Friday, September 05, 2014

Russ Kelly Rebutts Seventh-day Adventist Scholar on the Law

September 5, 2014
Andreas: The law of nature does not tell me all nine commandments, i.e., to have only one God as THE God and not to make idols.

Russ: Rom 1:19 “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.”

Yes, Jesus came to show us the Father in all His love and mercy through Himself, but that is progressive revelation.

Andreas: I do not think that men know that it is wrong to break 9 of the Ten Commandments.

Russ: Rom 1:18 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.”

Please read Romans 1 carefully, beginning in verse 17. I agree with C. S. Lewis’ conclusions in Mere Christianity which changed him from a skeptic to a believer. Men died before the formal Law was revealed because they sinned against God’s law of nature and conscience (Rom 5:13-14). Men and women in deepest Mongolia, Africa and South America also die without hearing specifically of God’s formal law; they are still held accountable for the dim light that is within each (Rom 1:19; John 1:9).

Andreas: Concerning tithing I agree with your statement. I know without any revelation to help other people that are in need, poor, etc.

Russ: Good.

Andreas: Now coming to your question about how to define "law".
Matthew 15:3-4 Jesus quoted from the 10 commandments.

Russ: Matt 15:4 “For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother (Ex 20:12) AND, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death” (Exodus 21:15).
This is the kind of textual abuse SDAs are famous for. You tell me to read Matthew 15:4 because 4a quotes one of the Ten Commandments and then you totally ignore 15:4b which is the judgment-penalty for breaking the commandment. I think your mind is trained not to see the whole text. Both 4a and 4b are Old Covenant Law. A law does not exist without a penalty for breaking it.

This was before Calvary when the Hebrews were still under the Old Covenant. As a Jew, Jesus commanded obedience to all 600-plus commandments of the law. He commanded those Jews whom he healed to show themselves to the priest. As a Jew Jesus faithfully kept all Jewish holy days. SDAs do not follow his example here. According to the amount of sacrificial animals required, the 7th day Sabbath was the LEAST important Sabbath day.

Andreas: in Matthew 5:17-20 Jesus does not abolish the law or the prophets.

Russ: You still have your SDA blinders on and do not see that it is referring to the whole law of commandments, judgments and ordinances. Therefore you yourself do not believe what the texts literally say! “Not one dot or stroke” shall pass away from the whole law until the whole law is fulfilled. Is that not what it says?

         “Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments …”Now read 5:20-48 and notice that “these” refers to all three parts of the in Jesus’ examples: commandments, judgments and ordinances. How do you possibly justify ignoring the context of the “whole law” here? You are condemning yourself.

The word “fulfill” is very common in Matthew. Jesus totally fulfilled the righteousness of the law in his birth, life, death, burial and resurrection.

5:21 Ten Commandments; kill

5:27 Ten Commandments: adultery

5:31 judgment; divorce

5:35 judgment: taking oaths (Num 30:2)

5:37 judgment: eye for an eye (Ex 21:24)

5:43 ordinances; love neighbor (Lev 19:10)


Andreas: Matthew 19:16-18 Jesus "commanded" to keep the commandments.


Russ: Of course He did, to do otherwise before Calvary would have been sin. Your own church does not teach that “keeping the commandments” is all that is essential to enter God’s kingdom. Your own church adds “being born again by entering into a faith relationship with Jesus.” Therefore you throw a text at me that you yourself abuse.

Jesus was testing the rich young ruler living under the full jurisdiction of the law before Calvary. His god was money and Jesus exposed his lie; he could not love his fellow man if he loved money that much. A born-again experience would have been required had the rich young ruler obeyed Jesus.


Andreas: 1 John 2:3 “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.”

John 14:15 “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” So, in my understanding law can have a lot of different meanings including the Law of Moses, the Law of Christ, the Law of God, ... The context is crucial. The same issue is with the word commandment.


Russ: Remember you made this statement because you will quote numerous texts containing “law” attempting to make it only mean

Ten Commandments.

