by Dave Clark
Scripture: "My covenant will I not break,
nor alter the
My subject, today (which is, the "Law of God"), is one which is near and dear to my heart. It is near and dear to my heart because God has taken a lot of undeserved grief over His Law for more than six thousand years — ever since Lucifer first became infatuated with his own image. This subject is also one of those topics which we need to understand correctly in order to have a righteous relationship with God. Why? Because God said,
He also said,
So, if we are hearers, only, of His Word, then we are deceiving ourselves. Further, it is not the hearers of the law which are justified in God's Sight, but the doers of the law. I think you'll agree, then, that we need to have a correct understanding of God's Law that we may be doers of that Law.
Now, just to be clear, we all know that we are not saved by keeping God's Law. A very familiar passage is Ephesians 2:8,9:
So, we are only saved by grace, through faith, and not by works. But, if we are truly in a saved relationship with Jesus, then we will be demonstrating our love for Him by doing as He has commanded us. Another familiar passage:
You've also heard nominal Christians whom have a bad habit of asking, "Is that a salvational issue?" or, worse, stating that something "is not a salvational issue."
Also note that I called them "nominal Christians" and that some Seventh-Day Adventists are the worst offenders in this area. I called them "nominal Christians" because, if you're asking that question, or if you're classifying things from the standpoint of whether or not, to you, it is a salvational issue, then you're not really a follower of Christ or you wouldn't be looking for the least thing you can do to please Yehôshûâ' haMâshîyach, Jesus Christ, The Messiah, and your Saviour.
So, for the record, I'll state that there is only one salvational issue and it is neither the Ten Commandments nor the Seventh-day Sabbath — as important as those things are. Salvation is not about what you know or what you do. Salvation is about Who knows you and what He did for you. Notice this series of passages:
Notice Jesus said, "… I know them … and I give unto them eternal life..." Also:
Again, notice Jesus said, "… I never knew you …" One more:
So, who did Jesus die for? …for His friends — but, lest anyone think I'm being exclusive, I'll point out that Jesus offers His Friendship to whosoever will (see John 3:16). Now, just so we're clear… Who are His friends? …those who choose to do whatever He has commanded.
OK, to repeat… There is only one salvational issue and it is all about a true relationship between the Saviour and the Saved. Does Jesus know you and do you truly know Him?
But here is where arises the confusion and the traditions of Babylon. Are we only to keep the commandments, words, and sayings of Jesus Christ as given in the New Testament? Or, is it actually just the Old Testament Ten Commandments we are to keep, but in the spirit in which Jesus Christ represented them in the New Testament? Or, is it all of God's Law we are to keep, as given in the Torah (the first five books of the Bible), but in the spirit in which Jesus Christ represented God's complete Law in the New Testament?
If you look back at that passage in John 14, again, I believe Jesus gives us part of the answer right there:
So, it seems Jesus is telling us to keep all of God's Law as given in the Torah, but in the spirit in which He represented them in the New Testament.
Now, what do I mean by the spirit in which He represented them? I'm referring to the interpretations He gave in the Sermon on the Mount which lets us know that there is a spiritual aspect to the Law which goes deeper than just the words printed in the Bible. Further, I'm referring to the answers He gave regarding whether it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. This tells me that if we take a stickler attitude towards God's Law, then we have become as guilty as the Pharisees — and what did Jesus say about them?
Whoa! Makes you want to correctly understand God's Law, yes? That should also tell you, for sure, that salvational issues are not about what is in God's Law — for the Pharisee's were sticklers about keeping the letter of God's full Law.
But, is there further evidence that Jesus is talking about keeping all of God's Law as given in the Torah? There is yet another familiar passage in the three verses just before the one I just read:
Now, the Bible represents Jesus as using the English word, "law," twice in this passage. If we refer to the Strong's Concordance, number G3551, to get the Greek word and meaning behind that English word, we find that this word is used to generally refer to any set of laws or regulations; but, specifically, to the Law of Moses "including the volume." This "volume" is the five books of the Torah.
