Should we keep the law? Or do we throw the Law out?

I don’t think this dichotomy is a fair assessment of the options that Paul presents as the Apostle to the Gentiles.  And since I consider myself a Gentile, I feel especially compelled to understand Paul’s perspective and theology on the matter properly. As we dig into Paul’s stance on the adherence to the law, it is prudent first to consider the general exhortations found throughout his writings. There exists a tendency among certain scholars and many interpreters of the text to present the observance of Mosaic law as fundamentally at odds with Christian liberty and spiritual vitality, at times suggesting that any form of legal observance undermines the believer’s freedom in Christ and contradicts the essence of the Pauline gospel. This view is not without rationale, for Paul indeed proclaims emancipation from the law (What is the law exactly? We will get to that…) and emphasizes life in the Spirit, warning of the potential danger in elevating the law above the Spirit—an error that would render the letter to the Galatians redundant. However, there is also a risk in interpreting Paul’s teaching on spiritual freedom as a wholesale rejection of moral norms or commands. This is the claim that many have hurled at me upon leaving the Seventh-day Adventist church.

Statements like:

• • “You are an anti-nomian!”
  • “So the law doesn’t matter? You can do whatever you want?”
  • “So it’s okay to keep nine but break one? The Sabbath?”

I remember quite vividly a Seventh-day Adventist pastor and friend reaching out soon after we left the Adventist church to have coffee with me. In this conversation, I was directly accused of being an Anti-Nomian.

Such an interpretation would be mistaken, for Paul’s numerous exhortations make clear that moral imperatives are not inherently hostile to life in the Spirit or the freedom proclaimed in his gospel. Even when these moral norms have their origins in the Mosaic law, they do not, in Paul’s view, compromise the essential message of the gospel. It is, therefore, crucial to grasp what Paul means by “freedom from law” so as not to misconstrue his gospel as advocating freedom from all ethical obligation.

I pause here to explain why I’m writing about this topic. Having been raised in the Seventh-day Adventist theological framework, I know that law (works) plays a very specific and unique role in understanding the Gospel. The number of times an Adventist has commented on an article or video about the Sabbath or the Law with something like, “So you think it’s okay to not keep one of the commandments (the 4^th) but you keep the other nine?” or “only the true church keeps the commandments… look at Rev:12:17…” And then the well-intended Adventist zealot goes on to think that John is referring to the Mosaic decalogue when he writes:

“Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea.” (Revelation 12:17, ESV)

And of course, they further twist the meaning of John by claiming that ‘the testimony of Jesus’ is the ‘Spirit of Prophecy’ which is ‘Ellen G. White.’ When I see these statements, it takes every bit of Christian patience to dialogue with these erroneous and out-of-context statements that Adventists have turned into dogmas. But it gets worse. An Adventist can double down on this idea because their Prophetess teaches these exact false concepts:

“No excuse can avail for him who strictly obeys nine of the precepts of God’s law, but ventures to break one because it is for his profit or convenience to do so. God demands implicit obedience to all his requirements.” ^[1]

Ellen White herself wrote about her version of how the Law plays a role in the life of an Adventist.  And that Jesus is the one who now ‘helps’ us keep the law:

“That which God required of Adam before his fall was perfect obedience to His law. God requires now what He required of Adam, perfect obedience, righteousness without a flaw, without shortcoming in His sight. God help us to render to Him all His law requires. We cannot do this without that faith that brings Christ’s righteousness into daily practice.” ^[2]

It’s at this point in a dialogue with most Adventists that they will exclaim,

“You are taking Ellen White OUT OF CONTEXT!”

