Tara Bible Study Tayo! Topic: "Kaligtasan sa mga Sabadista"

Dito sa ating serye, hihimayin natin ang mga mahahalagang tanong tungkol sa pananampalataya sa paraang parang nagkakape lang. Walang pilitan, pure Real Talk lang base sa Bibliya.

Sabadista (Bro. Jun): 

Pastor Ronald, parang ang dami kasing misconceptions sa amin. Gusto ko lang linawin: Sa SDA, si Jesus lang talaga ang Savior namin. Ang Bible ang tanging "way to salvation," at yung church namin? Guide lang naman 'yan para matulungan kaming mamuhay nang tama. Sincere naman kami sa puso namin, at alam ng Diyos 'yan, 'di ba?

Pastor Ronald: 

Bro. Jun gets kita. I appreciate yung sincerity mo talagang ramdam ko na mahal mo ang Panginoon. Pero pag-usapan natin ito nang seryoso, ha? Kasi, sincerity is good, pero sincerity alone doesn't save. Maraming tao ang "sincere" pero "sincerely wrong."

Sabadista (Bro. Jun):
Paanong "wrong," Pastor? Sabi ko nga, si Jesus ang Savior. Hindi ba sapat 'yun?

Pastor Ronald: 

Sa salita, yes, Jesus is Savior. Pero sa theology ng SDA, may "but" o "plus" yan. Here’s the Real Talk: Kung si Jesus ang tanging Savior, bakit kailangan pang dumaan sa tinatawag ninyong "Investigative Judgment"? Sa doktrina niyo, hindi pa "final" ang forgiveness hangga't hindi natatapos ang checking ng records sa langit. Kung kailangan pa ng Sabbath-keeping at lifestyle checks para ma-secure ang "seal," then Jesus is not the only Savior—Si Jesus + yung performance mo ang nagliligtas sa'yo.

Sabadista (Bro. Jun): 

Pero Pastor, "guide" lang naman ang church at si Ellen G. White. Tinuturo lang nila na sundin ang Commandments para ipakita ang love natin kay Jesus.

Pastor Ronald: 

Bro, ito ang difference ng New Covenant. Sa New Covenant, we obey because we are already saved, hindi para manatiling saved. Kapag sinabi ninyong ang SDA church ang "Remnant Church" at ang Sabbath ang "Final Test," nagiging "requirement for salvation" na siya, hindi na lang basta "guide."

As New Covenant Christians, we believe salvation is a free gift that we accept by faith. Pero once you add the "Sabbath requirement" or the "Investigative Judgment," nilalabnaw mo ang tinapos na gawa ni Kristo sa krus. Kung kailangan mo pang patunayan ang sarili mo sa isang celestial investigative judgment, nasaan na ang assurance of salvation?

Sabadista (Bro. Jun): 

Eh, paano yung sincerity namin? Alam ng Diyos na sinusubukan naming maging faithful.

Pastor Ronald: 

Alam ng Diyos ang puso natin, yes. Pero ang sabi sa Romans 10:2, may mga tao na "may malasakit sa Diyos, ngunit hindi ayon sa tamang kaalaman." Ang kaligtasan ay hindi nakadepende sa kung gaano ka ka-sincere sa pagtupad ng kautusan (law), kundi sa kung gaano ka-perfect ang gawa ni Kristo para sa'yo. Under the New Covenant, the law of the Sabbath has been fulfilled in Christ. Siya na ang ating kapahingahan (rest), hindi na ang isang partikular na araw.

Sabadista (Bro. Jun): 

So, sinasabi mo Pastor na hindi sapat ang pagiging member ng "Remnant Church" at pag-obserba ng Sabbath?

Pastor Ronald:
Exactly. Bro, the Gospel is simple: Christ + Nothing = Salvation. Kapag ginawa mong "Christ + Sabbath + SDA Membership = Salvation," ibang gospel na 'yan. Ang tunay na "Remnant" ay ang lahat ng sumasampalataya kay Kristo, Judio man o Hentil, Sabado man o Linggo ang worship, basta ang tiwala ay 100% kay Jesus lang at hindi sa sariling gawa o sa isang organisasyon.

