: One of those immutable commands is keeping the seventh-day Sabbath, a day that functions as a memorial to creation and a symbol of our redemption.
P4: Therefore, the seventh-day Sabbath remains a direct requirement for God’s people today.
THE SABBATH AND THE CONTINUITY THESIS
The Adventist argument is clearly valid, meaning that if the premises are true, the conclusion about Sabbath-keeping follows.
The first premise is key to the entire argument and Adventists are not the only ones to affirm it. Historically, Origen and Tertullian read Paul as making a distinction between the moral and ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic law: the moral, expressing God’s eternal will for humanity, and the ceremonial, a temporary addition given only to prefigure Christ.[SUP]11[/SUP] This interpretation of Paul’s thought was widely accepted by the Western church and continues to enjoy support from evangelical scholars who argue that while salvation is by grace alone, God’s eternal moral law as found in the Ten Commandments remains a foundation for Christian sanctification and ethics.
Despite its theological heritage, I’m convinced that granting this continuity premise puts evangelicals in a weakened position on Sabbath-related questions. Consider VanGemeren’s claim that the continuity of God’s moral law is established from creation forward and is expressed in the Ten Commandments. Where does this leave the Sabbath commandment? Though VanGemeren does not address the question in detail, it’s fair to assume that he holds a traditional Reformed position—namely, that the Sabbath no longer adheres to the seventh day, but to the first, in order to commemorate the resurrection.[SUP]12
[/SUP]
It’s exactly at this point that his continuum thesis fails to deliver for evangelicals hoping to engage Adventist teaching. As A. T. Lincoln points out, if the Ten Commandments contain God’s immutable moral laws, why is only the fourth one singled out for change (from the seventh day to the first day) or exclusion? And by what authority is it changed or excluded?
Those who argue in this way but apply the fourth commandment to Sunday, the first day of the week, are certainly not as consistent as those groups, such as Seventh-Day Adventists, who still observe the seventh day; they need to face this inconsistency head-on. On their own presuppositions, by what right do they tamper with an eternally valid moral law? What criterion allows them to isolate the seventh-day aspect, which after all is at the heart of the commandment and its rationale (cf. Exodus 20:11), as a temporary feature belonging only to the Mosaic period, while retaining the remainder of the Decalogue as normative for all ages?[SUP]13
[/SUP]
Given VanGemeren’s claim that, although the law applies in the new covenant, it must be interpreted through Christ, he could say that the seventh-day Sabbath is not an eternal law, only an eternal principle. Those whom Christ redeems are to rest one day in seven. But this response presents two additional problems.
First, as Douglas Moo points out, the only way to know the Sabbath command is merely a principle and not an eternal law is to consult the New Testament.[SUP]14[/SUP] But if that’s the case, the Mosaic Law itself is not eternal, but applies to believers today only insofar as affirmed by Christ and the apostles—a position VanGemeren rejects.
Second, it fails to consider the context in which the original seventh-day command is given. Nowhere does the commandment provide for an alternate day of rest, nor is one provided for priests who, unlike the rest of God’s people, were required to work on the seventh day. “Many Christians observe the Sabbath in principle by resting one day in seven, but not on the seventh day,” writes theologian Arthur Baylis. “This, of course, would not have been an acceptable procedure of an Israelite.”[SUP]15[/SUP]
Moral versus Ceremonial: Is the Split Justified?
At the same time, VanGemeren (and Kaiser, too) unintentionally provides Adventists further cover with his tripartite distinction between the moral aspects of the Mosaic law found in the Ten Commandments, and the civil and ceremonial aspects presented elsewhere. When confronted with passages such as Romans 14:5, Galatians 4:10, and Colossians 2:16 that call into question Sabbatarian doctrines, Adventists typically reply that these passages refer to ceremonial Sabbath days, which are no longer binding, not the Ten Commandments, which are.[SUP]16
[/SUP]
D. R. De Lacey and A. T. Lincoln provide exegetical support for thinking Paul has the Ten Commandment Sabbath in mind,[SUP]17[/SUP] but unless one wants to haggle with Adventists over the precise meaning of “days,” a more effective approach is to challenge the tripartite division of the Mosaic law itself. Is the division supported in Scripture?
