A Study of the Relationship between the Law and
the Gospel in Light of the Prophetic Role of the
Seventh-day Adventists
Haejong Je
ABSTRACT—The law in the Old Testament and the gospel in the New
Testament seem to be contradictory. These two concepts, along with
other sets of seemingly opposing ideas, are not antithetical but simply
two different ways of looking at the same reality: God’s will as
revealed in the law to save fallen humanity is more fully revealed in
the gospel. The gospel is indeed present throughout the Old Testament,
and the law is not ignored in the New Testament. They are both
present throughout the Bible, in both Old and New Testaments. These
two seemingly contradictory ideas of law and gospel, Jews and
Christians, the Old Testament and the New Testament, and Israel and
the Church, which have remained antithetical to each other in
Christian history, are in fact complimentary to each other in the Bible.
The dichotomy between these two concepts has been reconciled
through the prophetic movement of Seventh-day Adventists(SDA) who
as a remnant have both the law and the gospel, as described in
Revelation 12:17 and 14:12. As a remnant of God’s faithful people
throughout history, SDA, who “obey God’s commandments”,
including the fourth commandment, and who “hold to the testimony
of Jesus,” will fulfill an eschatological role at the final stage of
human history by preserving both the law and the gospel, thereby
reconciling them. They have a special prophetic role to uphold God’s
will (the law) to save (the gospel) His fallen people in the last days.
Keywords: law, gospel, Church, Israel, remnant, Seventh-day
Adventist(SDA)
Manuscript received June 14, 2013; revised Jul. 24, 2013; accepted Aug. 27,
2013.
Haejong Je ([email protected]) is with the Religious Studies Department,
Sahmyook University, Seoul, Korea.
I. Introduction
Today, Christians generally assume, without giving a second
thought, that the Church took the place of Israel because of Israel’s
failure. Most Christians think that the Old Testament or the law of
Moses has been done away with since Christ’s death on the cross.
They, therefore, insist that the Old Testament Law is no longer
binding, that we are living in the time of the gospel (or grace)1 rather
than that of the law. To them, Christ’s death on the cross abolished the
Old Testament law. This naturally raises the following questions: Do
we need the Old Testament at all for a Christian life? Are all the laws
in the Bible ineffectual to our everyday life? Are the two different
images of God—the God of the Old Testament and the God of the
New Testament—contradictory to each other?
If the law and the gospel, or the Old Testament and the New
Testament, reveal two different truths, then this creates another
dilemma: Which one is telling the truth? Which one should we
choose for today’s Christian life? Most Protestant Christians claim
that they are not the same, and state that “the law commands and
requires our action,” whereas “the gospel reverses this and says, ‘This
is what God has done for you’” (Bouman, 1983, 416). Most
Christians today choose the latter over the former without hesitation.
They claim that the Old Testament is not valid anymore, since we are
living under the gospel. This line of thought is more prevalent in
dispensationalism, which claims that “the Old Testament is the book
of Israel, the book of the earthly kingdom and of the law, while the
New Testament is the book of the grace and the church” (Doukhan,
2004, 51).
This idea of a dichotomous view was already formed and
described by Luther who connected law and gospel distinction with
the two kingdoms (Beeke, 2011, 191). He stated:
There are two kinds of doctrine and two kinds of works,
those of God and those of men. Just as we and God are
separated from one another, so also these two doctrines are
widely separated from one another. For the gospel teaches
exclusively what has been given us by God, and not—as in
the case of the law—what we are to do and give to God
(Bouman, 1983, 416).
1
Even though they are not exactly the same, in this paper I will use these two
terms (the gospel and grace) synonymously.
152 Haejong Je
Historically, the choice between these two options was a big issue
in the early period of Christianity between Jews and Christians. Later,
in the Protestant Reformation period, this issue of the law and the
gospel became yet another major issue when the Reformers debated
the issue of righteousness by faith, and has remained a major issue
ever since the Protestant Reformation.
Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to investigate whether
these seemingly conflicting concepts—the law and the gospel (or
grace), works and faith, or, in other words, Israel and the Church—are
really contradictory, in order to find out the eschatological role of
Seventh-day Adventists (SDA), (Ed- again, you need to define this
acronym here and use it consistently throughout the paper, not only
sometimes) who have both the law and the gospel. As implied in
Revelation 12:17, 14:2, the eschatological mission of the remnant
Church is to have both “the commandments of God” (the law) and
“the testimony of Jesus” (or the faith of Jesus –the gospel).
Before discussing the conflict of the law and the gospel, it is
necessary to examine these concepts in the Old and New Testaments.
Although the concept of the law is dominant in the Old Testament,
that of grace is also present in the Old Testament. The gospel of Jesus
is of great importance in the New Testament, yet the law is not
disregarded in the New Testament.
Then, I discuss the interconnection and separation between the
Jewish and Christian faiths. The study of this Jewish and Christian
relation establishes the correct relation between the law and the
gospel, and the other aforementioned pairs of seemingly opposing
concepts traditionally dichotomized by many people. In doing this, I
use some Bible exegesis together with historical studies of the SDA
done by George R. Knight.
Finally, I focus on the two Bible verses Revelation 12:17 and
14:12 to examine the implications of the relation between the law and
the gospel (or grace) at the end of time. These texts reveal a remnant
with two special characteristics: the commandments of God (the law)
and the faith of Jesus (the Gospel).
II. The Law and the Gospel in the Bible
People tend to dichotomize between the law and the gospel under
the misconception that the law is prominent in the Old Testament, and
AAMM, Vol. 8, 153
the gospel absent. Contrary to this common misunderstanding, these
two concepts—the law and the gospel—are not limited in either the
Old or the New Testament. They are not antithetical, as many have
assumed, but simply two different ways of looking at the same
reality: God’s will (the law-part) to save (the gospel-part) His fallen
creatures. Here I explore the concept of gospel or grace in the Old
Testament, and that of the law in the New Testament.
