Galatians 3:10 and the Curse of the Law: Why You Can’t Pick and Choose?

"But those who depend on the law to make them right with God are under his curse, for the Scriptures say, “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the commands that are written in God’s Book of the Law.” Galatians 3:10(NLT)


If you grew up in a Sabbatarian or Adventist setting, you’ve probably heard this line over and over: “The ceremonial law was nailed to the cross, but the moral law, the Ten Commandments, still binds us as our rule of life.”

Sounds neat and tidy, right? But once you crack open Galatians, Apostle Paul blows that artificial split to pieces.

So let’s dig into Galatians 3:10, unpack what Paul really meant by the “curse of the Law,” revisit a surprising chapter in Adventist history, and uncover the real freedom we’re given under the New Covenant.

The Historical Irony: Even Ellen G. White Had to Admit It

Back in the 1888 Minneapolis General Conference, the Adventist Church went through a full‑blown theological showdown. Uriah Smith and other leaders pushed the idea that the “law” in Galatians was only the ceremonial law. Why? Because if Paul meant the moral law, their whole Sabbath doctrine would collapse.

But E.J. Waggoner and A.T. Jones fired back, arguing that Paul’s “law” included the moral law too. And here’s the twist: even Ellen G. White eventually had to concede. She wrote that the law in Galatians covers both ceremonial and moral, pointing out that the law which drives us to Christ includes commands like “Thou shalt not covet.”

Why does this matter? Because if Adventist history itself admits that the moral law is wrapped up in Paul’s argument, then you can’t just carve out the Ten Commandments from Galatians 3:10.

All or Nothing: The Law’s Total Demand

Check out Paul’s words in Galatians 3:10:

“Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things written in the book of the law, to do them.”

Paul is quoting Deuteronomy 27:26, and he stresses two key words: continue and all.

• Continue → nonstop, lifelong, 24/7 obedience.

• All → every single detail. Not 9 out of 10. Not 90%. It’s 100% or nothing.

Here’s the blunt truth: the Law is one package deal. You can’t cherry‑pick the parts you like (Sabbath, dietary law, tithing, etc.) and ignore the rest.

If you choose the Law, whether moral or ceremonial, as your standard for righteousness before God, then you’re bound to keep every single command perfectly. Has anyone ever kept the Ten Commandments flawlessly in thought, word, and deed every second of their life? Not one.

That’s why Paul says: if you put yourself under the Law, you don’t get partial blessing; you fall under its full curse.

What Does “Schoolmaster” (Paidagōgos) Really Mean?

In Galatians 3:24, Paul says the Law was our “schoolmaster” or “tutor.” A lot of people take that to mean, “Oh, so the Ten Commandments are our daily teacher, showing us how to live!”

But that’s not what Paul meant. The Greek word he used, paidagōgos, had a very specific meaning in ancient culture.

A paidagōgos wasn’t the classroom teacher or principal. It was a strict household servant, basically a tough guardian or “babysitter.” Their job was to:

• Keep the child in line and disciplined.

• Escort the child safely to the real teacher.

• Watch over the child until they mature.

Once the child grew up and reached the teacher, the guardian’s job was done. The child was free.

That’s exactly Paul’s point in Galatians 3:25: “After faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.”

The Sinai Covenant, with all its moral and ceremonial rules, acted like a temporary guardian for Israel. Its purpose was to expose sin, humble us, and lead us straight to Jesus. But once faith in Christ came, the guardian’s season ended.

Does “No Longer Under the Law” Mean We Can Sin?

Every time you talk about freedom in Christ, someone always asks, “Wait, if we’re no longer under the Ten Commandments, does that mean we can lie, steal, or commit adultery?”

Of course not! That’s one of the biggest misunderstandings about New Covenant theology.

Think of it like growing up: When you were a kid, your nanny would yell, “Don’t cross the street or you’ll get hit by a car!” You obeyed because you were scared and needed strict rules.

But when you become an adult, you don’t need someone shouting behind you anymore. Does that mean you’ll just run into traffic? No, you’ve matured. You understand the danger and act wisely.

That’s how it works under the New Covenant. Christ didn’t just free us halfway; He completely redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us (Galatians 3:13).

We don’t avoid sin today because we fear thunder and lightning from Mount Sinai. We obey because the Holy Spirit lives in us. God’s Law is now written on our hearts (Hebrews 8:10).

"But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day, says the LORD: I will put my laws in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. And they will not need to teach their neighbors, nor will they need to teach their relatives, saying, ‘You should know the LORD.’ For everyone, from the least to the greatest, will know me already. And I will forgive their wickedness, and I will never again remember their sins.” When God speaks of a “new” covenant, it means he has made the first one obsolete. It is now out of date and will soon disappear." Hebrews 8:10-13(NLT)

And under the Law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), the standard is actually higher:

• Old Covenant (Letter): Don’t murder.

• New Covenant (Heart): Don’t even hate.

Our obedience isn’t driven by fear; it’s powered by love and gratitude for what Jesus already finished. We don’t look to stone tablets for identity or salvation; we look to the living Christ Himself.

Call to Action: Step Out of Legalism

Stop letting legalistic systems trap you in a “pick‑and‑choose” relationship with the Law. The Law is holy and good, but it was never meant to save you. Its real job was to show you how much you need a Savior.

If you’re still relying on rule‑keeping, Sabbath observance, or your own moral effort to stay right with God, you’re carrying a burden you were never meant to bear.

It’s time to step out from under that old guardian and rest fully in Jesus Christ. He took the full curse of your law‑breaking so you could receive the full blessing of Abraham, by faith, not by works.

So walk in that freedom today. Stop striving. Start resting. Christ has already finished the work.

