INVESTIGATING ADVENTISM Q&A: "How does the entire Law relate to us now that Christ has come?"

INVESTIGATING ADVENTISM — Q&A RESPONSE Pastoral Theological Response Pastor Ronald V. Obidos II  |  Former Adventists Philippines

 

QUESTION:

How does the entire Law relate to us now that Christ has come? Did it really change? What changed? What is your context for 'relate'? For 'Law'? I also want to raise the matter of the Sabbath is it not a moral principle that reflects God's character of rest and non-coercion? And is the debate about which day or abolition really missing the point?

 

PASTORAL OPENING

This is one of the finest questions I have received on this platform not because it challenges me, but because it reveals a mind that is thinking with the text rather than simply at the text. You are not proof-texting. You are doing theology. That deserves a thorough, honest response.

I will address your questions in sequence:

(1) What do we mean by 'relate'?
(2) What is 'the Law'?
(3) What actually changed with Christ's coming?
(4) Is the Sabbath a moral principle reflecting God's character?
(5) Are the popular Sabbath debates missing the real point?

I.  WHAT DO WE MEAN BY 'HOW THE LAW RELATES'?

The word 'relate' is a hermeneutical question, not an abolition claim.

When I write that the question is 'how does the entire Law relate to us now?' I am not asking whether God's moral will is still binding. God's moral will is eternal and unchanging because it flows from His unchanging character. What I am asking is a hermeneutical question: What is the interpretive lens through which a New Covenant believer reads and applies the Mosaic economy?

The word 'relate' carries the sense of mediation. In the Old Covenant, God's eternal moral will was mediated through the Mosaic legislative structure typological ceremonies, national civil laws, and moral precepts were all woven together into one covenant fabric. In the New Covenant, that same moral will is now mediated through Christ as the telos (Romans 10:4, τέλος) the goal, the culmination, the hermeneutical key.

Romans 10:4 (ESV) For Christ is the end [telos] of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

This does not mean the Law is erased. It means Christ is the lens. When a New Covenant believer asks 'how do I live in conformity with God's will?' the answer is not 'Go back to the Mosaic covenant as the governing covenant', but 'Look at Christ, who fulfilled and summed up all that the Law pointed to, and who now writes that Law on your heart by the Spirit' (Jeremiah 31:33; 2 Corinthians 3:6–8; Hebrews 8:10).

II.  WHAT DO WE MEAN BY 'THE LAW'?

The word 'Law' (Torah / νόμος) is not monolithic, context determines its referent.

You rightly press for definition. In biblical usage, nomos (νόμος) and Torah (תּוֹרָה) can refer to different things depending on context:

Referent	Scope	New Covenant Status
The Mosaic Covenant as a covenant administration	The whole Sinai economy as a bilateral covenant structure	Obsolete as a covenant (Heb 8:13) not because God's will changed, but because its typological scaffolding has been fulfilled
Moral precepts (God's eternal will)	Commandments reflecting God's unchanging character	Binding now mediated through Christ and written on the heart by the Spirit
Ceremonial / typological law	Sacrifices, priesthood, dietary code, Levitical feasts	Fulfilled in Christ the shadow has yielded to the substance (Col 2:16–17; Heb 10:1)
Civil / national law of Israel	Theocratic governance of the nation-state of Israel	Not directly binding on Gentile nations or the Church, though its principles inform wisdom

 

So when I speak of 'the entire Law' relating to us through Christ, I mean: all of it points to Christ. Moral law fulfilled and internalized. Ceremonial law fulfilled and transcended. Civil law fulfilled in the Kingdom ethic. None of it is ignored. All of it is read through the telos.

III.  WHAT ACTUALLY CHANGED WITH CHRIST'S COMING?

You said it well and I agree with you entirely.

YOUR STATEMENT AFFIRMED

"What is genuinely new with Christ's coming is not the content of love, for love has always been God's standard, but the fullness and finality of the provision for it."

 

This is precisely correct and I want to say this clearly: your instinct here is not in tension with New Covenant Theology it is New Covenant Theology at its best. You have grasped that the moral content of God's will did not change. The hesed (חֶסֶד) that animated the Old Covenant was always the same steadfast love of the same God. Hosea 6:6 and Micah 6:8 were not introducing a new ethic they were calling Israel back to the original intention beneath the external forms.