A. The Law in the Old and New Testaments
Before discussing this issue, it is necessary to define the law in the
Bible. The meaning of God’s law is well elaborated in The Seventhday Adventists Believe …, which reads:
The great principles of God’s law are embodied in the Ten
Commandments and exemplified in the life of Christ. They
express God’s love, will, and purposes concerning human
conduct and relationships and are binding upon all people
in every age. These precepts are the basis of God’s
covenant with His people and the standard in God’s
judgment. Through the agency of the Holy Spirit they
point out sin and awaken a sense of need for a Saviour.
Salvation is all of grace and not of works, but its fruitage is
obedience to the Commandments (The Seventh-day
Adventists Believe…, 1988, 232).
The law of God is not limited to the Ten Commandments, but is
well summarized there. In short, the law of God is the expression of
God’s will to humanity. The law and the gospel are two
complementary, not conflicting, principles united in the life of Jesus
according to the Bible.
1. The Law in the Old Testament
According to the definition of The Seventh-day Adventist Bible
Dictionary, the Old Testament concepts of law (Heb. tôrah or dath),
which literally mean “direction,” “instruction”, or “regulation,” “law”
are “a set of principles or standard of conduct” (SDA Bible Dictionary,
1960, 660-661). When we think of “law” (tôrah), it usually denotes
the will of God, or any part of it. Thus the law, in its general and wide
sense, means the divine “instruction” or “guideline” given by God to
humanity. The law of God can be described in a several different
ways. First, as noted above, all the laws of God are summed up in the
154 Haejong Je
Decalogue, which has two dimensions: vertical (human-to-God
relation) and horizontal (human-to-human relation). The entire
Decalogue, in turn, can be summed up in two sentences as described
in Matthew 22:37-39: “Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with
all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is
the first and greatest commandment. And the second is: ‘Love your
neighbor as yourself.’”
Second, more broadly, the word “tôrah” signifies the Pentateuch—
the first five books of the Old Testament—which came to be known
as “the law of Moses.” These five books of the Old Testament are the
foundation of the rest of the Old Testament books.
Third, in the broadest sense, the word “tôrah” can imply the will
of God (or the Word of God) either in the Old Testament or the Bible
in general, because all the books of the Old Testament or the Bible are
the expressed will of God to His people. Therefore, the law in the Old
Testament has no negative meaning at all, as most people assume it
does. The law is not something bad or negative. That is why the
Psalmist exclaimed in Psalm 19:7-10:
The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The
statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the
simple. The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to
the heart. The commands of the LORD are radiant, giving
light to the eyes. The fear of the LORD is pure, enduring
forever. The ordinances of the LORD are sure and
altogether righteous. They are more precious than gold,
than much pure gold; they are sweeter than honey, than
honey from the comb.
The law is not always something that requires perfection in action,
but it is the revelation of God’s will to His creatures. It is not the
condition for salvation, but the fruit of our salvation in God’s grace.
This principle is implied in the event when God gave the Israelites the
law at Mt. Sinai after their experience of God’s miraculous
deliverance from the Egyptian army at the Red Sea. It is noteworthy
to see the sequence here: God saved the Israelites from the Egyptians
and then gave them the law. The law was given to His people after
salvation. God’s reason for giving His law was not for them to earn
salvation, but for them to live out the life of the saved. In other words,
“it is not the achievement which establishes the divine relationship”
(Gutbrod, 1977, 4:1036). In the Old Testament, the law is given for
AAMM, Vol. 8, 155
the people of God who follow the Lord. Quoting W. Eichrodt,
Kenneth L. Barker stated, “Long before there was any human action
in response, [the] love chose the people for God’s own possession and
gave them the law as a token of their special position of favour. To
obey the law thus becomes man’s response of love to the divine act of
election” (Barker, 1982, 7). The law was considered as the revealed
will of God for His people, by which they express their gratitude for
His great act of grace and salvation. Even though God revealed His
will to the Israelites in various ways—the moral law, the ceremonial
law, the health law, and the civil law—the principle is the same:
God’s will (the law) was for the wellbeing of humanity.
2. The Law in the New Testament
The Greek word nomos, which is translated as “rule,” “principle,”
or “law” (SDA Bible Dictionary, 1960, 660), is used in connection
with “any kind of existing or accepted norm, order, custom, usage, or
tradition” (Gutbrod, 1977, 4:1036). According to The Seventh-day
Adventist Bible Dictionary, “in the NT the word ‘law’ is used in 2
distinct but closely related senses” (SDA Bible Dictionary, 1960, 661).
First, it is used in a general sense—Scripture as a revelation of the
divine will. As noted above, for Jewish people, the word law may
imply the Pentateuch—the five books of Moses. At times it is used in
connection with the Decalogue as well. Second, it is used to imply
“the Jewish religious system as a whole, or some particular part of it”
(ibid.). Again, the Pentateuch is the basis of the Jewish religious
system.
It is impossible to embrace the entire material on the subject from
the New Testament. I limit myself to two significant references with
regard to this concept of the law: Matthew 5 and Romans 10:1-4.
Contrary to a common belief that Jesus came to “terminate” the
Old Testament law, Jesus made a very clear statement about its
perpetuity in Matthew 5:17, 18: “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. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear,
not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means
disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” The
manner in which He carried out His ministry led people to think that
He was breaking the law of Moses. In their eyes Jesus was a
lawbreaker for sure, because He was not obeying it as they expected.
