Dialog with SDA on the Law, 2014

568-1798 IS NOT THE 1260 OF PROPHECY
The Sabbath Has Benn Changed Many Times
122 Errors in GC Intro, 317-408 (1 of 3)
1. My Testimony and Introduction
2. Seventh-day Adventism in a Nutshell
3. Biblical Inspiration and Ellen G. White
5. The Sanctuary in Daniel
6. The 2300 Day Prophecy and the Year-Day Principle
7. The Cleansing of Daniel 8:14
8. The Daily Sacrifice
9. Pattern-Fulfillment
10. Sin Transfer into the Sanctuary
11. The Truth about the Biblical Sanctuary
12. Books of Heaven
13. Rooms in the Heavenly Sanctuary
14. Inside the Veil
15. The Day of Atonement and the Scapegoat
16. Antiochus IV Epiphanes; 164 B.C.
17. Creation Sabbath
18. Weekly Sabbath
19. Shadow Sabbaths
20. Greater and Lesser Sabbaths
21. Jesus and the Sabbath
22. The Sabbath in Acts
23. Christian Liberty and Holy Days
24. The United States, Roman Catholicism and the Mark of the Beast
25. Two Different Three Angels' Messages
Appendix 1: Sheol, Abaddon and the Soul
Appendix 2: Hades and the Soul
Appendix 3: Jewelry, Dress Code and Deceit
165 ERRORS FROM GC P411-444 (2 OF 3)
50 Errors in GC P563-678 (3 of 3)
Achilles' Heel of Seventh-day Adventism: Daniel 8:8-13
Ben Carson, Dishonest Seventh-day Adventist
Book Reviews and Endorsements
Dialog with SDA on the Law, 2014
Hell: After-Death Punishmetn
Questions on Daniel from an Andrews University Scholar
Marc Rasell and Russell Kelly dialog, Oct 2009
Marc Rasell and Russell Kelly dialog-2, Oct2009
Sunday Blue Law Paranoia of SDAs

Please allow up to one minute for download.


DIALOG WITH AN SDA SCHOLAR: August, September 2014


Andreas: The law of nature does not tell me all nine commandments, i.e., to have only one God as THE God and not to make idols.


Russ: Rom 1:19 “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.”

Yes, Jesus came to show us the Father in all His love and mercy through Himself, but that is progressive revelation.


Andreas: I do not think that men know that it is wrong to break 9 of the Ten Commandments.


Russ: Rom 1:18 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.”

Please read Romans 1 carefully, beginning in verse 17. I agree with C. S. Lewis’ conclusions in Mere Christianity which changed him from a skeptic to a believer. Men died before the formal Law was revealed because they sinned against God’s law of nature and conscience (Rom 5:13-14). Men and women in deepest Mongolia, Africa and South America also die without hearing specifically of God’s formal law; they are still held accountable for the dim light that is within each (Rom 1:19; John 1:9).


Andreas: Concerning tithing I agree with your statement. I know without any revelation to help other people that are in need, poor, etc.


Russ: Good.


Andreas: Now coming to your question about how to define "law".
Matthew 15:3-4 Jesus quoted from the 10 commandments.


Russ: Matt 15:4 “For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother (Ex 20:12) AND, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death” (Exodus 21:15).

This is the kind of textual abuse SDAs are famous for. You tell me to read Matthew 15:4 because 4a quotes one of the Ten Commandments and then you totally ignore 15:4b which is the judgment-penalty for breaking the commandment. I think your mind is trained not to see the whole text. Both 4a and 4b are Old Covenant Law. A law does not exist without a penalty for breaking it.

This was before Calvary when the Hebrews were still under the Old Covenant. As a Jew, Jesus commanded obedience to all 600-plus commandments of the law. He commanded those Jews whom he healed to show themselves to the priest. As a Jew Jesus faithfully kept all Jewish holy days. SDAs do not follow his example here. According to the amount of sacrificial animals required, the 7th day Sabbath was the LEAST important Sabbath day.


Andreas: in Matthew 5:17-20 Jesus does not abolish the law or the prophets.


Russ: You still have your SDA blinders on and do not see that it is referring to the whole law of commandments, judgments and ordinances. Therefore you yourself do not believe what the texts literally say! “Not one dot or stroke” shall pass away from the whole law until the whole law is fulfilled. Is that not what it says?

         “Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments …”Now read 5:20-48 and notice that “these” refers to all three parts of the in Jesus’ examples: commandments, judgments and ordinances. How do you possibly justify ignoring the context of the “whole law” here? You are condemning yourself.

The word “fulfill” is very common in Matthew. Jesus totally fulfilled the righteousness of the law in his birth, life, death, burial and resurrection.

5:21 Ten Commandments; kill

5:27 Ten Commandments: adultery

5:31 judgment; divorce

5:35 judgment: taking oaths (Num 30:2)

5:37 judgment: eye for an eye (Ex 21:24)

5:43 ordinances; love neighbor (Lev 19:10)


Andreas: Matthew 19:16-18 Jesus "commanded" to keep the commandments.


Russ: Of course He did, to do otherwise before Calvary would have been sin. Your own church does not teach that “keeping the commandments” is all that is essential to enter God’s kingdom. Your own church adds “being born again by entering into a faith relationship with Jesus.” Therefore you throw a text at me that you yourself abuse.

Jesus was testing the rich young ruler living under the full jurisdiction of the law before Calvary. His god was money and Jesus exposed his lie; he could not love his fellow man if he loved money that much. A born-again experience would have been required had the rich young ruler obeyed Jesus.


Andreas: 1 John 2:3 “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.”

John 14:15 “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” So, in my understanding law can have a lot of different meanings including the Law of Moses, the Law of Christ, the Law of God, ... The context is crucial. The same issue is with the word commandment.


Russ: Remember you made this statement because you will quote numerous texts containing “law” attempting to make it only mean

Ten Commandments.

The word “commandments” only occurs in John twice (14:15; 15:10). “Command” occurs twice (15:14, 17). John 15:17 “These things I command you, that ye love one another” (Lev 19:18 – not one of the Ten Commandments). John does not use the word “commandment” to refer to the Ten Commandments.

“Rarely does “law” refer only to the Ten Commandments after Calvary. SDAs greatly err in this. Even in the OT, God never commanded Israel to “only keep” the Ten Commandments; the idea is foreign and totally absurd. It is always in the context of keeping His “whole” law – all of it; every one of the commandments, judgments and ordinances. SDAs greatly err in their abuse of the word “law”.