The word “commandments” only occurs in John twice (14:15; 15:10). “Command” occurs twice (15:14, 17). John 15:17 “These things I command you, that ye love one another” (Lev 19:18 – not one of the Ten Commandments). John does not use the word “commandment” to refer to the Ten Commandments.

“Rarely does “law” refer only to the Ten Commandments after Calvary. SDAs greatly err in this. Even in the OT, God never commanded Israel to “only keep” the Ten Commandments; the idea is foreign and totally absurd. It is always in the context of keeping His “whole” law – all of it; every one of the commandments, judgments and ordinances. SDAs greatly err in their abuse of the word “law”.


Andreas: Commands are used by Jesus to refer to his teachings,


Russ: So you think that “commandments” in John 15:10 and the “command” to “love one another” in 15:17 are not related (Lev 19:10). Jesus teachings must be carefully sorted out to their context of Old or New Covenant. Some of His teachings only apply to Old Covenant Hebrews (and not Gentiles). For example, Mt 23:23 cannot possibly interpreted as Jesus commanding His Gentile disciples to bring tithes to either the Tempe or to His disciples before Calvary. Yet everybody plays with this verse and ignores “matters of the law.”


Andreas: .. but commandments to that of the OT laws.


Russ: If so, then they refer to all of them -- commandments, judgments and ordinances.


Andreas: Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law and the prophets, meaning the OT prophets and the law of Moses which was given by God (Mt 5:17-18).



(1) Correct: the law – all of it—the whole law --all 600 plus of them, including commandments, judgments and ordinances. These three are coupled together 44 times in Scripture – mostly in Deuteronomy. They cannot be separated.

(2) Since that is true and I agree with you, then please tell me WHY you teach that Jesus abolished the judgments and ordinances of the law

(except for tithing and food laws) and only kept the Ten Commandments? Does not this text condemn you?

(3) Galatians 3 is critical here as is 2 Cor 3:10-18.

Gal 3:19 “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added [had a beginning] because of transgressions [wilfull sin preceded the codified law], till [had an ending] the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.”

Gal 3:23 “But before faith came, we were kept under the law [the whole law of commandments, judgments and statutes], shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the [whole] law WAS our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ [the ending point], that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster” [the whole law].

2 Cor 3:10 “For even that which was made glorious [the whole Old Covenant Law] had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.” The Old Covenant Law currently has NO GLORY when compared to the glory of the New Covenant law of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

         The whole law fulfilled its purpose (as a school-bus or school-tutor). It was set aside; Hebrews 7:18 says it was annulled. Just as the U.S. Constitution abolished the whole English law in 1776 (good and bad), it then re-incorporated much of it into the U.S. Constitution in 1789.


Andreas: In conclusion, Paul establishes the law, but not nullifies it (Romans 3:31).


Russ: Rom 3:31 “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.”

(1) What gives you the authority to interpret this to apply to the Ten Commandments and not to the whole law of commandments, judgments and statutes? Yet you do this consistently throughout this document! You make it say only what you want it to say!

(2) Since the word “law” in Romans 3:31 must refer back to 3:19-20 which must refer back to 3:1-18 –

Those texts only quote Isaiah and Psalms as examples of “the law” in 3:19.

(3) 3:31 lacks a definite article “the” before both uses of “law.” That means it is referring to “law” as a principle.

(4) The law “principle” which condemns Gentiles is nature and conscience (1:18 to 2 all).


I challenge you to read what “law” Paul referred to in Romans 3. It is both the law of conscience and nature for Gentiles (Rom 1:18-20; 2:14-16 AND ALSO the whole Hebrew law – only Isaiah and Psalms are quoted in chapter three – not the Ten Commandments! Unless you know biblical Greek, you may not grasp this. The article “the” is in Romans 3:19 but not in Romans 3:20 or 3:31 – thus Paul was summarizing his discourse beginning in Romans 1:17.


Andreas: In my opinion it is crucial to know the will of God in order to be able to do His will.


Russ: I say that one does not have the slightest idea of what the will of God is as long as he/she is confused about the word “law.” “Law” cannot mean merely the Ten Commandments.