I find this statement always a little bit troubling.  What does the Adventist mean by ‘taking Ellen White out of context?’  It isn’t like we are dealing with a translation issue, since Ellen wrote in English.  Are they referring to the idea that Ellen’s English words mean something different than they do today?  Do Adventists mean that I’m not keeping her words within the entirety of everything she said on the topic?  This last question always troubles me because it would shed light on the potential canonical perception of Ellen White.  Is the Adventist treating Ellen White like Scripture and claiming that because she is infallible, she cannot contradict her own statements? Or do they mean that I’m taking it out of their own Adventist interpretation of Ellen White, even though her words stand for themselves.  Ellen’s thoughts on obedience to the Law is extensive, as she discusses the topic in many of her books and articles:

“The sinner was provided with a second opportunity to keep the law of God in the strength of his divine Redeemer. The cross of Calvary forever condemns the idea that Satan has placed before the Christian world, that the death of Christ abolished not only the typical system of sacrifices and ceremonies but the unchangeable law of God, the foundation of His throne, the transcript of His character.” ^[3]

It seems abundantly clear from Ellen’s own words that her rendition of the New Covenant, her concept of grace through Jesus Christ, requires us to keep the Law PERFECTLY.  No side step on this concept is allowed.  For Ellen, if a person cannot keep the Law perfectly, does the Adventist really have Jesus in them?

“The Lord requires no less of man now than he required of Adam,—perfect obedience to his law, unblemished righteousness. The requirement under the covenant of grace is just as broad as that made in paradise,—harmony with his law, which is holy, and just, and good. The gospel does not weaken the claims of the law; it exalts the law and makes it honorable. Under the New Testament no less is required than was required under the Old Testament. Let no one take up with the delusion, so pleasant to the human heart, that God will accept of sincerity, no matter what may be the faith or how imperfect the life. God requires of his children perfect obedience.” ^[4]

So, I guess we should ask ourselves: Do we follow Ellen White’s writings or the writings of the Apostle Paul? Paul’s understanding of this topic is night and day different from Ellen White’s false teaching.

Paul’s understanding of the law must be situated within the broader context of redemptive history. He asserts that freedom from the law is to be understood in a salvation-historical sense: the Mosaic covenant, established 430 years after God’s covenant with Abraham (Gal. 3:17), serves as a temporary and subsidiary arrangement.

“This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.” (Galatians 3:17, ESV)

Contrary to the claims of Paul’s opponents in Galatia, who claimed that the Mosaic Law presided over God’s salvific plan, Paul asserts that the Abrahamic covenant presided over God’s salvific plan. The Mosaic covenant was never intended to be permanent but was designed to function until the coming of the promised offspring (Gal. 3:19).

“For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary.” (Galatians 3:18–19, ESV)

With the advent of faith in Christ, the era of the law as a pedagogical, teaching guide has ended (Gal. 3:23 25).

“Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,” (Galatians 3:23-25, ESV)

Paul goes on to liken the law to stewards and guardians who exercise authority over minors until they reach maturity; with Christ’s coming, believers are no longer minors but have become full heirs (Gal. 4:1-7).

“I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.” (Galatians 4:1-7, ESV)

Throughout his letters, Paul frequently employs the phrase “under the law” (ὑπὸ νόμον / hypo nomon) to describe the previous era dominated by the Mosaic covenant. Those who rely on works of the law, he argues, are “under a curse” (Gal. 3:10). Scripture has confined all “under sin” (Gal. 3:22), equating this state with being “under the law” (Gal. 3:23) or “under the pedagogue” (Gal. 3:25). Paul goes on to further explain that life under the law is depicted as being “under stewards and managers” (Gal. 4:2) and “under the elements of the world” (Gal. 4:3). Christ himself was born “under the law” to redeem those under its dominion (Gal. 4:4–5). Remarkably, Paul notes that some Galatians still desire to be “under law” (Gal. 4:21), yet those led by the Spirit are no longer subject to it (Gal. 5:18; Rom. 6:14-15).

As I reflect on this part of Paul’s theology, I am brought back to a statement made at the end of an Adventist Apologist’s recent livestream:

“…don’t believe the hype when they (Adventist Critics) put up these videos saying how free they are outside of Seventh-day Adventism. Wow, I’m free! I’m not under the law anymore! Don’t believe it! Because as you peel back behind the curtains, as you saw today, you see what’s really happened, what’s happening behind the scenes, how they (Adventist Critics) really feel.” [5]

Ironically, these words were pointed directly at me in this live stream, as Edwin Cotto misstated my intentions and even mocked a video I shared from my heart on YouTube.

Paul’s words ring in my ears,

“Tell me, (Seventh-day Adventist) you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?” (Galatians 4:21, ESV) (Emphasis added)

My experience coming out of Adventism is that many Adventists don’t understand Paul’s distinction between Law and Gospel. Instead, they desire to permanently marry the Law to the Gospel, reinstituting the very law that Paul was speaking out against, the Mosaic Law.

Paul’s historical analysis reveals that the promulgation of the law coincided with the proliferation of sin (Rom. 5:20). With the new era inaugurated by Christ’s death and resurrection, believers are liberated from the dominion of both law and sin (Rom. 6:14–15; Gal. 4:4–5).

“For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!” (Romans 6:14-15, ESV)

 

 

 

“But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.” (Galatians 4:4-5, ESV)

The Spirit-led life, for Paul, is one of freedom from the law’s tyranny and the sin it inevitably incites. He characterizes the Mosaic covenant as a “ministry of death” and “a ministry of condemnation,” both of which are temporary (2 Cor. 3:7, 9, 11). The deficiency of the Mosaic covenant does not lie in the law’s content, which Paul affirms as “holy, righteous, and good” (Rom. 7:12); instead, the law inadvertently stimulates sinful desire (Rom. 7:5, 7-11). Paul’s epistle to the Romans further contrasts the “letter of the law,” associated with the advance of sin, with the life empowered by the Spirit, which enables believers to fulfill God’s will (Rom. 2:29; 7:6; 8:1-4).

“But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.” (Romans 2:29, ESV)

“But now 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.” (Romans 7:6, ESV)

“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” (Romans 8:1-4, ESV)

The motif (theme) of freedom from the law, specifically the law that Jews were enslaved to, is central to Paul’s thought. He famously declares, “All things are lawful” (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23), and asserts that sabbath observance is no longer binding, for the sabbath was merely a shadow anticipating Christ (Col. 2:16-17). In Romans 14:5-6, the observance of particular days is regarded as a matter of indifference, and most scholars agree that the sabbath is included, given its prominence in Jewish practice (cf. Gal. 4:10).

Now, I know that at this point, many Adventists, Hebrew Roots Movement followers, and Torah-observant Christians will furrow their brows and scowl at the statement in the previous paragraph. Please pay close attention to the logic that Paul uses in his Epistle to the Colossians.

“Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” (Colossians 2:16–17, ESV)

Paul explicitly designates the Sabbath, along with other Israelite festivals, as a “shadow,” asserting that Christ embodies its true essence. The term used in the original Greek text, σκιά (skia), which translates to ‘shadow,’ signifies ‘a shade, an image cast by an object and representing the form of that object, an adumbration.’ This concept implies that a shadow only faintly represents or hints at an underlying reality, lacking the ability to embody the reality itself or cast a shadow for its own shadow. Indeed, a shadow merely offers a rough and imprecise outline of a tangible object, devoid of intricate details. Thus, when Paul refers to the Sabbath as a “shadow,” it indicates that the observance should not be expected to retain its full significance in light of the arrival of the true Reality.

To further emphasize this point, this same Greek word, σκιά (skia), is used in several other New Testament passages that provide even further clarity on the topic at hand:

“They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.” (Hebrews 8:5–6, ESV)

Here, the author of Hebrews uses the same ‘shadow’ of reality to describe the function of the Aaronic Priest as a shadow of the High Priest Jesus that was to come.  Notice that the shadow isn’t the reality. But once the REALITY is here, the shadow is useless.  This is precisely what logically happens in the mind of the author.  He is claiming that Jesus, the reality, has ushered in a new and better covenant, making the old covenant (built on the Mosaic Laws) obsolete.  This new covenant is a relationship (covenants were relationships in the Ancient Near East) built upon better promises than the old.  Why?  Because the promise was one hundred percent dependent on God and absolutely NO dependence on our own works.

The author is going to use ‘shadow’ again in his further discussion of how the sacrifices that were part of the Law functioned as a shadow of the reality to come:

“For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near.” (Hebrews 10:1, ESV)

Remember how Paul used the Sabbath in his argument? He called it a shadow, not the reality. It would logically follow that when the reality comes, Jesus, the shadow is no longer necessary as a function of what it used to be.

In contrast, the Old Testament characterizes the Sabbath not merely as a shadow but as a definitive “sign” of the Mosaic Covenant, as seen in Exodus 31:12-17 and Ezekiel 20:12, 20.

“You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, ‘Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the Lord, sanctify you.” (Exodus 31:13, ESV)

 

“Moreover, I gave them my Sabbaths, as a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord who sanctifies them.” (Ezekiel 20:12, ESV)

“I am the Lord your God; walk in my statutes, and be careful to obey my rules, and keep my Sabbaths holy that they may be a sign between me and you, that you may know that I am the Lord your God.” (Ezekiel 20:19-20, ESV)

It’s disconcerting and wildly out of context for an Adventist (or Hebrew Roots/Torah Observant) to assert that the Sabbath is binding and an obligation on 21st-century gentiles.  I shouldn’t have to state too much here as the text explicitly connects the Sabbath as a sign between ‘me and you.’  I hope our level of Biblical exegesis is much higher than asserting that the ‘me’ in this text cannot be the ‘you’ reading this article.

These examples show that the distinction between ‘the shadow’ and ‘the reality’ emphasizes the transition from the old covenantal symbols to their fulfillment in Christ.

Paul also maintains that the food laws of the Old Testament are no longer obligatory. The dispute between the “weak” and “strong” in Rome revolved around food, with Paul concluding that “nothing is common in itself” (Rom. 14:14).

“I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.” (Romans 14:14, ESV)

You might be wondering where in the text do I get the word ‘common.’ The term κοινός, koinos (common), is employed by Jewish writers to denote unclean food, and Paul’s assertion that “everything is indeed clean” (καθαρός | kathara; Rom. 14:20) underscores the abrogation of Old Testament dietary restrictions. The context of what Paul is claiming here is that everything is ritually clean. The term καθαρός denotes ritual cleanness. While Paul is sensitive to the consciences of believers who feel bound by these regulations, he unequivocally affirms the freedom to eat all foods. This assertion by Paul is another reason I firmly disagree with the Adventist position on clean and unclean meats.  Their claim that believers today must NOT eat unclean meats is simply unbiblical!

In Fundamental Belief number 22, the Seventh-day Adventist church asserts:

“We are called to be a godly people who think, feel, and act in harmony with biblical principles in all aspects of personal and social life. For the Spirit to recreate in us the character of our Lord we involve ourselves only in those things that will produce Christlike purity, health, and joy in our lives. This means that our amusement and entertainment should meet the highest standards of Christian taste and beauty. While recognizing cultural differences, our dress is to be simple, modest, and neat, befitting those whose true beauty does not consist of outward adornment but in the imperishable ornament of a gentle and quiet spirit. It also means that because our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit, we are to care for them intelligently. Along with adequate exercise and rest, we are to adopt the most healthful diet possible and abstain from the unclean foods identified in the Scriptures. Since alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and the irresponsible use of drugs and narcotics are harmful to our bodies, we are to abstain from them as well. Instead, we are to engage in whatever brings our thoughts and bodies into the discipline of Christ, who desires our wholesomeness, joy, and goodness.” [6]

It is abundantly clear that this doctrine is at odds with what Paul claims is acceptable for Christians who believe in Jesus under the New Covenant.  But I digress…

The situation in Colossae is more complex, but Jewish influence is evident, as the opponents advocated sabbath observance and food regulations (Col. 2:16, 20-23), likely as part of an ascetic regimen. Paul dismisses such regulations even more forcefully than in Romans, describing them as mere shadows now rendered obsolete by the reality of Christ (Col. 2:17, 20). These regulations, he argues, are fundamentally human constructs, disregarding the transient nature of food itself (Col. 2:22). To insist on these dietary laws is to cling to the shadow rather than the substance, to live according to the old order after the arrival of the new. [7]

Adventist, let me be clear and concise. Your theological belief system insists on these dietary laws through your fundamental beliefs, forcing you to cling to the shadow rather than the substance, Jesus Christ. The Adventist framework teaches a theology that embraces the shadows rather than the substance. I am not saying that you must or must not do certain things.  But understand, friend, that these things are no longer binding under the New Covenant.  The Adventist Fundamental Beliefs are the ‘creeds’ by which they live and breathe.   This ‘Adventist Covenant,’ the relationship that one agrees to when they are baptized into the Seventh-day Adventist Church, is affirmed by the vow that one pledges to before baptism:

“Do you accept the teachings of the Bible as expressed in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and do you pledge by God’s grace to live your life in harmony with these teachings?” ^[8]

The Adventist church so firmly believes in this type of agreement that they even see the baptismal process as a covenant with the church:

“Baptismal Covenant—The Church has adopted its 28 Fundamental Beliefs, together with the baptismal vow and Certificate of Baptism and Commitment, as a baptismal covenant.” ^[9]

In summary, Paul regards the Mosaic covenant (including all 613 laws) as a temporary measure, now superseded by the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham in Christ. Consequently, sabbath observance, food laws, and even circumcision are no longer binding. For Paul, the gospel fulfills the promise that all nations would be blessed through Abraham (Gal. 3:6-9), and the gift of the Spirit is the realization of this blessing (Gal. 3:1-5, 14). The Mosaic covenant was always intended as a provisional arrangement, lasting only until the coming of the promised offspring and the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s salvific purposes (Gal. 3:15, 4:7; Rom. 4:9-17). These practices—sabbath, dietary laws, and circumcision—served as “boundary markers” or “badges” separating Jews from Gentiles in the ancient world.

James Dunn drives this point home:

This “phrase (works of the law) in the Pauline letters has little to do with merit theology or works righteousness. Rather, these works, such as circumcision, Sabbath observance, and kosher food, were “boundary markers” that functioned sociologically as covenant badges for preserving Jewish identity. In affirming justification by faith Paul set it against justification by works of the law (Rom 3:20, 27, 28; Gal 2:16 [3x]; 3:2, 5, 10). The apostle was not thereby attacking religious legalism but Jewish nationalism, and with it the exclusion of Gentiles from the divine covenant. Justification by faith had more to do with “the breaking down of the racial and national exclusiveness of Israel’s covenant claims” than with how one stands in the presence of God.” ^[10]

With the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant in Christ, such markers are obsolete. To insist upon them is to deny that Christ is the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham and to perpetuate the exclusivism of the old covenant. In Christ, the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles has been abolished (Eph. 2:11-22):

“Remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.” (Ephesians 2:12, ESV)

While the ‘you’ in this verse is directed at the believers in Ephesus, understand that if you are a Gentile, you would be included in the theology that Paul is speaking of to the Christians in Ephesus.  All who belong to Christ are now equal members of God’s household, fellow citizens in the church (Eph. 3:6-7).

“This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God’s grace, which was given me by the working of his power.” (Ephesians 3:6–7, ESV)

May you walk in the freedom that Jesus Christ obtained for you and me!

In Christian Love,

^[1] Ellen Gould White, The Signs of the Times, n.d., 784.

^[2] Ellen Gould White, Selected Messages From the Writings of Ellen G. White, Book 2 (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1958), 380–381.

^[3] Ellen Gould White, Faith and Works (Southern Publishing Association, 1979), 90.

^[4] Ellen Gould White, The Watchman, n.d., 104.

[5] Let’s Talk About Critic Angel Arellano Jr. One More Time, YouTube (Advent Defense League, 2025), https://www.youtube.com/live/8lOU68QxEAU?si=UTbJRcYXFx4OGOjL&t=6933.

[6] Seventh-Day Adventists Believe: An Exposition of the Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, pg. 425, 1st ed. (Editorial Safeliz SL, 2018).

[7] A similar controversy appears in 1 Timothy, where certain foods are prohibited, though Paul appeals to the order of creation to justify the consumption of all foods (1 Tim. 4:3–4; cf. Titus 1:14–15).

^[8] Seventh-Day Adventist Church Manual 2022, n.d.

^[9] Ibid

^[10] Peter T. O’Brien, “Was Paul a Covenantal Nomist?,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Paradoxes of Paul, ed. D. A. Carson and Mark A. Seifrid, 181st ed., vol. 2 of Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Tübingen: Baker Academic; Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 277–278.