There are good reasons to think it is not. First, the Old Testament as a whole makes no such distinction. As Wayne Strickland points out, Israel was not permitted to ignore any category of the law (Lev. 26:14–15; Deut. 11:1) and nowhere does Moses present a case for selective obedience based on hierarchy.[SUP]18[/SUP] Moreover, in several Old Testament contexts, the moral and ceremonial aspects are almost impossible to separate. Strickland, citing G. J. Wenham, notes that in Leviticus 19:18–19, the moral command to love one’s neighbor is given right alongside a prohibition on the mixed breeding of animals. One chapter later, the command to “be holy” immediately precedes one to execute unruly children.[SUP]19
[/SUP]
Second, within the Decalogue itself, the division between what is moral (eternal) and what is not is unclear. Setting aside the obvious example of the Sabbath commandment, Moo points out that the rationale for the fifth commandment—honor your father and your mother—is linked specifically to the land God is giving the Israelites and thus does not provide an adequate grounding for universal application.[SUP]20
[/SUP]
Third, the New Testament rejects attempts at division. The Jews in Paul’s day didn’t divide the law into categories, but insisted it must be obeyed in whole.[SUP]21[/SUP] Paul challenges Galatian believers to walk by the spirit rather than live by the law, since doing the latter requires one to “obey the whole law” (Gal. 5:3). James, meanwhile, warns that transgressing the law anywhere is to transgress it everywhere. If one wants to live by the law, he must obey all of it—flawlessly (James 2:10).
Fourth, at the grammatical level, Strickland points out that words used to justify a tripartite division have varied meanings. For example, “statute” in Leviticus refers to a ceremonial ordinance, but elsewhere means any regulation. “Judgment” can mean judicial decisions or case legislation.[SUP]22
[/SUP]
Finally, great moral laws are found outside the Decalogue. Arthur Baylis cites a powerful example. Christ said the second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself, but you won’t find it in the Ten Commandments. It’s recorded in Leviticus 19:18, “bumper to bumper with such commands as: Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.”[SUP]23
[/SUP]
In short, the categorizing of selected Old Testament laws as “moral,” and thus binding, while dismissing others as “ceremonial” is methodologically questionable and tactically disastrous when confronting Adventist Sabbatarian teaching. There is a more logical and biblically supported approach to the Mosaic Law.
Article continued below -
Before leaving the Seventh-day Adventist Church during my senior year of high school, I routinely stumped evangelicals with two questions taught me in middle school Bible class: “Tell me why you consider nine of the Ten Commandments still binding on the Christian, but not the fourth?” When my critics stumbled explaining a change of Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, a change that is difficult to justify from Scripture, I pulled out the dagger: “ When it comes to the Sabbath command, what right do you have to change the eternal law of God to something you like better?”
Indeed, I was convinced then, as I am now, that evangelicals who contend for the continuity of the Mosaic law in whole or in part and, at the same time, argue for the discontinuity of the Sabbath command, lack biblical support and face an almost intractable consistency problem.