Andreas: Commands are used by Jesus to refer to his teachings,


Russ: So you think that “commandments” in John 15:10 and the “command” to “love one another” in 15:17 are not related (Lev 19:10). Jesus teachings must be carefully sorted out to their context of Old or New Covenant. Some of His teachings only apply to Old Covenant Hebrews (and not Gentiles). For example, Mt 23:23 cannot possibly interpreted as Jesus commanding His Gentile disciples to bring tithes to either the Tempe or to His disciples before Calvary. Yet everybody plays with this verse and ignores “matters of the law.”


Andreas: .. but commandments to that of the OT laws.


Russ: If so, then they refer to all of them -- commandments, judgments and ordinances.


Andreas: Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law and the prophets, meaning the OT prophets and the law of Moses which was given by God (Mt 5:17-18).



(1) Correct: the law – all of it—the whole law --all 600 plus of them, including commandments, judgments and ordinances. These three are coupled together 44 times in Scripture – mostly in Deuteronomy. They cannot be separated.

(2) Since that is true and I agree with you, then please tell me WHY you teach that Jesus abolished the judgments and ordinances of the law

(except for tithing and food laws) and only kept the Ten Commandments? Does not this text condemn you?

(3) Galatians 3 is critical here as is 2 Cor 3:10-18.

Gal 3:19 “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added [had a beginning] because of transgressions [wilfull sin preceded the codified law], till [had an ending] the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.”

Gal 3:23 “But before faith came, we were kept under the law [the whole law of commandments, judgments and statutes], shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the [whole] law WAS our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ [the ending point], that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster” [the whole law].

2 Cor 3:10 “For even that which was made glorious [the whole Old Covenant Law] had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.” The Old Covenant Law currently has NO GLORY when compared to the glory of the New Covenant law of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

         The whole law fulfilled its purpose (as a school-bus or school-tutor). It was set aside; Hebrews 7:18 says it was annulled. Just as the U.S. Constitution abolished the whole English law in 1776 (good and bad), it then re-incorporated much of it into the U.S. Constitution in 1789.


Andreas: In conclusion, Paul establishes the law, but not nullifies it (Romans 3:31).


Russ: Rom 3:31 “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.”

(1) What gives you the authority to interpret this to apply to the Ten Commandments and not to the whole law of commandments, judgments and statutes? Yet you do this consistently throughout this document! You make it say only what you want it to say!

(2) Since the word “law” in Romans 3:31 must refer back to 3:19-20 which must refer back to 3:1-18 –

Those texts only quote Isaiah and Psalms as examples of “the law” in 3:19.

(3) 3:31 lacks a definite article “the” before both uses of “law.” That means it is referring to “law” as a principle.

(4) The law “principle” which condemns Gentiles is nature and conscience (1:18 to 2 all).


I challenge you to read what “law” Paul referred to in Romans 3. It is both the law of conscience and nature for Gentiles (Rom 1:18-20; 2:14-16 AND ALSO the whole Hebrew law – only Isaiah and Psalms are quoted in chapter three – not the Ten Commandments! Unless you know biblical Greek, you may not grasp this. The article “the” is in Romans 3:19 but not in Romans 3:20 or 3:31 – thus Paul was summarizing his discourse beginning in Romans 1:17.


Andreas: In my opinion it is crucial to know the will of God in order to be able to do His will.


Russ: I say that one does not have the slightest idea of what the will of God is as long as he/she is confused about the word “law.” “Law” cannot mean merely the Ten Commandments.


Andreas: Jesus Christ has not come to redeem us from the law, but from the "curse of the law". That's a big difference.


Russ: Gal 3:13 “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.”
(1) Again the word “law” in the Gal 3:13 refers to the whole law of commandments, judgments and ordinances. Yet you prefer it only means Ten Commandments although Deuteronomy 21:23 is not part of the Ten Commandments.  You use a part of the law you discard.

(2) The “curse” of Galatians 3:13 (from Deuteronomy 21:23) is one of many curses and blessings of the whole law from Deuteronomy, chapters 28 to 30.

(3) May I clarify your statement to read: “Jesus Christ has not come to redeem us from the whole law, but from the "curse of the whole law". Now do you see your error? You would have us believe that the law forbidding leaving a person handing on a tree is still in effect and still defiles the land. Is that correct?

(4) Your inaccurate use of the word “law” re-enforces every single commandment, judgment and ordinance of the Old Covenant because (as you said) Jesus did not come to destroy (ANY) part of the WHOLE law but to fulfill ALL of it. Do you know how confused this reasoning is?

(5) Is Austria still under any of the Laws of the Holy Roman Empire (good and bad)? Is Austria still under the Laws of Nazi Germany (good and bad)? Of course not! However I can safely say that Austria re-incorporated some of the good laws from its past into its current constitution.

(6) The Old Covenant Law of God, or Law of Moses (both good and bad) ended at Calvary.

a) This was prophesied in Psalm 110:4 when David wrote that Melchizedek priesthood would replace the Aaronic priesthood.0

b) This was prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-36 and repeated in Hebrews 8:8-13.

c) Hebrews 7 ended the Old Covenant law system. Jesus is a king-priest, after the order of Melchizedek, a king priest not of Aaron.

d) The judicial civil judgments of Israel ended when Israel ceased to be a nation.

e) The civil ceremonial ordinances of Israel ended when shadow met reality at Calvary.

f) The Ten Commandments which were only given to Old Covenant Israel at Mt Sinai ended at Calvary. Their eternal pre-law nature which reflected God’s character changed from “thou shalt nots” into “spontaneous obedience to the indwelling Holy Spirit because of a new creation” relationship with God (Roman 8:3). 

g) To a Gentile, “law” as the “revealed will of God” included nature and conscience.

h) To a Hebrew, “law” as the revealed will of God included everything from Genesis to Malachi.


Andreas: So, if I want to do God's will, I need to know His will.


Russ: As I understand it from what you have just written, “His will” means “everything in the law, including all 600 plus commandments, judgments and ordinances.


Andreas: I could not find any other commands (in summary) except
those Jesus mentioned e.g., at the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5. These commands are a refinement of those mentioned in the OT.



(1) The commands in Mathew 5 are before Calvary.

(2) They are in the context of the Old Covenant. Be sure and send your healed members to Hebrew priests if you can find one. And don’t forget that the law commands you to stone to death disobedient children and Sabbath-breakers. [You keep repeating Matthew 5.]


Andreas: Everlasting Gospel


Russ: To an SDA the Everlasting Gospel from Revelation 14:6-12 means Jesus began judging dead saints in 1844 to determine who will be saved; Babylon is everybody who is not SDA; Sunday-worshippers will not be saved. SDAs ignore the vivid description of Gehenna in verse 11. This is not serious theology.


