The Seventh-day Adventist Church uses many faulty hermeneutical methods to reach some of its doctrinal conclusions. In this article, we will examine one of these conclusions.

We can infer that when the terms ‘law’ or ‘commandments’ are mentioned positively in Scripture, they refer to the ‘Ten Commandments.’ However, when they are spoken of in a negative manner, they are likely that they are referring to the ‘ceremonial’ laws.

While there isn’t a direct quote using this exact statement in bold, we can find the linking of the positive references to the Law being connected to the Ten Commandments from Ellen G. White, the official SDA Beliefs (Belief #19 & #20), and SDA Commentaries. These sources reflect the Adventist teaching that the Ten Commandments are often seen as the moral law intended for all humanity, especially in a positive context.

In previous articles, I have stressed the crucial importance of understanding the interpretive framework of the person with whom you are discussing theological topics. It’s not uncommon for two people to discuss a Biblical topic using the exact same Christian words, but because the words carry different meanings for each person, they often walk away frustrated. This is particularly true in the Adventist framework, especially when discussing a topic like the Law. Clear communication and understanding of interpretive frameworks are essential for fruitful theological discussions.

The Ten Commandments are eternal and irrevocable in the Seventh-day Adventist theological framework.  With this perspective in mind, understand that Adventists often interpret references to the Law in Scripture through a distinct lens that divides the Law into two categories: the moral law, primarily embodied in the Ten Commandments, and the ceremonial law, which encompasses the rituals, sacrifices, and practices given to the Israelites in the Mosaic Law. Whenever Scripture speaks positively about the Law, Adventists automatically assume it is referring to the moral law, which they believe continues to have binding authority over all humanity. In contrast, when the Law is portrayed negatively or critically, they typically associate it with the ceremonial law, which they believe was fulfilled and made obsolete by Christ’s death and resurrection. This interpretive framework plays a central role in their theology, particularly their emphasis on Sabbath observance and the Investigative Judgment, a belief that holds a significant weight in their theological discussions.

I feel compelled to assert here that the concept of dividing the Torah into different categories (moral, civil, and ceremonial) is a modern phenomenon that wasn’t present in the mind of an Israelite.  They never viewed specific laws as moral and others as civil/ceremonial with less importance.  The entire Law, all 613 laws, was seen as an entire unit.

“Most Christians have divided the Mosaic law into three compartments: (1) the moral law; (2) the civil law, which is the legal or legislative aspect of the law; and (3) the ceremonial law, which includes all the temple and priestly functions. This is a convenient division of the law for the sake of study, but the Law of Moses is a unit; God never broke it down into compartments. In fact, the very structure of the law as given by God in the Law of Moses is singular — not the Laws of Moses, plural. God refers to the Law in the singular as a unit of one and not in the plural as many separate laws. The Law is a unit of one, made up of 613 statements of laws. James in his epistle says: For whosoever shall keep the whole law [singular, the unit], and yet offend in one [point of the law], he is guilty of all [the law, plural as a unit of one] (James 2:10).” ^[1]

One key example of this Adventist interpretation is their reading of Ecclesiastes 12:13, where Solomon concludes,

“The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” (Ec 12:13)

Adventists understand this verse as a universal call to obey the Ten Commandments, believing that adherence to these commandments is humanity’s primary obligation. They often pair this with the next verse, Ecclesiastes 12:14, which states, “For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil,” to support their belief in the Investigative Judgment—a doctrine unique only to Adventism. According to this doctrine, God is currently examining the lives of believers to determine whether they have kept the commandments, particularly the Sabbath commandment, and will judge them accordingly before Christ’s return.

However, this Adventist interpretation imposes a theological framework on the text that is not present in its original context. The passage in Ecclesiastes must be understood in light of the broader message of the book. Ecclesiastes is Solomon’s reflection on the futility of a life lived purely for pleasure, wealth, and worldly pursuits. After pursuing every imaginable form of earthly satisfaction, Solomon realizes that all is “vanity,” a recurring theme throughout the book. He concludes that true meaning in life is found not in pursuing pleasure but in fearing God and keeping His commandments. However, when Solomon refers to “commandments” in this context, he is not explicitly singling out the Ten Commandments. Instead, he refers to the entirety of God’s revealed will to the Israelites, including moral and ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law.