Also notice that, though Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law, He also said that the Law would not be entirely fulfilled until all of heaven and earth were to pass away. Furthermore, He said that, until that time, not one jot (we would say, the dot of an "i") nor one tittle (we would say, the cross of a "t") would in any wise, or in any way, pass from, or be removed from, the Law! So, as I said, this says, to me, that Jesus is telling us to keep all of God's Law, as given in the Torah, but in the spirit in which He represented them in the New Testament.
Now, if Jesus is saying that all of God's Law, the Torah, will remain in place until heaven and earth passes away, do we have proof that such an idea is in keeping with rest of God's Word, the Bible? I'd say that the most conclusive proof is this familiar verse:
But God only spoke the Ten Commandments from Mt. Sinai, yes? …and He only wrote the Ten Commandments in stone, yes? Actually, no, on both counts!
Note, in the Bible, that God intended to speak, for Himself, not only the words of the Ten Commandments to the people; but, also, all of the words of the Statutes and the Judgments. The people, however, would not allow God to continue:
How often do we do the same thing? We will listen to our pastor, or our friends, but we won't go to the Word of God to hear Him. But at least they told Moses to go hear the rest of what God had to say:
And what did God say? This is Moses talking… But see if you can hear the hurt in God's voice because the people would not hear Him – as Moses expresses it:
Then, regarding what was written on the tables of stone… You might want to open your Bibles to Exodus 34 so you can read it for yourself. There you find the incident surrounding the making of the second set of tablets. Let's read verse 1:
The chapter goes on to record how Moses comes up the mountain. In verses five to seven, God declares Himself. Then, starting in verse ten, God declares a covenant and, starting in verse twelve, proceeds to reiterate a mixture of many of the statutes — including the statutes concerning God's Feasts — and the ten commandments themselves. Then, starting in verse 27, God says this:
Now, I inserted that word "and" between "covenant" and "the ten commandments" where the comma is. You already know that punctuation was not in the original manuscripts. Other people, Jewish people, have told me that this word "and" is supposed to be in this verse based upon the manuscripts which are available. Jewish culture also records that the tables of stone contained all of God's Law – written front and back – and not just the Ten Commandments. Not being able to read Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek; I cannot verify this for myself. But God also said, here, that the basis for the covenant were the words He had just finished speaking. Those words were not just the Ten Commandments — but included some statutes and the Feast Days.
So, anyway, keep in mind that, based on Deuteronomy 5:31, God spoke all of the commandments, statutes, and judgments which make up God's Law and the Book of the Law, the Torah. This would agree with other familiar passages which speak about God's Law. In fact, God, Himself, says there is more to His Law than just the Commandments:
Notice, in those verses, that He iterates both His Commandments and His Laws separately. Also, if you compare it with your Strong's Concordance, it is the "Torah" (the entire first five books of the Bible), for the word "laws." By the same token, God states that the New Covenant, like the Old, is not about just the Ten Commandments, but the entire law of the Torah (Strong's number H8451 in the Hebrew and G3551 in the Greek). Reading in Jeremiah 31:31-33:
And in the New Testament, Hebrews 8:8-10:
And, again, in Hebrews 10:15-17:
Did you notice Moses said that both the commandments and the statutes are written in the Book of the Law? That makes sense, right? Now note this:
First of all, did you note that phrase, "…for a witness against thee," in verse 26? Those two words, "against thee," shouldn't be in the text. They were added by the translators based on their own prejudices against God's Law. There is only one Hebrew word (H5707) behind that English phrase and that Hebrew word simply means "witness" — implying neither for nor against anyone. God's Law is simply a witness of God's Character.
Otherwise, did you notice where the Book of the Law was placed? "… in the side of the Ark of the Covenant," right? So, the Book of the Covenant, containing both the commandments and the statutes, was placed in the side of the Ark of the Covenant. Hold on a second, though! I recently found out that Jewish culture says there was no pocket or compartment on the outside of the Ark of the Covenant and we certainly don't read about one when God describes the making of the Ark. No, Jewish culture says that the Book of the Law was inside the Ark, standing, or leaning, to one side of the inside of the Ark!