Andreas: Jesus Christ has not come to redeem us from the law, but from the "curse of the law". That's a big difference.


Russ: Gal 3:13 “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.”
(1) Again the word “law” in the Gal 3:13 refers to the whole law of commandments, judgments and ordinances. Yet you prefer it only means Ten Commandments although Deuteronomy 21:23 is not part of the Ten Commandments.  You use a part of the law you discard.

(2) The “curse” of Galatians 3:13 (from Deuteronomy 21:23) is one of many curses and blessings of the whole law from Deuteronomy, chapters 28 to 30.

(3) May I clarify your statement to read: “Jesus Christ has not come to redeem us from the whole law, but from the "curse of the whole law". Now do you see your error? You would have us believe that the law forbidding leaving a person handing on a tree is still in effect and still defiles the land. Is that correct?

(4) Your inaccurate use of the word “law” re-enforces every single commandment, judgment and ordinance of the Old Covenant because (as you said) Jesus did not come to destroy (ANY) part of the WHOLE law but to fulfill ALL of it. Do you know how confused this reasoning is?

(5) Is Austria still under any of the Laws of the Holy Roman Empire (good and bad)? Is Austria still under the Laws of Nazi Germany (good and bad)? Of course not! However I can safely say that Austria re-incorporated some of the good laws from its past into its current constitution.

(6) The Old Covenant Law of God, or Law of Moses (both good and bad) ended at Calvary.

a) This was prophesied in Psalm 110:4 when David wrote that Melchizedek priesthood would replace the Aaronic priesthood.0

b) This was prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-36 and repeated in Hebrews 8:8-13.

c) Hebrews 7 ended the Old Covenant law system. Jesus is a king-priest, after the order of Melchizedek, a king priest not of Aaron.

d) The judicial civil judgments of Israel ended when Israel ceased to be a nation.

e) The civil ceremonial ordinances of Israel ended when shadow met reality at Calvary.

f) The Ten Commandments which were only given to Old Covenant Israel at Mt Sinai ended at Calvary. Their eternal pre-law nature which reflected God’s character changed from “thou shalt nots” into “spontaneous obedience to the indwelling Holy Spirit because of a new creation” relationship with God (Roman 8:3). 

g) To a Gentile, “law” as the “revealed will of God” included nature and conscience.

h) To a Hebrew, “law” as the revealed will of God included everything from Genesis to Malachi.


Andreas: So, if I want to do God's will, I need to know His will.


Russ: As I understand it from what you have just written, “His will” means “everything in the law, including all 600 plus commandments, judgments and ordinances.


Andreas: I could not find any other commands (in summary) except
those Jesus mentioned e.g., at the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5. These commands are a refinement of those mentioned in the OT.



(1) The commands in Mathew 5 are before Calvary.

(2) They are in the context of the Old Covenant. Be sure and send your healed members to Hebrew priests if you can find one. And don’t forget that the law commands you to stone to death disobedient children and Sabbath-breakers. [You keep repeating Matthew 5.]


Andreas: Everlasting Gospel


Russ: To an SDA the Everlasting Gospel from Revelation 14:6-12 means Jesus began judging dead saints in 1844 to determine who will be saved; Babylon is everybody who is not SDA; Sunday-worshippers will not be saved. SDAs ignore the vivid description of Gehenna in verse 11. This is not serious theology.


Andreas: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, ..." (Gal. 3:28). If ‘in Jesus’ Jews and Greek (etc.) are one, one in Christ, then why did Jesus tell the rich man to keep the commandments? [Lk 18:18-21]


Russ: Concerning Lk 18:18-21:

(1) Your logic in combining Luke 18:18-21 with Galatians 3:28 is: There is only one plan of salvation. Since Jesus told the rich young ruler that he can inherit eternal life by keeping the commandments – then the same requirement should apply to Gentiles and they must keep the

Ten Commandments (and disregard most of the remainder of the law of judgments and statutes).