Remember, in the Adventist framework, any time the concept of the Law is viewed in a positive light, they assume it refers to the Ten Commandments, which are all ‘moral’ for their interpretation.

Solomon’s exhortation in Ecclesiastes 12:1, “Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come,” further supports the context of his reflection. He warns that a life lived in pursuit of pleasure without regard for God will ultimately lead to emptiness and regret. As people age and approach the end of life, they may look back and realize that their time was spent on meaningless pursuits. Solomon, therefore, encourages his readers to remember God while they are still young and to live in obedience to Him before it is too late.

Solomon’s conclusion in Ecclesiastes 12:13 is that fearing God and keeping His commandments is “the whole duty of man,” which is a summation of his message throughout the book. It serves as a reminder that life’s purpose is found in honoring God and living according to His will. While this call can be broadly applied to all humanity, it does not necessarily refer to the Ten Commandments alone. It is a call to follow God’s instructions as they were given to the Israelites, including moral and ceremonial laws. Solomon’s conclusion is a reiteration of the teachings of the Law given at Sinai, where obedience to God in all aspects of life was required.

Furthermore, while Adventists interpret this passage as supporting their doctrine of the Investigative Judgment, this is a theological imposition on the text. The Investigative Judgment doctrine asserts that beginning in 1844, God began examining the records of believers to determine their faithfulness to the Ten Commandments, particularly the Sabbath commandment. However, Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 does not suggest such an idea. Instead, Solomon emphasizes the inevitability of divine judgment, a concept found throughout Scripture. God, in His sovereignty, will judge both the righteous and the wicked, holding everyone accountable for their actions, whether good or evil. This judgment is not limited to the Ten Commandments but encompasses the entirety of God’s moral and ethical expectations.

In summary, while Adventists interpret Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 as a call to keep the Ten Commandments and as support for their doctrine of the Investigative Judgment, this interpretation is not consistent with the broader context of the passage. Solomon’s message in Ecclesiastes reflects the futility of a life lived for worldly pleasure and a call to remember God and obey all of His commandments—commands that, in context, refer to the entirety of the Mosaic Law. This passage, while applicable to all people as a call to honor and obey God, does not explicitly support the Adventist distinction between the moral and ceremonial law nor provides a foundation for their belief in the Investigative Judgment. (I’m not sure of anything that can help provide a solid foundation for the Investigative Judgment doctrine since it is contrived through the mind of their False Prophetess Ellen G. White.) Instead, it reiterates a timeless truth: that true meaning in life is found in fearing God and following His will.

In Deuteronomy 5:29, God said to Israel:

“Oh that they had such a heart as this always, to fear me and to keep all my commandments, that it might go well with them and with their descendants forever!” (Dt 5:29)

Moving into the next chapter of Deuteronomy, we see the following:

“Now this is the commandment—the statutes and the rules—that the Lord your God commanded me to teach you, that you may do them in the land to which you are going over, to possess it, that you may fear the Lord your God, you and your son and your son’s son, by keeping all his statutes and his commandments, which I command you, all the days of your life, and that your days may be long.” (Dt 6:1–2)

Deuteronomy 8:5-6 says,

“Know then in your heart that, as a man disciplines his son, the Lord your God disciplines you. So you shall keep the commandments of the Lord your God by walking in his ways and by fearing him.” (Dt 8:5–6)

From these passages, it becomes clear that the call to “fear God and keep His commandments” was consistently given to the Israelites as a requirement of their covenant with God. It was also a condition for them to live long, meaningful, and prosperous lives in the land of Canaan, which they were about to enter. This command applied to the entire Law, not just the Ten Commandments, which Adventists have selectively removed from the Law.

Deuteronomy 13:4 states,

“You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him.” (Dt 13:4)

In Deuteronomy 17, God provided instructions regarding kings, should Israel later choose to have a monarchy. One of the key requirements for a king was to make a personal copy of the Book of the Law so that he could read it regularly, live according to its teachings, and govern justly.