Have you heard Seventh-day Adventist preachers and evangelists try to make a distinction between what was placed inside the Ark versus what was placed outside the Ark? They try to say that what was inside the Ark was permanent but what was on the outside of the Ark was temporary – meaning, until the Death of Jesus Christ on the Cross. What authority do they have for making such a statement? None!
Didn't we read, in Psalm 89:34, that God will not break His Covenant nor alter the thing that has gone out of His Lips! … and He spoke all the Commandments and the Statutes with His own Lips. We also just read, in Deuteronomy 30:10, that the Book of the Covenant, which is the Book of the Law, also contained the Ten Commandments! So, perhaps in ignorance, but what are our SDA preachers and evangelists trying to do? I thought it was only the devil that was trying to get rid of God's Law!
Well, I know what they're trying to do, but I'm not getting into that part of the subject, today. Today, I just want you to come to a full realization of Who God is and just what He thinks of His Law. It'll be a paradigm shift for most of you, a new way of thinking, but it will also bring peace when you see just how unchanging (and, therefore, reliable and trustworthy) God, and His Law, really is.
Speaking of unchanging, we also have this passage:
Why does God say that, because He does not change, therefore the Children of Israel are not destroyed for turning away from His Law? That is something to think about for those whom claim that the God of the Old Testament was an angry, vengeful God just looking for any excuse to murder humans.
But notice, when the Children of Israel ask in what way they need to return to Him, He doesn't mention any of the Ten Commandments but, instead, He points out one of the statutes (see Leviticus 27:30-33; Numbers 18:26; and Deuteronomy 14:22 for that). Also notice the next verse after the Leviticus 27:30-33 passage concerning the tithe — the last verse in Leviticus (Leviticus 27:34):
So, the Statutes are also considered, by God, to be commandments of God. Interesting! Now, let me repeat this earlier passage…
OK, so we just read that God considers His Statutes to also be His Commandments. Then, here we read that the only way we know that we know God, and are in Christ, is if we know and keep all of His Law! This passage also says that anyone claiming to be a Christian, but denying any part of His Law, the same is a liar. Strong words!
On the subject of denying any part of God's Law, in no way do I present this next part as any sort of condemnation. Instead, I say this in love:
Now, I have a couple of questions for you, but let's read the common answer to this passage from the Pen of Inspiration:
Question: Did God say that the fringe with a ribband of blue was a mark for others to see? I see God saying that it was to help us remember the Law of God. This is a good thing, yes? Also, Ellen White said, "The people of God are not now required…" May I suggest this implies that such a requirement was yet in the future? In fact, she points this out, herself, in the very next sentence:
Now, Ellen White did connect this to dress reform, in God's People, and went on to say that this was for the purpose of making them distinct from the ways of the world. But, she also said that there was much more light to shine forth from the Law of God which was not, yet, shinning in her day. If we desire to be among the 144,000 then I'm pretty sure we want to do anything and everything which will help us to remember the Law of God. Yes? It works for me.
But, getting back to the changelessness of God and the perpetuity of His full Law, if He never changes, and His Law never ends, what about the so-called "Sacrificial Law" and the so-called "Ceremonial Law?" Am I saying that we are supposed to be doing these things today? Well, no! ;-) So, what am I saying? Here comes the paradigm shift – a new way of thinking…
We've pretty well established, from the Bible, that God's Law is not just about the Ten Commandments. We've also pretty well established, from the Bible, that God and God's Law never changes or ends. Yet, if you'd like to turn to Daniel 9:27, we also have this other well known verse which we must consider. It states:
Now, didn't that say the sacrifice and the oblation would cease? Doesn't that mean that the so-called "Sacrificial Law" would end, or be abolished, at the Cross? Well, no! ;-) Let us not add to God's Word. So, what does it actually say?
