The Undivided Law: The Law of Moses and the Law of God Are One – Proclamation! Online Magazine

DALE RATZLAFF AND VERLE STREIFLING |

Sometimes people ask why we often write about the Sabbath. We have covered this topic many times in Proclamation! and in our books, so why deal with it again? We have no argument with those who wish to “keep” the Sabbath. We fully accept Paul’s counsel in Romans 14 that says it is OK to have differing opinions regarding days, and we should each be convinced in our own minds. The problem comes, however, when the Sabbath is made a requirement for salvation, a “testing truth”, or a necessary Christian duty. We would also ask those who want to “keep the Sabbath” if they really keep it according to biblical and/or Ellen White guidelines. Few would want to keep Sabbath that way, and none do.

Transitioning Adventists must come to grips with the Sabbath question, often more than once. It was so deeply ingrained into our paradigm of truth that in conversations with others, new questions often pop up demanding additional answers. As there are continually new subscribers to Proclamation! and new readers starting on their journey out of Adventism, we would like for us to consider a silent, unnoticed assumption holding up the whole edifice of Sabbath keeping.

Recently the Adventist church has again placed emphasis on the necessity of Sabbath observance for all Christians, emphasizing again the teaching of Ellen White, that the “Sabbath is, and will be, the separating wall between the true Israel of God and unbelievers…”¹

This statement, repeated again and again in several works of Ellen White, cements into Adventist theology that the Sabbath is, indeed, a requirement for salvation. Newly elected President Ted Wilson has reinforced this theology anew in his first sermon as the General Conference president,

“The observance of the Sabbath is not only a sign of His creatorship in the beginning but will be THE sign of God’s people in the last days in contrast to those with the mark of the beast representing an attempt to keep holy a day which God has not set apart as holy”(Wilson’s emphasis).²

Recently, Andrews University Press, Berrien Springs, Michigan, published a book authored by Dr. Ron du Preez, entitled Judging the Sabbath—Discovering What Can’t Be Found in Colossians 2:16. Colossians 2:16 is a pivotal text for understanding the Sabbath. Adventists have traditionally claimed that the Sabbath mentioned in this text is one of the “ceremonial sabbaths” and not the Seventh-day Sabbath. This conclusion contradicts the vast majority of Bible scholars. Dr. du Preez’s work relies largely on certain Hebrew structures. He concludes,

“The completing weight of intertextual, linguistic, semantic, structural, and contextual evidence demonstrates that the sabbata [Sabbaths] of Colossians 2:16 refers to ancient Jewish ceremonial Sabbaths, and not the weekly Sabbath. Thus, the seventh-day Sabbath of the Decalogue cannot be regarded as abrogated on the basis of Colossians 2.”³

I only took one Hebrew class at the seminary, and I would never trust my theology to my knowledge of Hebrew. Many months ago, I asked Dr. Jerry Gladson, who is very proficient in Hebrew, to write a critique of the above book. His carefully studied response is included in the new edition of Sabbath in Christ.

Scripture nowhere speaks of two separate laws, neither are the words “moral law” or “ceremonial law” found anywhere in the Bible.

Dr. Gladson has responded in a scholarly way showing that du Preez’s conclusion is at best an assumption and that the sabbata mentioned in Colossians certainly includes the weekly Sabbath. In addition to the work of Dr. Gladson showing the weakness of du Preez’s conclusions, there is yet another silent, unobserved assumption that, for most sabbatarians and perhaps for many of our readers, goes unnoticed. This unseen assumption also brings Dr. du Preez’s conclusions into question. What is this silent, unobserved assumption? Simply this:

The Law given at Sinai comprises two laws: the eternal moral law of the Decalogue written by the finger of God and the temporary ceremonial law including the “ancient Jewish ceremonial Sabbaths” mentioned by du Preez, and written by Moses. That Adventism from its very inception has taught the two-law theory is clear. Ellen White mentioned “ceremonial law” 86 times. She speaks of the “moral law” 116 times.