Nevertheless, many evangelicals argue for some form of continuity between the Ten Commandments and what’s required of believers today. Willem VanGemeren’s Reformed perspective is a case in point. For VanGemeren, the continuity of God’s moral law is established from creation forward. One expression of that law is the Mosaic law, specifically, the moral aspects expressed in the Ten Commandments. Though Christ nullified the ceremonial and penal aspects of the law meant only for Israel, He elevated its moral requirements, calling for a more radical observance. In short, Jesus linked the Mosaic law to His own teaching on the kingdom of God, thus preserving the ethical demands of the former: “Under both covenants, the Lord has one standard for ethics, namely holiness or wholeness of life.… Under both administrations, God wants his people to love Him, keep his law, and to depend on Him wholly for life. The Ten Commandments, as a summary of the moral law, are a guide in the imitation of God.”[SUP]1
[/SUP]
VanGemeren is no legalist and nowhere does he suggest the law can save anyone under either covenant. His focus is sanctification for the believer, and he’s clear that under the new covenant, the law can never be interpreted apart from Christ. Moreover, while Christ modeled perfection, it is only by the Spirit that “the letter of the law becomes alive and powerful within the hearts of the Godly.”[SUP]2
[/SUP]
VanGemeren’s continuity thesis is not the only one in play. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., contends that faith and law are intertwined in both old and new covenants. While Christ fulfilled the ceremonial requirements on the cross, the moral law is based on God’s character, and since God’s character does not change, neither does the moral law. Thus, the law remains obligatory for Christians today. This shouldn’t trouble us, however, for God has promised to put His law into the hearts of new covenant believers. Moreover, the law points us to Christ and helps us know the will of God.[SUP]3
[/SUP]
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY “ADVENTIST”?
Despite the fact that many evangelicals hold to some form of continuity, they aren’t sure what to make of Adventism and its claims for continued Sabbath observance. Should we treat it as a non-Christian cult or debate its theological claims in-house? After dialoguing with Adventist leaders in the late 1950s, evangelical scholars Walter Martin and Donald Grey Barnhouse essentially gave one answer: That depends.[SUP]4
[/SUP]
Martin and Barnhouse found that a majority of Adventists fell roughly into one of two camps: traditional and evangelical. Briefly, traditional Adventism rejects foundational Protestant beliefs, such as the imputed righteousness of Christ, the authority of Scripture (insisting instead on the authority of alleged prophetess Ellen G. White to interpret biblical truth), the sinless humanity of Christ, and the Reformation’s understanding of “once and for all” atonement. The rejection of these fundamental beliefs, coupled with Adventism’s early flirtation with the Arian heresy, convinced many evangelical scholars that Adventism was cultic.[SUP]5
[/SUP]
That judgment was turned on its head with the emergence of evangelical Adventism in the late 1950s. Largely due to their dialogues with Martin and Barnhouse, evangelical Adventists either revised or repudiated the problematic teachings of traditional Adventism while affirming foundational Protestant beliefs on justification, atonement, and the authority of Scripture (viewing E. G. White as a helpful guide to the Bible, but not infallible). True, they retained Sabbath keeping as morally binding for Christians today, but Martin in particular argued that this belief, though errant, did not disqualify them from inclusion in the community of faith.[SUP]6
[/SUP]
The emergence of evangelical Adventism rocked the entire denomination and culminated in the 1957 volume Questions on Doctrine (QOD), which affirmed key evangelical beliefs. For traditional Adventists, QOD was a devastating blow to church distinctives, symbolic of a full surrender to the evangelical criticisms of Martin and Barnhouse. Evangelicals outside the church, meanwhile, hailed it as proof that Adventists were moving toward theological orthodoxy despite holding heterodox views on some lesser points of doctrine.
But the movement toward orthodoxy stalled when traditionalists staged a campaign against QOD shortly after its publication in 1957. Their efforts paid off. In 1963, the denomination stopped printing the volume and it remained out of print until Andrews University Press independently republished it in 2003 as part of its “Adventist Classic Library” series. According to respected SDA historian George R. Knight, the 1957 publication of Questions on Doctrine “did more than any other single event in Adventist history to create what appear to be permanently warring factions within the denomination.”[SUP]7[/SUP] In 1980, traditionalists scored again when the denomination fired leading evangelical spokesperson Desmond Ford and forced the resignation of 120 pastors who shared his views on forensic justification. Walter Martin was deeply troubled by these events and warned that the denomination would soon face doctrinal collapse. Thankfully, the persistent presence of evangelicals within the denomination is keeping the doctrinal debate alive.
Given the ongoing debate within Adventism, defining exactly what individual SDA congregations teach is tricky. For the purpose of this article, I will use the 2005 statement Fundamental Beliefs published by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.8 At least on paper, if not always in practice, those beliefs reflect many of the theological positions found in QOD.