For example, Jesus not only sanctioned certain works to be done on
the Sabbath (Luke 6:1-3), but He Himself also worked on that day
156 Haejong Je
(Luke 6:6-10). These acts of Jesus, in the eyes of the Jewish people,
were an absolute violation of God’s law. But this was not picture true
reflection of what had transpired. Jesus applied the true principle of
the law—love for both God and man—in His dealings with the
legalistic Jewish religious leaders.
Furthermore, in Matthew 5:20; 21-22; 27-28, having mentioned
the perpetuity of God’s law, Jesus began to compare some statements
of the Decalogue with His own instructions. In these verses, there is
no implication of abolishment of the law, not even the idea of
downgrading the law. Rather, He was asking for much more than
what the law required. Jesus’ approach to the law of God is a
foundation to our understanding of God’s law as Christians. While
Jewish people apply the law at the level of action, Jesus applies it at
the level of thought. In other words, the requirement of Jesus is never
lighter than that of the Jews. Jesus’ life on earth demonstrated this
principle of upholding God’s law even at the very end of His ministry
before crucifixion (Luke 22:42). He not only followed the written will
of God—God’s law in the Old Testament—but also was willing to
follow His Father’s will.
Another biblical text of great importance, which has been grossly
misunderstood, is Romans 10:1-4. This text has been used to defend
the proposition that Jesus is the “end” or the “termination” of the law.
Robert Jewett provides a good summary of several recent studies
done on Paul’s use of the term ‘law’—Christ is the end (telos) of the
law—in relationship with its abolishment or perpetuity. His
discussion focuses on the crucial text concerning whether Christ is the
end or the fulfillment of the law in Romans 10:1-4. Jewett’s three
basic positions on this issue are summarized as follows (Jewett, 1985,
p. 349): 1) telos means “end” or “termination” (ibid., 350); 2) telos
means “goal” or “fulfillment” (ibid., 353); and 3) telos means the end
and the goal of the law (ibid.). The first view is supported by
Lutherans who boldly proclaim that the life and death of Jesus
terminated the law while providing no detailed exegesis of the
context in Roman 10. This lack of exegesis “indicates that theological
preference rather than exegetical principles are the dominant
consideration in the selection of ‘end’ as the appropriate translation”
(ibid., 351). The second view is supported by Calvinists who claim
that “there is no statement in any of Paul’s epistles which, rightly
understood, implies that Christ has abolished the law” (ibid.). Quoting
C. E. B. Cranfield, Jewett insists that some of Paul’s statements
“which at first sight seem to disparage the law, were really directed
AAMM, Vol. 8, 157
not against the law itself but against that misunderstanding and
misuse of it” (ibid.). The third view is supported by commentators
such as C. K. Barrett, Otto Kuss, Franz Leenhardt, and F. F. Bruce.
Bruce argued:
The word ‘end’ (telos) has a double sense; it may mean
‘goal’ or ‘termination.’ On the one hand, Christ is the goal
at which the law aimed, in that He is the embodiment of
perfect righteousness… On the other hand (and this is the
primary force of Paul’s words), Christ is the termination of
the law in the sense that with Him the old order… has been
done away with…” (Bruce, 1963, 203).
This position is a middle way between the first and second views,
but there is no clear dividing line between the two. Even though it
seems that he tried to hold both views, his real emphasis was on the
latter. These two opposing concepts cannot both be true
simultaneously. They cannot go together without rejecting each other.
This issue was thoroughly discussed by Robert Badenas. In his
dissertation “The Meaning of Telos in Romans 10:4,” Badenas
expounded the concept of telos very thoroughly, supported the second
view and concluded that the context favors Christ as the goal of the
law. According to him, telos is the final cause, goal, or purpose, rather
than the termination or end (Badenas, 1983).
The will of God today is not different from God’s will for the past.
God is immutable or unchangeable because He is perfect. He says, “I
the LORD do not change” (Malachi 3:6). “Jesus Christ is the same
yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrew 13:8). The Lord who said
something in the Old Testament period would not say something
completely different in the New Testament period. This, however,
does not mean that He says things in exactly the same manner. God’s
law in the Old Testament is neither expired nor abolished, but rather
elaborated and expounded in the New Testament.
B. The Gospel in the Old and New Testaments
The Gospel in the New Testament—which is assumed to be
dominant by everyone—is taken for granted, while there is God’s law
in the Old Testament as its counterpart. As noted in the previous
section, law is not something that points out our problems and tries to
kill us. There is an element of grace even in the Old Testament law. In
158 Haejong Je
this section I briefly look at the element of grace in the Old Testament
as well as in the New Testament.
1. The Gospel in the Old Testament
Contrary to our preconception, there is a concept of gospel (grace)
from the very beginning of the first book of the Old Testament right
after the fall of humanity (Gen. 3:15). To the fallen Adam and Eve,
God gave a promise of redemption through the “woman’s offspring,”
who would come and destroy the serpent and his offspring. “This
promise of the gospel was the center of God’s everlasting covenant of
grace offered to humanity (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:4, 5; 17:1-9). It was
closely related with the obedience to God’s law (Gen. 18:18, 19; 26:4,
5). God’s grace, the gospel, began to operate as soon as Adam and
Eve sinned” (Seventh-day Adventists Believe…, 1988, 242).
The same grace was available to Abraham who was far from
keeping the law perfectly, yet he “believed the LORD, and he
credited it to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15:6). The Book of
Hebrews offers a good explanation for this account: “By faith
Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his
inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he
was going” (Heb 11:8). It must be noted that in Hebrews 11 a unique
expression is detected by readers—“by faith.” This repeated
expression shows that the life of our fathers was lived by faith—the
essence of the gospel. Thus, what made Abraham righteous was not
his perfect works or obedience to God’s law but his faith.