Real Talk Reflection

"Sapagkat sa pamamagitan ng biyaya kayo ay naligtas sa pamamagitan ng pananampalataya, at ito ay hindi sa pamamagitan ng inyong sarili, ito ay kaloob ng Diyos; hindi sa pamamagitan ng mga gawa, upang walang sinumang makapagmalaki." Efeso 2:8-9

Reflection:

Minsan, ang akala nating "guide" ay nagiging "tanikala" na pala. Kung ang kapanatagan mo sa kaligtasan ay nakabase sa kung gaano mo kagaling nasunod ang Sabbath o kung gaano ka ka-active sa church, napapagod ka na siguro. Ang New Covenant ay hindi tungkol sa kung anong magagawa mo para sa Diyos, kundi sa kung anong TAPOS NA na ginawa ni Kristo para sa'yo. Huwag mong ihalintulad ang sincerity mo sa sufficiency ni Jesus. Si Jesus lang ang sapat.

Call to Action:

Ngayong linggo, suriin ang iyong puso: Saan ba talaga nakabase ang iyong security? Sa iyong "sincerity" at pagtupad sa utos, o sa perpektong gawa ni Jesus sa krus? Ipanalangin na bigyan ka ng Diyos ng kalinawan na ang kaligtasan ay 100% biyaya.

Tara Bible Study Tayo! Tanong: “Acts 2:38 - Baptism in the Name of "Jesus Only" vs. "Trinity"?

Kamusta, mga kaibigan! Welcome ulit sa "Tara Bible Study Tayo!" Series ngayon, hihimayin natin ang Acts 2:38. Is ito ba talaga ang historical fulfillment ng Great Commission na binigay sa Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16, at Luke 24:47? Magkaiba ba ang baptism in the Name of "Jesus Only" vs. "Trinity"? Importanteng pag-usapan 'to kasi dito talaga nagsimula ang "vibe" ng New Covenant church. Kasama natin ang ating "Bible Student" para sa usapang ito. Tara, let’s dive in!

Bible Student:
Pastor Ronald, good evening po! Reading through the Book of Acts, parang lumalabas na Acts 2:38 ang "grand opening" ng Great Commission. In the Gospels, may apat na big questions: Kailan matutupad ito? Sino ang unang tutupad? Saan magsisimula? At paano ang execution? Pagdating sa Acts 2, parang lahat ng boxes, na-check. Tama po ba ang ganitong view?

Pastor Ronald:
Spot on, ka dyan, brother! From a historical perspective, Acts 2 is indeed the inaugural fulfillment. Hindi lang siya random event; ito yung "Go signal" ng Holy Spirit. Let’s break it down:

Kailan? Sabi ni Jesus, "Wait for the promise of the Father" (Acts 1:4). Nangyari 'yan nung Day of Pentecost, the exact moment the New Covenant era was launched with power.

Sino? Si, Peter, standing with the eleven. Remember, si Peter ang binigyan ng "keys of the kingdom" (Matthew 16:19), kaya fitting lang na siya ang mag-open ng pinto for the first time.

Saan? Sa Jerusalem. Consistent 'yan sa Luke 24:47 na dapat magsimula sa Jerusalem bago kumalat sa "ends of the earth."

Paano? Dito na pumasok yung "What shall we do?" moment. Peter gave the three-step response: Repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Bible Student: 

Pero Pastor, may konting debate dyan, 'di ba? In Matthew 28:19, ang command is "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Pero sa Acts 2:38 at sa iba pang episodes sa Acts, "In the name of Jesus" lang ang binabanggit. Does this mean Peter changed the formula?

Pastor Ronald: 

Good catch! Pero actually, walang contradiction dito. Think of it this way: Sa Acts, ang focus ni Peter is to establish the authority of Jesus. For the Jews in Jerusalem, kailangan nilang kilalanin na yung "Jesus" na pinako nila is actually the Lord and Messiah.

"In the name of Jesus" isn't just a magic formula; it’s shorthand for the authority of the Triune God revealed in Christ. When we baptize, we follow the Trinitarian command of Matthew 28, acknowledging that the Father and the Spirit are fully present in the work of the Son. It’s harmony, not a conflict of formulas.

