Mark 7:19:"Thus He Declared All Foods Clean": A Response to the Adventist Argument

 

Let's Start with the Text Itself

Look at what Mark 7:19 actually says:

"For it doesn't go into his heart but into the stomach and is eliminated" thus he declared all foods clean.

That parenthetical at the end, "thus he declared all foods clean," is one of the clearest, most straightforward statements in the entire New Testament about food laws. Mark, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, draws an explicit conclusion from what Jesus said. It couldn't be simpler.

And yet, when Seventh-day Adventists read this verse, their first move is to immediately dismiss it. Their go-to argument? "Oh, Jesus wasn't talking about clean and unclean foods from Leviticus 11 at all. He was just rebuking the Pharisees' tradition of washing hands before eating bread."

Let's dig into that claim and show why it simply doesn't hold up.

What Adventists Actually Teach

To be fair, let's look at what Adventist sources themselves say about this passage. Their own scholars don't even agree on a clear explanation.

The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary says this:

"Commentators generally miss the point of vs. 15–23 by applying them to the problem of clean and unclean flesh foods as differentiated in Lev. 11. The context makes emphatically clear that Jesus was not calling into question in any way [any] precept of the OT, but rather was denying the validity of oral tradition." [1]

The Andrews Study Bible (an SDA publication) adds:

"What Jesus is attacking is the belief that if pious Jews simply observed the ritual purity laws, they would thereby be morally clean. On the contrary, no food in and of itself can defile a person's character." [2]

And their official 28 Fundamental Beliefs book says:

"Mark's statement that Jesus 'declared all foods clean' does not mean that He abolished the distinction between clean and unclean foods. The discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees and scribes had nothing to do with the kind of food, but with the manner in which the disciples ate." [3]

So the official Adventist position boils down to this: Mark 7 is about handwashing before eating bread, nothing more. Any attempt to apply it to the Leviticus 11 dietary laws is, in their view, a mistake.

Here's the problem: that interpretation falls apart under scrutiny. Let me show you why.

The Real Question: How Did Mark Arrive at That Conclusion?

The key insight most people miss is that the statement "thus he declared all foods clean" in verse 19 is not the words of Jesus. It's Mark's editorial comment. Even the SDA Bible Commentary admits this:

"The Greek, however, makes it clear that these are not the words of Christ, but rather those of Mark, and that they constitute his comment on Christ's meaning." [5]

So Mark, guided by the Holy Spirit, looked at everything Jesus said in this passage and concluded: Jesus has declared all foods clean. The question we need to ask is where exactly in this passage did Mark get that conclusion?

There are three sections in Mark 7 to consider:

1. Verses 1–13 — Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for their handwashing tradition
2. Verses 14–15 — Jesus teaches the crowd publicly about what truly defiles a person
3. Verses 17–19 — Jesus explains His teaching privately to His disciples in a house

Now, think about it. If Mark's conclusion, "he declared all foods clean," came from the handwashing argument in verses 1–13, then we have a real problem. Handwashing is an external ritual. Declaring all foods clean has nothing to do with whether your hands were washed. That connection simply doesn't make sense.

The natural source of Mark's conclusion is verses 14–19, where Jesus explicitly talks about what goes into a person's body, what enters the stomach, and what is then eliminated. That's the food discussion. That's where Mark draws his conclusion from.

The Bread-Only Argument Is Self-Defeating

Here's something Adventists never seem to notice about their own argument. They say, "Jesus was only talking about the disciples eating bread with unwashed hands."

But wait, bread was already clean for Jews! No Jew in the first century considered bread to be an unclean food under Leviticus 11. So if Jesus was only talking about bread, why would Mark need to write "thus he declared all foods clean"? You don't need to declare clean something that was already clean to begin with!

Think about the logic: If Mark's statement simply means "the bread the disciples ate with dirty hands is clean," then Mark is essentially saying, "He declared already-clean bread to be clean." That's completely redundant. It adds nothing. It's a meaningless observation.

The only way the statement "he declared all foods clean" carries any weight and meaning is if some foods were previously considered unclean, and Jesus was now overturning that distinction. And the only foods that were ever considered unclean under God's Law for Israel were the animals listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14: pigs, shellfish, certain birds, and so on.

What Does "Nothing" Really Mean?

Let's also pay attention to the word Jesus used in verse 15 and again in verse 18. In Greek, the word translated as "nothing" is oudeis, which means absolutely nothing. Not even one thing. As Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar explains, oudeis is the strongest possible negation.

"Nothing that goes into a person from outside can defile him." Mark 7:15 (CSB)

"Don't you realize that nothing going into a person from the outside can defile him?"  Mark 7:18 (CSB)

Jesus didn't say, "Nothing except pork." He didn't say, "Nothing except shellfish." He said nothing, absolutely nothing that enters the stomach can defile a person spiritually. That is a sweeping, comprehensive statement. Mark recognized this and drew the logical conclusion: Jesus has declared all foods clean.

What About the Greek Word Bromata?

Adventists also like to argue that the Greek word for food used here, bromata, refers only to foods that are already considered clean, not to animals forbidden in Leviticus 11.