David also exclaimed, “the mercy of the LORD is from
everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his
righteousness unto children's children; To such as keep his covenant,
and to those that remember his commandments to do them” (Ps.
103:17, 18). Even though the law appears to be a predominant
concept in the Old Testament, this idea of grace or the gospel is a
great theme of the Old Testament and can never be overlooked. These
are the two foundational principles of God’s people in the Old
Testament.
2. The Gospel in the New Testament
The New Testament is not completely different from the Old
Testament as its teachings are based on the Old Testament teachings.
The concept of the gospel is not a new one in the New Testament. The
gospel of the New Testament is centered upon the life of Jesus, who is
the focal point of all animal sacrifices in the Old Testament and who
AAMM, Vol. 8, 159
lived a perfect life required by the law for us and became the gospel
itself. Thus, the entire New Testament is an exposition of the gospel.
This gospel is revealed from the first book of the New Testament,
Matthew 1:21: “She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him
the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” This
Jesus not only preached the word of the gospel, but Himself became
the gospel (Heb. 1:1-3), and promised to be with us until the end of
the world (Matt. 1:23). This same Jesus says in the last book of the
New Testament, Revelation 22:13, “I am Alpha and Omega, the
beginning and the end, the first and the last” of our salvation. This
dominant theme of the New Testament can never be denied by any
Bible reader.
Accordingly, the law and the gospel are not two opposing or
conflicting views but rather two different ways of expressing the
same reality—God’s supreme revelation to save His people. In the
life of Jesus, the law and the gospel are perfectly manifested and
mysteriously united. The whole purpose of Jesus’ life as the supreme
revelation of God—the law of God—is to share the gospel message
to the entire human (John 3:16).
III. Are the Dichotomous Views Legitimate?
Strongly dichotomous views have been expressed regarding the
issues between the Old Testament and the New Testament, Israel and
the Church, Jews and Christians, and the law and the gospel. We
cannot trace the entire history of why these dichotomous views
developed, due to limited time and space. This study mainly focuses
on the dichotomy between the law and the gospel in the first few
centuries of Church history.
Before dealing with the main discussion, it is noteworthy to
mention Luther’s comment on the issue. According to Walter R.
Bouman’s understanding, Luther held that there had been only two
public sermons, “directly from heaven, from God Himself, once at Mt.
Sinai and once on Pentecost. Both were accompanied by great
splendor and impressive power. Now the first sermon, and doctrine, is
the law of God. The second is the gospel. Because they are not the
same, it is important to know how to differentiate between them”
(Bouman, 1983, 416). The following is a quotation taken from Luther,
which claims the dichotomy between these two concepts—the law
and the gospel:
160 Haejong Je
There are two kinds of doctrine and two kinds of works,
those of God those of men. Just as we and God are
separated from one another, so also these two doctrines are
widely separated from one another. For the gospel teaches
exclusively what has been given us by God, and not—as in
the case of the law—what we are to do and give to God
(Luther’s Works, vol. 35, 1960, 162).
Luther’s overemphasis on the gospel led him to separate it from
the law. To Luther, the law and the gospel were not the same but two
conflicting concepts, which cannot coexist. This kind of dichotomous
view on the law and the gospel was not new in Reformers like Luther,
but it has a long historical background. It can be traced even in the
very early period of Church history.
A. Jewish and Christian Relation
Most people tend to distinguish clearly between Jews and
Christians from the time of the New Testament period. They assume
that Jews and Christians were completely different religious groups
and could never be reconciled. They were two opposing entities.
However, this thought is mistaken, because these two groups—Jews
and Christians—were not separable, as we usually assume, in the
very early Christian community.
For example, contrary to our thinking, Jesus was a Jew rather than
a Christian. This Jewishness of Jesus is well elaborated by Leonard
Swindler, who stated:
Jesus was himself not a Christian. He in fact was a Jew. In
some twentieth-century circles he would be known as a
kyke. He did not go to Mass, or indeed any worship service,
on Sunday morning. He went to services on the Sabbath.
He did not go to church. He went to the synagogue…He
spoke Hebrew and Aramaic—two Semitic languages. He
had a Jewish mother, which means he probably looked a
lot like other Jews, i.e., dark hair and complexion, perhaps
with a so-called Roman nose, not too large in stature. No
one addressed him as Father, Pastor, Reverend, or Minister.
But he was addressed as Rabbi. He did not read the New
Testament, nor did he think it the inspired word of God. He
did read the Hebrew Bible and thought it the Holy
Scriptures…He did not celebrate Christmas and Easter. He
AAMM, Vol. 8, 161
celebrated Shavuoth and Passover—not communion, but a
Seder. To repeat, Jesus was not a Christian. He was a Jew.
He was Rabbi Yeshua (Swindler, 1981, 104-105).
Serious thought will reveal that Christians were Jews. Not only
Jesus Christ, but also His followers were all Jews. They were all born,
lived, and even died as Jews. As Jacques B. Doukhan rightly
mentioned, “There was a time when Jews and Christians walked
together; they worshiped together; they believed and hoped together”
(Doukhan, 2002, 1). The Early Christian community, which derived
out of Judaism, is a community within a community. Even though it
had its own unique identity, it shared the identity of the larger
community. In the lifetime of Jesus, His followers were great in
number. Wherever Jesus went, there were numerous people around
Him. For example, His feeding of the five thousand (excluding
women and children), and the four thousand show how great the
multitude was (Mark 6:44; 8:9, etc).