In verses 18-20, it says,

“And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel. (Dt 17:18–20)

This is what King Solomon should have done. Still, as the book of Ecclesiastes records, he neglected the Law, leading him into apostasy and indulgence in a hedonistic lifestyle. In his old age, Solomon realized that he and everyone else should fear God and live by the Mosaic Law, as it was their true and complete duty. This is the point Solomon makes in Ecclesiastes 12:13. He does not promote the Adventist focus on the Ten Commandments. To interpret the text in this manner would be eisegesis at its worst.

To further illustrate the flawed hermeneutical assumption of the Adventist Framework, it is helpful to examine some of their commonly cited proof texts. Matthew 5:17-19 is one such text that they frequently use:

“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. 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. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt 5:17–19)

This passage is a key proof-text for Adventists, used to support their faulty interpretation. For them, the word “Law” in this passage is understood to mean the Ten Commandments. They argue that Jesus did not come to abolish the Ten Commandments but to establish them, interpreting the word “fulfill” to mean just that. They also contend that since heaven and earth have not yet passed away, this means that no part of the Ten Commandments will ever be altered. Furthermore, they believe that those who keep and teach the Ten Commandments are considered “great” in God’s kingdom. In contrast, those who do not uphold or teach them are regarded as “least” in the kingdom—and in some cases, they even assert that such individuals will not be in the kingdom at all.

Even without going into extensive detail, it is easy to see the significant issues with their interpretation of this text. The Adventists have misrepresented the meaning of the passage, attempting to make it convey the opposite of what it is actually saying.  (I plan to write a comprehensive article that delves deeply into this particular text, Matthew 5:17-19)

John 14:15 is another key proof-text often used by Adventists. They frequently cite this verse to argue that the way to demonstrate love for God or Jesus is by keeping the Ten Commandments, with a particular emphasis on the Sabbath. This is their common interpretation. However, as with many of their proof-texts, the context challenges their assumptions. The verse says,

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. (Jn 14:15)

Here, Jesus does not indicate that observing the Sabbath or the Ten Commandments shows love for Him. The immediate context does not support such a conclusion.

The commands Jesus refers to in this passage are found in the context of the discussion that Jesus is having with His disciples, “love one another as I have loved you” (John 13:34-35), “let not your heart be troubled” (John 14:1), “believe in God” (John 14:1), “believe in Me” (John 14:1), “believe that I am in the Father and the Father in Me” (John 14:11), and “believe on account of the works themselves” (John 14:11). All of these are in the imperative mood in Greek, which expresses a command or instruction given with authority.

“In Greek, as in English, the imperative mood expresses a command. One person is attempting to exert a will upon another.” ^[2]

These are the specific commands Jesus was referring to when He said that if His disciples loved Him, they would obey. The context of the passage should be understood in the context of Jesus’ entire farewell speech. All of John 13-17:26 is one large pericope, which is Jesus’s final speech to his disciples.

Moreover, the Greek word Jesus uses for “commandments” in this context is entole (εντολη), which John consistently uses to refer to Jesus’ specific instructions in this section of Scripture (John 13-17) and throughout the entire book. On the other hand, when John speaks about the Old Covenant Law, he uses the word nomos (νομος). John is unique among the New Testament writers in making this distinction between nomos and entole in his writings, which include the Gospel of John, his epistles, and the book of Revelation.

Later in his writings, when John speaks about the commands that believers should follow, he refers to these same instructions from Jesus—such as loving one another and believing in God and Christ—as His commands (1 John 3:23-24; 4:7-12, 20-21; 5:1-3; 2 John 4-6). This shows that John consistently refers to Jesus’ teachings, rather than the Ten Commandments, as the commands believers are to follow.