I'll first comment that the circumcision of the outward flesh and the animal sacrifices were the only sacrifices being practiced at the time. Thus, what it says, is that the circumcision of the outward flesh, the animal sacrifices, and the oblations of grain and oil would cease in the midst of the week — which we know of as the Death of Jesus Christ on the Cross in 31AD.
So, what I'm saying, is that we have to stop taking the traditional mental leap which automatically equates the animal sacrifices to God's Sacrificial Law. Instead, we have to ask ourselves, "If the animal sacrifices are not actually God's Sacrificial Law, then just what is God's Sacrificial Law?"
We have a familiar passage which can help us. Hebrews 9:22:
Notice Paul said, "… by the law3551 …" I think we can recognize that the New Testament writers demonstrated a knowledge of God's Law which we generally lack, today.
Now, you might say, "That's all well and good; but, that's the New Testament. How about something from God's Own Lips in the Old Testament?" OK, let's consider Leviticus 17:11. Here is God speaking:
Thus, God's Sacrificial Law is a requirement for the shed blood of the sinner. The animal sacrifices were merely an imperfect substitute for the required atonement, by blood, which Mankind couldn't pay and still live. Those animal sacrifices pointed to that Perfect Substitute, to come, and faith made up the difference.
Then, continuing in the same vein… Did Daniel 9:27 say anything, at all, about the so-called Ceremonial Law? No, it did not. Is there any other Bible passage which definitively states that the so-called Ceremonial Law ended or was abolished at the Cross? I'm not aware of one — and, believe me, I've asked and searched. Furthermore, is there anywhere in the Bible, at all, which has a "Thus saith the LORD" outlining just what constitutes the so-called Ceremonial Law? Again, I'm not aware of any.
However, let's turn to Hebrews 10. We touched briefly on the New Covenant, but I think your eyes will be opened a bit if we continue reading after that passage in Hebrews 10. Start in verse 15:
Now, that is about where most people stop. But let's read on and see if you hear the sacrificial, and ceremonial, language tied up in the New Covenant. Verse 18:
Did you catch all those sacrificial references: offering for sin, the blood of Jesus, our hearts sprinkled, and our bodies washed in baptism? And did you catch all those ceremonial references: enter into the holiest, through the veil, and having a high priest? Continuing with verse 23:
That's good advice for any time. Now, the meat of the matter in verse 26 and onwards:
Yes, when you're on the wrong side of God's Law, it surely is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of Judgment from the Living God. You see, the Saints are not judged by the Law, they are judged according to their relationship with Christ, and His shed Blood, which they have accepted. But, what did the verse 26 say?
Don't miss that! If Christ's Sacrifice no longer covers your willful, unrepented sins; and without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sin; then whose shed blood is going to pay for your sins? Why your own, of course, and thus, you become the burnt offering, in the Lake of Fire, for your own sins. This is the proof that the Sacrificial Law is still in effect. Christ's Sacrifice continues to stand because there is a Sacrificial Law which continues to be in force. If we think to do away with the Sacrificial Law, then Christ's Sacrifice becomes of none effect and we think we can, promiscuously, continue to sin.
Likewise, the Ceremonial Law did not end at the Cross. Jesus Christ continues to minister, in the Heavenly Sanctuary, as our High Priest. Was Jesus Christ not anointed our High Priest, in Heaven, on the typical Day of Pentecost in 31AD? Did He not perform the ceremonial duties in the Holy Place from that time until October 22, 1844? Since that typical Day of Atonement, did His ministry not take Him into the Most Holy Place and is He not now performing the ceremonial duties of the anti-typical Day of Atonement ever since that time? This is proof that the Ceremonial Law is still in effect. If we think to do away with the Ceremonial Law, then Christ's ministry, as our High Priest, becomes of none effect and we can think that there is no Day of Judgment to come.
So, in light of Daniel 9:27 and other references to the transference of the significance of the earthly sanctuary to the Heavenly Sanctuary; what changed at the Cross? All that changed is what kind of response Man is expected to have to the requirements of God's Holy Law.