The number of Jesus’ followers did not decline even after His
death. The popularity of Jesus did not fade away among Jews, but
rather numerous Jews became the followers of Jesus. This is what
happened in Acts 2 at the event of Pentecost in Jerusalem. On that
day of Pentecost, three thousand people were baptized and became
the followers of Jesus Christ, and were in fact the first considerably
sized Christian community in the New Testament. This was only the
beginning of the explosion of the early Christian community. In Acts
4, the number is increased to “five thousand” (Acts 4:4) excluding
women and children. Again in Acts 5:16, another expression is
employed to express the great number: “a great number of people.”
Later in chapter 6:7, we find an interesting phenomenon that even “a
large number of priests became obedient to the faith.” Up to this point,
the Christian community was a community within the Jewish
community, or Judaism.
Even after the death of Stephen, the growth did not stop. As
Doukhan noted, “it was after the stoning of Stephen that Paul (Saul)
accepted the Christian message (Acts 9:1-17)” (Doukhan, 2002, 28).
From this time onward Christianity began to spread to the Gentiles
and their regions. It is worth noting how Doukhan observed the word
“many thousands” in Acts 21:20. He stated:
The Greek word myrias means “ten thousand”; and
because it is used here in plural, we understand that the
162 Haejong Je
number of Jews who believed was several times “ten
thousands,” i.e., at least twenty thousand. Considering
Jerusalem’s population, which did not surpass thirty
thousand inhabitants, we may conclude that the great
majority of the Jews of Jerusalem had recognized Jesus as
their Messiah (ibid., 29).
Doukhan’s observation shows that the majority were Christians in
Jerusalem at this time. It was not a sect to be shunned nor a secret and
illegitimate religion. A comparison of the language, that Acts uses
with regard to the increase in number, proves its popularity at this
time. This interesting analysis is well conducted by Doukhan in the
following diagram:
Three thousand
↓
Many
↓
Five thousand
↓
A great multitude
↓
A great number
↓
Almost the whole city…(ibid., 30)
From this we can conclude that the earliest Christian community
was mostly composed of Jewish people. Therefore, it is not easy to
separate Christianity from Judaism. The earliest Christian community
was not distinctly different from the Jewish community. In a sense,
the Christians who accepted the gospel message were the devout Jews
in those days.
B. Separation of Jews and Christians
The course of history, however, did not follow the ideal direction.
Theodore Stylianopoulos suggests that the Jewish and Christian
communities had already been rendered apart in the four Gospels, as
well as in all of the New Testament books except for the Pauline
letters (Stylianopoulos, 1977, 74). He insists that “we have now an
essential shift from the earlier period in that the composition of the
AAMM, Vol. 8, 163
Church is overwhelmingly Gentile with little or no identification with
the Jewish people” (ibid.). And he adds, “Christian Jews find little
room to exist among either Jews or Christian Gentiles, and they
eventually dwindle in number and disappear, even though they
survive as a kind of curiosity of history well into the second century
A.D” (ibid.). Stylianopoulos’ description of the early separation of the
Jews and Christians does not parallel the biblical account presented
above from the analysis of Doukhan. Contrary to Stylianopoulos’
original intention that their survival is “a kind of curiosity of history
well into the second century A.D.” is further strong proof that the
Jews were a major component of the early Christian community until
this time.
However, Stylianopoulos’ observation that there was literature
propagating a view against the Jews needs to be considered. Quoting
Justin Martyr, Stylianopoulos stated, “The Jews are hard-hearted,
rejected by God, and have no reason for existing as a people, as Jews,
except possibly for satisfying God’s positive justice on account of
having killed Christ” (ibid.). Even though this line of thought was
growing in the Christian community, it can be assumed on the basis
of Doukhan’s comment on this issue that this was a real trend at least
as late as the third or fourth century (Doukhan, 2002, 39). He presents
two major reasons to explain the separation between the Jews and
Christians. Firstly, the Christian rejection of the law is the
foundational reason why there was a separation between them.
Doukhan said, “Whatever intrinsic value truth might have, the Jew
could not accept it unless it met the ancient criterion”(ibid., 40), that
is, tôrah, because the law was everything for the Jew. Secondly, the
Christian rejection of the Sabbath is a particular reason for the
separation between them. He stated, “The majority of Christians
rejected the Jewish Sabbath and replaced it with the Christian Sunday,
marking a complete distinction from Judaism” (ibid., 42). The
rejection of the law by Christians kept the Jews from accepting the
Christian message—the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Accordingly, I conclude that the popular dichotomous views
between the Jewish and Christian relation is not valid, according to
the Bible and historical facts. Jacques B. Doukhan’s comment is quite
appropriate: “History is the first and certainly the most obvious place
which makes the Church dependent on Israel. The Church was born
and grew in the soil of Israel” (Doukhan, “The Two Witnesses,” 2001,
13).
164 Haejong Je
IV. The Prophetic Role of the Remnant
From the very early history of the Church and particularly after the
Protestant Reformation, the law and the gospel became antithetical.
This large dichotomy with a long history between the law and the
gospel, the Jews and the Christians, the Old Testament and the New
Testament, and Israel and the Church was reconciled by the prophetic
movement of Seventh-day Adventism in the 18th century. SDAs used
to call themselves “a people of the Book” (Knight, 2000, 58)—a
people who have God’s word or law on top of the Protestant heritage
of the gospel they inherited from the Reformation. In the book of
Revelation, the angel calls the attention of all humanity to a people
who will be God’s remnant in the last days. Particularly two Bible
texts, which show who will have a prophetic role, are of crucial
importance for our present discussion: Rev 12:17 and Rev 14:12.
Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to
make war against the rest of her offspring—those who
obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of
Jesus (Rev 12:17).
This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints
who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to
Jesus (or “the faith of Jesus” in KJV) (Rev 14:12).
