Hebrews 4:9-10 (ESV): "So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his."
Kapatid, whenever we look at arguments like Darleen Nieves’ take on sabbatismos, we really need to read the text through a New Covenant lens. Kung Old Covenant blinders ang suot natin, maliligaw tayo. Let's look at the actual logic here without the mental gymnastics and see why forcing Hebrews 4:9 to mean a strict Saturday Sabbath just collapses on itself.
First, look at the very quote they used from Vine’s Dictionary. Sure, it defines sabbatismos as "a Sabbath-keeping," but did they read the rest of their own source? Vine explicitly clarifies that in this passage, it means the "perpetual sabbath 'rest' to be enjoyed uninterruptedly by believers in their fellowship with the Father and the Son." Bakit na-cut 'yung part na 'yun? You can't use a dictionary to prove your point while totally ignoring the exact sentence where the author debunks your conclusion. The rest being talked about here is our permanent fellowship in Christ, hindi kalendaryo.
Second, let’s push their logic to the very next verse. Hebrews 4:10 says whoever enters this rest has rested from his works just as God did from His. Think about that. Did God rest on the seventh day and then clock back in to create another universe on Sunday? No, His rest from creation is permanent. Kung literal na araw ng Sabado lang ang tinutukoy dito, does that mean once you enter this rest, bawal ka nang magtrabaho forever? Ang labo, 'di ba? The rest we're talking about is resting from our dead works and the impossible weight of the law, not taking the weekend off from your secular job.
Third, look at the context just one verse prior. Hebrews 4:8 says, "For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on." Back in the Old Testament, the Israelites kept the Saturday Sabbath every single week under Joshua. Marami silang Sabado sa Canaan! But the writer of Hebrews flat-out says Joshua didn't give them the true rest. If sabbatismos just means keeping the seventh day, why did David (in Psalm 95) and the writer of Hebrews centuries later have to plead with the people about entering "another day" called Today? Because the Old Covenant Saturday was just a shadow. Joshua gave them a piece of land; Jesus gives us eternal rest.
Finally, bringing up Old Testament words like Qadash (to sanctify) completely misses the New Covenant reality. Yes, under the old system, holiness was tied to physical days, physical temples, and the nation of Israel. But Christ fulfilled all of that (Colossians 2:16-17). The Sabbath command in the Decalogue was always pointing to a greater reality. Jesus literally stood up and said, "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matthew 11:28). Bakit tayo babalik sa anino (literal na Sabado) kung nandito na mismo 'yung nagbibigay ng pahinga natin?
Stop trying to earn your standing before God by managing a calendar. Are you resting in the finished work of Jesus Christ today, or are you still striving to justify yourself through Old Covenant shadows? Drop the heavy yoke of the law. Find your true sabbatismos in Christ alone, and rest completely in His grace.
"Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses." 1 Timothy 5:23
Ang daling maging masyadong "spiritual" minsan, to the point na nakakalimutan nating may physical bodies pa rin tayo. Dito sa sulat ni Paul kay Timothy, makikita mo yung totoong care ng isang spiritual father. Si Timothy ay isang batang pastor sa Ephesus na bugbog sa stress at bigat ng ministry. Masyado yata siyang naging strict sa sarili niya. Puro tubig lang ang iniinom. Baka gusto niyang umiwas sa kultura ng inuman noon, o baka gusto niyang magpakita ng matinding disiplina para hindi siya masabihan ng mga false teachers.
Kaso, may malaking problema: madumi ang tubig noong unang panahon. Puro bacteria at parasites. Kaya madalas sumakit ang tiyan ni Timothy at madali siyang magkasakit.
Kaya pumasok si Paul with very practical advice: uminom ka ng konting wine para sa kalusugan mo.
Ngayon, kapag nabasa natin 'to, ang unang tanong ng marami: fermented ba talaga yung wine na tinutukoy ni Paul? O juice lang? Historically and linguistically, yes, fermented siya. Ang ginamit na Greek word ay oinos,fermented grape juice. Wala namang ref o pasteurization noong first century, kaya mabilis talagang mag-ferment ang katas ng ubas.
Actually, yung pagiging fermented mismo ang rason kung bakit siya naging gamot. Yung alcohol content nito ang nagsisilbing antiseptic para patayin yung bacteria sa tubig. Standard practice noon na haluan ng konting wine ang tubig para maging safe itong inumin. Hindi sinasabi ni Paul na maglasing si Timothy, dahil malinaw na kasalanan ang drunkenness sa Scripture. Sinasabi lang niya na gamitin ni Timothy yung available at effective na gamot noong panahon nila, para magkaroon siya ng lakas na ituloy ang ministry.