Andreas: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, ..." (Gal. 3:28). If ‘in Jesus’ Jews and Greek (etc.) are one, one in Christ, then why did Jesus tell the rich man to keep the commandments? [Lk 18:18-21]


Russ: Concerning Lk 18:18-21:

(1) Your logic in combining Luke 18:18-21 with Galatians 3:28 is: There is only one plan of salvation. Since Jesus told the rich young ruler that he can inherit eternal life by keeping the commandments – then the same requirement should apply to Gentiles and they must keep the

Ten Commandments (and disregard most of the remainder of the law of judgments and statutes).

(2) If Luke 18:18-21 were the only text in the Bible answering the question “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?”, the answer would be: a) keep the commandments, b) “sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.” This would me works-righteousness contrary to Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5, etc.

(3) Why did Jesus answer the rich young ruler such? Obedience to the Law (including the Ten Commandments) was never given for justification (as in the Passover Lamb) but for sanctification in cooperation wsith the Spirit of God. Jesus certainly knew that! Jesus was probably teasing the rich young ruler because he was self-righteous and worshipped his wealth. The fact that he would not give his wealth to the poor was proof that he had not obeyed the commandments to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” Only a miraculous born-again faith experience could assue him an inheritance in God’s kingdom.


Gal 3:26-27 “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

Gal 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

(1) The distinction between Jew and Greek ended, not because the Greek is now under the WHOLE law, but because the Jew is NOT under any part of the whole law. That is what God was telling Israel when the Temple veil ripped open. That is what removal of the “middle wall of partition” means (Eph 2:14-15). That is what “dead to the law” means (Rom 7:4).

(3) How do you understand Galatians 3:19. The whole law was added, not just the Ten Commandments. The whole law had an ending point, not just the Ten Commandments as “thou shat nots”: it was added “until the seed should come.” Paul called adding the law back to grace “bewitching” in Galatians 3:1 and said that “we are no longer under the schoolmaster” in 3:24-25.


Andreas: According to Acts 15:5 (the council at Jerusalem) the Gentiles are not required to keep the law of Moses …


Russ: Correct, none of it. The new covenant really is “new”; it is not a repetition of the old. The Pharisees were especially careful about circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, tithing and food laws. 

Acts 15:9 “And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.”


Andreas: …  and in verse 20 several issues are forbidden. Here, the Sabbath was not mentioned, that's right, but neither was the commandment to worship God alone.



(1) The “issues” only related to specific pagan traditions which were especially offensive to God.

(2) Nature and conscience teach the worship of one God Rom 1:20 “ For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.”

(3) Sabbath-keeping had previously only applied to Old Covenant Hebrews (Ex 31:13-17).


Andreas: Have you an answer to John 14:15 and Romans 13:8-10 (Paul cites from the TC) in particular?


(1) Any reasonable researcher who reads John realizes that he does not use the word “commandments” to refer to the Ten Commandments.

(2) I agree with what you said earlier, it means “those things I teach.” Again, the covenant must be considered.

(3) Of necessity, Jesus MUST teach obedience to the entire Law of commandments, civil judgments and ceremonial worship ordinances. To do otherwise before Calvary would be SIN.

(4) Neither Jesus nor Peter or Paul would ever teach Matthew 5:23-24 after Calvary. Yet Jesus commanded it before Calvary.

(5) The fifth commandment says “that your days may be long in the land.” To a Hebrew that meant ERETZ, the land of Israel. Neither your nor I would agree to that interpretation today.

(6) The Sabbath commandment commands Hebrews to let their SLAVES/servants rest on the Sabbath. Yet SDAs oppose this part of the Sabbath commandment!!! The Sabbath commandment commands Hebrews not to cause anybody to work on the Sabbath. Yet SDAs cause others to work by driving cars on the Sabbath, by using faucet water, by flushing city sewage, by using city natural gas, etc. etc. etc.

(7) It would be impossible for SDAs or Hebrews to completely obey the Sabbath commandment if they lived inside the Arctic Circle or if the International Date Line did not exist. It is gross hypocrisy to interpret John 14:15 as a command for all mankind to observe the Sabbath. This is all in my book.


Concerning Romans 13:8-10:

(1) Do you “owe any man anything”? Does not Paul command us not to owe anything? Most American SDAs have credit cards and owe on their property, houses and credit cards. (2) The focus of Romans 13:8-10 is that “love has (ALREADY) fulfilled the law” which SDAs say has not been fulfilled yet!!! Love has even fulfilled the command of not owing any man anything!

(3) Concerning Romans 13:9, why did Paul quote those commandments? Did he do it because they were still in effect as “thou shalt nots”? –or—does Paul quote them BECAUSE one who loves his neighbor has ALREADY fulfilled them??? Is that not the context? Is not “has fulfilled” past tense?

(3) For a born again Christian “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has already made us free from the law of sin and death” (Rom 8:3).

(4) The new law does not tell me “do not kill or steal or commit adultery”. No. The new law says that I am a new creation/new creature in Christ with new desires and “do not want to kill, or steal, or commit adultery.”


Andreas: My answer is this: Paul cited from the TC, therefore ALL of the TCs are addressed.



(1) Paul’s focus was on love, not law. He stated very clearly that love has already fulfilled the law; strive to love as Christ loved.

(2) You focus on Romans 13:9 and ignore the context of 13:8 and 10. The word “law” occurs often in Romans and only here is it in the context of the Ten Commandments. You choose to ignore the context of all other instances.

(3) Is it not strange to you how very rarely Paul actually refers to the Ten Commandments in all his writings --- twice in Romans, his most theological treatise (7:7; 13:9); once in Ephesians 6:2? Yet SDAs are obsessed with them.

(4) Would not Romans 13:13 have been an excellent place to insert obedience to the Ten Commandments?

(5) If all of the TC still exist merely because Paul quoted 5 in Romans 13:9, then do all of the worship ordinances/statutes also exist because Paul also quoted from Leviticus 19:18 “thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”?

(6) Perhaps the best reason Paul quoted the second half of the Ten Commandments in Romans 13:9 is because he was using them in the strictly New Covenant sense as something eternal which should be repeated after Calvary in terms of grace and faith.


Andreas: Paul assures us that we are not saved by trying to keep several commands, but through faith to Jesus Christ alone (John 14:6)[wrong reference].



(1) The great divide between most Protestants and SDAs is over sanctification” and how one “remains saved” or “abides.” SDAs teach that one remains saved by keeping the Ten Commandments, by avoiding unclean foods and by tithing.

(2) The Sabbath was only commanded to OT Israel. And unclean foods and tithing are not part of the Ten Commandments.


Andreas: If there were no law, then sin could not exist (Romans 7:19 and similar verses).