THE ADVENTIST CASE FOR
A SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH
Official Adventist teaching affirms that while salvation is entirely by grace and not by works, the Ten Commandments represent God’s immutable moral law and apply directly to believers at all times and places:
The great principles of God’s law are embodied in the Ten Commandments and exemplified in the life of Christ. They express God’s love, will, and purposes concerning human conduct and relationships and are binding upon all people in every age. These precepts are the basis of God’s covenant with His people and the standard in God’s judgment. Through the agency of the Holy Spirit they point out sin and awaken a sense of need for a Savior. Salvation is all of grace and not of works, but its fruitage is obedience to the Commandments.[SUP]9
[/SUP]
Again, Adventists are clear that salvation is by grace alone, not grace plus works of the law. However, the “fruitage” of salvation by grace is obedience to the eternal law of God as expressed in the Ten Commandments, including the Sabbath command. This command was no accident: God affirmed it from the beginning as a memorial to His creation and, later, as a symbol of His redemptive work in Christ:
The beneficent Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of God’s unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of delightful communion with God and one another. It is a symbol of our redemption in Christ, a sign of our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our eternal future in God’s kingdom. The Sabbath is God’s perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people.[SUP]10
[/SUP]
The Adventist position on Sabbath observance and its relationship to God’s moral law can be put formally as follows:
P1: God’s immutable moral laws are expressed in the Ten Commandments.
P2: Because these commands are immutable, they apply to God’s people in all places and times.
P3: One of those immutable commands is keeping the seventh-day Sabbath, a day that functions as a memorial to creation and a symbol of our redemption.
P4: Therefore, the seventh-day Sabbath remains a direct requirement for God’s people today.
THE SABBATH AND THE CONTINUITY THESIS
The Adventist argument is clearly valid, meaning that if the premises are true, the conclusion about Sabbath-keeping follows.
The first premise is key to the entire argument and Adventists are not the only ones to affirm it. Historically, Origen and Tertullian read Paul as making a distinction between the moral and ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic law: the moral, expressing God’s eternal will for humanity, and the ceremonial, a temporary addition given only to prefigure Christ.[SUP]11[/SUP] This interpretation of Paul’s thought was widely accepted by the Western church and continues to enjoy support from evangelical scholars who argue that while salvation is by grace alone, God’s eternal moral law as found in the Ten Commandments remains a foundation for Christian sanctification and ethics.
Despite its theological heritage, I’m convinced that granting this continuity premise puts evangelicals in a weakened position on Sabbath-related questions. Consider VanGemeren’s claim that the continuity of God’s moral law is established from creation forward and is expressed in the Ten Commandments. Where does this leave the Sabbath commandment? Though VanGemeren does not address the question in detail, it’s fair to assume that he holds a traditional Reformed position—namely, that the Sabbath no longer adheres to the seventh day, but to the first, in order to commemorate the resurrection.[SUP]12
[/SUP]
It’s exactly at this point that his continuum thesis fails to deliver for evangelicals hoping to engage Adventist teaching. As A. T. Lincoln points out, if the Ten Commandments contain God’s immutable moral laws, why is only the fourth one singled out for change (from the seventh day to the first day) or exclusion? And by what authority is it changed or excluded?
Those who argue in this way but apply the fourth commandment to Sunday, the first day of the week, are certainly not as consistent as those groups, such as Seventh-Day Adventists, who still observe the seventh day; they need to face this inconsistency head-on. On their own presuppositions, by what right do they tamper with an eternally valid moral law? What criterion allows them to isolate the seventh-day aspect, which after all is at the heart of the commandment and its rationale (cf. Exodus 20:11), as a temporary feature belonging only to the Mosaic period, while retaining the remainder of the Decalogue as normative for all ages?[SUP]13
[/SUP]
Given VanGemeren’s claim that, although the law applies in the new covenant, it must be interpreted through Christ, he could say that the seventh-day Sabbath is not an eternal law, only an eternal principle. Those whom Christ redeems are to rest one day in seven. But this response presents two additional problems.