“Christ Carried the Curse, You Carry the Blessing”

"Led by the Spirit, Freed from the Law: An Exegetical and Logical Refutation of SDA Misinterpretations of Galatians 5:18!"

The apostle Paul’s declaration in Galatians 5:18, "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law," stands as one of the most liberating yet hotly debated verses in the New Testament. For centuries, various theological traditions, particularly those seeking to maintain a strict adherence to the Decalogue alongside the gospel, have attempted to reinterpret this text. A historico-grammatical approach, paired with careful Greek exegesis, reveals that common attempts to redefine "under the law" deeply distort Paul's covenantal framework.

The Exegetical Context of "Under the Law"

To understand Galatians 5:18, we must apply historico-grammatical hermeneutics, which demands interpreting the text based on its historical setting and grammatical structure. The Galatian churches were being infiltrated by Judaizers, false teachers who insisted that Gentile converts had to be circumcised and keep the Torah (the Mosaic Law) to be truly justified.

In the Greek text, the phrase is ouk este hypo nomon (οὐκ ἐστὲ ὑπὸ νόμον). The preposition hypo (under) denotes subjection to a power, authority, or jurisdiction. Paul uses this exact phrase repeatedly in his epistles to describe a covenantal era and jurisdiction, not merely a state of condemnation.

For instance, in Galatians 4:4-5, Paul writes that God sent His Son, "born under the law [hypo nomon], to redeem those who were under the law." If "under the law" simply meant "under the condemnation of the law," as some groups assert, it would mean Jesus Christ was born under condemnation and lived as a condemned sinner. This is heretical. Rather, Jesus was born under the jurisdiction of the Sinaitic covenant (the Mosaic system) so that He could fulfill it and redeem those bound by it.

Therefore, in Galatians 5:18, when Paul says believers led by the Spirit are not hypo nomon, he means they are no longer under the administrative regime, covenantal authority, and jurisdiction of the Mosaic Law. The Old Covenant has passed away; the believer now walks in the reality of the New Covenant.

"By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear." Hebrews 8:13(NIV)

The SDA Dilemma: Official Stances and Ellen G. White

Historically, Seventh-day Adventism has struggled with Paul's epistles, often attempting to artificially divide the Mosaic Law into a "moral law" (the Ten Commandments) which remains eternally binding, and a "ceremonial law" which passed away at the cross.

The Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology (Vol. 12 of the Commentary Reference Series) typically asserts that while believers are freed from the law as a means of salvation, the Ten Commandments remain the absolute rule of life. In dealing with Galatians, earlier Adventist apologetics often argued that the "law" Paul was attacking was strictly the ceremonial system. However, this position becomes untenable when examining their own authoritative writings.

Ellen G. White explicitly corrected the idea that the law in Galatians was solely ceremonial:

"I am asked concerning the law in Galatians. What law is the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ? I answer: Both the ceremonial and the moral code of Ten Commandments." (The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 6, p. 1109.)

If the "schoolmaster" (Galatians 3:24) includes the moral code of the Ten Commandments, and Paul explicitly states in the very next verse (Galatians 3:25) that "we are no longer under a schoolmaster," the inescapable exegetical conclusion is that New Covenant believers are no longer under the covenantal jurisdiction of the Ten Commandments. Attempting to harmonize Ellen White’s admission with the traditional SDA insistence that Christians are still covenantally bound to the Sabbath command creates a severe theological contradiction.

Logical Fallacies in the Distortions

When groups attempt to bypass the clear meaning of Galatians 5:18, they often rely on identifiable logical fallacies:

• The Fallacy of Equivocation: This occurs when a term's meaning is changed in the middle of an argument. Distorters often change the definition of "law" (nomos) within the same chapter claiming it means the whole law when referring to obedience, but only the "condemnation of the law" when Paul speaks of being freed from it.
  
  
• Special Pleading: This happens when an exception is introduced without valid justification. It is special pleading to assert that being freed from the law in Galatians means being freed from nine commandments and the ceremonial laws, but the fourth commandment (the Sabbath) is somehow magically excluded from Paul's sweeping declarations.
  
  
• Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning): The premise assumes the conclusion. The argument goes: "The Ten Commandments are the eternal rule for Christians. Therefore, when Paul says we are not under the law, he cannot mean the Ten Commandments." This completely ignores the New Covenant reality that the Decalogue itself was the foundational document of a temporary covenant.
  
  

Answers to Common SDA Objections:

Q: "When you don't break a law, you are not under the law. That's what Paul meant in Galatians 5:18."

A: This is a very common defense, but honestly, it relies on a false analogy and a huge misunderstanding of how the word "law" works in the Bible. Let's look at it practically.

Imagine you are a Filipino citizen living in Manila. Whether you are a law-abiding citizen or a criminal, you are still physically and legally under the jurisdiction of Philippine law. Now, if you migrate to Japan and become a Japanese citizen, you are no longer "under" Philippine law. You are under a completely new legal system.

When Adventists say, "If you don't break the law, you aren't under it," they are confusing jurisdiction with condemnation. As we saw in Galatians 4:4, Jesus was born "under the law." Did Jesus break the law? Absolutely not. He kept it perfectly. Yet, Paul still describes Him as being "under the law." This completely destroys the argument that "under the law" just means "breaking the law."

In Galatians 5:18, Paul is talking about a change in covenantal citizenship. If you are led by the Spirit, you have migrated to the New Covenant. You are no longer under the jurisdiction of the Sinai covenant (which includes the Ten Commandments). You are now under the Law of Christ.

Q: "If led by the Spirit of Christ they will keep the law perfectly. The Spirit just gives you the power to keep the Ten Commandments."

A: This sounds very pious, but it completely contradicts the reality of the Christian struggle that Paul describes just one verse prior.

Look at Galatians 5:17, right before our main verse: "For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want." Paul is writing to Spirit-filled believers, acknowledging a deep, ongoing internal war. Nobody is keeping any law "perfectly" in this life.

Furthermore, this argument smuggles in a massive assumption: Which law are they keeping perfectly? The Adventist assumes "the law" always defaults back to the stone tablets of the Decalogue. But New Covenant Theology shows us that the Spirit does not lead us backwards to the shadow of the Old Covenant; the Spirit leads us forward to walk in love, which is the fulfillment of the Law of Christ.

If the Spirit merely existed to help us perfectly keep the Old Covenant law, then the Old Covenant never needed to be replaced; we just needed better batteries. But Hebrews 8 makes it clear the covenant itself was faulty and obsolete. The Spirit leads us to bear the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), against which there is no law, rather than driving us back to the external, letter-of-the-law demands of Sinai.

INVESTIGATING ADVENTISM Q&A: The Verse That Never Says What Many Think It Says: The Hidden Assumption Behind Genesis 26:5!

 
For generations, one verse has been repeatedly cited as proof that Abraham kept the Ten Commandments long before they were given at Sinai:

"Because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." (Genesis 26:5)

At first glance, the argument appears compelling. The verse contains words like "commandments," "statutes," and "laws." Since the Ten Commandments are commandments, many conclude that Abraham must have been keeping the Ten Commandments centuries before Moses.

But there is a problem. The text never says that.

And once we carefully examine the passage in its context, an astonishing reality emerges: Genesis 26:5 cannot legitimately be used as proof that Abraham kept the Ten Commandments.

The Argument Everyone Assumes

The reasoning usually goes like this:

1.   Genesis 26:5 says Abraham kept God's commandments.

2.   The Ten Commandments are God's commandments.

3.   Therefore, Abraham kept the Ten Commandments.

It sounds logical. But it contains a hidden assumption. The passage never identifies which commandments Abraham kept. To assume "commandments" automatically means "the Ten Commandments" is to import information into the text that the text itself never provides. This is not interpretation. It is assumption.

The Fatal Question

If Genesis 26:5 proves Abraham kept the Ten Commandments, then which of those Ten Commandments did God actually give Abraham? Where is the passage?

Where did God tell Abraham:

·     Remember the Sabbath day?

·     Do not make graven images?

·     Honor your father and mother?

No such commands are ever recorded. The biblical narrative gives us numerous commands God gave Abraham:

·     Leave your country.

·     Go to a land I will show you.

·     Walk before me.

·     Be circumcised.

·     Offer Isaac.

These commands are explicitly recorded. The Ten Commandments are not. The burden of proof belongs to the person claiming Abraham received them. Genesis 26:5 never states that he did.

What the Context Actually Points To

Look at Abraham's life. Again and again, God gave him specific instructions. Abraham obeyed. That is precisely the emphasis of Genesis. The story repeatedly highlights Abraham's faith-driven obedience to God's direct commands. The chapter itself is not discussing Sinai. It is not discussing tablets of stone. It is not discussing Israel's covenant at Mount Sinai. It is looking backward at Abraham's faithful response to God's voice. The verse explains why God's promises continue through Abraham's descendants. The focus is Abraham's obedience. Not a legal code that would not be formally revealed for centuries.

The Language Proves Too Much

There is another problem. Genesis 26:5 uses several terms:

·     Charge

·     Commandments

·     Statutes

·     Laws

If someone insists these words refer to the entire Mosaic legal system, then a massive difficulty appears. The Mosaic system included:

·     Levitical priesthood

·     Sacrifices regulated by law

·     Feast days

·     Ritual purity regulations

·     Tabernacle regulations

·     Civil legislation

Did Abraham keep all of those too? Obviously not. The priesthood did not exist. The tabernacle did not exist. The Sinai covenant had not been established. The nation of Israel did not yet exist.

Therefore, these words cannot automatically mean the complete Mosaic legal code. Instead, they function as broad descriptions of God's instructions and requirements. In other words, Abraham obeyed whatever God commanded him. That is the point.

The Surprising Parallel

Consider a simple example. Suppose a father tells his son:

"Your grandfather always obeyed my instructions, my commands, my rules, and my expectations."

Would anyone conclude that the grandfather obeyed every instruction the father would later give to future generations? Of course not. The statement simply means the grandfather faithfully obeyed what had been revealed to him. That is exactly how Genesis 26:5 functions. The verse praises Abraham's obedience. It does not define the content of every command God would reveal centuries later.

The Missing Sabbath Problem

One commandment in particular creates enormous difficulty for the claim that Abraham kept the Ten Commandments. The Sabbath command. Genesis contains extensive narratives about Abraham's life. Yet there is not a single passage describing Abraham observing a weekly Sabbath. Not one. There are descriptions of journeys, altars, sacrifices, covenant ceremonies, family events, and major acts of obedience. But no Sabbath observance.

If Sabbath observance were central to Abraham's covenant relationship, the silence is remarkable. The argument depends not on what Genesis says, but on what readers assume must have happened. Yet assumptions cannot serve as evidence.

The Sinai Factor

The Ten Commandments entered biblical history as the covenant document given to Israel at Sinai. The biblical narrative repeatedly connects them with that covenant event. The commandments were written on stone tablets and delivered to a nation that had just been redeemed from Egypt. That historical setting matters. To move the Ten Commandments back into Abraham's life requires evidence. Genesis 26:5 is often presented as that evidence. But the verse simply does not say what is needed.

• It never mentions tablets.
• It never mentions Sinai.
• It never mentions the covenant code.
• It never mentions the Sabbath.
• It never mentions the Ten Commandments.

The entire argument rests on reading those concepts into the text.

What Genesis 26:5 Actually Teaches

The true beauty of Genesis 26:5 is often missed. The verse is not celebrating Abraham's relationship to a legal code. It is celebrating Abraham's response to God's voice. Abraham trusted God. God spoke. Abraham obeyed. That is the theme running through his entire story. His obedience flowed from faith. When God called, Abraham followed. When God promised, Abraham believed. When God commanded, Abraham obeyed. Genesis 26:5 is a summary of that faithful life. Nothing more is required. And nothing more should be inserted.

The Conclusion That Changes Everything

Genesis 26:5 certainly teaches that Abraham obeyed God. No serious reader should deny that. But the verse does not identify those commands as the Ten Commandments. It does not place Abraham under the Sinai covenant before Sinai existed.

It does not establish Sabbath observance before the command was given to Israel. It does not prove the Mosaic law was already operating in Abraham's day. What it proves is far simpler. Abraham obeyed the revelation God gave him. That is the actual point of the text.

The moment that distinction is recognized, Genesis 26:5 ceases to be a proof-text for the claim that Abraham kept the Ten Commandments. Instead, it stands as a powerful testimony to something even greater: A man who trusted God so deeply that whenever God spoke, he obeyed.

INVESTIGATING ADVENTISM Q&A: “James 2:10–11: Is the Law of Liberty Really the Ten Commandments?”

James 2:10-11 (ESV)

"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. For he who said, 'Do not commit adultery,' also said, 'Do not murder.' If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law."

The SDA Argument: SDAs claim that because James mentions "Do not commit adultery" and "Do not murder" (from the Ten Commandments), it proves the Decalogue is the "Law of Liberty" we are judged by. SDAs suggest that if you "ignore" the Ten Commandments here, your entire theology collapses.

Refutation:

1. The Fallacy of "Category Error" (The Package Deal)

Let’s look at the Greek word used here: νόμος (nomos). When James talks about "the Law," he isn't just talking about a "moral" subset or just the "stone tablets." To a first-century Jew, nomos referred to the entire Torah, the whole 613 laws.

Reductio ad Absurdum: If the SDA logic holds that James 2:10 is strictly about the Ten Commandments, then why does James define the "Royal Law" in verse 8 by quoting Leviticus 19:18 ("Love your neighbor as yourself")? Leviticus 19:18 is NOT in the Ten Commandments! If we follow SDA's logic, did James "collapse" his own argument by using a law from the "ceremonial" book of Leviticus?

If the Law is an indivisible unit (a "package deal"), why do Adventists try to "unzip" the file and only take the 10 Commandments while discarding the rest of the Torah? If you break one, you break all, and "all" includes the ones you call "ceremonial."

2. The "Law of Liberty" vs. The Law of Sinai

James calls this the "Law of Liberty" (nomon eleutherias). Under New Covenant Theology (NCT), we understand that the Law of Moses was a "tutor" until Christ came (Galatians 3:24-25).

^"24 The law, then, was our guardian until Christ, so that we could be justified by faith. ²⁵ But since that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian." Galatians 3:24-25 (CSB)

James is writing to believers who are being partial (showing favoritism to the rich). He is using the Decalogue as an example of the Law's unity to prove a point: you can’t pick and choose which sins to avoid. But he is pointing them to the Law of Christ. If we are still under the Law of Sinai as a legal code, we are under a "yoke of slavery" (Galatians 5:1), not a "Law of Liberty."

^"For freedom, Christ set us free. Stand firm, then, and don’t submit again to a yoke of slavery."
Galatians 5:1 (CSB)

It’s like a citizen of the Philippines moving to the USA. If he murders someone in New York, the judge says, "The Law says do not kill." Does that mean the Philippine Constitution is still in effect over him? No. He is under US Law, which also happens to forbid murder. We follow the "Law of Christ," which includes the moral heart of the Decalogue but is a new administration.

3. The Logical Fallacy of "Strawman"

SDAs claim we "avoided" the Ten Commandments. Let’s not jump to conclusions too quickly. We don't avoid them; I contextualize them. The SDA argument assumes that the only way to be "moral" is to be under the Old Covenant Law.

Is the only reason you don't kill your neighbor because it’s written on a stone tablet from 1446 BC? Or is it because the Holy Spirit has written the love of Christ in your heart?

The Cross-Examination: 3 "Mic Drop" Questions

Q1: The "Royal Law" Trap: If James 2 is strictly defending the Ten Commandments as our standard of judgment, why does James explicitly name the "Royal Law" as "Love your neighbor as yourself" (v. 8) a command found in Leviticus 19, not the Decalogue? If the Decalogue is the "complete" moral law, why did James have to go outside of it to find his primary example?

Q2: The "All or Nothing" Challenge: You quoted James 2:10, which says if you stumble in one point, you are guilty of all. Since the "Law" (nomos) in the New Testament refers to the whole Mosaic system (circumcision, feast days, animal sacrifices, etc.), if you insist on being judged by this Law to keep the Saturday Sabbath, are you prepared to be found "guilty of all" for not sacrificing a lamb or for wearing mixed-fabric clothing (Leviticus 19:19)?

Q3: The "Law of Liberty" Contradiction: How can the Ten Commandments, which Paul explicitly calls the "ministry of death, carved in letters on stone" (2 Corinthians 3:7), be the same thing James calls the "Law of Liberty"? Can a "ministry of death" produce "liberty," or are you confusing the Old Covenant shadow with the New Covenant reality?