(1) The law which existed in the
Garden and the law which condemned everybody before Moses was the law of nature and conscience (Rom 2:14-16 and 1:18-29; 5:13-14).

(2) The “law” which condemns Jew and Gentiles in Romans 3:1-18 is natural law quoted in Psalms and Isaiah (read it for you). This is also alluded to in Romans Rom 5:13-14 – not the Ten Commandments.

(3) The formal codified written law was “added” to the law of nature and conscience “until” the Messiah would fulfill it (Gal 3:19, 24-26; Heb 7:18).

(4) I believe that Romans 7 is a flash-back struggle Paul endured between the time he was baptized and the time he yielded fully to the Holy Spirit’s control of his life. As a believer he had DIED to the law (Rom 7:4) and had been buried and resurrected (Romans 6) to walk in the newness of the indwelling Spirit (Rom 8:3). “Law” in Romans 7 is a “principle.”

(5) The very instant a person is born-again, he is “bought with a price” and his body is not his own. The Spirit then indwells His temple of the believer’s body. In doing so, the new “law of the Spirit of life” in Christ condemns the Christian of sin according to the New Covenant (Heb 8:8-13). John 16:8-9 “And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me.”


Andreas: Also 1 John 3:4 tells us that sin is lawlessness. Why should it be mentioned when such-and-such the law does not apply anymore?



(1) Again, John does not use the word “law” to refer to the Old Covenant. He uses it purely in New Covenant terms as a “principle” that condemns sinners.

(2) New Covenant Christians sin when they disobey “the law (principle) of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:3 cf 2 Cor 3:10-18; John 16:8-9) --

Christ and His Spirit within.

(3) Those “thou shalt nots” of the Ten Commandments which were eternal are now “principles” of how a believer should behave when yielded to the Holy Spirit.

(4) Once again you attempt to limit the word “law” in 1 John 3:4 to the Ten Commandments when it refers to everything God had revealed through the entire Old Testament for Hebrews, to nature and conscience for pre-Calvary Gentiles and, especially, to Christ for all believers. Unless you can prove it only refers to the Ten Commandments, you cannot use 1 John 3:4 to prove your point.

(5) If you interpreted 1 John 3:4 as “sin transgression of the whole law” you would place yourself in deeper trouble.

(6) I see absolutely no progress in your line of thought in this dialog. You still very erroneously want to define “law” as only the Ten Commandments.


Andreas: This is also true for Mark 2:27-28. How can Jesus be the Lord over the Sabbath, when the Sabbath does not "exist" anymore? What would it be good for?


Russ: Concerning Mark 2:27:

(1) That is your logic -- “Law” can only refer to the Ten Commandments so you can command all men to keep the Sabbath!

(2) Ignore the fact that the Sabbath legitimizes slavery and every SDA breaks it every Sabbath day by causing others to work. Ignore the fact that your food laws and tithing are from those parts of the whole law which you have otherwise discarded.

(3) Jesus was Lord of the whole Law and prophets: commandments, judgments, ordinances and prophets. Why don’t you point that out? Because it would force you to teach things which you have discarded. He gave the whole Law to Moses (John 8:58).

(4) Jesus fulfilled the whole law; His righteousness as the second Adam satisfied the righteousness of the whole Law (Romans 3:21-26; 5).

(4) In One who met the righteousness requirements of the formal Law (and the law of nature and conscience), Jesus was qualified to redeem both Israel (Rom 3:19) and Gentiles (Rom 3:20; check the lack of the definite article in 3:20).

(6) By sacrificing Himself to redeem sinful mankind, Jesus ended the formal codified law and replaced it with the New Covenant law-principle of the indwelling Spirit (Luke 23:45; Gal 3:1, 19, 25-26; 4:4-5; Eph 2:13-16; Heb 7:18; Phil 3:9-10

(7) Mark 2:27-28 was uttered while the WHOLE law was still in effect before Calvary. Your statement “How can Jesus be the Lord over the Sabbath, when the Sabbath does not "exist" anymore?” ignore the covenant context.

(9) The Greek of Mark 2:27-28 reads THE man and not “mankind.”

a) THE man could refer to Jesus Himself, the Son of man, who often taught and healed and worked miracles on the Sabbath to show He was superior. As the Son of David he could do what others could not do on the Sabbath (2:23-25).

b) THE man could refer to the Hebrew man. It was a unique sign and seal of God’s Old Covenant with Israel (Ex 31:13-17) –and God commanded Israel NOT to share its covenant with others. Not one cent of temple income went to convert Gentiles and teach them the Sabbath.


Andreas: What do you think about the Law, Commandments, Commands?



(1) “Law” before Calvary almost always referred to the WHOLE indivisible body of commandments, judgments and ordinances/statutes. This is also true of most of the post-Calvary uses of the word “law.” SDAs greatly err in their misuse of the word “law.”

(2) “Commandments” in the Old Covenant usually refers to the Ten Commandments. In the New Covenant, John uses it to mean “what Jesus taught.” However “what Jesus taught” must be evaluated in the context of covenant and audience.

(3) “Commands” is very general. In the Old Testament, “commands” often refers to “judgments” and “ordinances/statutes.” Read Psalm 119 and all of Deuteronomy for a much clearer picture of these three words.


Andreas: What is the Will of God?


Russ: The will of God is that all might come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior.

Before Calvary the will of God was that Israel would accept Yahweh as its Messiah and the whole world would flow into Jerusalem to discover why it had been so blessed (all prophets and Romans 11).

         God’s original plan was that every Israelite would become priests (Ex 19:5-6). The Law was a shadow child-tutor intended to keep Israel on the right path until its Messiah would arrive to replace shadow truth with the real truth of His righteousness (Romans 3:21-26; Gal 3:19-26; 2 Cor 3:10-18).


Russell Earl Kelly, PHD

316 Aonia Rd

Washington, Ga 30673




Dialog with an SDA Scholar on the Law (2nd edited to remove duplication) 9-12-2014


Me, Dr. Andreas Starzacher

Your opinion 2 Some comments and questions to your last email: Russ: Matt 15:4 “For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother (Ex 20:12) AND, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death” (E

Sep 6

new messages!

Your folder is empty

Your Trash folder is empty

Russ: Matt 15:4 “For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother (Ex 20:12) AND,
He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death” (Exodus 21:15).
Andreas: Actually 4b is found in Exodus 21:17.
Russ: Is that all you have to say. Many of the judgments were the PENALTIES for presumptuously violating the moral laws. Have you ever read Exodus through Deuteronomy?; have you ever read “the Law”?  A law does not exist without the PENALTY for violating it. Do you kill your children who hit or curse you? Of course not! Because the whole law ended as a covenant – including the penalty part of it beginning in Exodus 21.


Andreas: I agree, but, however, Jesus paid it all, so he freed us NOT from the law, but
from the curse of the law (meaning death penalty), as found in Galatians 3,13.


Russ: You say that the penalty for violating the law has ended but the whole law still exists. That makes no sense.

The law also commanded women to stay outside the camp while in menstruation. Did Calvary end that? The Law also commanded killing Sabbath-breakers. Did Calvary end that?


Russ: According to the amount of sacrificial animals required, the 7th day Sabbath was the LEAST important Sabbath day.
Andreas: I did not get it, can you please explain that in more details why you think in that way?


Russ: This is proof that you have not read the law you protect so hard. Read my free online book, chapter 20, Greater and Lesser Sabbaths (www.tithing-russkelly.com/sda).


Russ: Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments …” 
Andreas: … Jesus did not abolish the whole law, indeed. But, however, Jesus made such things as sacrifices obsolete …

Russ: Matthew 5:18 says “not one jot or tittle (dot or stroke).” Yet you just said that he “made such things as sacrifices obsolete.” That, my friend, is a contradiction. Again in Matt 5:19 Jesus said “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” This also goes strongly against your “Jesus made such things as sacrifice obsolete.”

You want it both ways. You quote Mt 5:18-19 to me to prove that the whole law is still in effect and then ignore the plain clear fact that those 2 verses condemn your interpretation. Either the whole Old Covenant law of commandments, judgments and ordinances is still in full force, or else none of it is. Make up your mind.


Andreas: At least those (commandments) mentioned in Matthew 5:20-48 are still valid, in my opinion, at the same level as the 10 commandments.


Russ: Including 5:23-24???

Since Jesus’ righteousness is at least equal to that required by Law (Mt 5:20) Jesus was then already CHANGING “dots and tittles” in the Law He gave. He upgrades “murder” to “hate”; He upgraded “adultery” to “lust”; He ended “eye for an eye” with “forgiveness”; He upgrades “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18) to the highest level of commandments.
Andreas: Jesus fulfilled the law perfectly. But that does not imply that the law is therefore obsolete.


Russ: The Old Covenant Law is obsolete; the New Covenant “law of the Spirit of life in Christ” has replaced it (Rom 8:3).

Remember you just said “Jesus made such things as sacrifices obsolete …” If He made sacrifices obsolete, then He made the whole Law obsolete as required in a literal understanding of Matthew 5:18-19.


Andreas: But, wouldn't you say that love neighbor is not obsolete? Jesus mentioned that one of the highest commandments is love your neighbor?


Russ: “Love thy neighbor as thyself” is repeated in the New Covenant after Calvary; therefore it still applies, not as  the Old but as part of the New law.

My hermeneutic is: “If it is repeated in the New Covenant after Calvary, it applies in terms of grace and faith.” – like the U.S. Constitution replacing British Law.

On the other hand, SDAs have no consistent principle to apply when bringing things over from the Old into the New Covenant.


Andreas: Hence, Jesus redeemed us from the law in that sense that he paid the price for our transgressions.


Russ: That logic leaves the whole law intact -- all 600-plus commandments, judgments and ordinances – including the commands to sacrifice and the entire book of Leviticus. Do you observe the 7 festivals? Do you forbid mixed marriages? Do you cause anybody to work on the Sabbath?


Andreas: Important: what is "sin"? Sin is lawlessness (or transgression of the law) [1 John 3:4].



(1) Which law? The law of nature? The law of conscience? The Law of Moses? The Law of Grace? The Law of Christ? Did you know this is the only use of “law” in First John? Except for the KJV, other versions read “lawlessness.”

(2) If you use I John 3:4 to refer to the Ten Commandments and Sabbath, then you are legitimizing slave ownership and condemning yourself for causing others to work on the Sabbath.

(3) If you use I Jn 3:4 to refer to the entire law of commandments, judgments and ordinances, then you condemn yourself for discarding most of the judgments and ordinances and violate your own “not one jot or tittle” argument from Mt 5:18 and “the least of these commandments” argument from Mt 5:19.

(4) If you say that “commandments” only refers to the Ten Commandments, then you ignore I John 3:23, 24, 4:1 and 5:2. In First John “keeping the commandments” refers almost exclusively to “loving God” and “loving others.” This is the “new/old” commandment of John 13:34; 1 John 2:7, 8 and 2 John 5.

(5) The definition of “law” has changed from a) natural law and conscience to b) the codified Law of Moses to c) the law of Grace/Christ which that which is eternal and moral from the Old Covenant has been repeated in the New Covenant in terms of grace and faith.

(6) This is my chief argument with your theology. You will not or cannot consistently define either “law” or “commandments” and that is why you will not and cannot consistently define “sin.”

(7) Rom 5:13 “(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

a) Until the formal codified law

b) Sin was in the world because of the law of nature and conscience

c) Imputed refers to accountability

(8) Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.”Death reigned because the law of nature and conscience still existed to condemn mankind
Andreas: Same as in James 2:10, if there is no law, why mention this comparison?

James 2:9 “But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.”

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

James 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

James 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.”

Russ: Must you quote every text out of context?

(1) James 2:1-9 is a discussion of respecting persons, not the Ten Commandments.

(2) While the Ten Commandments do not call having respect of persons a sin, 2:9 adds yet another commandment.

(3) You dare to quote 2:10 and then dare to teach that the “whole law” does not include most of the judgments and ordinances.

(4) Important. The purpose of James 2:9-10 is to demonstrate the futility of pleasing God by good works.

(5) The answer to the dilemma of James 2:8-10 is found in 2:11. The “royal law” is neither the Law of Moses nor the Ten Commandments. The “royal law” is superior to regular law. In order to obey the “royal law” of “not respecting others,” one must obey the whole law of love. For example, one can kill without committing adultery or steal without killing – but one who respects another cannot kill, steal or commit adultery. Therefore, “not respecting others” is “royal” compared to “thou shalt not kill, steal, and commit adultery ”or“ dis-honoring parents.”


Andreas: Jesus was the foreseen Messiah and fulfilled a lot of commandments.


Russ: Yes, but the text says that “not one dot or dash of the whole law will pass away until all be fulfilled” (Mt 5:18). Therefore your answer is inadequate, lacking and wrong. Either we are still under ALL of the Law (as the Old Covenant) or NONE of it. Again, my consistent hermeneutic is: “Only that which is repeated to the Church after Calvary in terms of the New Covenant applies today.” You lack a consistent principle for applying the Old Covenant Laws to the New Covenant. That is why your doctrines of tithing and Sabbath-keeping are wrong.


Andreas: Concerning judgments: what do you particularly mean?


Russ: That part of the Law which judges decided is generally called judgments, beginning in Exodus 21. They were civil as opposed to cultic ceremonial worship laws in which the priests managed. Priests only dealt with sins of omission and accident. Judges dealt with willful, presumptuous, high-handed, deliberate sins.


Andreas: In general, I agree with Romans 6:23. The wages of sin is death. This is still valid.


Russ: Of course it is. The primary definition of sin has not changed, but the definition of “law” has changed. Have you not studied Romans 5:11-21? Many died before the formal codified law was enacted through Moses.

How do you explain John 16:8-9? The definition of sin has changed drastically from nature’s law to Moses’ law to Christ’s law.


Andreas: Concerning ordinances: Here the question is (I) "why I teach that Jesus abolished e.g., the feasts". This was a shadow (Colossians 2:16-17) and
(ii) "why I teach that Jesus abolished the purity laws", but not the "food laws". To be honest, I cannot answer this.


Russ: Again, my concern is that you are taking apart the Law one piece at a time contrary to Matthew 5:18-19. At least I can re-instate many of those good laws because they are repeated after Calvary as part of the New Covenant (i.e. British to U.S. Law).


Andreas: Galatians 3:19: concerning "the law was added [had a beginning]" Sure it has a beginning. But this beginning must not be at Exodus 20.


Russ: Why not? You are confusing the eternal law of nature and conscience for all mankind with the temporary Law of Moses only for Old Covenant Israel (Ex 19:5-6).

Andreas: The word "till" is quite interesting and I need to think about it carefully. Cannot give you any answer on that issue.


Russ: Again, English Law, all of it, GOOD AND BAD, ended on July 4th, 1776 when my representatives signed the Declaration of Independence.
Andreas: Mt 5:17-18


Russ: You are rightly puzzled by Matthew 5:17-18 because you do not want to let go of the Old Covenant Law which never did apply to Gentiles or the whole earth. It was their unique covenant Ex 19:5-6). They were the only nation God redeemed from bondage in Egypt (Ex 20;
Deuteronomy 5 preambles to the Ten Commandments). Referring to Jesus fulfilling prophecy, Matthew alone contains the word “fulfilled” 14 times: 1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:14, 35; 21:4; 26:54, 56; 28:9, 35. Jesus fulfilled the righteous requirements  of the Law.


Andreas: Jesus' words "it is finished" or after the new Jerusalem will reside on the new earth? I have no definite answer to that.

Russ: The ripping of the Temple veil signaled that the Old Covenant had ended and that all believers could view the Most Holy Place as believer-priests.  The New Covenant Law of God’s will written in the hearts by the Holy Spirit had begun (Heb 8:8-13).
Andreas: Galatians 3:24.
Well, our schoolmaster was the law. When? Does this apply also to Gentiles?


Russ: Paul was speaking as a Hebrew from the Hebrew point of view. In Romans he changes his address from “we” to “they” often.

       In meeting the righteous requirements of the formal codified Law to save Hebrews, Jesus also met the requirements of the law of nature and conscience to save Gentiles.


Andreas: Or do I have to be first under the law, then, sometime later, I will be brought to Jesus? This is absurd.


Russ: You have to first be convicted of sin by the Holy
Spirit either through nature and conscience, or through the Law of Moses as a Hebrew, or through th Law of Christ.

       The absurd thing is that you want to place Gentiles under the Old Covenant law and condemn them as lawbreakers and completely ignore Romans 2:14-16 which you admit you do not understand.
a)    Romans 1:16-18 says that both Jews and Gentiles deserve the wrath of God.

b) Gentiles deserve the wrath of God because they have sinned against revealed truth of nature and conscience (1:19 to 2:26).

c) Hebrews deserve the wrath of God because they have sinned against the direct revelation of the Old Covenant Law.

d) Romans 3 quotes Isaiah and Psalms and concludes that both Jess and Gentiles are guilty before God as lawbreakers (3:19-20).


Andreas: Gal 3:25 implies that we once were under a schoolmaster. Consequently, this means that also Gentiles were under the law? Or is Paul speaking to Jews?


Russ: Again, to Jews per 4:4-5. At no time did God command Israel to proselytize Gentiles.

(3) May I clarify your statement to read: “Jesus Christ has not come to redeem us from the whole law, but only from the "curse of the whole law". Now do you see your error?
You would have us believe that the law forbidding leaving a person handing on a tree is still in effect and still defiles the land. Is that correct?

(3) To be consistent, yes that would be the case. Does anyone say that this is not true anymore? Why is such a thing a "sin" in God's eye "yesterday", but not "today" anymore?

Russ: In order to be consistent you would have to incorporate hundreds of other judgment-laws into your everyday life.  For example, women would have to stay out of town while on menstrual periods; houses with mildew would be destroyed and children who strike or curse parents would be killed.
Russ: (Concerning Matthew 5)
(1) The commands in Mathew 5 are before Calvary.
(1) Do you mean that everything Jesus said BEFORE Calvary is not "valid" for Gentiles?


Russ: No. The commands Jesus gave before Calvary in their Old Covenant context do not apply unless repeated after Calvary in terms of the New Covenant. That is how the U.S. treated English Law after our rebellion.

Andreas: Is adultery ok now? Or why should I not commit it? (Because Paul told the Corinthians?)


Russ: Of course not.

a) adultery is wrong because nature and conscience tell us it is wrong.

b) it is wrong because the sin of adultery is repeated after Calvary in the New Covenant.

c) it is wrong because the “Thou shalt not commit adultery” has been re-written in the hearts of New Covenant/new creation as “You will not commit adultery” (Heb 8:10-11). The New Covenant is not the Old Covenant re-stated. Rather it is “Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers” (Heb 8:9).

d) In Galatians 5:19 adultery is called a “work of the flesh.”
Andreas: Well, what about the signs "people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus" (Rev. 14:12)? What commands are meant here?


a) I know your theology; I was an SDA pastor. SDAs teach that the 144,000 of Revelation 14:12 have become sinlessly perfect and can stand before God without a mediator.

b) Again you need a set of consistent hermeneutics (principles of interpretation). The first must be “to whom is the text speaking.”

c) Revelation 14:12 is speaking to and about 144,000 Hebrews of the last days (from chapter 7)). They are sealed and kept from harm during the Great Tribulation.

d) They obey what Jesus taught in the New Covenant; they have kept His commands/commandments.

e) This is not a description of the SDA church.
Andreas: Are there many plans of salvation?



a) There is one plan of salvation -- by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ as one’s personal Lord and Savior.

b) Although most pre-Calvary man never hears the name of Jesus, they saw His righteousness by faith.

c) God is not a respecter of persons (Romans 2 all). He judges each person in the context of his/her knowledge and covenant.
Andreas: If we are no longer under the schoolmaster, we, however, needed to have been under it (even Gentiles?). Otherwise we cannot be "no longer under it".