These two eschatologically crucial texts show us what kind of
prophetic role this “the rest of the woman’s offspring” will have in the
time of the end. They reveal the real characteristics of the church in
the final moments of world history. “The rest of the woman’s
offspring” has two unique attributes: those who obey God’s
commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus. The first part of
the two—God’s commandments—is straightforward in comparison
with the second. The commandments of God means the law of God,
which in turn can be understood in several different ways: in the
narrowest and most specific sense, the Ten Commandments. Or in the
broadest sense, it is “God’s Word” (Johnson, 1981, 542) in general.
The second part of the characteristics of the remnant—the testimony
of Jesus—is taken for granted as “the spirit of prophecy” by the
SDAs (SDA Bible Commentary, 1953-57, 7:812). To support this
view Adventist scholars use Revelation 19:10 and 22:9. Following
AAMM, Vol. 8, 165
interpretation of these parallel texts, the SDA Bible Commentary
concludes:
Thus, on the reasonable conclusion that these two
expressions of the angel are parallel, those who have the
testimony of Jesus are identified with the prophets. Since it
is the distinctive work of the prophets to bear messages
from Jesus to the people (see on ch. 1:1), the interpretation
that the testimony of Jesus refers to the “testimony,” or
“witness,” that Jesus bears to the church is strongly
supported. Seventh-day Adventists thus interpret the
passage and believe that the “remnant” will be
distinguished by the manifestation of the gift of prophecy
in their midst (ibid.).
They believe that the testimony of Jesus is the spiritual gift of God.
However, their claim that this way of understanding is exclusively
right invokes a problem. The Bible usually has a broader spectrum of
meanings: neither exclusively literal nor exclusively symbolic. I do
not want to deny this traditional understanding of the texts, but I
would like to suggest a new possible understanding. For instance,
when we compare Revelation 12:17 with Revelation 14:12, we may
find a broader view of the picture rather than a rigid way of
understanding that the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy. It
could mean more than that. On the basis of Revelation 14:12, the
testimony of Jesus could also mean “the faith of Jesus,” which is the
essence of the gospel. This can be understood in comparison with its
counterpart—the commandments of God. They come together as
complementary parts: one is meaningless without the other. These
two concepts must be understood as a set. This can be argued as the
“two-witnesses” principle in Deuteronomy, as Jacques B. Doukhan
suggests: “The law of Moses requires the testimony of at least two
witnesses to make a report credible (Deut 17:6)” (Doukhan, 2004, 89).
The prophetic role of the rest of the woman’s offspring is not limited
in one dimension of Christianity—the law or the gospel—but it
encompasses both dimensions—the law and the gospel. In other
words, this remnant has both God’s law and the Gospel of Jesus at the
same time. It contains the heritages of both Israel and the Church.
Here I elaborate the mission of SDAs who have both the law and
the Gospel. Firstly, I discuss the law that has been greatly ignored by
the Church or Christians in general, including the Sabbath. Then, I
166 Haejong Je
move on to the gospel that was rejected by the Jews due to Christian’s
rejection of the law—particularly the Sabbath. I mainly focus on the
history of the SDA Church.
A. The Rediscovery of the Law
Contrary to the common belief that the law is not valid anymore
after the death of Jesus, the law is neither something that we should
shun nor something completely negative. As the Psalmist stated “The
law of the Lord is perfect” and “the testimony of the Lord is pure” (Ps
19:7, 8). The law of God is “holy” and “the commandment is holy,
righteous and good” (Romans 7:12). It is the perfect will of God for
human beings.
However, in the course of history, the law has been ignored by
many Christians. The Protestant Reformation was one of the major
turning points in Church history. For example, the Protestant
Reformers such as Luther and Melanchthon gave much thought to
this issue between the law and the gospel and left an enduring legacy
in the Church, as well summarized by Jaroslav Pelikan in the fourth
book of his 5 volume series, Reformation of Church and Dogma
(1300-1700):
For, as Melanchthon’s Apology of the Augsburg
Confession summarized the Lutheran distinction, “all
Scripture should be divided into these two chief doctrines,
the law and the promises.” It was the intention and
function of the law, the Apology went on to declare, to be
the “word that convicts of sin. For the law works wrath, it
only accuses, it only terrifies consciences.” This it did
because no one could live up to its demands: not only a
completely upright and moral life, but an upright heart, a
motivation for life that loved God above all things and
loved the neighbor perfectly. Hence it was in a tone of
irony that both the Old and the New Testament said of the
works of the law that “he who does them shall live by
them,” since no one could (Pelikan, 1983, 170).
The Reformers never completely deserted the law per se, but their
overemphasis on the centrality of the Gospel over or against the law
led them to the extreme position of believing that the law is
something that condemns the people of God whereas the Gospel
saves them. The dichotomy between the law and the Gospel became
AAMM, Vol. 8, 167
almost permanent ever since this period of time in church history.
Even though Luther could not accept his opponents’ accusation that
he was an antinomianist, he in a sense opened the door to
antinomianism (Olson, 1999, 391). In other words, “by divorcing the
law from the gospel … the law is seen as opposed to grace” (Rogol,
1992, 7).
The tension between the law and the Gospel was not a new idea in
the Protestant Reformation, but it had a long history, even from the
New Testament, especially between the book of Romans and the book
of James. This tension, however, in the two epistles is a model that
shows a positive and constructive and even complementary aspect of
the law and the Gospel. They are not two opposing ideas that cannot
coexist together. The dichotomous views between the aforementioned
pairs of seemingly opposing entities are not biblically valid. These
sets of concepts are complementary. One does not have any meaning
without the other. They are the two foundational structures of the
Christian religion. According to biblical teaching, each of these
apparently opposing entities must be interconnected.
