By Colleen Tinker
Recently we received an email asking a question we hear quite frequently. This is the email:
Since leaving Adventism I have had a sense of peace and assurance of my salvation. A question I keep hearing from Adventists is this, “Are you saying we no longer have to keep the commandments, or that we no longer have to keep just one of the commandments and we are still bound to keep the other nine?” Please help me answer this question.
Our answer to this writer
This subject comes up frequently. In fact, it seems that many Adventists assume we leave Adventism because we desire to sin. A few years ago, we even had someone write to us who told us that the only reason we left Adventism was so we could “eat ham sandwiches and swing”.
Nothing could be further from the truth. We left Adventism because we heard the gospel of the Lord Jesus and knew we had to commit our lives to serving Him only.
Galatians, Hebrews, Colossians, and Romans make it very clear that the Ten Commandments along with the entire law were fulfilled and made obsolete in Christ. People try to separate the Ten Commandments from the rest of the law, but they are indivisible. In fact, Exodus 34:27–28 actually says that the Ten Commandments were the actual words of the old covenant. They were like the “abstract”, or the summary statement of the old covenant, and they cannot be taken out of the context of the entire law and kept for later use. The Decalogue, along with the entire old covenant/law, was fulfilled and is now obsolete as a rule of faith and practice (see Hebrews 8).
The fact that the New Testament, or the new covenant, contains many guidelines that echo the Ten Commandments does not mean that the Ten Commandments are “carried over”. Rather, the similarities are the evidence that morality is from a higher source that informs all law. Morality is from God, not from law.
One doesn’t need the Ten Commandments in order to know that murder is wrong, for example. In fact, Romans 2:14 explains that gentiles “who do not have the law” sometimes keep the law because its principles are written on their hearts. God is the author of morality, not the law, and He is able to convict people of sin and righteousness.
Example of national laws
When the 13 colonies broke away from England and established their own laws of the new United States of America, there were requirements in American laws that echoed British laws. The laws of both England and of the USA forbade murder, stealing, treason, and so forth. But just because those similar prohibitions and their consequences were in both laws did not mean that the USA was under the laws of England. The laws of England had absolutely no bearing on the colonists anymore. As Americans instead of British colonists, they were now under the laws of the United States. Yet the requirements of the laws of both countries had several overlapping prohibitions.
Just so, we are not under the Ten Commandments in the new covenant, not even under “the other nine” minus the Sabbath. The Ten Commandments were the laws for Israel. In the new covenant, we have the law of Christ, and the entire New Testament explains how a born-again believer is to honor Christ and live by His “new commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you” (Jn. 13:34).
No, we do not keep the other nine. We are under a NEW law, some of which will resemble the requirements of the old, but it will be a DIFFERENT law. When we repent of our sin and trust the finished atonement of the Lord Jesus, we are born again and sealed with the indwelling Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13–14). We pass from death to life (Jn. 5:24), and we are transferred out of the domain of darkness into the kingdom of the Beloved Son (Col. 1:13). We become citizens of a new kingdom.
As born-again believers, we are under the authority of the Holy Spirit, not the law (2 Corinthians 3). We immerse ourselves in His eternal word, and the Holy Spirit teaches us how to subject ourselves to it and to live under the authority of the Author of the Bible.
I would like to suggest that you read the book of Galatians every day for a month. Ask the Lord to show you what He wants you to know. That book is a very clear discussion of the old and new covenants, of the law and of faith in Christ. Also, the book of Hebrews explains how Jesus is the perfect and sufficient fulfillment of the law.
For further reading about the purpose of the law and about how Jesus fulfilled the law and has replaced it as God’s final word and revelation, here are two links:
- May 18–24, 2024 - May 16, 2024
- We Got Mail - May 16, 2024
- Should We Leave the “Isms”? - May 9, 2024
Excellent article. Thank you for it. God bless you
Another great article Colleen! Since my transition which began in 2009 I’ve come to see something that I feel causes problems for anyone who was born into a law based religion and that is the fact that we see Jesus as a law keeper his entire life. That’s because He was born “under the law”. The proper dividing line is at the cross, not His birth. Everything hinges on the resurrection not the birth.
You are right, Jayme. The resurrection, not the incarnation, is where everything shifted. We are justified by His death and saved by His life…His resurrection life (Rom. 5:9–10)! It took the sufficient blood sacrifice and the conquering of death to bring us into the new covenant when we believe!