In the Adventist Bible doctrines book Principles of Life,⁴ there is a chapter entitled, “The Two Laws”.^5,6 Question one directs the student to “distinguish between the law of God, or the Ten Commandments, and the law of Moses.”

The student is directed to a two-column chart with headings for the two laws. Six questions appear under each heading with references designed to support the heading.

THE LAW OF GOD	THE LAW OF MOSES
The Writing of God	The Writing of Moses
On what did God write? Ex. 31:18; 34:1	On what did Moses write? Deut. 31:24
What did God write? Deut. 5:22; 10:4	What did Moses write? Ex. 24:4; Deut. 31:9
Where did Moses put God’s writing? Deut. 10:4, 5	Where did Moses put his own writing? Deut. 31:25, 26
What is the character of God’s law? Ps. 19:7, 8	What is the character of Moses’ law? Lev. 7:37, 38
What was the purpose of God’s law? Eccl. 12:13	What purpose did Moses’ law serve? Col. 2:14, 17; Heb. 9:9; 10:1
How long was God’s law to continue? Ps. 111:7, 8; 119:89, 144; Mt. 5:17, 18	When did Moses’ law terminate? Col. 2:14.

Chart of information published in the Adventist Bible Doctrines book Principles of Life.

Following this chart we read, “Distinction between the two laws is very clear. There can be no question but that God intended that there should be a clear distinction between the Ten Commandments and the laws he gave Moses to write.”⁷

If the Bible does not teach the two-law theory, then the whole edifice of sabbatarianism comes tumbling down. Come, let us reason together. What follows is a condensation of chapter 6 of Dr. Verle Streifling’s e-book, Bible Answers to Sabbath Questions. This is a masterful study of this subject and is a real gold mine which, as the title states, gives Bible answers to Sabbath questions.⁸

One Law

Scripture nowhere speaks of two separate laws, neither are the words “moral law” or “ceremonial law” found anywhere in the Bible. There are many Scriptures that confirm the law given to Israel was one law:⁹

One law shall be for the native born and for the stranger (Ex. 12:49).

There is one law for them (Lev. 7:7).

One law and one manner shall be for you and the stranger (Num. 15:16).

You shall have one manner of Law (Num. 15:29).

You shall have one ordinance for both the stranger and… (Num. 9:14).

One ordinance shall be both for you…and the stranger… (Num. 15:15).

This is the ordinance of the law… (Num. 19:2; 31:21).

That the law as a whole is one law is also evident in Deuteronomy where Moses recites the entire law for the second generation of the Children of Israel before they went into Canaan. Note that in the following references from Deuteronomy where the word “law” is used, it is always singular (italics ours):

“Moses began to declare this law” (Deut. 1:5).

“And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?” (Deut. 4:8).

“Now this is the law which Moses set before the sons of Israel: these are the testimonies and the statutes and the ordinances which Moses spoke to the sons of Israel” (Deut. 4:44-45).

Notice that “this law” includes “testimonies”, “statutes” and “ordinances.” Combined they constitute one law.

Moses recites the Ten Commandments with a different version of the Sabbath commandment (Deut. 5:6-21).

After Moses recited the Ten Commandments, he recited another 25 chapters-worth of statutes and precepts of the covenant. Then Deuteronomy 31:9 records, “he wrote out this law” (Deut. 31:9).

“Take this book of the law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God” (Deut. 31:26).

“Moses commanded us a law” (Deut. 33:4).

They shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law” (Deut. 33:10).

We can clearly see that the “Book of the Law” is God’s law, and this one law includes the Decalogue and many other precepts, chapter after chapter. Yet all of these commands are called “one law” and “[God’s] law”—and even “the law of Moses”(Neh. 8:1; 1 Ki. 2:3) throughout the Old Testament. In fact, 187 times it is spoken of as “the law”, “this law”, “my law”, and “thy law”, and every time it is singular. Moreover, neither the Old nor the New Testaments ever refer to the Decalogue as separate or distinct from the whole law in the Book of the Law. There is one law given by God, and Moses mediated that law to Israel.