Though there is mention of the sacrifice of the heart in the Old Testament (see Leviticus 26:41; Deuteronomy 10:16; and Deuteronomy 30:6), I think Man lost sight of that in the overwhelming blood-sacrifice of animals. So, basically, before the Cross, Man was giving only a fleshly, carnal sacrifice — one which included outward circumcision and the sacrifice of beasts and which promised of a more Perfect Sacrifice to come. After the Cross, it was re-emphasized to Man to give a spiritual sacrifice — one which includes the death, burial, and resurrection with Christ, in baptism, and one which includes the sacrifice of our hearts and minds that God the Holy Spirit might give us a new heart and the mind of Christ.
Again, for the Ceremonial Law, before the Cross, Man was asked to have an order of priests whom would intercede for the people and, in an earthly temple, perform ceremonies typical of the Great Plan of Redemption and which promised to redeem Man from the bondage of Sin. After the Cross, all Men were asked to become a royal priesthood (see 1Peter 2:9,10) whose bodies are living temples of God the Holy Spirit (see Romans 12:1; 1Corinthians 6:19,20) and to surrender the earthly ceremonies to our Heavenly High Priest whom will insure the completion of our sanctification and the eradication of Sin, itself, before restoring us to the Earth Made New and the Garden of Eden from which we came.
But what about those passages, in the Bible (e.g., Galatians 4, Ephesians 2, and Colossians 2), which we've been told teach that the Law was nailed to the Cross? Well, we've already learned that this is not so. Thus, instead, we must merely accept that we've been told incorrectly — that we are missing something in those passages. Let's look at those three major ones. Turn to Galatians 4, first.
Now, we've been taught to start reading with verse 9. But, we've been taught wrong and verse 9 starts in the middle of a thought. Let's start reading with verse 1 to get the complete picture.
Here, Paul is relating the experience of every Christian. Though potential heirs of the promise (that we will rule with Christ), we are His servants while we are here on this sinful, old earth. But Christ was sent to seal the Promise, the Covenant, through His Death, so that all who choose Him might receive the adoption of sons and daughters. Therefore, at the moment of that choosing, upon making that commitment, we are no more servant, but a son or daughter; one which does His Father's Will because he loves Him — not as a servant does (out of duty). So, let's read on…
Question: Which part of the Christian Experience is Paul talking about now? He's talking about how we were before our conversion. So he is talking to his converts and how they were before their conversion. They were worshipping idols. It is in this context that we must understand the next two verses. Continuing with verse 9…
So, here we see that, when talking about the "weak and beggarly elements," he is referring to the observance of the "days, months, times, and years" associated with the idol worship his converts were doing before they knew about the One, True God of Heaven. Any suggestion that Paul is talking about the days, months, times, and years of God, is a gross misconstruction of God's Word and a high insult to God's Law — as it is contained in Commandments, Statutes, and Judgments.
Now, the next passage is in Ephesians 2. Again, we've been taught to start reading with verse 14 or 15. But, as I said, we've been taught wrong. Let's start reading with verse 11 to get a better grasp of the context.
So the "middle wall of partition" is not referring to the temple veil between the holy and most holy places or between Man and God. It is, instead, referring to the wall or partition which was between Jew and Gentile. That separation was not put there by God's Law. It was man-made, Pharisaical, ordinances which erected that wall of bigotry and racism. You can read in Exodus 12:49, for example, where God said that the same Law with applied to the Jew, also applied to the stranger which dwelt among them. It is in this context that we must understand the next three verses. Continuing with verse 15…
So... What was abolished by Christ's fleshly sacrifice? For one, the division between Jew and Gentile — which makes it possible for the Gentile to be grafted into the Branch and to become a spiritual Jew (see Romans 11:17). But, more to the point, what "law of commandments in ordinances" did Christ abolish? It is only the man-made ordinances which were keeping the Gentiles away from a knowledge of God and the Salvation He offers.