As previously noted, the eschatological people of God, as
predicted in Revelation, i.e., the remnant, will have both the law and
the gospel to fulfill its mission. Historically, the SDAs found the real
importance of God’s law which had been ignored by almost all
Christians. The most crucial part of the law—the fourth
commandment which is the identifying mark of God’s people—had
been ignored or almost forgotten by most Christians until the
Sabbatarian Adventists rediscovered the meaning of the real Sabbath
in the mid nineteenth century. This historical event is well described
by George R. Knight. He stated:
By late 1845 or early 1846 a small group of Adventist
believers began to form around the united doctrines of the
ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary and the
binding nature of the Seventh-day Sabbath. From this point
on in our discussion we will refer to them as Sabbatarian
Adventists. They formed the nucleus of what, in the early
1860s, became the Seventh-day Adventist Church (Knight,
1999, 40).
Even though there were many individuals and groups of people
who had been keeping the Sabbath, SDAs were the only people who
gave the Seventh-day Sabbath its proper understanding “within the
168 Haejong Je
framework of Revelation 11-14” (ibid., 41). Through the rediscovery
of this forgotten part of the biblical truth, SDAs took the position of a
prophetic role at the end of time. They became a part of the remnant
described in Revelation 12:17 and 14:12: those who have the
commandments of God and those who have the faith of Jesus. As a
Church that was naturally endowed with the latter part of the
characteristics—the Gospel—SDAs began to uphold the other
counterpart—the law—which had been greatly ignored. The finding
of the law by the SDAs will be rediscovered by other Christians who
claim to be God’s people. The misunderstanding of the tension
between the law and the gospel has led almost all Christians to think
that Adventists, like Jews, are legalists. However, these accusations
held by other Christians toward Adventists are not legitimate
according to the Bible. The tension between the law and the Gospel is
neither contradictory nor in conflict, but rather a result of their
mysterious interconnection. As James explains: “What good is it, my
brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?...Can such
faith save him? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not
accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, ‘You have
faith; I have deeds.’ Show me your faith without deeds, and I will
show you my faith by what I do” (James 2:14, 17, 18). The biblical
understanding of faith is “the faith that works.” My proposal does not
advocate the formula of Catholic soteriology—“faith (Gospel) +
works (law) = salvation.” On the contrary, I want to emphasize that
this rediscovery of the law is of special importance in the last days as
described in Revelation 14:12 for the mission of the Church.
B. The Rediscovery of the Gospel
As SDAs discovered these biblical truths, they began to sever
themselves from the rest of the Christian community who had held
the gospel. Their emphasis on unique teachings—which made a clear
distinction from other denominations—such as the Second Advent,
Sanctuary, Spirit of Prophecy, Sabbath, and Conditional
immortality—led them to strengthen their theological positions
against other churches and, in turn, to move toward a more extreme
position. This historical development and conflict is well analyzed by
George R. Knight in his book, A Search for Identity, where he divided
the history of the SDA Church into four periods: 1) What is Adventist
in Adventism? (1844-1885), 2) What is Christian in Adventism?
(1886-1919), 3) What is Fundamentalism in Adventism? (1919-1950),
AAMM, Vol. 8, 169
and 4) Adventism in Theological Tension (1950-to the present)
(Knight, 2000, 55-197). Because of the excessive emphasis on the
identity of Adventism—the law—in the first period, they lost sight of
the other part of fundamental principles of Christianity—the Gospel.
This historical development of the Adventist church in the United
States (especially between the first and the second periods) shows the
theological tension between the law and the gospel, while also
implying that when an extreme position is taken, the risk of the other
part being ignored or forgotten arises: by being too focused on the law,
they lost sight of the Gospel.
In this historical context, A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner, “two
young preachers from California began to publish articles in Signs of
the Times between 1884 and 1886 that contradicted the
denomination’s developing tradition” (ibid., 89). In the 1888 General
Conference at Minneapolis, A. T. Jones, E. J. Waggoner, and E. G.
White declared that “the traditionalists lacked the love of Jesus in
their hearts” (ibid., 90). They had focused on the law, but lacked or
had almost lost the gospel. George R. Knight rightly described the
situation as follows:
They had thoroughly imbibed the distinctive Adventist
doctrines of the law, the sanctuary, and so on, but they did
not understand what it means to be saved by the
righteousness of Christ and sanctified by His softening
love. She [Mrs. White] perceived that Smith, Butler, and
their colleagues needed to hear more of the Christ-centered
message that Waggoner had been preaching (ibid., 90).
During the Minneapolis session, Mrs. White approved the view of
Waggoner and Jones in uplifting Jesus. This was the moment in the
SDA Church history when the gospel was uplifted. Not only did the
first part of Revelation 14:12—“God's commandments”—play a
crucial part in the SDA theology, but also the forgotten part “the faith
of Jesus”—“salvation by grace through faith in Christ” (ibid., 92)—
became the center of Adventist theology. Knight concluded: “Thus in
1888 some Adventists began to understand more fully the third part of
Revelation 14:12—‘the faith of Jesus,’ which, suggested Ellen White,
meant ‘Jesus becoming our sin-bearer that He might become our sinpardoning Saviour’” (ibid.).
Accordingly, the SDA became a part of the remnant testified in
Revelation 12:17 and 14:12 and hence a faithful people who fulfill
170 Haejong Je
the prophetic role at the final stage of human history. However, this is
not the end of their mission, because their purpose extends to
fulfillment as the people of God in the last days.
V. Conclusion
A. Summary
Are the dichotomous views between the law and the Gospel, Israel
and the Church, Jews and Christians, and the Old Testament and the
New Testament legitimate? Due to the long historical and
dispensational teachings, Christianity has tended to divide them into
two different categories. These seemingly opposing entities are in fact
not in opposition and therefore cannot be discussed separately
because of their interrelationship. In this study, I have mainly focused
on the relationship between the law and the gospel. This historical
and exegetical study has demonstrated that the law and the Gospel are
intimately interrelated, and are not separate and conflicting entities
that can never be reconciled.