Bible Student: 

Ah, gets ko na po! So it’s not "Jesus Only" vs. "Trinity," kundi fulfillment ng authority ni Jesus under the New Covenant. Everything points back to what He finished on the cross.

Pastor Ronald:
Exactly! The Great Commission wasn't just a suggestion; it’s the mission of the church. In Acts 2:38, we see the transition from the shadows of the Old Covenant to the reality of the New, where the Law is written on our hearts through the Holy Spirit.

Bible Student: 

Sobrang linaw, Pastor! Nakaka-ignite ng passion to share the Word. Pwede po ba nating tapusin sa prayer?

Pastor Ronald:
Amen to that! Let’s pray. Lord, salamat sa biyaya ng Bagong Tipan. Thank You for the gift of the Holy Spirit that empowers us to fulfill the Great Commission today. Tulungan Mo kaming maging bold witnesses sa aming henerasyon, preaching repentance and the forgiveness of sins in Your Name. Amen.

Real Talk Reflection

"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." — Acts 2:38

Reflection: Minsan, we overcomplicate our faith. We look for "secret formulas" or deep mysteries, but Peter’s first sermon was direct: turn away from sin, identify with Jesus through baptism, and live by the Spirit. This is the New Covenant heartbeat. Hindi na ito tungkol sa pagsunod sa mga panlabas na ritwal ng lumang batas, kundi tungkol sa pagtanggap ng bagong buhay na galing kay Kristo. If the first 3,000 believers started with this simple obedience, tayo rin dapat.

Call to Action: Ngayong linggo, ask yourself: Is there a "Great Commission" opportunity in my circle? Short and simple lang share how Jesus changed your life or offer to pray for someone "in the name of Jesus." Be the fulfillment of Acts 2 in your own neighborhood!

DOOMSDAY O VICTORY? Bakit hindi kailangang mag-panic ng mga Kristiyano sa "Katapusan ng Mundo."

Ang "Doomsday Clock" ay isang simbolo na nilikha ng mga scientists (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists) para ipakita kung gaano na kalapit ang mundo sa global catastrophe dahil sa nuclear threats, climate change, at disruptive technologies. Sa ngayon, nakaset ito sa "85 seconds to midnight," ang pinakamalapit sa kasaysayan.

Narito ang isang perspective ng Biblia para sa atin:

Matthew 28:18-20

"Lahat ng kapamahalaan sa langit at sa lupa ay naibigay na sa akin. Kaya't habang kayo'y humahayo, gawin ninyong alagad ko ang lahat ng mga bansa..."

Pagdating sa "Doomsday Clock," madalas natatakot ang mga tao dahil feeling nila anytime ay magugunaw na ang mundo. Pero if we look at it through the Bible, kailangang tandaan na marami sa mga "end times" prophecies sa Matthew 24 o Revelation (tulad ng "great tribulation") ay natupad na noong 70 AD sa pagbagsak ng Jerusalem. Hindi natin kailangang basahin ang bawat news headlinetulad ng Doomsday Clock bilang direct sign na "the end is near" sa paraang nakakatakot. Ang focus ng Scriptures ay ang tagumpay ni Kristo na nagsimula na noon pa.

Sa Kingdom victory view, mas lalong walang reason para mag-panic. Naniniwala tayo na ang Kingdom of God ay patuloy na lalago sa mundo sa pamamagitan ng pag-spread ng Gospel. Hindi ang "Doomsday" ang huling hantungan ng kasaysayan, kundi ang pagpapasailalim ng lahat ng bansa sa paanan ni Kristo. Ang trend ng history, although may ups and downs, ay patungo sa tagumpay ng gospel at pag-unlad ng katuwiran bago bumalik ang Panginoon.

Kaya imbes na matakot sa "85 seconds to midnight," ang Christian view dito ay dapat punô ng pag-asa (optimism). Ang Doomsday Clock ay warning ng tao, pero ang Diyos ang may hawak ng oras. Hindi magugunaw ang mundo sa nuclear war o climate change hangga't hindi natatapos ng Diyos ang Kanyang layunin na punuin ang mundo ng Kanyang kaluwalhatian.