Magandang reminder 'to sa atin about the New Covenant: hindi natutuwa ang Lord kapag pinaparusahan natin ang mga katawan natin o tinatanggihan ang medical help just to look "more holy." Kasama sa grace ng Diyos ang physical needs natin. Yung pag-inom ng gamot, pagpapahinga, at pag-aalaga sa kalusugan mo, those are deeply spiritual acts of stewardship.
Tanong at Sagot
Q: Pastor, fermented ba talaga yung wine na in-advise ni Paul kay Timothy? Hindi ba bawal uminom ang mga Christians?
A: Oo, kapatid. Fermented wine (oinos) talaga yung tinutukoy dito. Walang malinis na drinking water noong araw na katulad ng ngayon. Madumi ang tubig nila, kaya laging sumasakit ang tiyan ni Timothy. Yung alcohol content ng wine yung ginagamit nilang panlinis o antiseptic para maging safe na inumin yung tubig, kaya naging gamot na rin siya. Klaro tayo, ha. Hindi inuudyukan ni Paul si Timothy na magpakalasing. Kasalanan ang drunkenness. Tinuturuan lang niya itong maging practical sa pag-aalaga ng sariling katawan gamit kung anong meron noon.
Bago tayo manghusga agad, pag-isipan muna natin nang malalim 'to:
Minsan ba, mas mabilis pa tayong mag-judge sa ginagawa ng ibang believers kaysa intindihin yung totoong context ng pinagdadaanan nila?
Pinasasama ba natin ang sarili nating health just to look "super spiritual" sa paningin ng mga tao sa church?
Kung temple ng Holy Spirit ang katawan mo, hindi ba act of worship din ang pag-inom ng gamot, pagkain nang tama, at pagpapahinga?
Hanggang saan mo ba talaga naiintindihan yung freedom at grace natin kay Lord sa mga practical na bagay, nang hindi ito ginagamit na excuse para magkasala?
Hey everyone, welcome back to another episode of Investigating Adventism LIVE Q&A Podcast! Today we're digging into a topic that honestly sits at the heart of so many of our conversations with our SDA friends: the gift of prophecy. We're calling this one "The Gift of Prophecy: The Biblical Theology of the Gift of Prophecy," and if you've ever wondered why this subject keeps coming up, it's because it matters a lot, especially when we're talking about claims of modern prophetic authority.
So let's start with the big question I want us all to sit with today: when someone claims to speak for God, what level of authority does that person actually possess? That's it, that's the whole ballgame. Are all prophets in the Bible on the same level, authority-wise? Is every single prophetic utterance automatically inspired Scripture the moment it comes out of someone's mouth? Does the New Testament church even have prophets who carry the same weight as Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, or the apostles? And what happens when a modern religious movement turns around and says, "hey, this person right here, she's our prophet"? These are the questions we're chasing today.
Here's our main thesis, and I want you to keep this framework in your head the whole episode, because everything we say is going to build on it: the biblical picture of prophecy unfolds in three distinct stages.
First, Old Testament prophets: these guys carried absolute divine authority.
Second, New Testament apostles: unique, foundational authority, and their words became authoritative Scripture.
And third, New Testament congregational prophecy: Spirit-prompted, sure, but fallible, and subject to testing. Hold onto that three-tier structure, because it's going to answer basically every question we throw at it today.
Q1: What was the Old Testament standard of absolute divine authority exercised by the prophets?
Let's define our terms first. In Hebrew, the word for prophet is nabi;that's the main term. You'll also run into ro'eh and chozeh, which both point to the idea of a "seer," someone who sees what God is showing them. Now here's the key thing to understand about the Old Testament prophet: he was God's mouthpiece, full stop. Deuteronomy 18:18 lays it out plainly: God says, "I will put my words in his mouth."
"I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him." Deuteronomy 18:18(NIV)
The prophet wasn't sitting there inventing his own message or freelancing his opinions. He declared exactly what God commanded him to declare. That means prophetic authority rested entirely on divine revelation, not on personal insight or gut feeling.
And because of that, the stakes were sky-high. Look at 1 Samuel 8:7, 1 Kings 20:36, Deuteronomy 18:20-22, and Deuteronomy 13:1-5;all of these hammer home the same point: to reject a genuine prophet speaking God's word was effectively to reject God Himself. That's how serious this was. So the Bible actually gives us two major tests for a true prophet.
Test one: Did the prophecy come true? That's Deuteronomy 18:20-22.
