A couple of weeks ago we received a letter from a Christian man who has been having conversations with an Adventist in Kenya. He asked us for help answering some of the man’s arguments. Not surprisingly, the writer did not understand the Adventist’s questions to him.
We share below the writer’s request for help and our answer to him.
Good Day,
A young Adventist from Kenya watched some of your videos which I had shared with my Adventist friends there. This person contacted me, and I directed him to your website for additional resources. However, he asked me a question that I need your help to answer
In Matthew 19:16-24, Jesus is asked which laws should be kept to gain life! The young man wants to know:
1. Why does Jesus skip commandments one to four and only quote numbers six, seven, eight, nine, and five—in that order? In addition, He quotes one law which was not part of the Ten Commandments: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” Was it because Jesus was unfamiliar with commandments one through four? Did He think they were less important—that one could gain everlasting life without observing them?
2. In Verse 20 of Matthew 19 Jesus is offered yet another opportunity to add to the list of 6 commandments He had already given. Again He fails to take the opportunity to do so! Yet at Matthew 5:17-20 Jesus said, “not even one stroke of the law would pass away from the law until all things take place…”
I tried to explain to him that Jesus demonstrated how He was fulfilling the law in Matthew 5:21-48 and emphasized that he had not abolished but reformed the OT law into the new covenant law, or “law of Christ” (Jer. 31:31-33). However, his question remained; he could see the reforms of old covenant law as stated in Matthew 5:21-48, but where are the reforms of commandments one through four? Why does it seem that Jesus deliberately ignores commandments one through four?
I can’t do justice to the above questions, especially since I don’t understand why he is asking them. If anything, to me it shows that the Sabbath is no longer binding on Christians today.
I think you, as a former Adventist, might shed more light on these matters.
Please assist us with biblically-based replies to these questions.
Answering the Adventist Arguments
Thank you for writing. Yes, Adventists use really odd arguments and ask questions that most Christians do not understand. I am frankly not completely sure what he means, either, but I have an idea that I think is close.
I believe this Adventist is trying to make the point that Jesus does not mention the first four commandments to the rich young ruler because—so goes the Adventist argument—they are ASSUMED to be universally true. In other words, Jesus wouldn’t have to mention them because they would already by understood. His implication is that, by mentioning only the last six and “love your neighbor as yourself”, Jesus is making the point that the first four are already part of the young man’s understanding, so Jesus doesn’t have to mention them or emphasize them. His point, though, is that Jesus is telling the young man that he must keep the Ten Commandments to be saved.
As Adventists, we were taught that this is the meaning of this story. When the rich young ruler came to Jesus to as what he must do to be saved, Jesus led with the commandments and says that he has to keep them to be saved. Adventists teach that this is a clear answer: keep the commandments.
In fact, however, Jesus is speaking to a Jewish man (the rich young ruler), and He leads by saying exactly what a Jewish man would already believe: he must keep the commandments. When the rich young ruler says he has been keeping them—which he likely has, as an observant Jew—Jesus then delivers the real answer: he must sell his possessions—the things he most loves—and follow Him. In other words, the commandments are NOT adequate for him to merit eternal life. He has been keeping them, but he clearly knew he wasn’t saved, and Jesus emphasized that fact. Keeping the commandments will not save him..
Instead, that man would have to sell what he most loved in the world and give up the life he knew and follow Jesus. The rich young ruler went away, because he was not willing to let go of what he most loved and follow Jesus.
Indictment of Adventism
Adventists cannot see this story as an indictment against their own beliefs. They “keep the commandments” (which are NOT universal, by the way, as the Adventists would say there are), but they will not consider giving up what they love for Jesus alone. They would never consider giving up the Sabbath, or giving up their Adventist identities for the sake of Jesus. They depend upon their ADVENTISM, their adherence to their own internal interpretations of their proof texts, and they will not let go of that worldview and allow Scripture through the Holy Spirit to inform them of the gospel. They will not give up what they most love—their Adventism—and follow Jesus.
But they must be willing to “sell their possessions”—to get rid of what defines them, what they value the most, and follow Jesus without those things that tie them to their Adventism. Jesus alone must be our identity. Unless we are identified by Jesus and by His gospel, we are identified by worldly things. Adventism is a human system, and Adventists must be willing to let go of this human creation and place their entire loyalty with Jesus.
Jots, Tittles, and It Is Finished!
This Adventist’s insistence that not one jot or tittle of the law will disappear (Mt. 5:17-20) is not proof that the law exists for anyone to keep as a method of salvation. Jesus was speaking to a Jewish crowd, and His words were clear: absolutely no part of the law would disappear until all is fulfilled. Adventists fail to see that this statement means ALL THE LAW, not just the Ten Commandments. The law is a unit, but Adventists separate the Ten Commandments out of the law and say everything else is the “law of Moses” while the commandments are “God’s law”. They insist the Ten are eternal and were in heaven before creation, that breaking the Ten is what happened when Lucifer rebelled against God, became angry with Jesus, and started the “Great Controversy”.
All of these ideas are extra-biblical and derive from Ellen White.
Furthermore, Jesus’ words in Matthew 5 are saying that the WHOLE LAW—including sacrifices, not mixing linen and wool, not cooking a calf in its mother’s milk, not eating pig, not marrying Canaanites—all of this law would not disappear until all was fulfilled.
Yet Adventists do believe that the sacrifices have been fulfilled, that the laws of linen and wool and avoiding gentile fellowship have been fulfilled. They don’t believe those laws are still current. But Jesus is saying that the ENITRE law exists as a whole, and it disappears as a whole, and He says that He will fulfill it.
On the cross Jesus said, “It Is Finished”. Adventists believe that meant his life was now over. In reality, it meant He had finished everything to which the law and the prophets had pointed, and everything necessary for our salvation was complete. The books of Galatians and Hebrews explain how the ENTIRE law is now obsolete, that the person of Jesus is superior to every law, and that if we return to the law, we are severed from Christ (Gal. 5:4).
Furthermore, the law is still part of the Old Testament, a part of God’s eternal word. It still exists, just as do the prophecies, to show us today that Jesus is who He says He is. Only Jesus could fulfill everything written in the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets, as Jesus said in Luke 24:44. The law (and all of its parts) is still in Scripture as a witness to the identity of JESUS!
Here is an article that addresses the unity of the law. This article was written by a Christian apologist who was addressing an Adventist friend who insisted that the Ten Commandments were eternal and separated from the “law of Moses”.
This article shows how and why this distinction is untrue. I hope it helps! The Unity Of The Law
- May 18–24, 2024 - May 16, 2024
- We Got Mail - May 16, 2024
- Should We Leave the “Isms”? - May 9, 2024
Colleen,
thank you for this great article. And thanks for the link to the article “The Unity Of The Law”. It is the most comprehensive, understandable and Biblical explanation I have ever seen that so thoroughly refutes much of Adventism.
Thanks again
Jeanie