Call to Action:

Huwag magpa-distract sa takot na dala ng mundo. Imbes na mag-focus sa "85 seconds to midnight," mag-focus tayo sa paggawa ng disciples at pagpapakita ng pagmamahal ni Kristo sa ating komunidad. Maniwala tayo na ang Gospel ay may kapangyarihang magpabago ng lipunan.

Anong magagawa mo ngayong linggo para maging light sa gitna ng takot ng iba tungkol sa future ng mundo? Share the hope of the Kingdom!

Investigating the SDA 28 Fundamental Belief #8: "The Great Controversy"

Chapter 8: The Great Controversy

"All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe. This conflict originated in heaven when a created being, endowed with freedom of choice, in self-exaltation became Satan, God’s adversary, and led into rebellion a portion of the angels. He introduced the spirit of rebellion into this world when he led Adam and Eve into sin. This human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of God in humanity, the disordering of the created world, and its eventual devastation at the time of the global flood, as presented in the historical account of Genesis 1-11. Observed by the whole creation, this world became the arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love will ultimately be vindicated. To assist His people in this controversy, Christ sends the Holy Spirit and the loyal angels to guide, protect, and sustain them in the way of salvation." (Gen. 3; 6-8; Job 1:6-12; Isa. 14:12-14; Eze. 28:12-18; Rom. 1:19-32; 3:4; 5:12-21; 8:19-22; 1 Cor. 4:9: Heb. 1:14; 1 Peter 5:8; 2 Peter 3:6; Rev. 12:4-9.)

The concept of a "Great Controversy" is the backbone of Seventh-day Adventist theology. While the idea of a spiritual battle is biblical, the SDA framework often pushes a narrative where God is "on trial" and must vindicate His character, specifically regarding His Law, before the universe. Using a historico-grammatical approach and sound exegesis, let’s look closer at where this statement misses the mark.

The "Vindication" Trap vs. Divine Sovereignty

The SDA statement claims this world is an arena where the "God of love will ultimately be vindicated."

The Critique: This suggests that God’s character is somehow under question or dependent on the "verdict" of created beings. In the Greek of the New Testament, God’s dikaiosynē (righteousness) is not something that needs a "defense attorney" or a long, drawn-out demonstration to be proven true.

The Exegesis: Romans 3:4 is often cited here, where it says, "...that You may be justified in Your words." However, a historico-grammatical reading shows this isn't about God needing to prove Himself to angels; it’s a rhetorical highlight of His absolute faithfulness despite human unfaithfulness. God is already sovereign; He doesn't need to win an argument with Satan to reclaim His throne.

Misreading the "Law" in the Conflict

The statement emphasizes that the controversy is about "His law." In SDA circles, this almost always refers to the Ten Commandments (specifically the Sabbath).

New Covenant Perspective: From a New Covenant lens, the "Law" that Satan opposes isn't just a code of moral rules or the Decalogue. The "law" mentioned in the New Testament, especially in the context of Christ’s victory, is often the "Law of Christ" (ennomos Christou) or the Gospel itself.

The Critique: By centering the cosmic war on the Decalogue, Adventism risks a "Legalist" focus. The Bible says the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law (1 Cor 15:56), but Christ abolished the enmity by setting aside the law of commandments contained in ordinances (Eph 2:15). The "Controversy" was settled at the Cross, not through a continuing debate about the Sabbath.

Proof-Texting Isa 14 and Eze 28

The statement uses Isaiah 14:12-14 and Ezekiel 28:12-18 to describe the origin of Satan.

The Critique: While traditionally used this way, a strict historico-grammatical study shows these passages were originally addressed to the King of Babylon and the King of Tyre. While they provide a typological picture of pride, using them as a literal biography of a pre-Creation "Great Controversy" can be exegetically thin if not handled carefully.

The Insight: The focus should remain on the "Seed of the Woman" (Gen 3:15) crushing the serpent’s head. The "Controversy" is less a cosmic courtroom drama and more a finished victory in the Person of Jesus Christ.

The Role of the Holy Spirit (Continuationist View)

The SDA statement says Christ sends the Holy Spirit to "assist" and "sustain" His people in this controversy.