Law and Ordinance are often used interchangeably

The words ordinance and the law are interchangeable—a fact commonly accepted and taught by the Seventh-day Adventists. When most Adventist evangelists present Daniel 7:25, “He shall think to change times and laws,” in their prophecy seminars, they immediately cite Isaiah 24:5 for added support: “because they transgressed the laws and changed the ordinance.” Using the theology of Ellen White,¹⁰ they claim that the word “laws” in the Daniel passage refers to the Ten Commandments. Simultaneously, they interpret the word “ordinances” in the Isaiah excerpt to refer also to the 10 Commandments, thus claiming that Rome would change the Decalogue which they say is represented by Daniel’s use of “laws” and by Isaiah’s use of “ordinance”.

This argument, however, contradicts their attempt to separate “ordinance” from the Ten Commandments in other contexts. For example, where Ephesians 2:15 states that Christ abolished “in His flesh the enmity, which is the law of commandments contained in ordinances,” most sabbatarians insist that Paul refers to the so called “ceremonial law” and not to the Ten Commandments.

They can’t have it both ways. “Ordinance” and “law” are often interchangeable words for the same thing: the Mosaic law of God which contains the Ten Commandments as well as the 603 other laws that defined Israel’s culture and worship. It is disingenuous to use Adventism’s traditional argument for Daniel and Isaiah while also claiming Ephesians 2:15 does not refer to the Decalogue.

The spoken Law and the written Law have equal authority

The Adventist Bible doctrines book mentioned above seeks to contrast “the character of God’s law” with “the character of Moses’ law”. By showing that God spoke His law and Moses wrote his law, the author seeks to prove that the law of Moses is of lesser authority and longevity. This division of the law denies that what Moses wrote by divine inspiration was God “speaking through His servants the prophets”. Thus, what Moses commanded Israel, whether spoken or written, was still God’s command, and what he wrote was God speaking through Moses. In every way the words Moses spoke were equal with the commands God spoke from Sinai and wrote on tables of stone. In fact, Scripture confirms that God commanded the words Moses and other prophets wrote. Nowhere is the weight of authority different for the 10 Commandments than for the rest of the law, or even for any other of the words God gave His prophets:

Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb (Mal. 4:4).

The Word of the LORD…He spoke by the hand of Abijah the prophet (1 Ki. 14:18).

…to offer burnt offerings unto the LORD on the altar of burnt offerings…written in the Law of the LORD, which He commanded Israel (1 Chron. 16:40).

Found written in the Law, which the LORD commanded by Moses (Neh. 8:14).

The burnt offerings for the morning and evening burnt offerings for the Sabbaths, the New Moons, feasts, as it is written in the Law of the LORD (2 Chron. 31:3).

In fact, on numerous occasions God commands by the hand of Moses.¹¹

The “Law of Moses” was “the Law of God”

We have already shown that “the Law of God” and the “Law of Moses” are really two different names for the same law. As 2 Chronicles 31:3 and 8:13 demonstrate, the burnt offerings for the Sabbath, new moons, and feasts were written in the law of the Lord and in the law (commandment) of Moses—two names for the same law. The New Testament also equates the law of Moses and the law of the Lord. In Luke 2:22-24, 39 Mary and Joseph took Jesus to the temple for circumcision and sacrifices at the time prescribed in the law of Moses, and they did everything “according to the law of the Lord.” Moreover, Hebrews 10:28 states that death was the consequence for breaking the law of Moses, and in Numbers 35:30 and Deuteronomy 17:2-6 we see that the author of Hebrews refers to the consequence for breaking the Ten Commandments. Again, Moses’ law is actually the Law of God. This equation is sustained by many other Scriptures as well:

Keep and do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses (Josh. 23:6).

…written in the book of the law of Moses (Josh. 8:31).

…the Book of the Law the LORD (2 Chron. 17:9).

…as written in the Law of Moses (2 Chron. 23:18).

…as written in the Law of the LORD (2 Chron. 31:3).

This Ezra…was a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which the LORD God of Israel had given (Ezra 7:6).

Ezra the Priest, a scribe of the law of God of heaven (Ezra 7:12).