Here's the irony: their own 28 Fundamental Beliefs book contradicts this claim. They write:

"The Greek word for 'food' (bromata) used here is the general term for food that refers to all kinds of food for human consumption; it does not designate just flesh foods." [6]

So by their own admission, bromata is a broad, general word. It means all kinds of food for human consumption. It doesn't exclude pork. It doesn't exclude shellfish. It covers everything. And it's also in the plural panta ta bromata, meaning all foods. Not some foods. Not just the bread on the table. All.

But What Did Jesus Actually Have in Mind?

Now here's where it gets even more interesting. What laws about food entering the mouth and defiling a person were already familiar to every Jew in Jesus' audience? You guessed it, Leviticus 11.

Look at what God said to Israel in that chapter:

"Do not defile yourselves by any swarming creature that crawls on the ground... you must consecrate yourselves and be holy because I am holy." Leviticus 11:43–44 (CSB)

Notice the phrase: "do not defile yourselves." Now compare that with what Jesus said:

"Nothing that goes into a person from outside can defile him." Mark 7:15 (CSB)

Jesus is directly countering the very language of Leviticus 11. He's addressing the exact concern that had governed Jewish food practice for over a thousand years, the idea that eating certain animals would cause spiritual defilement. And He's saying: that is no longer true.

This would have been absolutely shocking to His audience. That's why even His own disciples, after hearing this in public, pulled Him aside privately and asked Him to explain it. This is why Mark concluded, "He declared all foods clean." Because Jesus essentially overturned the ceremonial food distinctions of the Mosaic Law. That's a massive statement, and the disciples knew it.

Peter's Vision in Acts 10 Confirms It

One of the most powerful pieces of evidence that Mark 7:19 is about the Leviticus 11 dietary laws, not just handwashing before bread, is what happened to the Apostle Peter in Acts 10.

Early church tradition, going all the way back to Papias of Hierapolis (around 140 AD), confirms that Mark wrote his Gospel largely based on Peter's preaching and testimony:

"Mark, in his capacity as Peter's interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he recalled of the Lord's words and deeds." [7]

So when Mark wrote "He declared all foods clean," that conclusion ultimately comes from Peter himself. And what did Peter experience? In Acts 10, God gave him a vision of a large sheet coming down from heaven filled with all kinds of animals, including those forbidden in Leviticus 11, and a voice said, "Get up, Peter; kill and eat."

Peter's response? "No, Lord! For I have never eaten anything impure and ritually unclean." (Acts 10:14)

And then God said: "What God has made clean, do not call impure." (Acts 10:15)

God repeated this three times. Peter was confused at first, but eventually, he understood. And here's the critical point: in verse 28, Peter explains what the vision meant:

"God has shown me that I must not call any person impure or unclean." Acts 10:28 (CSB)

Adventists like to use this verse to argue, "See! The vision was about people, not food." But here's what they miss: God never told Peter in the vision that Gentiles were unclean. The vision was literally of animals on a sheet. When God said, "Do not call impure what God has made clean," He was referring to the animals in the vision, the same animals that Peter had refused to eat his entire life because of Leviticus 11.

And Peter drew a secondary application from that vision. If God has cleansed things that were once considered ritually impure, then the Jewish custom of treating Gentiles as "untouchable" is also wrong. But it's important to note that there was never actually a Torah command forbidding Jews from associating with Gentiles. As Word Studies in the New Testament explains:

"There is no direct command in the Mosaic law forbidding Jews to associate with those of other nations. But Peter's statement is general, referring to the general practice of the Jews to separate themselves in common life from uncircumcised persons." [8]

In fact, the word Peter uses in Acts 10:28 for "unlawful" is not the Greek word nomos (which refers to the Mosaic Law). It's the Greek word athemitos, which refers to a common Jewish custom, not a divine command. So the Gentile separation was never God's law to begin with; it was a rabbinic invention. Gentiles were never called "unclean" by God. Only certain animals were. And those are exactly what the vision was about.

So when Peter said, "What God has made clean, do not call impure," he was talking about the dietary laws of Leviticus 11. And since Mark wrote his Gospel under Peter's teaching, his statement in Mark 7:19, "He declared all foods clean," carries the full weight of Peter's apostolic understanding.

What Does the Rest of the New Testament Say?

If the Adventist interpretation were correct, we'd expect to find the New Testament writers continuing to uphold the Leviticus 11 food distinctions for Christians. But look at what we actually find:

"I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself." Romans 14:14 (CSB)

"Do not tear down God's work because of food. Everything is clean." Romans 14:20 (CSB)

"Eat everything that is sold in the meat market, without raising questions for the sake of conscience, since the earth is the Lord's, and all that is in it." 1 Corinthians 10:25–26 (CSB)

"Therefore, don't let anyone judge you in regard to food and drink or in the matter of a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day."  Colossians 2:16 (CSB)

"The Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will depart from the faith... They forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods that God created to be received with gratitude... For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving." 1 Timothy 4:1–4 (CSB)

"[These regulations] deal with food, drink, and various washings imposed until the time of the new order." Hebrews 9:10 (CSB)

Now, a crucial question for Adventists: Is there a single verse in the entire New Testament where the apostles reinstate the Leviticus 11 dietary laws for Christians? Is there one passage where Paul, Peter, John, or any other New Testament writer says, "Remember, don't eat pork, Leviticus 11 still applies"?

There isn't. Not one.

In fact, 1 Timothy 4 goes further than just allowing all foods; it calls the teaching that forbids certain foods a doctrine of demons. That's a sobering statement. Who are the ones forbidding foods? According to Paul, it's those who have "departed from the faith" and follow "deceitful spirits." Paul says every food God created is good and nothing should be rejected.

One More Point About Holiness vs. Health

Adventists often reframe the dietary laws as being about health; they'll say pigs are unhealthy and that's why God forbade them. But that's not what Leviticus 11 actually says. Look at the explicit reason God gave:

"You must consecrate yourselves and be holy because I am holy. Do not defile yourselves by any swarming creature that crawls on the ground." Leviticus 11:44 (CSB)

God said, "Be holy, for I am holy." He didn't say, "Be healthy, for I am healthy." The reason for the dietary restrictions was holiness and ritual separation, setting Israel apart as God's covenant people from the surrounding nations. It was a ceremonial law, not a universal health code.

And here's what's inconsistent about the Adventist position: they themselves acknowledge that ceremonial laws have been fulfilled in Christ. They don't sacrifice animals, they don't keep the feast days, and they don't observe the priestly cleansing rituals. But somehow, the food laws, which are explicitly part of the same ceremonial system, are supposed to still be binding?

The moment they concede that the dietary laws of Leviticus 11 are ceremonial (which their own scholars implicitly do), they've already undermined the case for keeping them. Ceremonial laws pointed forward to Christ. Christ has come. The shadow has given way to the substance (Colossians 2:17).

Conclusion: Mark Was Right, and Adventists Know It

The statement in Mark 7:19, "thus he declared all foods clean," is not complicated. Mark, inspired by the Holy Spirit and writing under Peter's teaching, drew an explicit conclusion from what Jesus said: the ceremonial food distinctions of the Old Testament are no longer binding on God's people.

The Adventist argument that this passage is only about handwashing before eating bread fails on multiple levels:

• Bread was already clean, so declaring it clean is meaningless
• The word bromata (all foods) is general and comprehensive, not limited to bread
• The word oudeis (nothing) is absolute. Jesus said nothing, entering the body defiles
• Jesus' language directly echoes Leviticus 11, making the connection intentional and clear
• Peter's vision in Acts 10 confirms the meaning of Mark 7:19 from the apostle who inspired the text
• The rest of the New Testament consistently affirms that all foods are permissible for Christians
• The stated reason for the dietary laws in Leviticus 11 was holiness, not health, and that ceremonial function has been fulfilled in Christ

Adventists read Mark 7 with theological blinders on because they can't afford to let this verse mean what it plainly says. If Mark 7:19 means what it says, and it does, then their dietary restrictions have no New Testament warrant.

Brothers and sisters who are still in the Adventist system: the truth is right there in your Bible. Jesus has declared all foods clean. You don't need to live under a system of dietary laws that even Moses' contemporaries were set free from through faith in the Messiah. The New Covenant is better. Christ is the end of the ceremonial law for righteousness to everyone who believes (Romans 10:4).

---

References

[1] Nichol, Francis D., ed. The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1980, p. 624.

[2] Dybdahl, Jon L., ed. Andrews Study Bible Notes. Andrews University Press, 2010, p. 1307.

[3] Ministerial Association General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Seventh-day Adventists Believe: A Biblical Exposition of Fundamental Doctrines. 2nd ed. Pacific Press Publishing Association, 2006, pp. 326–327.

[4] Blanco, Jack. The Clear Word. Review and Herald Publishing Association, 2007.

[5] Nichol, Francis D., ed. The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1980, p. 625.

[6] Ministerial Association General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Seventh-day Adventists Believe: A Biblical Exposition of Fundamental Doctrines. 2nd ed. Pacific Press Publishing Association, 2006, pp. 326–327.

[7] Loeb Classical Library. The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. II. Edited and translated by Bart Ehrman, p. 103.

[8] Vincent, Marvin Richardson. Word Studies in the New Testament. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887, 1:501.

Why Do Most Seventh-day Adventists Resort to Personal Attacks Instead of Facing the Truth?

Have you ever tried having a respectful conversation with a Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) about their beliefs—maybe pointing out errors in their doctrines using Scripture—only to be met with insults, name-calling, or personal attacks?

You’re not alone.

Instead of dealing with the real issue—whether or not their teachings are biblical—some just shut down the conversation and go straight to ad hominem attacks.

(“Nagtampo ka lang” “Hindi ka lang pinagbigyan!”  “Apostate ka!”)

These are not answers, they’re distractions. And honestly, they reveal something deeper: a heart that’s unwilling to face the truth.

---

What is Ad Hominem Anyway?

Ad hominem is a Latin phrase that means “against the person.”

It happens when someone ignores the argument or facts and attacks the person instead.

Example:

You: "Ellen G. White contradicted the Bible on several key points."

Them: "Eh ikaw nga, hindi mo nga naiintindihan ang Bible!"

That’s not dialogue. That’s defensiveness, pride, and often fear of being proven wrong.

---

Why Do Most SDAs Act This Way?

This isn’t coming from hate—this is coming from understanding. Here's why many SDAs fall into this trap:

1. They’re Conditioned to See Critics as Enemies

From childhood, many SDAs are taught that anyone who criticizes Ellen White or the SDA Church is being used by Satan. So, the moment you raise a question, you're automatically labeled as rebellious, deceived, or anti-Christ. This mindset shuts down critical thinking.

2. They’re Taught That SDA = “Remnant Church”

When you believe your church is the “one true church” and all others are Babylon, it becomes emotionally painful to even consider that it might be wrong. So instead of honestly examining the issue, some lash out personally to defend what they believe is “God’s last-day people.”

3. They Lack Solid Gospel Foundation

Many SDAs don’t have deep, personal confidence in the finished work of Christ. Instead, they rely on performance, rules, and the writings of Ellen G. White. So, when confronted with real gospel truths—salvation by grace alone, justification by faith alone—they feel unstable. And when someone is unstable in their faith, they lash out instead of listening. 

Here’s the Real Problem: Ad Hominem Is a Sign of Spiritual Bankruptcy

Let’s be real. Personal attacks are sinful. They're not just unkind—they’re unbiblical. Let’s be blunt but biblical: resorting to personal attacks is not just bad manners—it’s a spiritual red flag. It shows that the person:

• Has no solid biblical answer

• Is avoiding the truth

• And may actually be spiritually bankrupt—that is, lacking the substance of genuine, Spirit-filled faith

The Bible gives us clear guidance:

1 Timothy 6:4-5

“They are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels… who think that godliness is a means to financial gain. They have been robbed of the truth.”

This describes someone who talks spiritual but has been emptied of truth. They argue, but don’t learn. They debate, but don’t repent.

Titus 1:16

“They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.”

If a person constantly attacks the character of the person instead of humbly examining truth, they may claim to follow God—but their actions tell a different story.

What Should SDAs (and All of Us) Do Instead?

The Bible calls us to truth and humility. The goal isn’t just to win arguments—it’s to know God, to love the truth, and to be transformed.

Ephesians 4:15

“Speak the truth in love.”

If you're truly in the truth, you won’t be afraid of questions. And you won’t need to attack people.

James 1:19-20

“Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, for man’s anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires.”

You don’t defend the truth with pride and harshness. You defend it with patience, grace, and confidence in God’s Word.

Ephesians 4:29

“Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up…”

Personal insults? Sarcastic responses? Demeaning labels? Not helpful. Not building anyone up.

Proverbs 18:2

“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”

When someone refuses to listen and just argues to defend their group—they’re not pursuing truth. They’re just trying to “win.”

2 Timothy 2:24–25

“And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting opponents with gentleness…”

If you’re truly standing for God, you don’t need to insult people. You correct with gentleness, not aggression or personal shots.

---

A Loving Rebuke for Our SDA Friends

Dear SDA friend, if your first reaction to biblical correction is to attack the person—not the argument—please examine your heart.

Ask yourself honestly:

• Why am I reacting this way?

• Is it because I’m afraid they’re right?

• Am I more loyal to my church than to the Word of God?

Truth can handle questions. Falsehood needs to silence people.

Jesus said:

“You shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” — John 8:32

But if you block out every challenge with sarcasm, insults, and anger, you’ll never get to that freedom.

---

Truth Doesn’t Fear the Light

If SDA doctrine is truly biblical, it should stand strong under scrutiny. But if it crumbles the moment someone opens the Bible, that should make you pause.

So next time someone questions your beliefs, don’t take it personally. Take it biblically. Go to the Scriptures. Pray. Think. Be humble enough to admit if something doesn’t add up.

Because the goal isn’t to be “right” for pride’s sake—it’s to be right with God.

Final Words: Don’t Attack the Messenger — Examine the Message

Dear SDA friend, if your first response to critique is to attack the person—not the Scripture they present—you’re missing the point.

Ask yourself:

• Am I defending God’s Word, or just my religion?

• Am I humble enough to listen if I’ve been wrong?

• Am I secure in Christ, or am I afraid to be corrected?

The gospel gives us freedom. You don’t have to fight or attack to protect your identity. Jesus already secured your identity—if your trust is in Him, not in your denomination.

Don’t run from the truth. Don’t attack it. Embrace it. That’s how real faith grows.

---

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

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

Phone: 09695143944

Question from Reuil Celebran: "Ang Former Adventists di na naniniwala sa Second Coming of Jesus?

SDA CALLER POL BARTOLOME DEFENDS THE SABBATH!

ANG TAMANG PALIWANAG SA JOHN 5:18: "BAKIT SINIRA NI JESUS ANG SABBATH?"

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS ANSWERED VERSE-BY-VERSE ON JOHN 5:18: "JESUS BREAKING THE SABBATH": WHY ISN'T JUST AN ACCUSATION FROM THE JEWS?"

John 5:18 (ESV)

"This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS ARGUMENTS:

#1.) From Ellen G. White

"Jesus claimed equal rights with God in doing a work equally sacred, and of the same character with that which engaged the Father in heaven. But the Pharisees were still more incensed. He had not only broken the law, according to their understanding, but in calling God “His own Father” had declared Himself equal with God. John 5:18, R. V. DA 207.3"[1]

#2.) From SDA Bible Commentary

"5:18 broke the Sabbath. “The Jews” in John’s Gospel are unreliable witnesses. This charge is false (see note on v. 10). making … God. The “making” part of this charge is also false."[2]

#3.) From SDA Debaters

"Jesus broke only the Jewish halakhic interpretation of the Sabbath of the Rabbis, not the Biblical Sabbath"

ANSWER:

The SDAs use many arguments to deny that Jesus truly broke the Sabbath in John 5:18. At first glance, their efforts seem commendable and noble because it is natural for Christians to believe that the Lord Jesus would naturally be obedient to His Father's will in heaven. For the SDAs, anyone who says that Jesus broke the Sabbath according to John 5:18 is on the side of the Jews who persecuted Jesus and is an ally of God's enemies. On the other hand, the SDAs believe they are on Jesus' side, and this, according to them, is strong evidence that the true followers of Jesus today are the Seventh-day Adventists because they side with Jesus and not with His enemies regarding the Sabbath issue. They use certain Bible texts to counter the conclusion that Jesus broke the Sabbath according to John 5:18. For example Matthew 5:17 (ESV): 

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Initially, their argument about Matthew 5:17 appears valid. However, a closer examination reveals a misinterpretation of the text. Jesus is not referring to the Ten Commandments or the Sabbath in this verse. Instead, He speaks of fulfilling the prophecies and writings about Him in the Old Testament Scriptures. Notice what Jesus says at the beginning of Matthew 5:17: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets." In this verse, Jesus did not mention the Sabbath or the Ten Commandments. Instead, He referred to "the Law or the Prophets." SDAs often misinterpret this passage, stopping at "Law" and not continuing to "or the Prophets," implying that Jesus would not abolish the Ten Commandments, particularly the Sabbath. However, this is not what He was saying. The question now is, what did Jesus mean by the words "the Law or the Prophets"? According to the SDA Bible Commentary, "the Law or the Prophets" was a technical term commonly used by Jews during Jesus' time to refer to the Old Testament Scriptures: "The expression 'the law and the prophets' represents a twofold division of the OT Scriptures."[4] When Jesus said He would fulfill and not abolish, He was not specifically referring to the Ten Commandments or the Sabbath but rather to the entire Old Testament Scriptures.

Many prophecies about Jesus have yet to be fulfilled and will happen in the future, such as His second coming. This is why He said in verse 18: "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18, ESV). Only "Law" is mentioned here, not "Law or the Prophets," but it still refers to the Old Testament Scriptures. This is connected to the argument in verse 17 about "Law or the Prophets," which refers to the Old Testament Scriptures. This is called synecdoche, a figure of speech in which a part represents the whole.[5]

Accusation by the Jews?

Another argument frequently used by the SDAs to defend the interpretation that Jesus did not break the Sabbath according to John 5:18 is that this was merely an accusation by the Jews. They argue that what Jesus actually broke was their incorrect interpretation of how to observe the Sabbath according to their traditions, which were not supported by the Scriptures. When I was an SDA apologist, my argument was to point out that Jesus did not break the biblical Sabbath but challenged their additional interpretations of how the Sabbath should be observed. The frequent clashes between Jesus and the Jewish leaders were indeed about the proper way to observe the Sabbath, not the Sabbath itself. To understand what I mean, let's examine the context of the controversial text in John 5:18. It concerns a man who had been an invalid for 38 years and was healed by the Lord Jesus at a place called Bethesda near the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem. 

Let's read the events in John 5:6-10:

John 5:6-10 (ESV) 6 When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that he had already been there a long time, he said to him, “Do you want to be healed?” 7 The sick man answered him, “Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, and while I am going another steps down before me.” 8 Jesus said to him, “Get up, take up your bed, and walk.” 9 And at once the man was healed, and he took up his bed and walked. Now that day was the Sabbath. 10 So the Jews said to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath, and it is not lawful for you to take up your bed.”

The man who was once considered invalid does not claim that carrying his bed on the Sabbath is allowed, nor does Jesus argue that the Jews have misinterpreted the Sabbath law. John explicitly states that Jesus was breaking the Sabbath (John 5:18). Both Jesus and the healed man were in violation of the Sabbath, as Jesus instructed the man to carry the bed. This scenario signifies a conflict of authority between Jesus and the Mosaic law, rather than between Jesus and the Jewish interpretation. The man's bed likely included a pad for comfort and multiple blankets for warmth, similar to typical bedding. This bed would qualify as a "load," which is prohibited on the Sabbath according to Jeremiah 17:27, based on the Mosaic law, not the Jewish Halakha.

Jeremiah 17:27 (ESV) "But if you do not listen to me, to keep the Sabbath day holy, and not to bear a burden and enter by the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day, then I will kindle a fire in its gates, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem and shall not be quenched."

There seems to be no valid reason for carrying it on that day; Jesus could have healed him and instructed him to retrieve it after sunset. This suggests that Jesus intentionally chose to heal on the Sabbath and asked the man to perform an action that violated Sabbath law. The Pharisees had knowledge of the ancient covenant story where a man was found gathering sticks on the Sabbath and was stoned to death as a consequence of God's command for this offense (Numbers 15:32-36). One might justify a man carrying sticks before justifying a man carrying his pallet, but the latter becomes inexcusable because he did it under the direct command of Jesus. It is believed that the man gathering sticks was likely doing so out of human necessity, such as staying warm or preparing food. In contrast, the story does not provide a valid reason for why the man had to carry his bed away on the Sabbath day. Therefore, when strictly following the Old Testament Sabbath laws, the Jewish leaders seemed to be upholding the exact requirements of the law.

It's important to highlight that Jesus did not attempt to justify his acts of healing or his instruction to “Get up, take up your bed, and walk.” within the confines of Sabbath law. Instead, he boldly affirmed that both he and his Father were working—a clear violation of Sabbath law. Jesus then shifted the focus of the discussion from Sabbath transgression to his close relationship with his Father. The Jewish rabbis correctly understood that God's rest on the seventh day of creation did not preclude his ongoing work of sustaining the universe.

Now it is clear that Jesus intentionally chose to heal the man who had been invalid for 38 years on the Sabbath day. Furthermore, Jesus also deliberately instructed the healed man to carry his mat and walk home on the same Sabbath day, which, according to the Jews, violated the Sabbath based on Mosaic law (Jeremiah 17:27) and their oral tradition (Mishnah Shabbat 7.2). This clearly disproves the Seventh-day Adventists' belief that Jesus' violation of the Sabbath in John 5:18 was merely an accusation by the Jews and not true.  We also understand that our conclusion about John 5:18 does not contradict their frequent claim that Christ would not "abolish" the "law" but fulfill it. What Jesus meant by fulfilling the law until heaven and earth pass away refers to the prophecies in the Old Testament Scriptures concerning Him.

Reasons why Jesus need to "Break" the Jewish Sabbath

1.) The Jewish weekly Sabbath is merely a ceremonial law.

There are a few important points to consider to understand that the Sabbath is a ceremonial law, not a moral law. Christ used examples of ceremonial laws to defend His "breaking" of the Sabbath.

a.) David and his companions ate the "bread of the Presence" placed in the Holy Place of the Temple. According to the law of Moses, only priests were allowed to eat it. However, David and his companions eating it was not considered a sin (Matt.12:3-4).

b.) The priests violate the Sabbath every time they serve in the Temple due to the quantity and weight of their duties. However, they are not considered guilty for doing so. (Matt. 12:5)

In this instance, I want to emphasize that Jesus did indeed break the Sabbath because He used examples of God's servants in the Old Testament who also transgressed the law but, like Christ, remained without sin. In simpler terms, Jesus justified his breaking of the Jewish Sabbath, asserting that he did not sin, much like David and the priests who transgressed the law without incurring sin. Essentially, Jesus said to the Pharisees, "Why do you judge me for breaking the Sabbath law when David also transgressed the law, and likewise, the temple priests violated the Sabbath, yet you do not accuse them of sin?"

In the context of John 5:18, it is crucial to highlight that Jesus did not seek to justify his healing actions or his command to "Get up, pick up your mat, and walk" as compliant with Sabbath law. Instead, he confidently affirmed that both He and His Father were actively working, actions explicitly prohibited by Sabbath law (John 5:16-18). Jesus then shifted the focus from the violation of Sabbath law to his intimate relationship with His Father. The Jewish rabbis correctly understood that God's rest on the seventh day after creation did not encompass His ongoing task of sustaining the universe. Just as the work of sustaining creation exceeds the demands of Sabbath law, so does Christ's work of redemption transcend the Pharisees' Sabbath regulations and the literal interpretation of Old Testament Sabbath laws.

The purpose of redemption is to restore the conditions that existed on the initial seventh day when God rested. The explicit language and literary style lead us to affirm that both assertions—that Jesus was breaking or disregarding the Sabbath and referring to God as His own Father—were accurate. These truths were the reasons why the Jews were resolutely determined to kill Jesus.

2.) The Jewish weekly Sabbath is merely a shadow

Jesus' breaking of the Sabbath serves to prepare the minds of both the Jews and his disciples that the Sabbath they have long observed is merely a temporary shadow, part of the ceremonial aspect of Moses' law in the Old Covenant that is soon to pass away. As the promised Messiah in the Old Covenant, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29; Colossians 2:16-17). 

Colossians 2:16-17 (TLB) "16 So don’t let anyone criticize you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating Jewish holidays and feasts or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. 17 For these were only temporary rules that ended when Christ came. They were only shadows of the real thing—of Christ himself."

Jesus will offer them true daily rest for their souls and deliverance from sin. This is clearly illustrated in the Scriptures by how Jesus prepares the minds of the people, as seen in the context of Matthew 12 and Mark 2. Before Matthew recounts the encounter of Jesus and his disciples with the Pharisees regarding plucking grains on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:1-2), he first describes the rest that Jesus offers to people in Matthew 11:28-30:

Matthew 11:28 - 12:2 (ESV) 28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavily laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” 1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.”

In Mark's gospel account, before he details the encounter of Jesus with the Pharisees in the grainfield on the Sabbath, he first presents Jesus' teachings on New Wine and Old Wineskins. 

Mark 2:21-24 (ESV) 21 No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. 22 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins—and the wine is destroyed, and so are the skins. But new wine is for fresh wineskins.” One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. 24 And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”

According to the SDA Bible Commentary, "new wine" represents the gospel, while "old wineskins" refers to the teachings of Judaism.

"The representation of the gospel by “new wine” and its work by the process of fermentation resembles in essence the parable of the leaven but emphasizes a different result (see Matt. 13:33). The “new wine” represents the vital truth of God at work in the hearts of men ... Jesus’ revolutionary teachings could not be reconciled with the reactionary dogmas of Judaism. Any effort to contain Christianity within the dead forms of Judaism, that is, to unite the two by forcing Christianity to take the shape of, and be reconciled to it, would prove in vain. ...The attempt to unite the new with the old would result in two-fold destruction. The “wine” of the gospel would be “spilled,” and the “bottles” of Judaism would be “marred." [6]

The theologians of the Seventh-day Adventist Church explain that Jesus' point about New Wine and Old Wineskins clearly illustrates the lack of harmony and compatibility between the teachings of the New Testament and the doctrines of Judaism, including the broader law and specific observances like the Sabbath. They emphasize that "Jesus’ radical teachings could not coexist with the conservative doctrines of Judaism." Therefore, it should come as no surprise that Jesus continued to challenge ceremonial requirements such as the weekly Sabbath. This is why Jesus invited heavily burdened Jews, including those bound by the yoke of the Mosaic Law, including the Sabbath (Acts 15:10), to find spiritual rest that is only available through Him (Matthew 11:28-30). This invitation also extends to our beloved Seventh-day Adventists, who have yet to fully embrace the truth of the New Testament gospel of Christ.

Conclusion: 

Upon thorough examination of the Scriptures, we understand that John 5:18 indicates that Jesus did indeed violate the Jewish Sabbath and it is not a mere Jewish accusation. Drawing from Jesus's actions and arguments, it is evident that Jesus purposefully chose to heal the man who had been invalid for 38 years on the Sabbath day. Additionally, Jesus instructed the healed man to carry his bed and walk home on the same Sabbath day, actions perceived as Sabbath violations by the Jews according to Mosaic law (Jeremiah 17:27) and their oral tradition (Mishnah Shabbat 7.2). Jesus defended these Sabbath violations by referencing instances such as the priests' activities on the Sabbath, which did not amount to sin (Matt. 12:5).

Our Seventh-day Adventist friends need to understand that we do not claim Jesus sinned by breaking the Sabbath. That is not our assertion. If the priests in the temple can perform their duties on the Sabbath without sinning, then certainly Jesus Christ, who is greater than the Temple and the Lord over the Sabbath, did not sin. 

My prayer is that Seventh-day Adventists may grasp this truth and realize that accepting Jesus ended the weekly Sabbath allows them to focus on the Savior of their souls without sinning.

Jesus clearly regarded the Sabbath as a ritual or ceremonial law that foreshadowed Him, fulfilling its intended purpose. Examining this incident holistically, it appears Jesus aimed to redirect the focus of Jewish leaders from old covenant laws to Himself as the new reference point for life and judgment. In doing so, Jesus undertook significant personal risk to establish Himself as the central figure for life and judgment in the new covenant.

7 FACTS ABOUT SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS THAT THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW!

BREAKING OF BREAD SA ACTS 20:7: "FELLOWSHIP MEAL" O "LORD’S SUPPER"?

HINDI PA KASI KAYO NAG-REREPENT SA INYONG MALING MGA DOKTRINA!

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS ANSWERED VERSE-BY-VERSE ON ACTS 13:42-44!

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS ANSWERED VERSE-BY-VERSE ON JOHN 14:15: "IF YOU LOVE ME YOU WILL KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS"

John 14:15 (ESV)

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments."

Seventh-day Adventists Argument: 

"Christians who truly love Jesus as their Lord and Savior should obey the Ten Commandments. If you don't obey the Ten Commandments, it means you don't really love Jesus."

Answer:

Here are two reasons why using John 14:15 to argue that Christians must still adhere to the Ten Commandments is flawed according to the SDA perspective:

#1.) The term "commandments" that Jesus referred to in John 14:15 does not signify the "Ten Commandments," as indicated by the Greek word "entole."

A frequent issue with the interpretation of John 14:15 by SDAs is the out-of-context understanding of the passage. The primary mistake lies in their presumption that “commandments” in this verse refers exclusively to the ten commandments. This approach is indicative of eisegesis, where one’s own ideas are imposed onto the text, rather than exegesis, which involves deriving meaning directly from the text itself. Essentially, they employ proof-texting method to align the verse with their beliefs, suggesting it pertains to the ten commandments, which is a misrepresentation of the Scripture’s intent.