Historically, however, in the very early period of Christianity
during the developing conflict between the Jews and the Christians,
these two—the law and the Gospel—moved apart to occupy positions
in opposition to each other. This dichotomy between the law and the
gospel arose due to the historical relationship between the Jews and
Christians. When Christians began to desert the law—especially the
Seventh-day Sabbath—Jews had difficulty relating to them. To the
Jews, who identified the Sabbath as the law of God, it was almost
impossible to be Christian, because that would mean deserting this
law. This was only the beginning of the separation between Jews and
Christians, as they took separate paths that further diverged. This line
of thought was more firmly confirmed by the Reformers such as
Martin Luther who took an extreme position on the centrality of the
Gospel over and against the law. More recently, the dispensational
teaching has consolidated this dichotomous view between the law and
the gospel.
However, the biblical and historical surveys clearly show that the
law and the gospel are neither two completely different entities, nor
two opposing or conflicting concepts, but rather two different modes
of expressing the same reality: God is willing to save His lost people.
Jesus’ life on earth showed the perfect harmony between the law and
AAMM, Vol. 8, 171
the gospel, since the purpose of His life, which was the supreme
revelation of God (Heb 1:2), was to share the gospel to the whole
world (John 3:16). Jesus’ life was the manifestation of the joining
together of the law and the gospel in complete harmony.
B. Conclusion
This paper has shown that the mission of the remnant—who have
both the law that the church lacks and the gospel that Israel lacks—is
to be emphasized, especially in the last days, as implied in Revelation
12:17 and 14:12. This task of embracing both the law and the gospel
is not static, but rather an ongoing process that we should follow in
the Church in general, as well as in our individual lives. The existence
and history of the SDA Church has demonstrated the need to check
constantly the balance between these two concepts. Adventists, whose
heritage had been the gospel truth at its birth, then discovered the law,
but began to lose the basic identities exemplified in the gospel as they
became extreme in their position. In other words, they lost sight of the
gospel because of their excessive emphasis on the law.
SDAs, who have the full scale truth embodied in both the law and
the gospel, will play a special prophetic role in the last days, as
prophesized in the Book of Revelation: Revelation 12:17 and 14:12—
“Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make
war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God's
commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.” ; “This calls for
patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's
commandments and remain faithful to Jesus.” Their eschatological
role in the history of God’s people on the planet is to induce
reconciliation between Israel and the Church, and between the law
and the gospel. They are the ones who will reconcile Jews and
Christians. More specifically, they must raise their voice against the
two anti-spirits, one present in Jews (anti-Christianity) and the other
in Christians (anti-Semitism), because, as Doukhan mentioned in his
article “Guidelines for the Jewish-Christian Encounter,” “The antiSemitism of Christians and the anti-Christianity of Jews are equally
an insult to God” (Doukhan, 2001, 22). Either view by itself, i.e., the
law or the gospel alone, is a misrepresentation of the holistic truth:
only their intimate and complete combination will present the full
truth.
172 Haejong Je
References
Badenas, Robert. (1983). “The Meaning of Telos in Romans 10:4.”
Diss. Andrews University.
Barker, Kenneth L. (1982, March). False Dichotomies Between the
Testaments. JETS 25(1), 3-16.
Beeke, Jonathon D. (2011, Fall). Historical and Theological Studies:
Martin Luther’s Two Kingdoms, Law and Gospel, and the
Created Order: Was There a Time When the Two Kingdoms
were not? Westminster Theological Journal, 73(2), 191-214.
Bruce, F. F. (1963). The Epistle to the Romans: An Introduction and
Commentary. London: Tyndale.
Bouman, Walter R. (1983). The Concept of the ‘Law’ in the The
Two Witnesses. Shabbat Shalom, 13-16.
Gutrod, W. “the law,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.
4:1022-1085.
Jewett, Robert. (1985). The Law and the Coexistence of Jews and
Gentiles in Romans. Interpretation 39, 341-356.
Johnson, Alan. (1981). The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 12: 399-603.
Justin Martyr, Dialogue 16.1-4.
Karlberg, Mark W. (1985, March). Legitimate Discontinuities
Between the Testaments. JETS 28(1), 9-20.
Knight, George R. (1999). A Brief History of Seventh-day Adventists.
Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald.
_____. (2000). A Search for Identity: The Development of Seventhday Adventist Beliefs. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald.
Luther’s Works, Vol. 35. (1983). Philadelphia: Fortress, 1960. quoted
in Bouman, The Concept of the ‘Law’ in the Lutheran
Tradition. Word & World, 3.
New International Version (NIV). (1978). Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan Bible Publishers.
Olson, Roger E. (1999). The Story of Christian Theology. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. (1983). Reformation of Church and Dogma (13001700). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
“Revelation” SDA Bible Commentary. (1953-57). Edited by F. D.
Nichol. Washington, DC: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 7:
715-899.
Rogol, Edmond. (1992). Harmony of Law and Gospel. Hillsboro,
OR: The Author.
The Seventh-day Adventists Believe… (1988). Hagerstown: Review
and Herald.
AAMM, Vol. 8, 173
Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary. (1960). Edited by Siegfried
H. Horn. Washington, DC: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., s.v.
“law”
Stylianopoulos, Theodore. (1977, Spring). New Testament Issues in
Jewish-Christian Relations. Greek Orthodox Theological
Review 22, 70-79.
Swindler, Leonard. (1981, Winter). The Jewishness of Jesus: Some
Religious Implications for Christians. Journal of Ecumenical
Studies. 18, 104-113.
174 Haejong Je