The Critique: This language is a bit "weak." In the Biblical view, the Holy Spirit isn't just a "helper" to keep us from losing the fight; the Spirit is the active power of the New Covenant, manifesting gifts (charismata) to demonstrate the present Kingdom of God.

The Exegesis: The Spirit is the arrhabōn (earnest/guarantee) of our inheritance (Eph 1:14). The "Great Controversy" isn't a stalemate where we are barely hanging on; the Spirit empowers the Church to take territory back from the enemy through the preaching of the Gospel and the exercise of spiritual gifts.

Christ's Finished Work vs. Ongoing Struggle

The SDA view often implies that the outcome of the controversy is still "to be determined" based on how well God’s people keep the law.

The Refutation: Colossians 2:15 says Christ "disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him."

The Greek Focus: The verb thriambeuas (triumphed) is a completed action. In the New Covenant, we don't fight for victory; we fight from victory. The "Great Controversy" as a framework often shifts the focus from the Teleios (finished/perfected) work of Christ back to a "Plan of Salvation" that feels like it's still being debated in a heavenly courtroom. 

Summary Table: SDA vs. New Covenant Perspective

Feature	SDA "Great Controversy" View	New Covenant/Exegetical View
Central Issue	The Law (Sabbath) & God’s Character	The Glory of Christ & the Gospel
Status of Conflict	Ongoing; God needs vindication	Finished; Christ is already Victor
Role of Humanity	Witnesses in a cosmic trial	Recipients of grace; ambassadors of the King
Legal Focus	Moral Law/Ten Commandments	Law of Christ/New Covenant Grace

Conclusion:

"The battle is not yours, but God’s." (2 Chronicles 20:15). While the enemy still roars, he is a defeated foe. Don't get caught up in a theology that puts the pressure on you to "vindicate" God. He has already vindicated Himself through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ!

Call to Action: Today, walk in the confidence of Christ’s finished victory. Stop trying to "win" a controversy that Jesus already settled 2,000 years ago.

Tara Bible Study Tayo! Topic: Baptism: Does Water Literally Save? (A Closer Look at 1 Peter 3:21)

Bible Student: 

Pastor Ronald, pwede ba tayo mag-"Real Talk"? Medyo nalilito kasi ako sa 1 Peter 3:21. Sabi kasi dun: "At ang tubig na ito ay sumasagisag sa bautismo na ngayon ay nagliligtas din sa inyo..."

Parang ang dating kasi, kailangan ko muna magpa-bautismo para maligtas? Paano naman yung salvation by grace through faith natin? Does the water actually wash away my sins?

Pastor Ronald: 

Uy, napakagandang tanong yan, Kapatid! Yan ang classic example kung bakit kailangan natin ng exegesis or careful study of the text, at hindi lang basta hugot ng isang phrase.

Huwag kang kabahan. If we look closely, hindi kinokontra ni Peter ang salvation by faith. Actually, dini-describe niya kung ano talaga ang nature ng saving faith. Himayin natin ha?

Bible Student:
Sige po, Pastor. Ano ba talaga ibig sabihin nung "baptism now saves you"?

Pastor Ronald: 

First, tignan natin yung context. Before verse 21, binanggit ni Peter si Noah. Noong panahon ni Noah, yung tubig (the Flood) was actually a judgment that destroyed the wicked. Pero sina Noah, they were "saved through water" by being in the Ark.

Ang tubig ang nag-separate kay Noah from the sinful world. Sa 1 Peter 3:21, tinawag ni Peter ang baptism na "antitype" (sa Greek, antitypon) or katumbas nito.

Bible Student:
So parang symbol?

Pastor Ronald:
Yes, pero may deeper meaning. Pero ito ang crucial part. Basahin mo yung next phrase agad pagkatapos sabihin na "baptism now saves you." Ano yung disclaimer ni Peter?

Bible Student:
Sabi po dito... "hindi ang pag-alis ng dumi mula sa katawan..."

Pastor Ronald: 

Boom! Dyan pa lang, clear na. Peter is explicitly saying: "Guys, hindi ito yung tubig na panligo ha."