(1) As I said before, “we” is Paul speaking as a Hebrew.

(2) You sequence is illogical. If Gentiles were ever under any part of the Old Covenant Law, then they would have been under all of it. Nowhere, absolutely nowhere does the Bible say that God commanded the Gentiles to keep the Old Covenant Law, the Sabbath or tithing, etc.

(3) Gentiles have gone from being under the law/principle of nature and conscience TO being under “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:3).


Andreas: Rom 1:20.How can a person know that there is a Father, a Son, a Holy Spirit (Godhead) purely from creation?

Russ: Common sense says there is a godhead. God is love and love cannot exist by itself. I cannot fully answer your question, but I could never worship a twinkle in the sky or an idol I know was carved.


Andreas: It is mentioned that the Sabbath is a sign between God and Israel. But, why is there a connection to the creation, i.e., 7th Day God rested ...?

Russ: Read Creation Sabbath in my SDA book. The first Creation Sabbath was not bordered by an “evening and a morning”; the perfect sinless rest of the first Sabbath lasted until sin entered. We do not know how long that was. Adam did not begin to die until he sinned.

On which day of the week did Adam sin? We do not know. Therefore God had to re-introduce the specific day of the week in Exodus 16 only to Israel! – at least 2500 years later.

The second giving of the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy 5 does not connect it to creation at all.

The Christian rests in the perfect sinless righteousness of Christ by faith (Heb 4:3). That is good enough for me. There are no holy days commanded in the New Covenant.

Andreas: Jesus said "keep MY commands". Are "his commands" the same as the commandments in the Law and the Prophets?



(1) Jesus’ commands to Adam through Moses were not in the Law and Prophets. They were found in nature, conscience and direct revelation.

(2) Jesus’ commands from Moses to Jesus FOR OLD COVENANT ISRAEL were found in the Old Covenant Law.

(3) Jesus’ commands to Gentiles from sinful Adam to Jesus were found only in nature and conscience (Romans 1:18 to 2:16.

(4) Jesus’ commands to the post-Calvary Church are found in His Words which were REPEATED after Calvary to the Church in the context of the New Covenant.

Andreas: Rom 13:8-10
After reading the text again, I noticed that not only the commandments (listed from the 10 commandments) are summarized by "Love your neighbor", but also in the previous verses Paul lists several "commandments" (what to do), e.g., pay taxes, not owe. Thus, the term "law" in verse 10 does not necessarily refer to the listed commandments of verse 9, but also of verse 7 and 8.


Russ: Good observation. You have added to my knowledge.


Andreas: But, again, I come into troubles. If "do not murder" is not valid (even thinking badly of another is enough of being guilty of murderer), then to murder is not a problem in God's eyes? Because this command is given by Jesus BEFORE Calvary, isn't it?

Russ: You are still confused about the three uses of “law.”

(1) To the pagan Gentile in deepest Mongolia, Africa or South America – “it is sin to kill/murder.” Why? Because the LAW of nature and conscience convicts him/her (Romans 1:16 to 2:16).

(2) To the Old Covenant Hebrew “It is sin to kill/murder.” Why? Because the Old Covenant Law convicts him/her (Rom 2:17-28; Exodus 20 to Deuteronomy to Malachi). The Old Covenant Law against murder ORIGINATED in the Law of nature and conscience.

(3) To the Christian “It is sin to kill/murder.” Why? Because God has written His will in the hearts of believers by the indwelling Holy Spirit (Heb 8:8-13). The REVEALTED WILL OF GOD – i.e. “law” principle – has moved from nature and conscience TO the Old Covenant  TO the New Covenant.


Andreas: Paul said in Romans 7:7 that he would not have known coveting as sin, if the law had not said so.


Russ: As you know theologians argue over the context of Romans 7.

(1) Is it before or after Paul was saved”?

(2) Does it reflect a time in Paul’s life in which he also was struggling with the concept of law? After all, look at his conclusion in 8:1-3.

(3) Why did Paul say that he was “dead to the law” in 7:4? Can law tell a dead person what to do?

(4) Is not “law” beyond 7:7 merely a “principle”?

(5) In my opinion, since “thou shalt not covet” is repeated to the Church after Calvary in the New Covenant era, then it has been brought over into the New Covenant “law of Christ”.

       (5) If all of the TC still Exists merely because Paul quoted 5 in Romans 13:9, then do all of the worship ordinances/statutes also exist because Paul also
quoted from Leviticus 19:18 “thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”?

Andreas: that's a good point

(6) Perhaps the best reason Paul quoted the second half of the Ten Commandments in Romans 13:9 is because he was using them in the strictly New Covenant sense as something eternal which should be repeated after Calvary in terms of grace and faith.
Andreas: yes, but also the 4th commandment must be viewed in a grace and faith perspective


Russ: Why? The Sabbath was never commanded to either Gentiles or to the Church after Calvary.


Andreas: By the way, what is your answer to John 8:51? What is Jesus' word? Before/After Calvary?
Russ: Have you read all of chapter 8? His “word” was what he was teaching. Sometimes it must be interpreted according to the Old Covenant context before Calvary (but not here).


Andreas: If there were no law, then sin could not exist (Romans 7:19 and similar verses).


Russ: If there were no Old Covenant Law Paul would not have been convicted by it –but-- that does not  mean the law of nature and conscience did not exist to convict him of the same sin (Rom 5:12-21; 1:18 to 2:16).

(3) The formal codified written law was “added” to the law of nature and conscience “until” the Messiah would fulfill it (Gal 3:19, 24-26; Heb 7:18).
Andreas:(3) True, but, actually, what sense does it make to add a law and after the Messiah has come (died and resurrected) it is again nullified?


Russ: ??? You confuse me here. The Old Covenant Law was added to the law of nature and conscience for Hebrews only. The New Covenant law replaced Old Covenant law for everybody.


Andreas:  1 John 3:4
(4) You said that "law" refers here to New Covenant terms as a "principle", in (4) you say it refers to everything God had revealed through the entire Old Testament. What is true?


Russ: Both. When applied to Jews before Calvary, it referred to everything in the Old Testament. Compare Romans 3:1-20).
Russ: Concerning Mark 2:27:
(4) In One who met the righteousness requirements of the formal Law (and the law of nature and conscience), Jesus was qualified to redeem both Israel (Rom 3:19) and Gentiles (Rom 3:20; check the lack of the definite article in 3:20).
Andreas: Romans 3:20 tells me … without law I cannot become conscious of sin as this verse implies.