That’s a great article, Colleen. It has a direct bearing not only on Adventism, but on Reformed Theology as well. If I had been reading this post a year ago, I would have disagreed. It may surprise you, however, to learn that over the last six to eight months or so, I have been studying this, and have become convinced that Covenant Theology (CT) is fundamentally unwarranted by the Bible. For those who don’t know, Covenant Theology is not unorthodox, in the sense that it is well within the bounds of true biblical Christianity and it teaches salvation by grace alone, through faith alone in Jesus Christ. But, CT does teach that the Ten Commandments are the moral law of God, unchanging, and eternally binding. According to CT, only the civil and ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant were done away with; the moral laws, which are the Ten Commandments, remain. Also, according to CT, not only are we under the Ten Commandments, but so was Adam and everyone in between. In CT, the Ten Commandments represent God’s character and are therefore always in effect.
I used to agree with this, with the exception of the Sabbath. (CT teaches the abiding authority of the Sabbath, too, from the beginning of creation onward through the New Covenant, but I was never convinced of that part of it.) I no longer do, Colleen. And so this blog rings absolutely true. You’re absolutely right to point out that the Ten Commandments were the “abstract” or summary terms of the Old Covenant, all of which has been made obsolete; and that we are under a new set of rules, summed up by Jesus’ new command that we love as he loved, and expounded more fully by Jesus’ apostles in the New Testament.
I highly recommend getting your hands on anything written by John G. Reisinger, especially “In Defense of Jesus, the New Law Giver” and “Tablets of Stone.”
Fuller, thank you for your response. I always enjoy your thoughtful insight. I won’t lie…your candid evaluation of new covenant vs. covenant theology and your coming to see the problems with the classic covenant theology teachings about the law was moving to me.
I suspect that many Christians fear that teaching that the law is obsolete in Jesus would result in people feeling free to “eat ham sandwiches and swing”, as that memorable letter to us put it. In fact, being born again and being under the direction of the Holy Spirit gives us so much more protection against sin than the law ever could!
I agree; covenant theology is not heresy. It is, however, a bit confusing when one really studies Hebrews and Galatians and Romans—and, for that matter, Colossians and Ephesians! Jesus truly is the reality to which the entire old covenant pointed.
I first learned about John Reisinger about 15 years ago and read some of his online works, but I have not read the books you mentioned. I love the titles already!
Thank you again!
I wish I had learned about John Reisinger 15 years ago. His writings and talks this past year have been a blessing.
You know, I have to respond to my own reply above. There I said, “I agree; covenant theology is not heresy.”
In fact, I feel convicted when I think about that. I want to unpack my own response a bit. First, I know that a person can be a true believer and can be saved within a covenant theology framework. From that perspective I said that I don’t believe it is heresy.
However, when one trusts Jesus fully, the Bible is clear that one cannot hold onto the law. It’s either Jesus alone as the law’s fulfillment, or it’s a sort of syncretism. Romans 7 is very clear that holding onto the law while professing Jesus is spiritual adultery. Further, Galatians 3 declares that Christians who still embrace the law have been “bewitched” and are “under a curse”. Paul says the Law “is not of faith”. Galatians 4 says that Christians who “turn back again to the week and worthless elemental things” are enslaved again. In fact, Paul compares returning to the law (as he writes to the formerly pagan Galatians) with returning to their own idols that “by nature are not gods” (see 4:8–11).
Therefore, I have to amend what I said above. Although I understand that covenant theology has a long history and many true giants of the faith who embraced it, while I understand that a person can be a true believer and be a covenant theologian, from my perspective, I have to say that I believe covenant theology is a dangerous doctrine. I believe that covenant theology can lead its adherents into bondage, and for sure it is the paradigm that enables Adventism to make converts of Christians who don’t understand the covenants. (Adventists do have the best argument for keeping the law. They actually do endorse the fourth commandment as it is written.)
I believe covenant theology is a problem that has left evangelical Christianity in a weakened state. When Christians can’t be clear about Jesus being the entire fulfillment of the law, when they try to meld faith in the Lord Jesus with works of the law, they are falling, as Paul said, into bondage and spiritual adultery. I say this knowing I probably sound rabid and divisive to never-been-Adventist ears, but I do believe this deeply.
It is the law that divides; Jesus and His indwelling Spirit unite the body, and in Jesus we are far more protected from sin than we ever are when we carry along the law with us. The law was always intended to increase sin—and that fact remains true even when a person is a Christian and tries to carry the law along in some fashion.
Christians are not lawless; we are under the law of Christ and the oversight of the indwelling Holy Spirit. That is far more powerful than trying to stay under the law in some way. In order to properly “honor” the law, we have to see and use is as the Bible says to use it. It is not for believers. We have to trust that Jesus has fulfilled every single function of the law—including providing us with the conviction of our sins.
Covenant theology is a dangerous doctrine, in my opinion. I appreciate the people who have contacted me privately and “held my feet to the fire” in brotherly love as they read my response above. I agree. I cannot endorse covenant theology from my perspective in any way. I will grant that many true believers are caught in that paradigm, but it is a dangerous paradigm.
I thank Jesus for being our complete fulfillment of the law. He deserves our entire loyalty, praise, and worship!