He is clarifying that the physical act of water washing dirt off the skin is not what saves you. Hindi yung H2O ang may magic power. Kung walang faith, parang naligo ka lang sa church!

Bible Student: 

Ah, okay! So kung hindi yung tubig o yung physical act ang nagliligtas, ano po?

Pastor Ronald:
Eto ang karugtong: "...kundi ang pangako ng isang malinis na budhi sa harap ng Diyos."

Sa Greek, yung word na ginamit dyan ay "eperotema". Medyo mahirap i-translate, pero pwede siyang "appeal," "pledge," o "answer."

Think of it this way: Baptism is your formal pledge of allegiance. Ito yung moment na humaharap ka sa Diyos at sinasabi mong, "Lord, I am appealing to You for a clean conscience, trusting in Your promise."

It is the faith expressed in baptism that saves, not the water itself. Sa New Covenant, ang focus ay laging nasa puso a response of faith.

Bible Student:

Gets ko na! So parang kasal? Singsing ang symbol, pero yung "I Do" at yung commitment ang mahalaga?

Pastor Ronald:

Exactly! Ang baptism ay parang "wedding ceremony" ng faith mo. The ceremony is vital hindi mo pwedeng sabihing "tayo na" pero ayaw mo magpakasal pero hindi yung seremonya ang nagbibigay ng pag-ibig, kundi yung covenant niyo.

At tignan mo yung dulo ng verse 21. Paano daw nagliligtas?

Bible Student: 

"Ito ay nagliligtas sa pamamagitan ng muling pagkabuhay ni Jesucristo."

Pastor Ronald: 

Ayan ang anchor natin. The Resurrection.

Ang baptism ay walang bisa kung patay si Jesus. But because He rose from the dead, when we are baptized, we are identifying with His victory. Sabi nga sa Romans 6, we are buried with Him in baptism and raised to walk in newness of life.

So, to summarize 1 Peter 3:21: Hindi ito physical washing (ritual law). Ito ay isang pledge or appeal of a good conscience to God (faith response). Ang power ay nasa Resurrection ni Jesus, hindi sa tubig.

Bible Student: 

Grabe, ang linaw na, Pastor! Hindi pala siya "works-based" salvation. It's actually a beautiful picture of us asking God to clean our conscience through Jesus. Salamat po!

Pastor Ronald: Amen! Kaya mahalaga ang baptism hindi para "bumili" ng ticket sa langit, kundi dahil ito ang biblical way to say "Yes, Lord" to the New Covenant He offered.

Real Talk Reflection

"And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 1 Peter 3:21 (NIV)

Have you ever felt that kahit active ka sa church or you’ve gone through all the religious rituals, parang may heavy weight pa rin sa heart mo? Minsan, we focus so much on the external, the attendance, the service, even the method of baptism, that we miss the point.

Peter gets real with us here. He says, “Guys, let’s be clear: hindi ito tungkol sa pagligo.” The water doesn’t have magic soap to wash away sin. Kung walang faith, nabasa lang tayo.

The real power of baptism is found in the phrase “the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.”

In the New Covenant, God is always after the heart. Baptism is your public "I Do" to Jesus. It is that moment where your heart appeals to God, saying, "Lord, I can’t clean myself. I am appealing to You to wash my conscience, and I am pledging my allegiance to You."

It’s like a wedding ring. The ring (water) is a precious symbol, but it’s the vow (the pledge of conscience) that makes the marriage real. And the only reason this pledge works is that Jesus is alive. If He stayed in the grave, our baptism would just be a ritual. But because He rose again, our pledge is answered with His power to transform us.

So, if you are baptized, remind yourself today: You didn’t just join a religion; you entered a covenant. You have a clean conscience, not because you are perfect, but because you appealed to the Resurrected King who washed you clean.

Call to Action:

Take a moment today to revisit your "vow." If anything is burdening your conscience, wag mo nang itago. Appeal to God again. Confess it, claim the power of Jesus’ resurrection, and walk in the freedom of a clear conscience.