What changed with Christ's coming is covenantal, not moral:

What Changed	In What Way
The administration changed	From external stone tablets mediated through Moses to the Spirit writing on the heart (Jer 31:33; 2 Cor 3:3)
The sacrifice changed	From repeated animal offerings to the once-for-all (ἐφάπαξ) atoning work of Christ (Heb 10:10)
The priesthood changed	From the Levitical order to the eternal high priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchizedek (Heb 7:11–17)
The access changed	From the mediated presence behind the veil to the torn curtain and direct access to the Father through Christ (Heb 10:19–22)
The scope changed	From one nation-state to all nations the covenant community is now the global church gathered in Christ

 

And you are right again: "Covenants do not create the Law. They carry it." This is a profound observation. The Decalogue did not originate at Sinai it was promulgated at Sinai. Cain was judged for murder before Moses. Abraham was reckoned righteous before circumcision. The moral law is not a Mosaic invention; it is the eternal will of the eternal God. When the Mosaic covenant passed away as a governing covenant, it did not take God's eternal will with it. What ended was the form of mediation, not the content of the will.

IV.  IS THE SABBATH A MORAL PRINCIPLE REFLECTING GOD'S CHARACTER?

This is your most penetrating question and it deserves a careful, non-defensive answer.

You ask: "Is rest a character of God? Is non-coercive rest not a moral reflection of a loving God? How is that not a moral law?"

I want to commend you again because you are asking the right question. And the answer is more nuanced than the usual SDA-vs-ex-SDA debate allows. Let me be precise:

A. The Principle of Sabbath Rest IS Moral and Eternal

Genesis 2:2–3 And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy.

God's rest at creation is real and carries genuine theological weight. It is not merely legislative it is revelatory. It reveals something about God's character: He is not a God of relentless performance. He is a God who ceases, who savors, who enjoys His creation. You are right that this reflects a non-coercive, non-anxious posture.

Furthermore, sabbath rest as a theological category runs through the entire canon: the Promised Land as rest (Deuteronomy 12:9–10), the Psalms' invitation to enter God's rest (Psalm 95:11), and most climactically, the author of Hebrews developing sabbath rest as a typological reality that finds its fulfillment in Christ:

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.

This is a moral and spiritual principle. The Sabbath teaches us that salvation is not earned by human striving it is received in the rest that God provides. This principle does not end with Christ's coming; it is fulfilled and perfected in Christ's coming.

B. But the Specific Mosaic Sabbath Regulation Is Typological, Not Simply Moral

Here is where I must be careful and honest with you. There is a difference between:

The Sabbath Principle (Moral / Eternal)	The Mosaic Sabbath Regulation (Typological / Covenantal)
God rests creation is sacred and good	Specifically the 7th day (Saturday) required observance
Rest reveals a non-anxious, non-coercive God	Death penalty for Sabbath violation (Num 15:32–36) a national covenant sanction
Humans are not machines dignity requires cessation	Tied to the Exodus narrative as a memorial of deliverance from Egypt (Deut 5:15)
Ultimate rest is found in God alone, not in works	The sign of the Mosaic covenant specifically with Israel (Exod 31:13–17)
This is fulfilled and perfected in Christ (Heb 4:9–10)	Colossians 2:16 Paul explicitly places Sabbath in the category of shadow-realities fulfilled in Christ

 

Colossians 2:16–17 (ESV) Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

Paul is not saying the principle of rest is meaningless. He is saying that the specific Mosaic Sabbath regulation was a shadow-type and the substance, the reality it pointed to, has arrived in Christ. To insist on the shadow after the substance has come is to prefer the signpost to the destination.

C. Why the 9-Commandment Objection Requires This Exact Distinction

You rightly press: “Why claim that 9 commandments reflect God’s character but exclude the Sabbath? Is rest not God’s character?”

I affirm that rest is God's character. The issue is not whether rest reflects God it does, profoundly. The issue is the mode of fulfillment. The other nine commandments carry moral content that has no typological fulfillment-and-transcendence in Christ they are not shadows pointing to Him; they are direct reflections of His eternal moral will. But the Sabbath, as Paul explicitly states in Colossians 2:16–17, functions as a shadow pointing to Christ meaning it was fulfilled in Christ, not bypassed. Its moral core rest in God, trust over striving is now experienced continuously in Christ, not recaptured once per week in a legal observance.

CRITICAL DISTINCTION

The Sabbath commandment is not excluded because rest is unimportant. It is fulfilled which is the highest possible honor a typological regulation can receive. A type that is fulfilled is not erased; it is completed. Christ did not abolish the Sabbath, He became the Sabbath-rest into whom we enter by faith (Matthew 11:28–30; Hebrews 4:9–10).