INVESTIGATING ADVENTISM Q&A: Response to the SDA Argument on Law, Grace, and the Sabbath

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION

The argument presented commits a fundamental dialectical error at the outset: it opens with a sweeping accusation that our definitions of 'Law' and 'Grace' are unbiblical and agenda-driven while itself presenting redefined terms without exegetical support. This is the classic Begging the Question (petitio principii) fallacy: asserting that one's own definitions are biblical without demonstrating it from the text. We welcome rigorous hermeneutical engagement. But rhetoric is not exegesis. Let us proceed, argument by argument, with historico-grammatical discipline, sound Hebrew and Greek analysis, and the full canonical context.

ARGUMENT #1 REFUTED: The Decalogue, John 14:15, and the Nature of 'Commandments'

The SDA Claim

John 14:15 refers exclusively to the Decalogue. The Sabbath is the moral reflection of God's character. Removing the Sabbath destroys the authority of all ten commandments.

Q: What Does the Text Actually Say?

In John 14:15, Jesus says: "If you love Me, keep My commandments" (ἐντολάς mou the Greek is entolas mou). The critical question is: whose commandments? In the immediate context, Jesus is speaking his own commands, not citing Exodus 20. The genitive pronoun mou ("My") tethers these entolai to Christ himself, not to Sinai.

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another." (John 13:34 Grk. didomi entolen kainēn)

Note the word: kainēn = new, fresh, unprecedented in kind (καινήν), not merely neos (new in time). If the entolai of John 14:15 were simply a cross-reference to the Decalogue, why would Jesus use kainēn in John 13:34 just one chapter earlier? The SDA argument conflates "commandments" in John 14:15 with "the Decalogue" without a single word of Greek exegesis.

The Reductio ad Absurdum

The SDA argues that removing the Sabbath from our moral framework destroys the other nine commandments. Let us test this logic:

If the moral authority of the nine depends on the Sabbath being perpetually binding in its Mosaic form, then we have a problem. Exodus 20:8-11 commands Saturday rest, prohibiting all work under penalty of death (Numbers 15:32-36). Does the SDA consistently enforce capital punishment for Sabbath-breakers? No. Do SDAs refrain from all cooking, travel beyond a Sabbath day's journey, and fire-lighting? Inconsistently at best.

If removing one commandment collapses the nine, then modifying that same commandment's penalty and application should collapse them equally. The SDA cannot apply this logic selectively. You cannot claim the Sabbath's form is immutable while quietly modernizing its penalties and mechanics.

The Hermeneutical Issue: Creation Ordinance vs. Mosaic Codification

The SDA correctly notes Genesis 2:1-3 as the seventh-day pattern for Israel's Sabbath origin, but confuses the act of God's resting with a universal command. The Hebrew שָׁבַת (shavat) in Genesis 2 is descriptive: God rested. There is no imperative verb, no command to Adam and Eve, no institution of a weekly observance in the pre-Fall narrative. The command form of the Sabbath enters the biblical canon at Exodus 16 (manna collection) and is codified at Sinai in Exodus 20 addressed explicitly to Israel, tied to the Exodus event (Deuteronomy 5:15), not merely to creation.

"You shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand... therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day." (Deuteronomy 5:15)

The grounding in Deuteronomy 5 is redemptive-historical, not creational-universal. Moses himself provides two different rationales in Exodus 20 (creation rest) and Deuteronomy 5 (Exodus redemption). This dual rationale is typical of covenant sign-acts they are given specific theological meaning within a covenant context.

CROSS-EXAMINE Q1 If the moral authority of the nine commandments depends entirely on the perpetual binding of the Sabbath in its Mosaic form Saturday observance, death penalty for violators, no travel, no fire, no cooking then why does Adventism systematically modify every one of those Mosaic Sabbath stipulations while claiming the command itself is eternally unchanged? Is not the SDA position itself the very inconsistency it accuses us of?

 

ARGUMENT 2 REFUTED: 'Antinomianism,' Cheap Grace, and the Straw Man

The SDA Claim

Our position is antinomian 'Cheap Grace,' permitting disobedience under grace. True grace empowers obedience.

The Straw Man Fallacy: Named and Exposed

This argument does not engage our actual position. It constructs a caricature "okay lang sumuway dahil under grace tayo" and then defeats the caricature. This is the classic Straw Man fallacy (ignoratio elenchi). No responsible New Covenant theologian, Reformed Arminian, or mainstream evangelical has ever argued that grace is permission to sin. To accuse us of teaching this is either a deliberate misrepresentation or a failure to read our actual literature.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the theologian who coined the term "cheap grace" in The Cost of Discipleship, was himself arguing against dead religiosity within German Lutheranism not against the New Covenant framework. The SDA has appropriated Bonhoeffer's critique and weaponized it against a position Bonhoeffer never criticized.

"What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?" (Romans 6:1-2)

This is precisely our position. Paul is the most "antinomian" writer in the New Testament by Adventist standards he wrote Galatians 3, Colossians 2, Romans 6-8 and yet Paul himself thunders against license. The question is not whether grace produces obedience (it does all sides affirm this). The question is: obedience to which law, under which covenant administration?

The Obedience Question: Romans 8 vs. Galatians 3

Our position is that under the New Covenant, the law of God is written on the heart (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:10), not on tablets of stone. The locus of moral obligation shifts not to lawlessness, but to the indwelling Spirit who produces the fruit of righteousness (Galatians 5:22-23; Romans 8:4). The "righteous requirement of the law" is fulfilled in those who walk by the Spirit. This is not antinomianism. This is pneumatology.