When A Strong Argument Turns to Dust: Why the Ten Commandments Are Not the Christian’s Covenant Law? by Ptr. Ely Sembrano

INTRODUCTION 

Some arguments appear solid until you pick them up. Then suddenly, they crumble like sand. One of the most common claims goes like this: “Jesus fulfilled all the laws of the Old Testament, including the Ten Commandments. Since Jesus followed the Ten Commandments, we must follow them too.” Others add a second layer of confidence: “The law has categories types, shadows, ceremonial, and moral. The Ten Commandments are not types or shadows, so even if Jesus fulfilled them, they remain the moral law binding on Christians.” It sounds sharp. Clean. Even airtight. But the moment you touch it, the entire structure collapses. Not because Christianity is anti-law. Not because holiness no longer matters. But because this argument misunderstands covenants, law, fulfillment, and Christ Himself. What follows is not a partial rebuttal. 

It is a complete dismantling. Once seen, this argument cannot be rescued because it was never built on the foundation of Scripture to begin with.
 

1. THE FIRST CRACK: CONFUSING OBEDIENCE WITH COVENANT MEMBERSHIP 

The argument assumes this logic: Jesus obeyed the Ten Commandments → therefore Christians must obey the Ten Commandments. That sounds reasonable until you ask one simple question: Why did Jesus obey the Law? Scripture answers clearly: “God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, to redeem those who were under the Law” (Galatians 4:4–5). Jesus obeyed the Law because He was born under the Mosaic Covenant. Christ did not come as a Christian living under grace. He came as an Israelite living in Sinai. To say, “Jesus obeyed the Ten Commandments, therefore Christians must,” is like saying: · Jesus was circumcised, therefore Christians must be · Jesus kept the feasts, therefore Christians must · Jesus lived under the temple system, therefore Christians must Yet Scripture explicitly rejects this reasoning (Acts 15:5–11; Galatians 5:1–6). Analogy: This is like insisting that because a citizen obeyed the laws of a country before emigrating, his children, born under a new citizenship, must obey the old country’s laws too. Obedience proves where Jesus lived covenantally, not where we live now. 

2. A FATAL ASSUMPTION: REDEFINING “FULFILL.” 

The entire argument is built on a false definition: Fulfill = only “type → antitype.” This is simply not how Scripture uses the word. The Bible uses fulfill broadly: 

• Fulfill prophecy (Matt. 1:22)
• Fulfill all righteousness (Matt. 3:15)
• Fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Matt. 5:17)
• Fulfill the sacrificial system (Heb. 9–10)
• Fulfill the priesthood (Heb. 7)
• Fulfill ritual shadows (Col. 2:17)
• Fulfill covenantal obligation (Rom. 10:4).

None of these requires typology. Not one. The argument collapses instantly because its foundation is wrong. It tried to build a skyscraper on a pebble. 

3. JESUS FULFILLED THE ENTIRE LAW, NOT JUST “THE TYPE.S” 

Jesus said, “I did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17). Notice what He did not say:

• “I came to fulfill only the ceremonial law.” 
• “I came to fulfill only the shadows.”
• “I came to fulfill everything except the Ten Commandments,” He said: “The Law and the Prophets.” 

That phrase refers to the entire Mosaic covenant, including the Ten Commandments that formed its foundation. To carve out the Decalogue is not exegesis. It is theological surgery without biblical consent. 

4. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS WERE NEVER A UNIVERSAL MORAL CODE 

Scripture is explicit: “He declared to you His covenant… the Ten Commandments… He made them known to Israel” (Deut. 4:13; Ps. 147:19–20). And again: “He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments” (Exod. 34:28). This is decisive. The Ten Commandments are not merely part of the Mosaic Covenant. They are the covenant document. Remove them from the covenant, and you tear the treaty in half. Contrast:

• Moral truth existed before Sinai (Gen. 4; Gen. 39) 
• The Ten Commandments did not consider murder to be sinful before Moses. Adultery was sinful before Moses. But “You shall not murder” engraved on stone belonged to Sinai alone. God’s morality is eternal. The covenantal form expressing it is not. 