…bring the book of the law of Moses, which God commanded (Neh. 8:1).

…he read in the book of the law of God…( Neh. 8:18).

…read in the Book of the law of the LORD (Neh. 9:3—same book as in 8:1).

Highest Moral Laws not found in the Decalogue

For many of us who have held the Ten Commandments to be the high point of morality, it comes as a shock to realize that there are other Old Testament laws that have higher moral value. James shows that violating a law not found in the Decalogue will condemn the transgressor. His case in point is Christians who discriminate between poor and wealthy in church seating:

For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives? Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court? Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called? If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law, according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act, as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty (Jam. 2:2-12).

Where is this “royal law” found? It is not in the supposed “moral law” of Ten Commandments but in the “ceremonial law” (Lev. 19:18) which, according to the aforementioned Bible doctrines book, is supposed to be terminated. The law contained many moral principles of higher magnitude than those written on stone. Jesus revealed this fact in His Sermon On the Mount. He speaks of divorce,¹² swearing oaths,¹³ abortion and injuries,¹⁴ loving our enemies,¹⁵ and being perfect.¹⁶

For many of us who have held the Ten Commandments to be the high point of morality, it comes as a shock to realize that there are other Old Testament laws that have higher moral value.

These examples of what Jesus meant by “the law” that He came to fulfill—and the law that would not pass away until He fulfilled it—prove He was not just speaking of the Ten Commandments but of the one whole law!

Another good example of Jesus identifying eternal moral precepts is found in Matthew 23:23 where the “weightier matters of the law” are “justice” and “mercy”— neither of which were in the Decalogue, but they were part of the law. Jesus never implied that “the law” was speaking merely of the Decalogue, nor did any other Bible writer. The following list represents only a sample of what can be considered high moral principles found outside the Ten Commandments:

You shall not vex a stranger (Ex. 22:21).
You shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child (Ex. 22:23).
You shall not follow a multitude to do evil (Ex. 23:2).
You shall not go as a talebearer among the people (Lev. 19:2).
You shall not avenge yourselves (Lev. 19:16-18).
You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:16-18).
You shall not have respect of persons (not discriminate) (Deut. 16:19).
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart (Deut. 6:5).
You shall not pervert justice due the stranger or fatherless (Deut. 24:7).
You shall not oppress a servant who is poor and needy (Deut. 24:14).
You must leave gleanings in your harvest for the needy (Deut. 24:19-22).
You shall be perfect (Deut. 24:17).

Many see the Ten Commandments as representing only minimum requirements. The rich young ruler in Luke 18 said that he had kept the commandments from his youth up, and Paul said of himself, “as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless”.¹⁷

A person could beat someone within an inch of his life, yet he would not have broken the letter of the law, “You shall not kill.”

Changing the law

The terms “moral law”, “ceremonial law”, and “two laws” are all entirely foreign to the Bible. A picture in a past issue of the Seventh-day Adventist Sabbath School quarterly¹⁸ depicts a scholar meticulously scrutinizing scrolls in a library, searching for a “missing text” to validate “Sunday worship”. It might be more fitting to picture people searching for a text to identify a distinction between a moral and a ceremonial law. In short, this idea cannot be defended biblically.

Adventism needs this artificial division in order to give the weekly Sabbath distinction over the other feasts. If the Decalogue is eternal, they argue, then the Sabbath is an eternal “moral requirement” unlike the other merely “ceremonial” Sabbath feasts which have been abolished. The weekly Sabbath, however, is listed with these supposed ceremonial feasts in both Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28–29. Making a distinction between the weekly Sabbath as moral and the rest of the festal Sabbaths as ceremonial, however, is invalid. All of them are part of the law of God which He commanded through Moses. For Israel to break any of the Sabbaths would have been an equally severe breach of God’s law.

Adventism accuses Rome of changing God’s “times and laws” by renumbering the Ten Commandments, making the Sabbath command number three instead of number four, and by supposedly establishing Sunday as the Christian day of worship instead of Sabbath. Rome, however, did not change the numbering of the commandments; they use the numbering found not only in the Hebrew Masoretic Text of Deuteronomy but also in both Exodus and Deuteronomy 5 in the Latin Vulgate (380 AD), in the Septuagint (c 200 BC), and in Nash Papyri (200 BC), the oldest manuscript known to contain the commandments.