First, as Douglas Moo points out, the only way to know the Sabbath command is merely a principle and not an eternal law is to consult the New Testament.[SUP]14[/SUP] But if that’s the case, the Mosaic Law itself is not eternal, but applies to believers today only insofar as affirmed by Christ and the apostles—a position VanGemeren rejects.
Second, it fails to consider the context in which the original seventh-day command is given. Nowhere does the commandment provide for an alternate day of rest, nor is one provided for priests who, unlike the rest of God’s people, were required to work on the seventh day. “Many Christians observe the Sabbath in principle by resting one day in seven, but not on the seventh day,” writes theologian Arthur Baylis. “This, of course, would not have been an acceptable procedure of an Israelite.”[SUP]15[/SUP]
Moral versus Ceremonial: Is the Split Justified?
At the same time, VanGemeren (and Kaiser, too) unintentionally provides Adventists further cover with his tripartite distinction between the moral aspects of the Mosaic law found in the Ten Commandments, and the civil and ceremonial aspects presented elsewhere. When confronted with passages such as Romans 14:5, Galatians 4:10, and Colossians 2:16 that call into question Sabbatarian doctrines, Adventists typically reply that these passages refer to ceremonial Sabbath days, which are no longer binding, not the Ten Commandments, which are.[SUP]16
[/SUP]
D. R. De Lacey and A. T. Lincoln provide exegetical support for thinking Paul has the Ten Commandment Sabbath in mind,[SUP]17[/SUP] but unless one wants to haggle with Adventists over the precise meaning of “days,” a more effective approach is to challenge the tripartite division of the Mosaic law itself. Is the division supported in Scripture?
There are good reasons to think it is not. First, the Old Testament as a whole makes no such distinction. As Wayne Strickland points out, Israel was not permitted to ignore any category of the law (Lev. 26:14–15; Deut. 11:1) and nowhere does Moses present a case for selective obedience based on hierarchy.[SUP]18[/SUP] Moreover, in several Old Testament contexts, the moral and ceremonial aspects are almost impossible to separate. Strickland, citing G. J. Wenham, notes that in Leviticus 19:18–19, the moral command to love one’s neighbor is given right alongside a prohibition on the mixed breeding of animals. One chapter later, the command to “be holy” immediately precedes one to execute unruly children.[SUP]19
[/SUP]
Second, within the Decalogue itself, the division between what is moral (eternal) and what is not is unclear. Setting aside the obvious example of the Sabbath commandment, Moo points out that the rationale for the fifth commandment—honor your father and your mother—is linked specifically to the land God is giving the Israelites and thus does not provide an adequate grounding for universal application.[SUP]20
[/SUP]
Third, the New Testament rejects attempts at division. The Jews in Paul’s day didn’t divide the law into categories, but insisted it must be obeyed in whole.[SUP]21[/SUP] Paul challenges Galatian believers to walk by the spirit rather than live by the law, since doing the latter requires one to “obey the whole law” (Gal. 5:3). James, meanwhile, warns that transgressing the law anywhere is to transgress it everywhere. If one wants to live by the law, he must obey all of it—flawlessly (James 2:10).
Fourth, at the grammatical level, Strickland points out that words used to justify a tripartite division have varied meanings. For example, “statute” in Leviticus refers to a ceremonial ordinance, but elsewhere means any regulation. “Judgment” can mean judicial decisions or case legislation.[SUP]22
[/SUP]
Finally, great moral laws are found outside the Decalogue. Arthur Baylis cites a powerful example. Christ said the second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself, but you won’t find it in the Ten Commandments. It’s recorded in Leviticus 19:18, “bumper to bumper with such commands as: Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.”[SUP]23
[/SUP]
In short, the categorizing of selected Old Testament laws as “moral,” and thus binding, while dismissing others as “ceremonial” is methodologically questionable and tactically disastrous when confronting Adventist Sabbatarian teaching. There is a more logical and biblically supported approach to the Mosaic Law.
Article continued below -
Last edited: