The Law is separate from the Old Covenant. They are two different revelations with two different purposes. They are certainly not synonymous. Why confuse people with mistruths?
Bipolar SDA Bob “ Law is separate from the Old Covenant. They are two different revelations with two different purposes. They are certainly not synonymous. Why confuse people with mistruths?”
Your Adventist claim that the Law and the Old Covenant are entirely separate revelations with distinct purposes is a theological sleight-of-hand that doesn’t survive a shred of biblical scrutiny. It’s a convenient way to prop up your Sabbath obsession while dodging the New Covenant’s clear teaching.
You accuse metmom of spreading “mistruths” and confusing people, but your argument is the real distortion, built on Adventist assumptions rather than Scripture.
The The Law and the Old Covenant are Inseparable in Scriptures
Your assertion that the Law (presumably the Ten Commandments, with the Sabbath as your focus) is a separate revelation from the Old Covenant is flat-out unbiblical. The Bible consistently ties the Law to the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai.
Exodus 19-24 describes the Sinai covenant, where God gives the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17) as its core terms. Deuteronomy 4:13 explicitly states, “He declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and wrote on two stone tablets.” The Law isn’t a standalone revelation; it’s the heart of the Old Covenant, given to Israel as a covenantal obligation (Deuteronomy 5:1-3). Your attempt to divorce them is a fabrication.
Galatians 3:19 says the Law was “added because of transgressions until the Seed [Christ] should come.” It was a temporary guardian (Galatians 3:24-25), tied to the covenant with Israel, not a universal, eternal code. The Old Covenant’s purpose was to prepare God’s people for the Messiah, not to establish a separate “Law” revelation for all time. You’re inventing a distinction Scripture doesn’t support.
Bipolar SDA Bob “ Law is separate from the Old Covenant. They are two different revelations with two different purposes. They are certainly not synonymous. Why confuse people with mistruths?”
Let’s not pretend—this “Law vs. Covenant” split is a backdoor to elevate the seventh-day Sabbath as eternally binding, separate from the Old Covenant’s ceremonial laws. You’re trying to dodge the fact that the Sabbath’s observance is tied to Israel’s covenant, not a universal mandate.
The Sabbath commandment (Exodus 20:8-11) is explicitly covenantal, linked to God’s rest in creation but formalized for Israel (Exodus 31:16-17: “The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant”). Where’s the pre-Sinai command for all humanity to keep it? Genesis 2:2-3 mentions God’s rest, but no mandate for weekly observance appears until Exodus 16:23-29. Your universal Sabbath claim is an assumption, not a revelation.
The New Testament never commands Christians to keep the seventh-day Sabbath. Colossians 2:16-17 calls Sabbaths “shadows” of Christ, the reality. Romans 14:5-6 allows freedom in worship days. Hebrews 8:6-13 declares the Old Covenant obsolete, replaced by the New Covenant in Christ. If the Law were a separate revelation, why does Scripture tie its fulfillment to Christ’s work (Matthew 5:17)? Your Sabbath-centric view ignores this.
Catholics honor the Sabbath’s principle—rest and worship—through Sunday, the Lord’s Day, celebrating Christ’s resurrection (CCC 2174-2176). This isn’t confusion; it’s fidelity to the New Covenant, rooted in apostolic practice (Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2). You’re the one confusing people by clinging to a covenantal ritual Christ fulfilled.
Your argument smells of White’s Great Controversy, which pits the “eternal” Ten Commandments against a supposedly corrupt Catholic system. Show me one verse explicitly stating the Ten Commandments are a separate revelation from the Sinai covenant. You can’t, because it’s an Adventist invention, not God’s Word.
By separating them, you’re creating a false dichotomy to justify legalism. If the Law is a standalone revelation, why does Paul say it was temporary (Galatians 3:25)? Why does Hebrews 7:12 speak of a “change in the law” with Christ’s priesthood? Your theology unravels under biblical examination.