To teach a division of God’s law into two parts, calling one “ceremonial” and “temporary” and the other “moral” and “eternal”, for the purpose of making the seventh-day Sabbath an eternal requirement for God’s people comes closer to changing God’s “times and laws” than does the Roman use of an alternate numbering system for the commandments.

Daniel, however, is not speaking of changing the Law (Torah) in Daniel 7:25. He uses the Persian word “dat” meaning “decree”, not “Torah“. Thus, his speaking of a beast who would change times and laws is no reference to the Decalogue or to God’s law—and certainly the Sabbath is not in view. Moreover, Isaiah’s reference in Isaiah 24:5 to ordinances does not refer to the beast in Daniel, but to Israel’s apostasy.

In other words, Adventism’s interpretation of ordinances and decrees, a beast who will change times and laws, and the claim that Rome has already changed God’s law are straw-man arguments. They cannot be supported from a contextual reading of Scripture using good hermeneutical principles.

The Sabbath: Not the Greatest of the Feasts

We should not even compare the Sabbath with the other feasts of the Lord listed with it in Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28, 29. To be sure, the Sabbath was the sign of the covenant between God and Israel, but it was not the greatest of these feasts to the Lord. For example, the Day of Atonement was for the expiation of sins, while the Sabbath gave many occasions for offense.

Surely there was no more solemn day than the Day of Atonement. It was preceded with fasting to afflict one’s soul to be sure all one’s sins of the previous year were confessed and covered with the blood of the sacrificial lamb, which prefigured Christ. The Sabbath had none of this solemnity! Thus God called the Day of Atonement Hemera Megaleh (the Great Day) in Isaiah 1:13, 14, in the Septuagint.

The weekly Sabbath, on the other hand, was a recurring sign demonstrating that Israel was continuing to accept the terms of the covenant God had made with them at Sinai. It had immediate value as a weekly reminder that any success they experienced came about not because of their hard work but because God accomplished their success for them. They rested one day in seven, but God kept working on their behalf, blessing them while their pagan neighbors wore themselves out and sacrificed their children trying to please their gods. The weekly Sabbath was directly related to the terms of the Sinai covenant and reminded them of their release from slavery (Deut. 5:15) and of God’s promise of rest in His finished work on their behalf (Ex. 20:11).

Love encompasses all the moral laws of the Old Testament.

All morality—wherever it is expressed in the Old Testament—is summed up in the one New Covenant Commandment: “And this is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us” (1 Jn. 3:23).

Summary of “law” facts

We can summarize our overview of God’s law as presented in the Old Testament with some succinct sentences:

There is only one law, not two: the Law of God written by Moses.
“Law” and “ordinance” are often used interchangeably.
The spoken Law and the written Law have equal authority.
The “Law of Moses” is “the Law of God”.
Many of the highest moral laws are not found in the Decalogue but in the so-called “ceremonial” law.
The Decalogue contains at least one ritual law, the weekly sign of the Mosaic covenant: Sabbath.
Changing the law could apply to Adventists more correctly than to Catholics.
Love encompasses all the moral laws of the Old Testament.

Colossians 2:16

Colossians 2:16 and a host of other Bible references clearly show that the ritual laws of the Old Testament given by God to Israel which pointed forward to Christ are no longer binding on Christians.¹⁹ This text reads,

“Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.”

As du Preez states in his book, “throughout the history of the Christian church Colossians 2:16 has been regularly regarded as a text which teaches that the seventh-day Sabbath was abrogated and therefore is no longer binding on Christians.”²⁰

The vast majority of scholars believe the “Sabbath days” mentioned in this text refer to the Seventh-day Sabbath, because Paul has already referred to the annual feast days by the term “festival”. To conclude “Sabbaths” also refer to the annual feast days makes Paul redundant. Also, the terms used here follow a known Old Testament pattern of seasons, months, and days where “days” refer to the weekly Sabbath.²¹

Conclusion

We now come back to the two quotes from Adventist sources. The first is from General Conference President Ted Wilson:

“The observance of the Sabbath is not only a sign of His creatorship in the beginning but will be THE sign of God’s people in the last days in contrast to those with the mark of the beast representing an attempt to keep holy a day which God has not set apart as holy”

The second is from Ron du Preez:

“The completing weight of intertextual, linguistic, semantic, structural, and contextual evidence demonstrates that the sabbata of Colossians 2:16 refers to ancient Jewish ceremonial Sabbaths, and not the weekly Sabbath. Thus, the seventh-day Sabbath of the Decalogue cannot be regarded as abrogated on the basis of Colossians.”²²

However, this study conclusively shows that there is only one law given by God, written by Moses—the Law of the LORD.

Thus, the conclusions of Dr. Ron du Preez as well as the statement of Elder Ted Wilson are brought into question because they are based on the unobserved and faulty assumption that there are two laws: one ceremonial, containing the “ancient Jewish ceremonial Sabbaths”—and the other moral, containing “the seventh-day Sabbath of the Decalogue”.

God’s law is one law. His commands are all moral. If we cling to ritual laws that pointed to the Lord Jesus when He has already fulfilled them, we break those laws by refusing to accept God’s reality to which they pointed.

Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath. †

Endnotes

Ellen G. White, Early Writings, p. 33; Life Sketches, p. 101 (Published in 1915). Word to the Little Flock, p. 18; Review and Sabbath Herald, 1851-07-21.012; Supplement to Christian Experience and Views of Ellen White, p. 3.
Ted Wilson, The General Conference Sabbath Sermon, July 3, 2010.
Du Preez, Judging the Sabbath, p. 148.
Principles of Life From the Word of God—A Systematic Study of the Major Doctrines of the Bible, Prepared by and Published for The Department of Education, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, (Pacific Press, Mt. View, CA 1952.)
ibid., ch. 46.
ibid., p. 170.
ibid., p. 171.
This is one of the most in-depth Scriptural studies on the Sabbath and many related topics. It is available from LAM Publications, LLC as an E-book.
Some of the following references may be from different translations but represent the original.
Ellen White used this text and associated reasoning some fifteen times even late in her life. For example, see Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 9, p. 14, 1909.
See Lev. 26:37,46; 9:23; 10:13; 15:23; 16:40; Num. 27:23.
Mt. 5:31, 32.
Mt. 5:33-37.
Mt. 5:38-42.
Mt. 5:43-47
Mt. 5:48.
Phil. 3:6.
Adult Sabbath School Lesson Quarterly, 3rd qtr, 1972, p. 37.
It is beyond the parameters of this article to fully show this truth. Please see Sabbath in Christ by Dale Ratzlaff for a complete study of this subject.
Du Preez, Judging the Sabbath, p. 4. See also p. 56.
Ratzlaff, Revised Sabbath in Christ, p. 165-177.
Du Preez, Judging the Sabbath.

Dale Ratzlaff is the founder of Life Assurance Ministries, Inc., and owns LAM Publications, LLC. He served as an Adventist pastor for 13 years, seven at Monterey Bay Academy where he taught Bible. He and his wife Carolyn left the Adventist church in 1981 when he realized he could no longer teach the investigative judgment in clear conscience. He has authored Sabbath in Christ, The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists, The Truth About Adventist “Truth”, and Truth Led Me Out. [2010]

Verle Streifling was raised in a devout Adventist family and graduated from Adventist schools. At age 26 he was born again, and intensive Bible study and the Holy Spirit led him out of Adventism and into Evangelical Christianity. In 1984 he was ordained for ministry, and by 1990 he earned his Ph.D. Over the past 25 years he has written numerous tracts and articles, a number of booklets and manuscripts, and his Bible Answers for Sabbath Questions. He and his wife have retired into full-time ministry in the Philippines. [2010]

—Republished from Proclamation!, Oct/Nov/Dec, 2010.

Author
Recent Posts

Proclamation!