"But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?” If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed." Deuteronomy 18:20-22(NIV)
Test two: Did the prophet stay faithful to Yahweh? That's Deuteronomy 13:1-5. And here's the kicker: even if a sign or a prediction actually happened, if that "prophet" was leading Israel toward false gods, he was still rejected. Accuracy alone wasn't enough.
"If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you." Deuteronomy 13:1-5(NIV)
So here's my mic-drop question for this section: if a prophet could be wrong when speaking prophetically, why did God set up such severe penalties for false prophecy in the Old Testament? Sit with that for a second, because here's where things get interesting. The New Testament actually introduces a different category of prophetic activity altogether.
Q2: How did apostolic succession in the New Testament transfer prophetic authority from the Old Testament prophets to the apostles?
Now, a lot of folks make this assumption: "Well, if the New Testament mentions prophets, then New Testament prophets must carry the same authority as Old Testament prophets." Sounds logical on the surface, right? But it doesn't actually follow, and I want to show you why.
The word "apostle", apostolos, literally means "messenger" or "one who is sent." Jesus Himself hand-picked the apostles. He commissioned them specifically to lay down the doctrinal foundation of the church, and their teaching carried a unique, divine authority that nobody else shared. Look at 1 Corinthians 14:37, where Paul flat-out says, "What I am writing to you is the Lord's command."
"If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that
what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command." 1 Corinthians 14:37(NIV)
Then flip over to 2 Peter 3:15-16, where Peter puts Paul's writings right alongside "the other Scriptures";that's Peter, an apostle himself, recognizing Paul's writings as Scripture.
"Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15-16(NIV)
And in 2 Peter 3:2, Peter draws a clean distinction between the words spoken by the holy prophets and the command given through the apostles.
"I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles." 2 Peter 3:2(NIV)
Two separate categories, both authoritative, but distinct.
Now, why would the New Testament even bother using the word "apostle" instead of just calling them "prophets"? Here's the thing: the term "prophet" had a much broader usage across the first-century Greco-Roman world. Paul himself even calls the Cretan poet Epimenides a "prophet" in Titus 1:12!
One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” Titus 1:12(NIV)
So the title "apostle" was doing something specific; it was setting apart Christ's specially commissioned messengers as carrying unique authority that the general term "prophet" couldn't fully capture.
And this is exactly where we bring in our SDA friends. Where does Ellen G. White fit into this biblical structure? Was she an apostle? If the answer is no, and it obviously is no, then was she an Old Testament-style prophet whose words were directly and infallibly God's own words? If yes, then her claims have to be tested by the Old Testament prophetic standard we just laid out. And if no, then her writings simply cannot be elevated to the same level of divine authority as Scripture. There's no third option that lets her writings function as quasi-Scripture without meeting one of those two tests.
So we've established the unique authority of the apostles. But what about ordinary prophecy happening inside the New Testament congregation? That's where we go next.
Q3: What is the fallible nature of New Testament congregational prophecy, and how does it differ from the absolute authority of Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles?
Congregational prophecy in the New Testament wasn't the writing of canonical Scripture. It was Spirit-prompted revelation or impressions communicated to the church, but always expressed through fallible human beings. Look at 1 Corinthians 14:30: "And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop." Paul is straight-up acknowledging spontaneous revelation happening in the congregation, but that doesn't make every prophetic utterance equivalent to Scripture.
Here's the flow you need to picture: divine prompting or revelation comes down, it hits a human recipient, that person then expresses it in their own human words, and then, this is key, the church evaluates the prophecy. So a divine impression doesn't automatically mean the human expression of that impression is infallible Scripture. There's a human filter in the middle, and that filter can get things wrong even when the prompting itself was real.
Case Study: Agabus
Let's look at a real example, Acts 21:10-11. Go ahead and read that passage. Agabus predicts two things: Paul is going to be bound, and Paul is going to be handed over to the Gentiles. Now compare that with what actually happens in Acts 21:31-33: the Jews try to kill Paul, Roman soldiers step in, the Roman commander arrests Paul, and Paul gets bound... by the Romans. So the broad prediction is fulfilled: Paul really is seized and comes under Gentile authority, but the details didn't play out exactly the way Agabus described them.
Why does this matter so much? Under the strict Old Testament standard, a failed prophetic detail would disqualify the prophet completely. Yet Agabus is still regarded as a prophet within the New Testament church afterward. So here's the discussion question: if every New Testament prophetic utterance had to carry Old Testament-level infallibility, why would the church even be commanded to evaluate prophetic messages in the first place?