Romans 7:12 states,

“So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.” (Ro 7:12)

Adventists interpret this to mean that the Ten Commandments are holy, righteous, and good. While this is true, it does not apply only to the Ten Commandments. The ENTIRE Law is holy, righteous, and good. To the detriment of their own interpretation, Adventists focus only on the Ten Commandments and ignore the rest of the Law, which they label “ceremonial law.” However, the truth is that the whole Law is holy, righteous, and good. The problem lies in the fact that while the Law is holy and righteous, our sinful nature is unholy and unrighteous. Because of this, the Law cannot help us in our flesh; instead, it condemns us. We cannot perfectly keep it or meet its demands (verses 7-24). This is why, through Christ’s death,

“…we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. (Ro 7:6)

The book of Galatians delivers a powerful message against any faith system that centers around works or the Law, including Adventism. As a result, legalistic traditions often cast doubt on Galatians (and other Pauline letters) or attempt to redefine the Law within them. Adventism does this by redefining the Law in Galatians to refer only to the “ceremonial law,” trying to shield the Ten Commandments from the book’s critique. However, the Law in Galatians refers to the entire Old Covenant Law. Galatians 4:21-31 clearly distinguishes between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, using Hagar (representing the Old Covenant) and Sarah (representing the New Covenant) as allegories. The conclusion is clear:

“Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” (Ga 4:30)

This plainly indicates that the Old Covenant, including the Ten Commandments, is to be “cast out.” We are not bound to the Ten Commandments covenant; instead, we are part of the New Covenant, which offers freedom.

If this passage in Galatians 4:21-31 is still unclear to Adventists about including the Ten Commandments in the discussion of the Law, let me remind them of the words of their prophetess:

“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.” ^[3]

She inadvertently undermines her own lifelong teachings on the Law because the passage she cites clearly states that we are no longer under “the schoolmaster,” which she admits includes “both the ceremonial and the moral code of Ten Commandments.” But we shouldn’t be surprised at this undermining of her own stance since she should be regarded as a false prophetess, as evidenced by her own contradictions.

Hebrews 7:11-12 also presents challenges for Adventists’ interpretation. They resist applying this passage to the Ten Commandments, but the text reads:

“Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.” (Heb 7:11–12)

Adventists argue that the Law cannot change.  Don’t believe me?  Let’s look at two quotes to reinforce this concept. In a response around Matthew 5:17-20, Ellen White wrote the follow:

“[In essence Jesus was saying], “I have not come to destroy the law, but to show its immutability, and the holiness of its claims. God could not change His law to meet man in his fallen condition. By suffering the penalty of transgression, I will redeem the race. I have become man’s Substitute and Surety. I have taken human nature, and have come to this earth to pass over the ground where Adam stumbled and fell. In humanity I will bear the test and proving of God.” ^[4]

Understand that Ellen uses the term immutability, which means “a characteristic of God signifying that He does not change in His basic nature.” ^[5] Ellen claims that the Law of God is the same as God’s character, and since God’s character is immutable, his law is as well. Clearly, Ellen taught that the Law of God could NEVER be changed!

Since the Adventist Theological Framework can’t function without the interpretation of Ellen White, even in the SDA Commentary on Revelation, they use her to reinforce this idea:

“The whole world needs to be instructed in the oracles of God, to understand the object of the atonement, the at-one-ment, with God. The object of this atonement was that the divine law and government might be maintained. The sinner is pardoned through repentance toward God and faith in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. There is forgiveness of sin, and yet the law of God stands immutable, eternal as His throne. There is no such thing as weakening or strengthening the law of Jehovah. As it has always been, so it is. It cannot be repealed or changed in one principle. It is eternal, immutable as God Himself.–Manuscript 163, 1897.  472 {7ABC 471.4}” ^[6]

This concept is a clear contradiction of Scripture. Heb 7:11–12 clearly states it had to change. To avoid this issue, they claim that the change refers only to the ceremonial law as if the Levitical priests had no authority over the Ten Commandments. However, the Levitical priests had jurisdiction over the entire Law, including the Ten Commandments. God gave them the authority to teach, interpret, and enforce the entire Law (Deuteronomy 17:8-12; Matthew 23:1-3). For example, if someone violated a commandment by committing murder, adultery, worshipping other gods, or breaking the Sabbath, the priests were responsible for judging these matters according to the Law (Leviticus 20; Numbers 5:11-22; 35:9-34; John 5:16-18; 8:58-59; 9:16; 10:33). The author of Hebrews is clearly referring to the entire Law, as twelve times in eleven verses the phrase is used in the singular.  Also, twice, he uses the term “the law” without any qualifiers like “ceremonial” or “moral.” The Law in Hebrews was always called one complete system, and the Israelites received “the Law” under the Levitical priesthood. In Hebrews 9:1-5, the author lists the items associated with the “first covenant,” including the “ark of the covenant” and the “tablets of the covenant,” which contained the whole law—both on papyrus and on stone tablets. This is the same covenant that he says is “…becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:13). Hebrews 7:11-12 essentially repeats this point: the priesthood has changed, and therefore, the Law must also change.