 

V.  ARE THE POPULAR SABBATH DEBATES MISSING THE REAL POINT?

You write: "Sabbath may have been reduced to issues like which day is the Sabbath, or Sabbath was abolished, or Sunday is the new Sabbath, or Sabbath is the seal of God these things, I believe, are not the primary principle that Sabbath is teaching us. Sabbath is more than that."

PASTORAL VERDICT

You are correct. And this may be one of the most mature observations about the Sabbath debate I have ever received on this platform.

 

The popular Sabbath debate has been captured by a reductionistic question: Saturday or Sunday? This is a calendrical argument. But the Sabbath as a theological category is asking a far deeper question: Will you trust God enough to stop?

The Sabbath reveals:

God is Provider, not just Employer	Israel could not work for their own sustenance on the 7th day. They had to trust YHWH. This is a radical posture of dependence.
Human dignity exceeds productivity	The Sabbath ethic protected slaves, animals, and foreigners from being instrumentalized. You are more than what you produce.
Creation is not a resource to be exploited	Sabbath rest extended to the land (Lev 25). There is a creational rhythm that human economy must honor.
Salvation is received, not achieved	Hebrews 4 makes this eschatological the rest we cease from is the rest of works-righteousness. Christ is our Sabbath.

 

These moral and theological dimensions of the Sabbath do not require the Mosaic calendar regulation to remain operative. In fact, when Jesus says "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matthew 11:28) He is not inviting people to a day. He is inviting them to a Person. He is the fulfillment of every truth the Sabbath was teaching.

VI.  SUMMARY VERDICT GRID

Claim / Concept	Pastoral Clarification	Verdict
'The content of love has not changed "hesed" was always the standard'	Fully agreed. You have grasped the continuity of God's moral will across covenants. This is precisely correct.	AFFIRMED ✓
'Covenants carry the Law; they don't create it'	Agreed. God's eternal will pre-exists every covenant administration. Covenants are the packaging, not the content.	AFFIRMED ✓
'Rest is a character of God and reflects a Loving God'	Agreed fully. The Sabbath principle reveals God's non-coercive, non-anxious, provider character. This is moral content.	AFFIRMED ✓
'The popular Sabbath debates miss the primary principle'	Agreed. Saturday vs. Sunday is a reductionistic debate that misses the Sabbath's deeper theology of rest-in-God.	AFFIRMED ✓
'The Sabbath as a specific Mosaic regulation remains binding in the New Covenant'	This is where the distinction must be maintained. The principle is eternal; the specific Mosaic administration is the shadow. The substance has come in Christ (Col 2:16–17; Heb 4:9–10).	REFINED ↗
'Excluding the Sabbath from God's character reflection is wrong'	Partially correct if the claim is that rest reflects God's character. But the Sabbath commandment as a weekly mandatory observance is typological, not merely moral. Its exclusion from the 'nine binding moral commandments' category is not because rest is unimportant it is because it has been fulfilled at a higher level in Christ.	NUANCED ⚖

 

VII.  QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER REFLECTION

QUESTION 1 — On Fulfillment

If Christ is the telos of the Law its goal and fulfillment and if the Sabbath rest of Hebrews 4:9–10 is now found in Him, would it be more accurate to say the Sabbath is fulfilled and perfected in Christ rather than abolished or continued? And if so, what does it mean that believers already live in perpetual Sabbath rest through union with Christ (Matthew 11:28–30)?

 

QUESTION 2 — On the Distinction

You rightly say that the Sabbath principle of rest and non-coercion reflects God's character. Would you also agree that the specific Mosaic form of that principle a mandatory 7th-day observance under penalty of death (Numbers 15:32–36), tied explicitly to the Exodus covenant (Exodus 31:13–17) is the covenantal carrier of that principle, and not the principle itself? If so, is it possible to honor the principle fully while recognizing that the Mosaic carrier has been fulfilled-and-superseded by Christ?

 

QUESTION 3 — On Experience

If the deepest truth the Sabbath teaches is ‘trust God enough to stop, because He is Provider and your worth is not in your productivity’ is that truth more fully expressed in a weekly observance of a calendar day, or in the posture of continuous faith-rest in Christ, who said ‘Take my yoke upon you... and you will find rest for your souls’(Matthew 11:29)? Which form of observance makes the principle smaller or larger calendrical regulation, or Christological fulfillment?

 

PASTORAL CLOSING

The questions you have raised are not questions I want to dismiss they are questions I want to inhabit with you. You are thinking at the level of the text's own concerns, not the level of sectarian debate. And that is exactly where good theology happens.

You are right that the Sabbath is more than a calendar argument. You are right that rest reflects God's character. You are right that hesed was never absent from the Old Covenant. And you are right that the provision not the content is what Christ brought to fullness.