(2) If Luke 18:18-21 were the only text in the Bible answering the question “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?”, the answer would be: a) keep the commandments, b) “sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.” This would me works-righteousness contrary to Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5, etc.

(3) Why did Jesus answer the rich young ruler such? Obedience to the Law (including the Ten Commandments) was never given for justification (as in the Passover Lamb) but for sanctification in cooperation wsith the Spirit of God. Jesus certainly knew that! Jesus was probably teasing the rich young ruler because he was self-righteous and worshipped his wealth. The fact that he would not give his wealth to the poor was proof that he had not obeyed the commandments to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” Only a miraculous born-again faith experience could assue him an inheritance in God’s kingdom.


Gal 3:26-27 “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

Gal 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

(1) The distinction between Jew and Greek ended, not because the Greek is now under the WHOLE law, but because the Jew is NOT under any part of the whole law. That is what God was telling Israel when the Temple veil ripped open. That is what removal of the “middle wall of partition” means (Eph 2:14-15). That is what “dead to the law” means (Rom 7:4).

(3) How do you understand Galatians 3:19. The whole law was added, not just the Ten Commandments. The whole law had an ending point, not just the Ten Commandments as “thou shat nots”: it was added “until the seed should come.” Paul called adding the law back to grace “bewitching” in Galatians 3:1 and said that “we are no longer under the schoolmaster” in 3:24-25.


Andreas: According to Acts 15:5 (the council at Jerusalem) the Gentiles are not required to keep the law of Moses …


Russ: Correct, none of it. The new covenant really is “new”; it is not a repetition of the old. The Pharisees were especially careful about circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, tithing and food laws. 

Acts 15:9 “And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.”


Andreas: …  and in verse 20 several issues are forbidden. Here, the Sabbath was not mentioned, that's right, but neither was the commandment to worship God alone.



(1) The “issues” only related to specific pagan traditions which were especially offensive to God.

(2) Nature and conscience teach the worship of one God Rom 1:20 “ For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.”

(3) Sabbath-keeping had previously only applied to Old Covenant Hebrews (Ex 31:13-17).


Andreas: Have you an answer to John 14:15 and Romans 13:8-10 (Paul cites from the TC) in particular?


(1) Any reasonable researcher who reads John realizes that he does not use the word “commandments” to refer to the Ten Commandments.

(2) I agree with what you said earlier, it means “those things I teach.” Again, the covenant must be considered.

(3) Of necessity, Jesus MUST teach obedience to the entire Law of commandments, civil judgments and ceremonial worship ordinances. To do otherwise before Calvary would be SIN.

(4) Neither Jesus nor Peter or Paul would ever teach Matthew 5:23-24 after Calvary. Yet Jesus commanded it before Calvary.

(5) The fifth commandment says “that your days may be long in the land.” To a Hebrew that meant ERETZ, the land of Israel. Neither your nor I would agree to that interpretation today.

(6) The Sabbath commandment commands Hebrews to let their SLAVES/servants rest on the Sabbath. Yet SDAs oppose this part of the Sabbath commandment!!! The Sabbath commandment commands Hebrews not to cause anybody to work on the Sabbath. Yet SDAs cause others to work by driving cars on the Sabbath, by using faucet water, by flushing city sewage, by using city natural gas, etc. etc. etc.

(7) It would be impossible for SDAs or Hebrews to completely obey the Sabbath commandment if they lived inside the Arctic Circle or if the International Date Line did not exist. It is gross hypocrisy to interpret John 14:15 as a command for all mankind to observe the Sabbath. This is all in my book.


Concerning Romans 13:8-10:

(1) Do you “owe any man anything”? Does not Paul command us not to owe anything? Most American SDAs have credit cards and owe on their property, houses and credit cards. (2) The focus of Romans 13:8-10 is that “love has (ALREADY) fulfilled the law” which SDAs say has not been fulfilled yet!!! Love has even fulfilled the command of not owing any man anything!