I re-emphasize that this does not abolish any other of God's Laws. If it did, then Jesus would be made a liar by His words of Matthew 5:17-18. Thus, His Sacrifice does not abolish the Ten Commandments, the Statutes, or the Judgments. The Statutes include, as outlined in Leviticus 23:2-3, the Seventh-day Sabbath (on which twice as many animal sacrifices were performed than on any other common day of the year) nor does it abolish the statutes of the feast days (which are: Leviticus 23:14,21,31,41). All of these memorial days are not about the sacrifices which were performed on them, for these days point both backward and forward as "...a shadow of things to come." (We'll see that in Colossians 2:16-17, in a minute.)
Sometimes we must let go of man's traditions where we have been taught that certain passages of Scripture mean certain things. Like the "noble Bereans" (see Acts 17:10-13) we must study, not wrest, the Scriptures to find what truths lie there. We must not forget that the Bible, as a whole, agrees with itself. Thus, if there is a passage which seems to conflict with what the rest of the Bible is saying, then there is a misunderstanding in our own minds and we mustn't start forming new doctrines based on such misunderstandings.
OK, the last passage is in Colossians 2. Now, we've been taught to start reading with verse 14. But, as I said, we've been taught wrong and verse 14 starts in the middle of a sentence. Let's start reading with verse 13 to get a better grasp of the context.
Now, verse 13 is talking about the forgiveness of sin. So, regarding verse 14, the first question that must be answered is, "Is any of God's Law, or even part of God's Law, against us?" The answer to that is, "No," for if you say it is, implicitly or explicitly, then you say that God, Himself, is against us (see John 3:16-17 and 2Tim. 1:7-9) — as His Laws are a transcript of His Character and He is Love (see 1John 4:8 and 1John 5:3). But, God's Law is a witness for us (we read that in Deuteronomy 31:26); for the Law was given to show us our sins (see Romans 3:20). If we have nothing to show us we are sinful, then we will not recognize our need of a Savior (see Acts 4:10-12).
So, what is against us is the written record of our sins (we read that in Deuteronomy 31:28-29) — for that record is a result of the witness of the Law. The first part of verse 13 brings that out clearly. Thus, verse 14 and 15 is telling us that, through His sacrifice, Jesus Christ made it possible for the written record of the charges against us to be blotted out — i.e., no longer held against us and placing us under penalty of the second death (see 2Tim. 1:8-10).
But what about verses 16 and 17 which are also used to supposedly justify a change in God's Law? Let's read them:
Heh, Peter said it was sometimes difficult to understand Paul. In 2Peter 3:15,16 we can read how Peter says that because Paul's scriptural writings are sometimes difficult to understand, those whom are unlearned or unstable will wrest them, to suit themselves, even as they do other scriptures. Peter goes on to say that they do so to their own destruction. We don't want to do that! Right?
Do any of you remember your grade school English classes where you had to diagram the parts of a sentence? This, two-verse, sentence has a main theme, a referenced list of items, a sub-parenthetical phrase (describing that list), and even a couple of words which were supplied (added in), by the translators, in what they supposedly thought would make the passage easier to understand and clearer in meaning. I disagree.
Now, the referenced list of items is:
Note that the supplied word "days" is gone. Then, the sub-parenthetical phrase, describing that list of items, is:
Lastly, by leaving out another supplied word, "is" (near the end of verse 17), that leaves us with the main theme — which is:
Well! I think that certainly sheds the light of truth on this issue. The Christian's only rightful judge is the "body of Christ." But, hold on a second... The common understanding for the definition of "the body of Christ" is "the church." Yet, in this life, we are to pass judgment (i.e., regarding one's ultimate destiny) on no man — except in righteousness (i.e., judging right from wrong). If you think about it, though, there is another definition for "the body of Christ." I heard this in a sermon by Pastor Ivor Meyers at an ASI Convention a few years ago.
Reading in John 6:53-58:
Well, Jesus Christ is the WORD (see John 1:1-3,14) and just as John was to eat the little book (see Rev. 10:1-2,8-9), so eating Jesus' flesh is symbolic language for making the Word of God an integral part of our daily life. Also, just as the blood sustains the flesh, so Jesus was sustained by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit inspired the Word of God — thus, drinking Jesus' blood is symbolic language for asking for the filling of the Holy Spirit. So, applying that back to Colossians 2:16-17, the main theme is that we will ultimately be judged only by the just precepts taught us in the Word of God. That only makes sense.