Russ: “Without law as a principle.” From Adam to Moses sinners were aware that they had sinned against the principles of nature and conscience and even human government laws. A law principle – not necessarily the Law you refer to. The new law principle is seen in Romans 8:3.

Dr. Andreas Starzacher
Margeritenstraße 12 / D1
9500 Villach


Dialog with an SDA Scholar on the Law (3)


Andreas: What is the New Covenant?


Russ: The New Covenant is described in Jeremiah 31: 31-34 and repeated in Hebrews 8:8-13. Jeremiah 31 also includes 31:35-37.

(1) It is “a better covenant established upon better promises” (Heb 8:6). It is not the Old Covenant reworded.

(2) Again, it is “the second” covenant and not the first reworded” (Heb 8:7).

(3) Like the first covenant, it is primarily made with the “house of Israel” and the “house of Judah” (Heb 8:8). It was not made primarily with the Gentiles but they were later included when Israel rejected its Messiah and the Gentile dogs ate the crumbs which fell from their table. How do you explain this text?

(4) The new covenant is “not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt” (Heb 8:9). Again we are told that even the new covenant was primarily for Israel but it was DIFFERENT from the first as we discover that Gentiles have much more access to it.

(5) For the third time, it is “with the house of Israel” (Heb 8:10a).

(6)  God will place His new covenant “laws into their mind and write them in their hearts” (Heb 8:10b). In essence this is a full manifestation or revelation of God’s will as opposed to the law written on stones (2 Cor 3:1-18).

(7) Like God’s original plan for Israel in Exodus 19:5-6, there will be a priesthood of every believer – no hierarchy of priests and no need for laws to support priests (Heb 8:11).  “And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.”

(8) The moment one accepts Christ as his/her personal Savior, he/she is eternally saved and adopted into the household of God. The guilt of every sin which separated from a relationship with God is gone  -- God cannot remember them (Heb 8:12). SDAs have a serious problem with 8:12.

(9) The Old Covenant ended (8:13).

(10) The New Covenant and Israel will both survive as a nation as long as there are stars in the sky (Jer 31:35-37). This must not be in your Bible because you totally ignore it.


Andreas: And till when was it in effect?


Russ: Earth and time as we know it will survive until Revelation 21 after the 1000 year reign of Messiah on Earth.


Andreas: What does it mean to be under the New Covenant?


Russ: Its principles will guide the lives of believers as they are indwelt, guided and taught by the Holy Spirit. They will know God’s will.


Andreas: No rules, no commands?


Russ: Plenty of rules and commands – all written in the heart by the indwelling Holy Spirit.


Andreas: Sermon on the Mount "rules" - which were also said BEFORE Calvary, hence not for Gentiles?


Russ: Only those which were repeated to the Church after Calvary in terms of the New Covenant apply. What is your hermeneutic? What principle do you apply to bring material over from the Old to the New Covenant?


Andreas: You also see that the law will be written in our hearts. My question, what law did the writer refer to?


Russ: How do you answer your question? You discard most of the judgments and ordinances and then throw Mt 5:18-19 at me which you ignore.

Which parts of WWII Nazi law have been repeated in Austria’s present constitution? Does that mean Nazi Law still exists? Of course not.
My point of view is the following: Everything that was a shadow of Christ, e.g., the feasts, sacrifices, is not valid anymore (Colossians 2,16). It's that simple. Therefore food laws still exist.


Russ: What about killing your children and killing Sabbath breakers? Were these shadows of Christ? Do you destroy houses with mild? Do yo make your wife eat dirt from the sanctuary to prove she is pure? Do you pay tithes to deacons, choir and musicians as they did in the Bible? Do you give a third tithe to the poor? Do you cause others to work on the Sabbath? // How does your principle explain Mt 5:18-19? Colossians 2:16 is not the only text in the Bible! Read Exodus 21 through Deuteronomy and you will discover how very weak your answer is: literally hundreds would still exist that was not a shadow of Christ!
Andreas: Mt 28:9+35 does not contain "fulfilled". It is found in chapter 27.

Russ: O.K. So I made a typo, but you missed the point – Jesus totally fulfilled the righteousness of the Old Covenant Law with Israel. Where do you get the idea that God included the Gentiles in that Law?

Andreas: Mt 24,20  If the Sabbath is not valid anymore, why does Jesus ask them to pray this way?


Russ: Matthew 24 takes place in the future Great Tribulation when the Antichrist will break his 7 year covenant with Israel. It is Daniel 9’s 70 week in which returning Jews who are not Christians will place themselves once again under Law contrary to the will of God.
Russ: At no time did God command Israel to proselytize Gentiles.
Andreas: What purpose then did the Jews have? Are you saying that Gentiles were never really meant to be saved?

Russ: If Israel had obeyed God and accepted its Messiah, it would have been so blessed that Gentiles would flow into Jerusalem and be saved. It will still happen as the last literal unconditional chapters of Zechariah are yet unfulfilled.


Andreas: In Acts we read several times that Paul went to the synagogues/temples to teach the people on a Sabbath. Why?


Russ: As a Jewish man, and, especially as a Jewish rabbi, Paul had an open pulpit in the synagogues until they cast him out. It would have been foolish not to take advantage of an open pulpit.

       However after being cast out of the synagogues Pau eventually taught the Gentiles on days other than Saturday. This is covered in detail in my book.

Andreas: (Concerning your BEFORE / AFTER Calvary hermeneutic) For example, the words Jesus said at the sermon on the Mount in Mt 5 are not applied to Gentiles, but to Jews. But, AFTER Calvary, they are also not applied to Jews anymore in case they are not mentioned AFTER Calvary.


Russ: Blessing are generic and is not a command. Much of what Jesus taught was generic and not covenant-related. How do you explain all the events in which Jesus commanded Temple worship. He even commanded Samaritan lepers to show themselves to the (Samaritan) priests. Jesus would have sinned if he had taught contrary to any part of the whole Law. Jesus could not possibly have taught his Jewish or Gentile disciples to tithe either to himself or to his apostles.

Enough said about the law.

Now, let’s get to the real difference between SDAs and the remainder of the Christian world – the Investigative Judgment


How does Daniel 8:14 answer the question asked in 8:13 in the context of 8:8-12?


What “defiled” the Most Holy Place in the heavenly sanctuary:

the deeds of the little horn?


the confessed and forgiven sins of God’s saints?


What gives you the right to change to question from “How long before the sanctuary will stop being defiled?


When will its cleansing begin?


The temple in 8:8-13 and chapter 9 is the one on earth. What gives you the right to change it


The one in heaven?

Enter supporting content here

Russell Earl Kelly, PH. D., 316 Aonia Road, Washington, Ga 30673