(3) Concerning Romans 13:9, why did Paul quote those commandments? Did he do it because they were still in effect as “thou shalt nots”? –or—does Paul quote them BECAUSE one who loves his neighbor has ALREADY fulfilled them??? Is that not the context? Is not “has fulfilled” past tense?

(3) For a born again Christian “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has already made us free from the law of sin and death” (Rom 8:3).

(4) The new law does not tell me “do not kill or steal or commit adultery”. No. The new law says that I am a new creation/new creature in Christ with new desires and “do not want to kill, or steal, or commit adultery.”


Andreas: My answer is this: Paul cited from the TC, therefore ALL of the TCs are addressed.



(1) Paul’s focus was on love, not law. He stated very clearly that love has already fulfilled the law; strive to love as Christ loved.

(2) You focus on Romans 13:9 and ignore the context of 13:8 and 10. The word “law” occurs often in Romans and only here is it in the context of the Ten Commandments. You choose to ignore the context of all other instances.

(3) Is it not strange to you how very rarely Paul actually refers to the Ten Commandments in all his writings --- twice in Romans, his most theological treatise (7:7; 13:9); once in Ephesians 6:2? Yet SDAs are obsessed with them.

(4) Would not Romans 13:13 have been an excellent place to insert obedience to the Ten Commandments?

(5) If all of the TC still exist merely because Paul quoted 5 in Romans 13:9, then do all of the worship ordinances/statutes also exist because Paul also quoted from Leviticus 19:18 “thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”?

(6) Perhaps the best reason Paul quoted the second half of the Ten Commandments in Romans 13:9 is because he was using them in the strictly New Covenant sense as something eternal which should be repeated after Calvary in terms of grace and faith.


Andreas: Paul assures us that we are not saved by trying to keep several commands, but through faith to Jesus Christ alone (John 14:6)[wrong reference].



(1) The great divide between most Protestants and SDAs is over sanctification” and how one “remains saved” or “abides.” SDAs teach that one remains saved by keeping the Ten Commandments, by avoiding unclean foods and by tithing.

(2) The Sabbath was only commanded to OT Israel. And unclean foods and tithing are not part of the Ten Commandments.


Andreas: If there were no law, then sin could not exist (Romans 7:19 and similar verses).



(1) The law which existed in the
Garden and the law which condemned everybody before Moses was the law of nature and conscience (Rom 2:14-16 and 1:18-29; 5:13-14).

(2) The “law” which condemns Jew and Gentiles in Romans 3:1-18 is natural law quoted in Psalms and Isaiah (read it for you). This is also alluded to in Romans Rom 5:13-14 – not the Ten Commandments.

(3) The formal codified written law was “added” to the law of nature and conscience “until” the Messiah would fulfill it (Gal 3:19, 24-26; Heb 7:18).

(4) I believe that Romans 7 is a flash-back struggle Paul endured between the time he was baptized and the time he yielded fully to the Holy Spirit’s control of his life. As a believer he had DIED to the law (Rom 7:4) and had been buried and resurrected (Romans 6) to walk in the newness of the indwelling Spirit (Rom 8:3). “Law” in Romans 7 is a “principle.”

(5) The very instant a person is born-again, he is “bought with a price” and his body is not his own. The Spirit then indwells His temple of the believer’s body. In doing so, the new “law of the Spirit of life” in Christ condemns the Christian of sin according to the New Covenant (Heb 8:8-13). John 16:8-9 “And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me.”


Andreas: Also 1 John 3:4 tells us that sin is lawlessness. Why should it be mentioned when such-and-such the law does not apply anymore?



(1) Again, John does not use the word “law” to refer to the Old Covenant. He uses it purely in New Covenant terms as a “principle” that condemns sinners.

(2) New Covenant Christians sin when they disobey “the law (principle) of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:3 cf 2 Cor 3:10-18; John 16:8-9) --

Christ and His Spirit within.

(3) Those “thou shalt nots” of the Ten Commandments which were eternal are now “principles” of how a believer should behave when yielded to the Holy Spirit.