"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death." (Romans 8:2)

If the SDA equates any departure from Decalogue-as-legal-code with antinomianism, then Paul himself is antinomian for he writes in Romans 7:6, "we have been released from the Law" (κατηργήθημεν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου katērgēthēmen apo tou nomou we were put to death to, made inoperative toward, the Law). The Greek katargeō is decisive. It is the same word Paul uses for the veil being abolished in 2 Corinthians 3:13-14.

The Real Talk Response: Turned Around

The SDA accuses us of creating doctrine "para maging komportable." We ask: is it not far more comfortable to reduce the entire Christian life to a Saturday observance as the litmus test of faithfulness, rather than carrying the full weight of dying daily to self (Luke 9:23), loving enemies (Matthew 5:44), and pursuing costly holiness in every arena of life seven days a week?

 

CROSS-EXAMINE Q2 You accuse us of teaching 'Cheap Grace' but you have not quoted a single line from our writings making that claim. Can you name one New Covenant theologian, one Reformed Arminian scholar, or one recognized exegete who has taught that grace is permission to disobey God? And if you cannot, are you not bearing false witness a violation of the very Decalogue you are defending?

 

ARGUMENT 3 REFUTED: The Sabbath as 'Creation Ordinance for All Humanity'

The SDA Claim

The Sabbath was instituted in Genesis 2:1-3, before the Jews existed, therefore it is a universal creation ordinance binding on all humanity.

The Exegetical Problem: Missing Imperative

This argument rests entirely on what the text does not say. Genesis 2:1-3 records three things:

(1) God finished His work,
(2) God rested (shavat) on the seventh day,
(3) God blessed and sanctified the seventh day. 

Not one of these clauses contains a second-person imperative directed at humanity. The text says God rested. It does not say Adam must rest every seventh day.

Compare this to actual creation ordinances that are explicitly given as human commands: 

a) The dominion mandate (Genesis 1:28 "Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it") contains direct imperatives in the second person plural (pĕrû ûrebû "be fruitful, multiply"). 

b) The marriage ordinance (Genesis 2:24 "a man shall leave his father and mother") uses 'azav a third-person jussive indicating normative human behavior. 

c) Genesis 2:1-3 has no equivalent imperatival structure directed at humans.

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." (Exodus 20:8 Zākor 'et-yôm haShabbat leqaddesho)

The first command to humans to observe the Sabbath comes at Sinai. If it were a universal creation ordinance, we would expect pre-Sinai observance in the patriarchal narratives. Yet from Adam to Moses spanning thousands of years of biblical narrative not one patriarchal figure (Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph) is ever recorded observing, teaching, or referencing a weekly Sabbath rest. The silence of Genesis through Exodus 15 is exegetically deafening.

Exodus 16: The First Mention of Human Sabbath Observance

The first explicit human observation of the Sabbath in Scripture occurs at Exodus 16:23-30, in the context of the manna collection. Significantly, God presents this in language suggesting it is new information to Israel: "Tomorrow is a sabbath observance, a holy sabbath to the LORD" (v.23). If the Sabbath were a universal creation ordinance observed since Eden, why does Israel need to be told what it is?

"See, the LORD has given you the Sabbath; therefore He gives you bread for two days on the sixth day." (Exodus 16:29)

The word "given" (natan) here marks the Sabbath as a gift being bestowed, not a universal practice being reinvoked. This is inauguratory language, not restorative language.

The Analogy That Exposes the Argument

The SDA logic runs: "God rested on Day 7, therefore all humans must rest on Day 7." But using the same hermeneutical logic: God created in six days, therefore all humans must work exactly six days and no more. God ceased from all creative work at the end of Day 6, therefore humans must never create anything new after completing their life's work. Do we apply 'God did X, therefore humans must do X' as a universal hermeneutical principle? Of course not. The SDA applies this rule selectively only when it supports their Sabbatarian obsession.

 

CROSS-EXAMINE Q3 If the Sabbath is a universal creation ordinance binding on all humanity from Genesis 2, can you show us, exegetically from the text of Genesis through Exodus 15, a single human being observing, teaching, or being commanded to observe a weekly Saturday Sabbath? And if that record is entirely absent if not one patriarch in over 2,000 years of biblical narrative touches it does that not falsify the claim that it was universally instituted and universally known?

 

ARGUMENT 4 REFUTED: 'It Is Finished' and the Continuity of Obedience

The SDA Claim

'It is finished' (John 19:30) means only that atonement is complete, not that the Law is fulfilled or done away. Obedience continues as the work of sanctification.

Agreement With a Critical Distinction

We agree entirely that sanctification requires obedience, that grace is not license, and that Christians are called to holy living. The SDA has set up a false dichotomy: either you keep the Decalogue as codified at Sinai, or you are living in lawless antinomianism. This is not a biblical either/or.

The Greek of Tetelestai

John 19:30 records tetelestai (τετέλεσται) a perfect passive indicative from teleō. The perfect tense in Greek signifies a completed past action with ongoing present consequences. Tetelestai was a commercial term: "paid in full." It appears on ancient receipts in the papyri (discovered in Egypt) written over invoices as proof of final payment.

But what is "finished"? The Gospel of John has been building toward this cry since 1:29 ("the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world"). The fulfillment (plēroō) of the law is part of what is finished. Matthew 5:17 "I did not come to abolish (kataluō) but to fulfill (plēroō)" does not mean "maintain the law in its present form indefinitely." Plēroō means to bring to completion, to fill up, to bring to its intended telos. When a prophecy is plēroō'd, it is not perpetuated; it is consummated.