The Disciples at Tyre
Same idea, different example. Acts 21:4 tells us the disciples at Tyre, "through the Spirit," urged Paul not to go on to Jerusalem. And what does Paul do? He goes anyway. Paul didn't treat their prophetic communication as an absolutely binding divine command. That right there demonstrates the distinction between apostolic authority and congregational prophetic utterance. So ask yourself, if congregational prophecy carried the exact same authority as Scripture, could Paul just disregard it like that?
Q4: Why does Paul command the church to test and weigh prophecy?
1 Corinthians 14:29 says it plainly: "Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said." The Greek word there is diakrino,to distinguish, evaluate, discern, or judge. Then in 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22, Paul gives a whole string of commands: don't quench the Spirit, don't despise prophecies, test them all, hold on to what is good, reject what is evil. Think through the logic here: if every prophecy were automatically infallible, automatically inspired Scripture, and automatically authoritative, there would be zero reason for the congregation to test, weigh, or sift anything. The very command to test prophecy proves that not every prophetic utterance carries the same authority as Scripture. That's our mic-drop for this section.
SDA Cross-Examination Segment: Let's Apply the Biblical Standard
Alright, let's turn this straight to the SDA position.
1. Does Ellen G. White claim prophetic authority? If her prophetic claims are equivalent to the Old Testament prophets, are her statements required to meet the Old Testament standard of complete prophetic accuracy?
2. If her writings aren't equivalent to canonical Scripture, why should they function as an authoritative doctrinal interpreter of Scripture?
3. Where does the New Testament ever teach that a modern congregational prophet can possess authority equal to the apostles?
4. Why does Paul command Christians to test prophecy if prophetic speech is automatically infallible?
5. Can a person claim to possess a prophetic gift while still making mistakes in the expression of that prophecy? And if the answer to that is yes, then why should any modern prophet's writings automatically be treated as an infallible commentary on Scripture?
Rapid-Fire Mic-Drop Round
Question one: Who wrote the doctrinal foundation of the New Testament church, the ordinary congregational prophets, or the apostles commissioned by Christ?
Answer: The apostles.
Question two: If New Testament prophecy is automatically equal to Scripture, why does Paul command the church to weigh and test it?
Answer: Because congregational prophecy is subject to evaluation.
Question three: If a modern prophet claims the same authority as an Old Testament prophet, which standard should we use to test that claim?
Answer: The biblical standard established by God Himself.
Summary: Three Levels of Prophetic Authority
Let's wrap the framework up nice and clean.
Old Testament prophets were direct divine mouthpieces; they spoke God's revealed word, they possessed absolute prophetic authority, and false prophecy was treated with extreme seriousness.
New Testament apostles were personally commissioned by Christ, carried unique foundational authority, and their writings became part of the authoritative Scriptures.
New Testament congregational prophets were Spirit-prompted, sure, but their words were never canonical Scripture; they were humanly communicated, subject to testing, weighing, and evaluation, and therefore not automatically infallible.
Final Challenge to the SDA View
Look, the issue was never whether God can still work through His Spirit today. Of course He can! Nobody's disputing that. The real question is: what kind of authority does a modern prophetic claim actually possess? Press the distinction one more time:
Old Testament prophet, absolute divine authority.
Christ's apostles, unique foundational authority.
Congregational prophecy, Spirit-prompted, but tested and evaluated.
So don't confuse the ordinary prophetic gift of the New Testament church with the unique authority of the biblical prophets and apostles. They are not the same category.
Closing
Here's our final statement for today: the Christian's ultimate foundation is not the latest prophetic claim, not a modern religious personality, and not an institution's interpretation of Scripture. Our foundation is the revelation of God preserved in the Scriptures through the prophets and the apostles. And here's a closing question I want to leave with all of you watching: if a modern prophet's teaching conflicts with Scripture, who has the final authority — the prophet, or the Scriptures?
Alright guys, that's our episode for today! Drop your questions down in the comments, and if you're an SDA viewer or a former Adventist watching this, seriously, jump in and engage with us respectfully; we'd love to hear from you. Stay tuned for the next part of the series, and if you haven't already, go ahead and subscribe to the Former Adventists Philippines channel. Let's close this one out in prayer.
Key Texts for the Episode
Old Testament: Deuteronomy 13:1–5; Deuteronomy 18:18–22; 1 Samuel 8:7; 1 Kings 20:36
New Testament: 1 Corinthians 14:29–30, 37; 2 Peter 3:2, 15–16; Titus 1:12; Acts 21:4; Acts 21:10–11; Acts 21:31–33; 1 Thessalonians 5:19–22; 2 Timothy 3:16