My disagreement with the SDA framework is not that they take rest seriously. It is that they mistake the shadow for the substance and in doing so, they place believers back under a covenantal economy that has been fulfilled and not revoked but transcended by its own telos.

Come to Christ. Rest in Him. Every day is a Sabbath for those who live by faith in the Son of God.

BIBLE STUDY Q&A: Biblical Ba ang Cremation?

Q: Pastor, biblical po ba ang cremation? May nalalabag po ba tayong utos ng Diyos kapag pinili itong paraan ng paglilibing?

A: Real talk tayo, kapatid.

Ang tanong na ito ay legitimate at maraming Kristiyano ang nagtatanong nito lalo na ngayon na mas affordable ang cremation kaysa traditional burial. So let's go straight to Scripture.

Una: May direktang utos ba ang Diyos laban sa cremation?

Wala. Hindi mo mahahanap sa Bibliya ang isang verse na nagsasabing, "Huwag ninyong sunugin ang katawan ng patay."

Ang burial tradition ng mga Israelita ay rooted sa respect sa katawan bilang templo ng Diyos oo, totoo iyon. Pero ito ay isang cultural practice, hindi isang moral command na ipinapataw sa lahat ng bansa sa lahat ng panahon. Under New Covenant Theology, hindi tayo nagtatayo ng doctrine sa cultural observances ng Old Testament Israel.

Pangalawa: Ang Resurrection Argument Valid ba ito?

Minsan maririnig mo: "Pano na mabubuhay muli ang katawan kung nasunog na?"

Kapatid ang Diyos na lumikha ng katawan mula sa alabok ay walang problema itong ibalik, anuman ang kondisyon nito. Isipin mo ang mga martir na sinunog, ang mga nalunod sa dagat, ang mga natupok ng apoy ang kanilang resurrection ay hindi nakasalalay sa intactness ng laman, kundi sa kapangyarihan ng Diyos.

"Ang katawang ito na nabubulok ay muling ibabahid ng hindi nabubulok." — 1 Corinthians 15:53

Si Pablo mismo ay nagsalita tungkol sa katawang espirituwal, glorified body, na hindi na katulad ng present physical body natin. So the resurrection argument against cremation? Theologically weak.

Pangatlo: Pero may mga dapat pa ring isaalang-alang

Kahit walang sin ang cremation, may mga pastoral at practical na bagay na dapat nating pag-isipan:

• Motive matters. Kung ang cremation ay ginagawa para iwasan ang konsepto ng resurrection o bilang pagtanggi sa katawan bilang nilikha ng Diyos iyon na ang nagdudulot ng isyu sa puso, hindi ang proseso mismo.
  
  
• Kultura at damdamin ng pamilya. Ang desisyon sa paglibing ay dapat may awa at konsiderasyon sa mga naiwan. Hindi ito solong desisyon.
  
  
• Pagiging maingat sa okultismo. May ilang kultura na gumagamit ng abo sa mga ritwal. Iyon ang dapat iwasan ang konteksto, hindi ang cremation per se.

BOTTOM LINE

Hindi kasalanan ang cremation. Walang sinisira sa kaligtasan mo. Walang utos ng Diyos na nalalabag.

Ang Diyos ay Diyos ng resurrection, hindi Diyos ng particular burial method. Ang ating pag-asa ay nakasalalay sa katapatan ng Panginoong Jesucristo, hindi sa kung paano natin inilibing ang laman.

Mag-pray, mag-usap sa pamilya, at gumawa ng desisyon na may dignidad, pagmamahal, at pagtitiwala sa Panginoon.

---

FORMER ADVENTISTS PHILIPPINES

​“Freed by the Gospel. Firm in the Word.”

Former Adventists Philippines Association, Inc 

SEC Registration No: 2025090219381-03 

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/formeradventistph 

Partner with me in advancing this ministry. Be part of this mission! Your support helps us continue gospel-centered outreach and resources.

• GCash: 0969-514-3944

• PayPal: paypal.me/formeradventistsph

• Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/ronaldobidos

Bible Study Q&A: "Ano po ang opinion ninyo sa sinasabi ng ilan na hindi na dapat mag-tithe dahil Old Covenant na ito?"

Tanong: "May nabasa po akong article na hindi na daw po dapat mag-tithe dahil Old Covenant na at wala nang curse kapag hindi na sumunod according sa New Covenant. Gusto ko lang pong malaman ang opinion nyo dito. Malachi 3:10 at si Abraham pa rin po ba ang reference sa pag-tithe? Willing po akong unawain kahit mahaba ang response nyo. Salamat po."

Good morning, kapatid! Napakagandang tanong nito. Marami talagang nalilito rito dahil madalas gamitin ang tithing para manakot o mag-promise ng instant yaman. Let’s look at this using New Covenant Theology (NCT) lenses ito yung perspective na nagbibigay ng pinakamalinaw na sagot sa usaping ito.

Handa ka na ba sa katotohanan? Medyo radical ito, pero ito ang turo ng Scripture.

I. Ang Main Thesis ng NCT

Sa NCT, simple lang ang logic natin: The whole Mosaic Law is finished. Kasama dyan ang ceremonial, civil, at moral laws (pati ang 10 Commandments at tithe). Noong namatay at nabuhay si Kristo, nagkaroon ng "change of law" (Hebrews 7:12).

Hindi na tayo dumederetso sa Old Testament para kumuha ng mga utos dito. Lahat ng sinusunod natin ngayon ay dapat dumaan sa "New Testament filter." Kung wala sa Bagong Tipan, hindi ito binding obligation sa atin.

II. Honest Talk: Bakit hindi na apply ang Malachi 3:10?

• Kailangan nating maging tapat sa hermeneutics: Ang Malachi 3:10 ay para sa bansang Israel na nasa ilalim ng Mosaic Covenant.

• The Storehouse: Ito yung literal na bodega sa Templo sa Jerusalem.

• The Curse: Ito yung parusa na nakasulat sa Deuteronomy 28 para sa mga lumalabag sa Law of Moses.

Ang lahat ng iyan ang templo, ang Levitical priesthood, at ang sumpa ng kautusan ay tinapos na ni Kristo sa krus. Sabi sa Hebrews 8:13, ang Old Covenant ay "obsolete" na. Kaya kung ginagamit ang Malachi 3:10 para takutin ka na "susumpain ka ng Diyos" kapag hindi ka nag-tithe, maling gamit po iyon ng Bible.

III. Si Abraham at ang Tithe (Hebrews 7)

Mas matibay na reference si Abraham kaysa kay Malachi. Bakit? Kasi nag-tithe si Abraham kay Melchizedek 430 years bago pa ibigay ang Kautusan ni Moises.

Sa NCT framework, si Melchizedek ay "type" ni Kristo. Noong nag-tithe si Abraham, ipinapakita nito ang isang prinsipyo: Ang pagkilala na ang lahat ng meron tayo ay galing sa Diyos ay isang uri ng pagsamba (worship) na mas malalim pa sa anumang kautusan.

IV. Ang Standard ng Bagong Tipan: Radical Generosity

Kung sasabihin nating hindi na "command" ang 10%, ibig bang sabihin ay pwede na tayong maging kuripot? Hinding-hindi. Sa totoo lang, mas mataas ang standard ng Bagong Tipan.

• Proportional Giving (2 Cor. 8:12): Magbigay ayon sa kakayahan, hindi dahil sapilitan.

• Cheerful Giving (2 Cor. 9:7): Ang "cheerful giver" ay nagbibigay dahil sa pasasalamat sa Ebanghelyo, hindi dahil takot sa sumpa.

• Christ-Centered Giving (2 Cor. 8:9): Si Kristo ang model natin. He gave 100% of His life. Sa harap ng sakripisyo ni Jesus, ang 10% ay nagiging starting point na lang, hindi ang ceiling.

Warning: Ang NCT ay hindi "license to be stingy." Kung ang pag-aaral natin ng Ebanghelyo ay nagresulta sa pagiging mas kuripot natin sa gawain ng Diyos, may mali sa puso natin.

Summary Table: Old vs. New

Topic	Old Covenant (Mosaic)	New Covenant (NCT)
Basis	Law of Moses (Malachi 3)	Law of Christ (2 Cor. 8-9)
Motivation	Fear of Curse / Reward	Love and Grace (Charis)
Amount	Strict 10%	Proportional & Radical
Focus	Supporting Levites/Temple	Supporting Ministry & Needy

Quick Summary for You:

• Malachi 3:10 is no longer a binding covenant command for Christians.

• Abraham’s tithe shows us a heart of worship toward Christ (our Melchizedek).

• 10% is a wise practical baseline (floor), pero hindi ito ang limitasyon.

Ang standard natin ay ang Kalbaryo at ang Kalbaryo ay hindi lang 10%. It is everything.

Call to Action:

Ngayong linggo, suriin ang iyong pagbibigay. Huwag magbigay dahil sa takot o dahil "required" lang. Magbigay bilang tugon sa laki ng biyaya ni Jesus sa buhay mo. Is there a specific ministry or person in need that God is prompting you to support right now?