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

The Greek telos means end, goal, culmination. Christ is the terminus ad quem of the Mosaic Law. The law was given as a paidagōgos (Galatians 3:24 a guardian/tutor) until Christ came. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the paidagōgos. This is not Paul's marginal opinion; it is the central argument of Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews.

Hebrews and the 'Better Covenant' Argument

The author of Hebrews makes the most sustained canonical argument that the Old Covenant of which the Decalogue was the covenant document (1 Kings 8:9, "in the ark there was nothing except the two tablets" the very constitution of the Mosaic Covenant) has been made obsolete:

"When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete; but whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." (Hebrews 8:13)

The Greek here is pepalaioōken (has made old/obsolete) and eggus aphanismou (near to vanishing). This is not incidental language. The Old Covenant as an administrative structure including the Decalogue as its core document has been superseded by a better covenant with better promises (Hebrews 8:6).

The Sanctification Argument Turned Back

We affirm with full conviction: sanctification requires obedience. But the question is what law governs our sanctification under the New Covenant. The New Testament consistently grounds New Covenant ethics in the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2 νόμον τοῦ Χριστοῦ), the law of the Spirit (Romans 8:2), and the love commandment as the fulfillment of all law (Romans 13:8-10; Matthew 22:37-40). The nine moral principles of the Decalogue that are universally applicable are re-stated and grounded in the New Covenant not by carrying the stone tablet, but because they are inscribed on renewed hearts (Hebrews 10:16). The Sabbath alone is the one commandment from the Decalogue never once reiterated as binding on New Covenant believers in the entire New Testament epistolary literature.

CLOSING VERDICT: The Logic of the Whole SDA Argument

The four arguments presented share a common structural flaw: they all assume what they are trying to prove. The argument assumes that the Decalogue is the normative law for New Covenant believers and then criticizes any departure from that assumption as error, antinomianism, or comfort-seeking. This is circular reasoning (circulus in probando). The conclusion is smuggled into every premise.

Let us name the additional logical fallacies embedded in the "Real Talk" conclusion:

Ad Hominem / Motive Attack: "Ang turo ninyo ay man-centered para maging komportable kayo." This attacks the motive of the teacher rather than engaging the argument. Imputing comfort-seeking as the reason for New Covenant Theology is a personal attack, not a theological refutation. The proper response to an exegetical position is exegesis not psychoanalysis.

 

Appeal to Emotion / Guilt Trip: "Huwag ninyong gamitin ang pangalan ni Kristo para bigyang-katwiran ang inyong pagsuway." This is an appeal to shame and emotional pressure rather than rational argumentation. Calling our position "pagsuway" (disobedience) without establishing exegetically that the Sabbath is binding on New Covenant believers is the very question at issue it cannot be used as if it were already established.

 

False Dichotomy: The entire argument presents only two options: keep the Sabbath as SDA teaches, or you are living in Cheap Grace rebellion. This ignores the massive theological middle ground of New Covenant obedience that is both rigorously holy and Sabbath-free as a Mosaic obligation.

 

SDA CLAIM	EXEGETICAL VERDICT
John 14:15 = Decalogue observance	Eisegesis. Entolai mou = Christ's own commands (John 13:34). No textual basis for Sinai equation.
Sabbath = moral reflection of God's character	Category error. The Sabbath is a sign-act (Exodus 31:13), not an eternal moral absolute. God's eternal character is holy love, not Saturday rest.
Sabbath pre-dates Judaism = universal ordinance	Non sequitur. Absence of human command in Genesis 2; no patriarchal observance; Exodus 16 presents Sabbath as new institution.
'It is finished' ≠ end of law-keeping	Tetelestai = paid in full. Romans 10:4: Christ is the telos of the law. Hebrews 8:13: Old Covenant made obsolete.
Rejecting Sabbath = antinomianism	Straw man. New Covenant obedience is to the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), law of the Spirit (Romans 8:2), and love (Romans 13:8-10).

 

THE GOSPEL POSITION Former Adventists Philippines do not reject the Law we proclaim its fulfillment in Christ. We do not reduce obedience we ground it in the better covenant. We do not cheapen grace we declare it as the most costly thing in the universe: the blood of the Son of God. The Sabbath pointed to the rest found in Christ (Matthew 11:28-30; Hebrews 4:1-11). We have entered that rest. Every day is holy to the Lord. Every moment belongs to Christ. That is not Cheap Grace. That is the Gospel.

 

Sola Scriptura. Sola Gratia. Sola Fide. Solus Christus. Soli Deo Gloria.

Investigating Adventism Philippines | Ronald V. Obidos 

Investigating Adventism Q&A: Bible Facts o Fiction? Sagutin Natin ang Claim na Mandatory ang 10 Commandments for True Faith

Yung Facebook reel ng "Bible Facts" ay nagtatanong ng: "PAANO SUMAMPALATAYA NG HINDI SUSUNOD SA 10 COMMANDMENTS NG DIYOS?" Classic Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) tactic ito para i-imply na ang salvation ay nakadepende sa law-keeping, lalo na sa Saturday Sabbath, bilang test ng genuine faith. Madalas silang gumagamit ng selective Bible verses para i-critique ang mga "Sunday-keeping" Christians bilang lawless.

Narito ang point-by-point refutation sa Investigating Adventism Q&A format, gamit ang biblical theology para ilantad ang mga flaws sa SDA argument na ito.

Q1: Hindi ba tinuturo ng Bible na impossible ang true faith kung walang obedience sa 10 Commandments, gaya ng sabi sa James 2:26 na "faith without works is dead"? 