In the Greek text of John 14:15, Jesus says, “Ἐὰν ἀγαπᾶτέ με, τὰς ἐντολὰς τὰς ἐμὰς τηρήσετε” (transliterated: “Ean agapate me, tas entolas tas emas tērēsete”). The word used for “commandments” here is “ἐντολὰς” (entolas) plural of entole, which does not specifically refer to the Ten Commandments. It simply means “commandments” or “instructions.” If the intent of Jesus in John 14:15 was to specifically refer to the Ten Commandments, the phrase “(Greek) deka rhemata” (ten sayings) could have been used. However, the term “entolas” (commandments) is employed, which is a broader term that can encompass a wide range of commandments or instructions, not limited to the Decalogue. The use of “entolas” suggests a focus on commandments given by Jesus rather than exclusively referencing the Ten Commandments. This distinction aligns with the broader context of Jesus’ teachings, which often expanded upon or went beyond the specifics of the Mosaic Law. Eerdman’s Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament clarifies that in John, the discussion is not centered on the Mosaic Law; rather, it pertains to the divine mandate received by Jesus from the Father and the particular directives He imparted to His followers.

"In contrast to the other NT writings, ἐντολή is never used in the Johannine literature of the Mosaic Torah. Instead, ἐντολή stands for the commission of the Father given to the Son (John 10:18; 12:49, 50; 15:10) and for Christ's commandment to his disciples (13:34; 14:15, 21; 15:10, 12)." [1]

These verses contain the commandments that Jesus gave his disciples based on the context:

John 13:34 (ESV) "A new commandment(Grk. entole) I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another."

John 14:15 (ESV) “If you love me, you will keep my commandments (Grk. entole)."

John 14:21 (ESV) "Whoever has my commandments (Grk. entole) and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”

John 15:10 (ESV) "If you keep my commandments (Grk. entole) , you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments (Grk. entole) and abide in his love."

John 15:12 (ESV) “This is my commandment (Grk. entole), that you love one another as I have loved you."

Notice that not a single one of these verses mentions the Ten Commandments.

#2. ) According to the context, the “commandments” Jesus mentioned in John 14:15 are not the “Ten Commandments,” but rather the directive to “love one another as I have loved you.”

The only way to determine which commandment is Jesus talking about here is to consider reading the immediate context of John 14:15.

According to the SDAs scholarly reference, Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology (page 477), the Gospel of John employs the term “entole” ten times within the immediate context spanning chapters 10 to 15. However, it does not specifically apply this term to the Ten Commandments. Instead, the closest commandment (entole) mentioned is the “new commandment”(John 13:34) given by Jesus: “Love one another as I have loved you.” 

“Between chapters 10 and 15 John uses the word entolē, “command,” 10 times. Among these are the “new commandment” of John 13:34 and two references to keeping Christ’s plural commandments (John 14:15; 15:10). This section of the Gospel parallels to some extent the usage of entolē in the Epistles of John.”[2]

The teaching of Jesus, as it is understood by the disciples, is to "love one another as I have loved you" (13:34; 15:12; see also 1 John 4:21; 2 John 6). 

John 13:34 (ESV) "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another."

John 15:12-14 (ESV) “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you."

John 15:17 (ESV) "These things I command you, so that you will love one another."

According to 1 John 3:23 God's ἐντολή (entole = command) has a twofold meaning: faith in the Son, Jesus Christ, and mutual love.

1 John 3:23 (ESV) "And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us."

While these chapters do not address the Ten Commandments, Jesus’ teachings encompass various instructions and ethical principles. The emphasis lies on love, discipleship, and faithful living. The commandments of Jesus are the instructions that He has given us in the Gospels and the rest of the NT.

Thus, the Ten Commandments do not serve as the measure of our love for the Lord Jesus. Jesus himself stated that his true disciples are identified by their fulfillment of his "new commandment" to love one another.

John 13:34-35 (ESV) "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

ANG TAMANG PALIWANAG SA MATEO 19:16-19!

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS ANSWERED VERSE BY VERSE: MATTHEW 5:17-18 "NOT AN IOTA, NOT A DOT WILL PASS AWAY FROM THE LAW."

My Dear Seventh-Day Adventist Friends,

Greetings in the powerful name of our Lord Jesus Christ! I invite you to study and discuss through this article as part of my forthcoming book titled "Seventh-day Adventists Answered Verse by Verse." Our goal here is not to debate but to understand each other's interpretations of Bible verses. I plan to start with the verses you use to justify whether Christians under the New Covenant should still follow the Ten Commandments. I want to understand why you use these verses to defend the Ten Commandments. I began with a focus on Matthew 5:17-18, which I know, from your perspective, is one of the strong pieces of evidence that Christians should still follow the Ten Commandments today. I'm not saying my discussion here is perfect to criticize your interpretation of Matthew 5:17-18 with an open mind. As I continue to consider your comments, I will also revise this article.

Feel free to criticize this article. I am open if you find any errors in my points or arguments. I am willing to edit any mistakes you see until we reach a point where we agree on our views. I already thank you, my Seventh-day Adventist friends, especially the SDA debaters. If possible, please comment here on social media where this article is posted. Your comments will be open to the public. I kindly request that we accompany our comments with respect and love and avoid ridicule or personal insults. We are doing this for the sake of truth, not for the sake of debate. Thank you very much. God bless us all! Let us pray that each of us may be enlightened with the help of the Holy Spirit! Let's begin our study.