To further elaborate, 1 John 5:2-3 is often misinterpreted by Adventists who, due to their theological framework, tend to associate “His commandments” with the Ten Commandments automatically. The passage reads:

“By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.” (1 Jn 5:2–3)

This statement is positive in tone, assuring believers that keeping God’s commandments is an expression of love and that these commandments are not a heavy burden to bear.

However, Adventists frequently overlook the immediate and broader context of John’s writings, interpreting the word “commandments” (ἐντολή) to mean specifically the Ten Commandments, particularly the Sabbath. Their focus on the Decalogue stems from their doctrinal emphasis, but this reading is disconnected from the true intent of the text.

Let’s think through this from the perspective of an Adventist who doesn’t consider the context. The phrase “His commandments” might immediately bring to mind the Ten Commandments, as their teachings often reinforce this association. As someone who once held to this Adventist interpretation, I can understand how this kind of selective reading occurs. At one point, I, too, believed that this passage referred to the Ten Commandments because I was conditioned to view Scripture in that way. But this is where a faulty hermeneutic comes into play—when we allow preconceptions to shape our interpretation rather than letting the passage’s context guide us.

Once I began to study Scripture more carefully and adopt a contextual approach, it became clear that John is not speaking of the Ten Commandments here. Throughout his letters, John repeatedly refers to specific commandments that define the life of a Christian under the New Covenant: faith in Jesus Christ, faith in the Father, and love for one another. John emphasizes these central commandments in 1 John 3:23-24:

“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. Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.” (1 Jn 3:23–24)

Similarly, John reinforces these ideas in 1 John 4:7-12 and 20-21, where the primary focus is on the command to love others as evidence of one’s love for God.

In fact, this concept of loving one another and believing in Christ as the true fulfillment of God’s commandments runs consistently through John’s writings. Even in 2 John 4-6, John reiterates the importance of love and obedience to the command to love one another:

“I rejoiced greatly to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as we were commanded by the Father. And now I ask you, dear lady—not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but the one we have had from the beginning—that we love one another. And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it.” (2 Jn 4–6)

When John speaks of “commandments” in this context, he refers to these Christ-centered commands to love and believe, not the Old Covenant’s Ten Commandments. The Adventist misinterpretation arises from a misunderstanding of the shift from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, where the focus moves from legalistic adherence to the Law to living in the freedom of Christ’s commandments, which center on faith and love.

Moreover, when John says, “His commandments are not burdensome,” it points to the nature of these New Covenant commands. The call to love one another and to believe in Christ is not a heavy or oppressive burden, as keeping the Mosaic Law had been. Jesus Himself said, “My yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:30), reinforcing the idea that the New Covenant life of faith and love brings freedom, not the weight of impossible legalistic demands.

Understanding this passage within its proper context makes it evident that 1 John 5:2-3 does not support the Adventist focus on the Ten Commandments. Instead, it highlights the simplicity and beauty of the commands given to believers under the New Covenant: to believe in Christ and to love one another. These are the commands that define a life lived in fellowship with God and His people.

In Christian Love,

 

 

 

 

^[1] John Metzger, The Law, Then and Now: What About Grace? (Larkspur, CO: Grace Acres Press, 2019), 1.

^[2] Ray Summers and Thomas Sawyer, Essentials of New Testament Greek, Rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 127.

^[3] Ellen Gould White, Selected Messages From the Writings of Ellen G. White, Book 1 (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1958), 233.

^[4] Manuscript Releases [Nos. 1301–1359, 1987–1988], vol. 18 (Ellen G. White Estate, 1993), 133.

^[5] Ronald F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, and R. K. Harrison, Thomas Nelson Publishers, eds., Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1995).

^[6] Francis D. Nichol, ed., The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible CommentaryA, vol. 7 (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1985), 433.