5. THE LAW WAS NEVER DIVIDED THE WAY THIS ARGUMENT REQUIRES. 

The claim: “The law has moral, ceremonial, and civil parts.” Sounds neat. But Scripture never says this. The Bible treats the Law as one unified covenant package: “Whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point is guilty of all” (James 2:10). “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things written in the Book of the Law” (Gal. 3:10). You cannot discard “ceremonial” law and keep “moral” law without doing violence to the text. Analogy: The Law is not a buffet. It is a marriage covenant—break one vow, you break the marriage. 

6. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE CALLED A “MINISTRY OF DEATH.” 

Paul does not leave room for ambiguity: “The ministry of death, engraved in letters on stone” (2 Corinthians 3:7). That phrase can refer to only one thing: the Ten Commandments. Paul continues: 

• “What was fading away came with glory” (v. 11). 
• “We are ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit” (v. 6). 
• Contrast: · Stone tablets → condemnation → fading · Living Spirit → righteousness → permanent. 

If the Ten Commandments remain binding, Paul’s argument collapses. But Paul’s argument stands because Sinai does not. 

7. YES, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS CONTAIN A TYPE. 

The claim: “The Ten Commandments contain no types.” Scripture itself refutes this. The Sabbath is a shadow. “Let no one judge you… regarding a Sabbath day these are a shadow… but the substance belongs to Christ” (Col. 2:16–17). Hebrews 4 explains:

• God’s creation rest ≠ Israel’s Sabbath · Israel’s Sabbath = shadow
• Christ = true rest. Shadows are never creation ordinances. Creation ordinances are universal and permanent. 

Paul calls the Sabbath a shadow; therefore, it belongs to the old covenant system. One typological command destroys the entire claim. 

8. WHAT “FULFILLMENT” ACTUALLY MEANS 

Fulfillment does not mean “continue unchanged.”

• Fulfilled prophecy ends
• Fulfilled contracts expire
• Fulfilled debts are paid. 

Paul says it plainly: “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness” (Romans 10:4). Not the end of the types. Not the end of the ceremonial law. The end of the law. Period. The Law was a guardian, not a life sentence (Gal. 3:24–25). Analogy: Scaffolding is essential during construction. Once the building stands, leaving it up is not faithfulness; it’s a misunderstanding. 

9. THE NEW COVENANT IS EXPLICITLY NOT SINAI 

Jeremiah prophesied: “I will make a new covenant… not like the covenant I made with their fathers” (Jer. 31:31–32). Hebrews applies it directly: “In speaking of a new covenant, He has made the first obsolete” (Heb. 8:13). The law written on the heart is not the old covenant engraved internally. It is Christ’s law, flowing from:

• Union with Christ
• Indwelling of the Spirit
• New-covenant authority 

10. THE LAW CHRISTIANS ACTUALLY LIVE UNDER 

The New Testament is explicit:

• “You are not under law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:14) 
• “Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2) 
• “I am not under the law, but under the law of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21). 

Every moral command except the Sabbath reappears in the New Testament, not because Sinai continues, but because morality flows from God Himself, now expressed through Christ. 

FINAL SUMMARY: WHY THE ARGUMENT CANNOT SURVIVE 

This argument collapses because: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Jesus obeyed the Law as an Israelite not as a Christian model The Ten Commandments are explicitly called the Mosaic Covenant Scripture never divides the Law into moral vs ceremonial categories The Ten Commandments are labeled a fading ministry of death Fulfillment ends covenants it does not extend them The New Covenant is fundamentally not like Sinai Christians live under the law of Christ, not Moses Trying to place Christians under the Ten Commandments is not devotion it is covenant confusion. It rebuilds what God has torn down. It resurrects what Scripture declares obsolete. It replaces Christ’s living authority with engraved stone. 

CONCLUSION: THE DEBATE ENDS HERE. 

When you see the whole picture, it becomes breathtakingly clear: Christ did not come to patch the old covenant. He came to complete it, fulfill it perfectly, and replace its form with something far greater: Himself. The shadows have served their purpose. The covenant has reached its goal. The tablets of stone have given way to hearts of flesh. The law’s story leads to one destination, and that destination stands before us with nail-scarred hands: “Come to Me, and I will give you rest.” The debate ends here. Because the Law ends here. In Christ. Amen!