A: No, twist ito sa message ni James para i-promote ang legalism. Sa SDA theology, madalas mas matimbang pa ang visions ni Ellen White kaysa sa malinaw na Scripture. Ang James 2 ay tungkol sa hypocritical faith na puro salita lang pero walang gawa ng love at mercy (halimbawa, pagtulong sa mahihirap sa verses 15-17). Hindi ito tungkol sa checklist ng Mosaic laws gaya ng Sabbath. Ang tunay na faith ay nagbubunga ng good works (Ephesians 2:10), pero ang salvation ay by grace through faith alone "not of works, lest anyone should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). Ang mga SDAs ay pinipilit ang Old Covenant rules, pero nakakalimutan nila na kahit si James ay hindi in-enforce ang Sabbath sa mga Gentiles (Acts 15:19-20). Kung perfect law-keeping ang requirement, walang maliligtas pati ang mga SDAs, dahil selective din sila sa pagsunod (halimbawa, hindi naman nila pinapatay ang mga nagtatrabaho sa Sabbath gaya ng nasa Numbers 15:32-36).

Q2: Sabi ni Jesus, "If you love Me, keep My commandments" (John 14:15) hindi ba ibig sabihin nito ay dapat sundin ang 10 Commandments, kasama ang Sabbath? 

A: Definitely not. Proof-texting ito ng mga SDA para paghaluin ang turo ni Jesus at ang Decalogue para i-justify ang kanilang Sabbath obsession. In context, ang "commandments" ni Jesus ay tumutukoy sa Kanyang New Covenant instructions: ang pag-ibig sa isa’t isa (John 13:34-35; 15:12), ang manampalataya sa Kanya (John 6:28-29), at ang pag-abide sa Holy Spirit. Hindi ito ang Old Testament law na "shadow" lamang ng mga darating. Malinaw ang sabi ni Paul: ang mga Christians ay "not under law but under grace" (Romans 6:14). Binalaan din niya tayo na huwag magpa-judge pagdating sa Sabbath o festivals, dahil ang mga ito ay "shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ" (Colossians 2:16-17).

Q3: Hindi ba "antinomianism" (lawlessness) ang pag-reject sa 10 Commandments? At hindi ba ang end-time saints ay "keep the commandments of God" (Revelation 14:12)? 

A: Isa itong false dichotomy na ginagamit ng SDA para takutin ang mga tao, pero biblically bankrupt ito. Ang antinomianism ay ang pag-reject sa moral living, pero ang mga New Covenant believers ay nag-u-uphold pa rin ng moral principles ng Diyos (gaya ng bawal pumatay o magnakaw) dahil naka-echo ang mga ito sa New Testament (Romans 13:8-10). Pero ang 10 Commandments as a whole ay part ng Old Covenant na binigay specifically sa Israel (Exodus 34:27-28; Deuteronomy 4:13) at na-fulfill na kay Christ (Matthew 5:17; Romans 10:4). Ang "commandments" sa Revelation 14:12 ay naka-align sa faith kay Jesus at sa Kanyang mga turo (1 John 3:23), hindi sa SDA-style Sabbath-keeping. Yung doctrine nilang "investigative judgment" na nagsimula raw noong 1844 ay isang imbensyon lang na kumokontra sa Hebrews 9:28.

Q4: Bakit hindi nag-sa-Sabbath ang ibang Christians kung ang 10 Commandments ay eternal at unchanged? 

A: Dahil ang Sabbath ay "sign" ng Old Covenant para sa Israel (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12), hindi mandatory requirement para sa lahat ng tao sa lahat ng panahon. Nabuhay na mag-uli si Jesus noong Sunday (the first day), at ang mga early Christians ay nagtitipon tuwing araw na iyon (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). Walang apostolic command na dapat Saturday ang pagsamba natin. Para kay Paul, ang pagpili ng araw ay matter of personal conviction: "Let each be fully convinced in his own mind" (Romans 14:5). Ginagawang "seal of God" ng SDA ang Sabbath base sa visions ni Ellen White, habang tinatawag nilang "mark of the beast" ang Sunday. Distraction lang ito sa tunay na Gospel ng pagpapahinga kay Christ alone (Hebrews 4:9-10).

Q5: Kung faith alone ang nakakaligtas, bakit pa kailangan ang obedience hindi ba ito nag-e-encourage ng kasalanan? 

A: Ang strawman argument na ito ay nagpapakita ng kalituhan ng SDA sa pagitan ng justification (declared righteous by faith) at sanctification (growing in holiness). Naligtas tayo dahil sa perfect obedience ni Christ na krinedit sa atin (Romans 5:19), hindi dahil sa sarili nating effort. Ang obedience ay umaagos mula sa pasasalamat at gawa ng Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), pero hindi ito ang basehan ng salvation. Kung works ang basehan, mawa-void ang grace (Romans 11:6). Sa SDA view, parang kailangan pa ng Diyos ang law-keeping natin para manalo Siya laban kay Satanas. Heretical ito dahil binabawasan nito ang value ng tapos na gawa ni Jesus sa cross ("It is finished," John 19:30).

Real Talk Reflection

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Romans 10:4

Minsan, nakaka-pressure yung mindset na kailangan nating "i-maintain" ang love ng Diyos sa pamamagitan ng rules. Pero ang real talk: Hindi natin sinusunod ang utos para maligtas; sinusunod natin ito dahil ligtas na tayo at mahal natin ang nagligtas sa atin. Huwag nating palitan ang "finished work" ni Jesus ng sarili nating "to-do list."

Call to Action: Ngayong linggo, imbis na mag-focus sa kung anong "bawal," subukan mong mag-focus sa kung gaano kalaki ang grasya ni Jesus sa buhay mo. Magpahinga ka sa Kanya, dahil Siya ang tunay nating Sabbath rest.