OK, back to our diagramming… Now that we have the main theme figured out; then, except for the supplied words, let's address what we previously left out:
The first thing that one absolutely must not ignore is those last four words, "...of things to come..." What does that tell you? It should tell you that the things listed in verse 16 are shadows of something which has not yet come! What did Jesus say in Matthew 5:17-18?
Thus, since they are shadows of things yet to come, then that also means they are not, yet, all fulfilled and are thus, also, all still binding! So, instead of these verses (in Colossians 2) telling us that the Law of Moses was nailed to the cross, they are instead telling us that the entire Law of Moses is still binding and it was, as pointed out by verses 13 to 15, only the written record of the charges against us which were nailed to His cross.
But, let me digress just a bit to speak directly of God's Feasts. There are so many Scriptures which state that God's Feasts have the same beginning (e.g., Genesis 1:14, Genesis 19:1-3, Psalm 81:3-5) and the same ending (e.g., Matthew 5:17-19) as all of His Other Laws. We saw that even His Ceremonial Laws were not abolished — merely substituted — from the type to the anti-type and from the symbol to the reality. God's Feasts, on the other hand, cannot be merely substituted because they do much more than merely point to Christ's Sacrifice. They are a tri-fold prophecy — just as the Godhead, itself, is tri-fold. This tri-fold prophecy spans the entire Plan of Salvation and will not be entirely fulfilled until satan and his angels are no more and Heaven and Earth are made New.
The reason I digress is because I get the distinct impression that the whole reason for wanting to "throw out" the "Law of Moses" is for the sole purpose of trying to get rid of God's Feast Days. Classifying the Feasts in with the Ceremonial Laws also seems like an excuse to get rid of the Feasts. I understand this from satan's point of view — as the Feasts testify (yeah, prophesy) concerning his destruction. But I don't understand this from the point of view of the SDA Church. So, proof they are not yet entirely fulfilled?
It is a terrible thing that we Seventh-day Adventists have been missing out on all this very important information which, I believe, is also very pertinent to our salvation. Not "salvational," mind you, though if one rejects these truths it would certainly indicate a problem in that person's relationship with Jesus. After all... Remember how Jesus Christ "...beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." (Luke 24:27) How much more His Feasts testify of Him and of the Great Plan of Salvation!
In conclusion, the reason I have such a burden for the Law of God is because we set ourselves up for deception when we lightly refer to God's Law as "The Law of Moses." Yes, I'm aware that both the God of the Old Testament and Jesus Christ, Himself, call them the "Law of Moses" (see Malachi 4:4 and Luke 24:44). However, let us not be deceived as to God's meaning. Ellen G. White also recognized the danger of misconstruing this misnomer of "The Law of Moses." She said:
Did you catch the significance of that? Then, later, she makes three points after quoting a statute in Deuteronomy 24:14-15 and another one in Leviticus 19:13 both of which having to do with not oppressing or defrauding a hired hand or his wages — whether that hired hand is a Christian or not. I feel these three points are regarding all of God's Statutes in that (#1) they are commandments, (#2) they are part of the law of God written by Moses in a book, and (#3) they are still binding in our day:
Thus, our modern churches have made the "Law of Moses" into a terrible misnomer — in particular, when they claim the "Law of Moses" has been nailed to the cross. Note that Jesus Christ, Himself, denies this (see Matthew 5:17-19). The Apostle Paul, also, denies this (see Romans 3:31; Romans 7:12-13; and Galatians 3:21). In point of fact, you'll never find, either in the Bible or in Ellen White's writings, that any statute was ever abolished.
What, then, are the churches trying to accomplish with such a claim? You can be sure satan is behind it; but, whatever it is, they end up throwing out the proverbial baby with the proverbial bath-water when they do so!