(4) Once again you attempt to limit the word “law” in 1 John 3:4 to the Ten Commandments when it refers to everything God had revealed through the entire Old Testament for Hebrews, to nature and conscience for pre-Calvary Gentiles and, especially, to Christ for all believers. Unless you can prove it only refers to the Ten Commandments, you cannot use 1 John 3:4 to prove your point.

(5) If you interpreted 1 John 3:4 as “sin transgression of the whole law” you would place yourself in deeper trouble.

(6) I see absolutely no progress in your line of thought in this dialog. You still very erroneously want to define “law” as only the Ten Commandments.


Andreas: This is also true for Mark 2:27-28. How can Jesus be the Lord over the Sabbath, when the Sabbath does not "exist" anymore? What would it be good for?


Russ: Concerning Mark 2:27:

(1) That is your logic -- “Law” can only refer to the Ten Commandments so you can command all men to keep the Sabbath!

(2) Ignore the fact that the Sabbath legitimizes slavery and every SDA breaks it every Sabbath day by causing others to work. Ignore the fact that your food laws and tithing are from those parts of the whole law which you have otherwise discarded.

(3) Jesus was Lord of the whole Law and prophets: commandments, judgments, ordinances and prophets. Why don’t you point that out? Because it would force you to teach things which you have discarded. He gave the whole Law to Moses (John 8:58).

(4) Jesus fulfilled the whole law; His righteousness as the second Adam satisfied the righteousness of the whole Law (Romans 3:21-26; 5).

(4) In One who met the righteousness requirements of the formal Law (and the law of nature and conscience), Jesus was qualified to redeem both Israel (Rom 3:19) and Gentiles (Rom 3:20; check the lack of the definite article in 3:20).

(6) By sacrificing Himself to redeem sinful mankind, Jesus ended the formal codified law and replaced it with the New Covenant law-principle of the indwelling Spirit (Luke 23:45; Gal 3:1, 19, 25-26; 4:4-5; Eph 2:13-16; Heb 7:18; Phil 3:9-10

(7) Mark 2:27-28 was uttered while the WHOLE law was still in effect before Calvary. Your statement “How can Jesus be the Lord over the Sabbath, when the Sabbath does not "exist" anymore?” ignore the covenant context.

(9) The Greek of Mark 2:27-28 reads THE man and not “mankind.”

a) THE man could refer to Jesus Himself, the Son of man, who often taught and healed and worked miracles on the Sabbath to show He was superior. As the Son of David he could do what others could not do on the Sabbath (2:23-25).

b) THE man could refer to the Hebrew man. It was a unique sign and seal of God’s Old Covenant with Israel (Ex 31:13-17) –and God commanded Israel NOT to share its covenant with others. Not one cent of temple income went to convert Gentiles and teach them the Sabbath.


Andreas: What do you think about the Law, Commandments, Commands?



(1) “Law” before Calvary almost always referred to the WHOLE indivisible body of commandments, judgments and ordinances/statutes. This is also true of most of the post-Calvary uses of the word “law.” SDAs greatly err in their misuse of the word “law.”

(2) “Commandments” in the Old Covenant usually refers to the Ten Commandments. In the New Covenant, John uses it to mean “what Jesus taught.” However “what Jesus taught” must be evaluated in the context of covenant and audience.

(3) “Commands” is very general. In the Old Testament, “commands” often refers to “judgments” and “ordinances/statutes.” Read Psalm 119 and all of Deuteronomy for a much clearer picture of these three words.


Andreas: What is the Will of God?


Russ: The will of God is that all might come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior.

Before Calvary the will of God was that Israel would accept Yahweh as its Messiah and the whole world would flow into Jerusalem to discover why it had been so blessed (all prophets and Romans 11).

         God’s original plan was that every Israelite would become priests (Ex 19:5-6). The Law was a shadow child-tutor intended to keep Israel on the right path until its Messiah would arrive to replace shadow truth with the real truth of His righteousness (Romans 3:21-26; Gal 3:19-26; 2 Cor 3:10-18).


Russell Earl Kelly, PHD

316 Aonia Rd

Washington, Ga 30673


No comments: