By Eugene Prewitt

Introduction

Recently I watched a series of three lectures by Jon Paulien on the topic of Sunday laws. These lectures were hosted and promoted by the Central California Conference and by its administration.

As I watched, I observed that the administrators said repeatedly that they did not want to argue about these points, but only to have a friendly academic discussion. So please read this reply, not as a mean-spirited polemic, but as a friendly discussion with academics.

What I intend to show herein is:

1. That Jon Paulien’s eight principles of prophetic interpretation are not usefully reliable
2. That the line of demarcation between conditional and unconditional prophecy is well-defined in scripture and does not fall were Paulien assigns it
3. That Revelation 13 is most certainly unconditional prophecy and will be fulfilled as written
4. That, contrary to Paulien, Ellen White’s visions regarding Sunday legislation did not change over time, even if they did become more detailed in nature.
5. That Paulien is fulfilling a very significant prophecy about making “of none effect” the “Testimonies.”
6. That Paulien’s idea that times have changed since the 1880’s (in such a way as to negate some of the specifics of Ellen White’s writings) is fallacious in significant ways.
7. That the Bible teachings about the Seal of God and the Mark of the Beast are watertight and able to be used to make confident statements about the future.

In the spirit of a friendly discussion, I will forgo making editorial comments about how dangerous and destructive I view some of these errors to be. But I encourage the reader to be thinking about values and about repercussions. These are important, even in friendly conversations. Let’s start with conditional and unconditional prophecies.

Conditional and Unconditional Prophecies

In the story of Joseph explaining the dream to Pharaoh, Genesis gives us a principle of prophetic interpretation.

“And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass.” Genesis 41:32

From this we gather simply that unconditional prophecies can be recognized by their repetitive nature. And as the pairs in Genesis of repeated dreams (sheaves/stars; bread/juice; cows/corn) were each given in diverse metaphors, we can easily identify Daniel and Revelation as unconditional prophecy.

To say this again, nothing that Pharaoh could do could avert the seven years of famine. And nothing Nebuchadnezzar could do could prevent the coming of Persia. The variety of metaphors in Daniel 2 and 7 that show this, also show that “the thing is established by God.”

A conditional prophecy, by contrast, is one that is based on a reward for commendable or reprehensible behavior.

“The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.” Jeremiah 18:7-8. (See also 9-10)

So, promises of reward and punishment are conditional. And in the case of Judas, we learn that some prophecies of an unconditional element (someone will betray Jesus) also include a conditional element (that that someone will be Judas).

This is a simple line that helps anyone identify conditional and unconditional prophecies. And as Revelation 7, 13-18 go over the same ground of prophecy with a variety of figures, we can be certain that like the rest of Daniel and Revelation, these are prophecies that are unconditional, “established by God.”

Principles of Prophetic Interpretation

Adventists have access to some of the most comprehensive and succinct rules of prophetic interpretation that have been penned. I am thinking of those of William Miller.  And even today I find persons making common errors in their interpretation of prophecy that, if they had read his rules, they might have avoided.

As an example, Miller explained that elements in prophecy should be understood literally unless good sense and/or context makes a literal understanding irrational. (Leopards don’t have four heads, therefore the leopard is a metaphor, and the other beasts sensibly likewise.)

Counter to this principle, many persons interpreting Daniel 11 recently have said “since the prophecy begins literally, it should be consistently literal all the way through.” But this is bogus in most obvious ways. The seals, for instance, begin metaphorically and end literally. And the trumpets similarly begin metaphorically and end literally. And the plagues start literally and become metaphorical in the sixth plague. In short, many lines of prophecies combine metaphorical and literal elements. Miller’s rule works great in real life application to these Bible prophecies.

But what about Paulien’s principles? As tools for the Bible student, do they help you understand the meaning of prophetic verses? I’ll leave you to answer that question. But let’s go over each of them briefly.

1. God is consistent.

This is certainly true. And it is perhaps helpful to know that God can be trusted, and that, as Paulien says, and as Solomon also says, history repeats itself.

• God is not predictable.

By this, Paulien means that God gives typical prophecies in a way that may not be fulfilled just as it is written, and consequently, not just as we expect.

To this I would say, “God gave Daniel and Revelation to us to be understood in our time. Every element that is already fulfilled has been fulfilled just as it is written. And as that is hundreds of elements and details, there is no reason to suppose that the future elements will be less reliably fulfilled as written.”

There is a truth that Paulien expresses under this heading: God’s ways are beyond our ability to understand, “inscrutable.” He may fulfill written prophecies in ways we do not expect. But they will, none-the-less, be fulfilled as written.  Our inability to understand God’s ways are not the result (as Paulien alleges) of God resisting being predicable. They are rather the result of our human weaknesses.

• God is creative.

Let us give the professor this much: God certainly does set new precedents. He does “new” things. His part in the repetition of history may vary from time to time in creative ways, though not in principle.

It is here in the first lecture that he makes a distinction between the “believer” and the “scholar.” He says the believer has commitments that he brings to his studies while the scholar tests such commitments seeking for evidence to bolster or to overthrow them.

I, for one, wish scholars were more skeptical in their rigorous testing of their own scholarly ideas. And I wish believers were more skeptical of the scholars that teach them. But it is skepticism regarding what the prophets say that makes a man a fool, whether or not he professes to be scholarly.

• God meets people where they are.

Again, take some time to read Miller’s principles of prophetic interpretation. They will enable you to approach Daniel and Revelation and to begin to make sense of the symbols. But Paulien’s “principles” do nothing of the sort.

What I understand him to be saying here is that God gives prophetic messages in a way that matches the experience and understanding of the prophet, avoiding phrases or elements that would be strange to the prophet.

And I reply, “While it is true that God uses a prophet’s own vocabulary and rhetorical skills, it most certainly is not true that prophets wrote more for their time than for ours. Peter says that the prophets were shown that ‘not to themselves but to us they were ministering.’ And this was what they learned when they could not ascertain the meaning of what they were shown. 1Peter 1:11-12. And Daniel was mystified by the symbols presented to him (Daniel 8).

That brings us to another point. Paulien alleges that God gave an idol vision to Nebuchadnezzar because he was an idolator and a vision of animals that God created to Daniel because he was a believer.  But the fact that the king later saw a giant tree and that Daniel saw unrealistic violent creatures doesn’t match this theory.

There is a better explanation for how God chooses the nature of symbols in a prophecy: the subject of the prophecy influences the symbols: So a vision about a butler involves grapes. And a vision about a baker involves bread. And a vision about feast and famine involves food. And a vision about the authority in Joseph’s family involves the lights given to rule the day and the night. A vision about human empires is given in the form of idols and ravenous beasts. And a vision about the sanctuary is given in sanctuary language. A vision about the churches in pictures with lamp stands. And a vision relating to the seal of God is given with seals on a book.

Now that is a principle of interpretation that might help you, but it is not from the video.

The fifth principle of Paulien is this:

• God often spiritualizes history and fulfills it in a non-literal way

This is largely true. God uses history and makes it into symbols of later ages and with wider application. Thus we find Babylon and the “kings of the east” in Revelation. And as Paulien observes, we find almost the whole of Revelation couched in metaphors drawn from Old Testament history. Types, by their nature, are non-literal. And so this principle is Biblical as it is applied to the spiritualizing of history.

The business of applying it to prophecies such that literal prophecies should be expected to be fulfilled in non-literal ways, is more nuanced.

On one hand, the large and repeated history of Israel going into captivity; and then a remnant being gathered back to their homeland, is heavily spiritualized by scripture. And some prophecies predicting future literal captivities or returnings, were conditional prophecies. And a subset of these (like those about Gog, Magog, and the surrounding of Jerusalem) became prophecies that would never be fulfilled literally. But some elements of them are picked up as metaphors by Revelation.

For more on this, see my article on Revelation 20 at www.bibledoc.org

Where Paulien runs his theological ship aground is in applying this principle to symbolic prophecy as is found in Daniel and Revelation. But we will talk about that more under his seventh principle.

• God uses the language of the prophet’s past and present.

This is, frankly, a faulty principle. It is true that God’s messages to prophets very often have allusions to previous prophetic revelations. The principle sinks when one expects the prophet’s view to be too narrow. Did Isaiah, as Paulien alleges, give a false-in-detail prophecy in Isaiah 11? And did Ellen White do the same in her prophecies of the National Sunday Law?

Let’s look briefly at Isaiah 11, Paulien’s showcase example.

The first half of this chapter is messianic and eschatological. It describes Jesus as coming from the family of Jesse and being filled with the Spirit (v.1-2) so that He will judge righteously (v. 3-4) and eventually “slay the wicked” with the “breath of his lips.” (v. 4-5). Then will come the new age in which the wolf will lie down with the lamb and children will play safely with venomous snakes “for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.” (v. 6-10).

And as no child will be less than a thousand years old at the close of the millennium, and as the earth fills with such knowledge just prior to Christ’s coming, some have reasoned that verses 6-10 must include some metaphor (as wolves and lambs and snakes and children all figure widely into NT illustrations.)

Then verses 11-16 describe the gathering time. This metaphor of several Old Testament prophecies is the one picked up in Revelation when it introduces Babylon and the kings of the east. This interesting illustration of God gathering his faithful persons is introduced with “and I that day (when the knowledge of God covers the earth) there shall be a root of Jesse that shall stand as a banner” to gather his people the “second time.”

I hope that you can see that it would be poor thinking to take a prophecy filled with more-or-less obscure metaphors and to reason that a portion is simultaneously literal and erroneous.

The truth is that prophets choose their vocabulary, but God chooses their metaphors.

Paulien uses this passage as evidence that some prophecies are never fulfilled as they are given. But it shows rather that some prophecies are fulfilled metaphorically.

He could truly have shown other prophecies that were not fulfilled because of their conditional nature. But this would be no evidence in favor of his theory that certain prophecies are mistakenly worded with elements matching the time of the prophet rather than the time of the fulfillment.

To say this another way, Isaiah 11 provides no evidence that Ellen White’s materials on the National Sunday will not be literally fulfilled as written.

• Fulfillments are always clearer after fulfillment.

This is true, of course. And Paulien makes a good case from John 14:29 that prophecies (at least some of them) are given to build our faith after we observe the fulfillment.

But it would be a mistake to take this principle as precluding God trying to warn us in detail about an upcoming crisis or time of testing. Please consider this point.

It can be seen readily in the story of Jesus that He did, indeed, try often to give them accurate detailed information about the trial they would face at his death. But they did not credit the information as being capable of being comprehended. “Who can understand these things?” was the language of their private conversations. We would not want to similarly view plain statements about our future as having a mystical character.

• One should distinguish between apocalyptic and classical prophecies.

By these, Paulien means that classical prophecies are the ones that are least dependable for predicting future details. He believes that classic predictions are fulfilled differently than written because God (at times?) replaces the true places and details in the prediction with more familiar (yet incorrect) places and details.

And it is precisely his work of making Ellen White a “classical” prophet that makes him a fulfillment of one of her most ominous end-time prophecies:

“Satan is… constantly pressing in the spurious—to lead away from the truth. The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God. ‘Where there is no vision, the people perish.’ Proverbs 29:18. Satan will work ingeniously, in different ways and through different agencies, to unsettle the confidence of God’s remnant people in the true testimony.” – 1SM 48.3

Reader, you do not want to be a victim of “ingeniously” laid plans to unsettle your confidence in the testimonies at the very time when God is working to settle us intellectually and spiritually so that we cannot be moved.

To bolster his argument, Paulien alleges a change, over time, in the writings of Ellen White regarding the Sunday Law. He produces several quotes that he uses as evidence that early on, she predicted a catholic-free Protestant Sunday law. Then, as time progressed, he says that this view was modified to include a Catholic resurgence and spiritualism. Finally, it was modified to speak of a Sabbath-forbidding law.

This whole idea is just untrue. One of her plainest statements about the participation of Catholics in the final persecution is also one of her earliest, written before any of her books were published.

     … Then I saw the mother of harlots, that the mother was not the daughters, but separate and distinct from them. She has had her day, and it is past, and her daughters, Protestant sects, were next to come on the stage and act out the same mind that the mother had when she persecuted the saints. I saw that as the mother has been declining in power the daughters have been growing, and soon they will exercise the power once manifested by the mother.

     I saw that the nominal churches and nominal Adventists, like Judas, would betray us to the Catholics, to obtain their influence to come against the saints. The saints will be an obscure people, but little known to the Catholics, but the church and nominal Adventists will know of our faith and customs, and will betray the saints and report them to the Catholics, as those who disregard the institution of the pope, that is they keep the Sabbath and disregard Sunday.

Then the Catholics bid the Protestants to go forward and issue a decree that all who will not observe the first day of the week instead of the seventh shall be slain, and the Catholics, whose numbers are large, will stand by the Protestants. The Catholics will give their power to the image of the beast and then Protestants will work as their mother worked before them to destroy the saints. But before their decrees bring forth or bear fruit, the saints will be delivered by the voice of God.—Ms 15.3-5, 1850

These same ideas were expressed 16 years later, “Our people have been regarded as too insignificant to be worthy of notice, but a change will come… The Christian world is now making movements which will necessarily bring the commandment-keeping people of God to notice… The law-making powers will be against God’s commandment-keeping people. Every soul will be tested.”—Lt 65.6, 1886

Ellen seemed to have both of the previous revelations in mind when she wrote in 1882 about Sunday laws. Notice that she did not write of the Sunday laws as a new understanding by Adventists, but as the truth we had been teaching for decades already. And notice also what this statement says about the future fulfillment of details, namely that not one element of the predictions will fail.

Many smiled and would not believe when we told them, twenty and thirty years ago, that the Sunday would be urged upon all the world, and a law be made to compel its observance, and force conscience. We see it being fulfilled. All that God has said of the future will surely come to pass; not one thing will fail of all that He has spoken. Protestantism is now reaching hands across the gulf to clasp hands with papacy, and a confederacy is being formed to trample out of sight the Sabbath of the fourth commandment; and the man of sin, who, at the instigation of Satan, instituted the spurious Sabbath, this child of the papacy, will be exalted to take the place of God. – Ms 27.4, 1882

And this telling statement, explaining natural disasters in a way that is anything but politically correct, was written the same year. And it presents the national Sunday law agitation that was happening in 1882 as being what Ellen White had seen in 1846, the very beginning of her prophetic role.

     Already the judgments of God are abroad in the land, as seen in storms, in floods, in tempests, in earthquakes, in peril by land and by sea. The great I AM is speaking to those who make void His law. When God’s wrath is poured out upon the earth, who will then be able to stand? Now is the time for God’s people to show themselves true to principle. When the religion of Christ is most held in contempt, when His law is most despised, then should our zeal be the warmest and our courage and firmness the most unflinching. To stand in defense of truth and righteousness when the majority forsake us, to fight the battles of the Lord when champions are few—this will be our test. At this time we must gather warmth from the coldness of others, courage from their cowardice, and loyalty from their treason. The nation will be on the side of the great rebel leader.

     The test will surely come. Thirty-six years ago I was shown that what is now transpiring would take place, that the observance of an institution of the papacy would be enforced upon the people by a Sunday law, while the sanctified rest day of Jehovah would be trampled underfoot. – 5T 136.2-137.1, written 1882. (Thirty-six years earlier would be 1846.)

(One thing on dates: the large bulk of what Ellen White wrote was written in the last forty years of her life. Of the 24 bound volumes of letters and manuscripts, the first 32 years of her writing are found in just the first two volumes.  The next 32 years take twenty-one volumes. Consequently, one is likely to find ten times as much material on any topic from 1875 forward as from 1874 backwards. This preponderance of later writing should not be construed into a change in content. It can be better explained as an increase in detail.)

The book Great Controversy, as published in 1888 and then expanded in 1911, gives a more detailed picture, but not one that counters the earlier statements in any way. For the details, see GC 578-581. And notice this aspect, that the teachings of the Great Controversy are not presented as a new thing:

     Since the middle of the nineteenth century, students of prophecy in the United States have presented this testimony to the world. In the events now taking place is seen a rapid advance toward the fulfillment of the prediction.  – GC 579.1

Perhaps the element added by these pages is that the RCC is behind the stealthy secret movements for Sunday exaltation. While the clueless Protestant churches are complicit, they are not intelligently so.

     God’s word has given warning of the impending danger; let this be unheeded, and the Protestant world will learn what the purposes of Rome really are, only when it is too late to escape the snare. She is silently growing into power. Her doctrines are exerting their influence in legislative halls, in the churches, and in the hearts of men. – GC 581.2

And the book adds that the judgments of God already mentioned would be the pretext for serious persecutions, bolstered by the miracle working power of demons. (The latter element, of course, is directly predicted in Revelation 13 also). And the book adds that it will be public force pressuring corrupt officials (a grassroots movement) that will impel the Sunday laws eventually.

It will be declared that men are offending God by the violation of the Sunday sabbath; that this sin has brought calamities which will not cease until Sunday observance shall be strictly enforced; … – GC 590.1

Political corruption is destroying love of justice and regard for truth; and even in free America, rulers and legislators, in order to secure public favor, will yield to the popular demand for a law enforcing Sunday observance. Liberty of conscience, which has cost so great a sacrifice, will no longer be respected. – GC 592

Later Statements

Then, two decades after the Sunday-law excitement in congress had mostly died down, Ellen White was still urging the sale of the Great Controversy to warn the world of what was coming. CM 123.

Another statement written at about the same time offers even more information, namely that spiritualism and Catholicism will both put pressure on the USA to reverse the influence of the United States Constitution. As in the GC, this will happen just prior to the great miracle deceptive miracles. (And that will give way to “Jacob’s Time of Trouble.”)

When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near….The people of God will then be plunged into those scenes of affliction and distress which prophets have described as the time of Jacob’s trouble. –5T 451

Paulien speaks of the “now…” statements. From Ellen’s use of “now” he infers that those writings were time-sensitive such as to be currently outdated in their details. But he misses how the “now” in 1882 was just a fulfillment of what had been expected already for “many years.”

We have been looking many years for a Sunday law to be enacted in our land; and, now that the movement is right upon us, we ask: Will our people do their duty in the matter? Can we not assist in lifting the standard and in calling to the front those who have a regard for their religious rights and privileges? …. Shall we then dishonor God by keeping silent while His holy commandments are trodden underfoot? – 5T 716.4

By 1903 she had been shown another aspect of spiritualism, namely that “heathen deities” would exhibit their amazing power in major cities. That will be quite an experience! And yet, in no way does it counter the sixty years of revelations about the Sunday Law that had already been given. (Apparently some such showing of heathen deities had happened by 1903 already.)

As we near the close of time, there will be greater and still greater external parade of heathen power; heathen deities will manifest their signal power, and  will exhibit themselves before the cities of the world; and this delineation has already begun to be fulfilled. -TM 117.5

But the heathen deities are, of course, just fallen angels. And so this is not so different than what was revealed a decade earlier in 1893.

They declared that they had the truth, that miracles were among them, that angels from heaven talked with them and walked with them, that great power, and signs and wonders were performed among them, and this was the Temporal Millennium, which they had been expecting so long.—Maranatha, 209.

And the Great Controversy included the insights that demons will argue scripture with us and with others. So even non-scholars had better test their suppositions carefully. Thankfully some good angels will be in human form also.

Satan can quote Scripture now as in the days of Christ, and he will pervert its teachings to sustain his delusions. Those who would stand in this time of peril must understand for themselves the testimony of the Scriptures. Many will be confronted by the spirits of devils personating beloved relatives or friends and declaring the most dangerous heresies. –GC 559, 560.

Satanic agencies in human form will take part in this last great conflict to oppose the building up of the kingdom of God. And heavenly angels in human guise will be on the field of action. The two opposing parties will continue to exist till the closing up of the last great chapter in this world’s history.” – The Review and Herald, August 5,

Briefly, the Bible on the Sunday Law

In Revelation 13, we find the United States introduced as a lamb-like beast.[1] And before long this nation “exercises all the authority of the first beast,” using its influence to lead the world to “worship” the revived Roman Catholic Papacy. Revelation 13:11-12.

Miracles form the primary agent of deception here, as in the testimonies above. Revelation 13:13-14A.

Those miracles lead to America forming a parallel to the papacy, an “image to the beast.” America’s God-given authority is used wickedly to enforce the religious rules of this image. The enforcement culminates in a death decree against those who will not worship the RCC. But the earlier steps involve a severe boycott of those who will not “receive a mark on their right hand or on their forehead.” Revelation 13:14b-17.

These facts, all gathered directly from Revelation 13, harmonize precisely with the testimonies above.

But we ask, “What is the Mark of the Beast”? And this is the same as asking, “What type of law will be made to enforce the Mark of the Beast?”

And to that question we can provide these observations form the Three Angels’ Messages.

1. Those who receive the mark of the beast do not keep the commandments of God. (14:12)
2. Those who receive the mark are punished with “no rest” (14:11)
3. Those who worship the beast are not those who worship God as Creator (14:6-7,9-11)

To say these things more simply, those who receive the Mark of the Beast are those who do not keep the commandments, and especially not the fourth one.

Now remember that in chapter 13, the issue was worship laws. And the Sabbath is a worship commandment.

But there is more. The metaphor of a mark in the forehead or hand comes from Deuteronomy 6:5-8. There we find that the Ten Commandments should be in our hearts and in the hearts of our children. And this is illustrated by the metaphor of some mark in our forehead or hand.

And God says (Isaiah 8:16), “Bind up the testimony; seal the law upon my disciples.” Here we find that God’s faithful people are set aside by God’s law, and by making up (“bind up”) an apparent breach in it.

This is the New Covenant promise that God will put his Ten Commandments in our character. Hebrews 8:10.

The image metaphors in Revelation 13 are drawn from Daniel 3 where a law in made that requires God’s people to break the Second Commandment. And that story is similar to Daniel 6 where a law is made that requires praying persons to break the First Commandment.

Now the Sabbath has been made the sign of God’s work of writing the law into the mind. That is what is meant by it being a “sign” of God’s work of sanctification.” Ezekiel 20:12. This sign was established long ago to show who God’s faithful people are. Exodus 31:16-17.

So when we encounter the “Seal of God” in Revelation 7, we know that this metaphor of God’s law in the heart is closely related to the Sabbath. And when we find in Daniel 7:25 that the RCC attempts to change “times and laws,” we can put things together:

God’s sign of law keeping is Sabbath keeping. And so we are not surprised that the RCC would claim Sunday as a mark of its authority.

And thus we conclude that the worship laws of Revelation 13 will be laws that deny God’s Creation memorial for the beast’s counterfeit day, Sunday Laws. And this relieves us because we can’t imagine a feasible worship law requiring the breaking of any other one of the Ten Commandments. Why not? Because those who are on the wrong side will be persons who think they are serving Jesus despite their disregard of some one of God’s commandments. Mathew 7:20-23.

Summary

Jon Paulien has put forward a short series of principles of prophetic interpretation. He uses these to shows that the Sunday Law predictions of Ellen White cannot be expected to be fulfilled literally as written.

But the evidence points the other way. It is his principles that can not be expected to work well as written.

And there never has been a time when the writings of Ellen White regarding the Sunday seemed more relevant and inspired.

We would be wiser to learn what has been revealed than to comfort ourselves vainly that such things as we grew up hearings will never come to pass.

And we would be wiser to search the truth for ourselves rather than to imbibe it from erudite persons. “Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the wise?” Indeed, God has done so.

–Eugene Prewitt

July 7, 2021

---

[1] For far more Bible evidence on these points, see www.bibledoc.org under Revelation 13 and 14.

What a year this has been! And what a year it still is! So here are some highlights from what promises to be a too-long letter. You may read the updates and go on with your life if you so choose:

1. Our training program moved from a beautiful campus (Aenon) to a scattered collection of rented homes. We are yet looking for a permanent place. And a person we have never met gave us a one-time donation sufficient to buy a piece of property.
2. Our Sabah training program, iEAT Jr., opened its doors in January with five students and one teacher. Now it has 18 students, three instructors, and others wanting to join. Only four of the 18 are from Adventist homes. But 18 of the 18 are becoming Adventists.
3. We started a camp for refugees. This means two annual YD-like youth camps in Malaysia (neither associated in any formal way with Young Disciple Ministries). And as a result of our two camps this year, at least eight campers have chosen to join one or the other of our two training programs.
4. The Prewitts took our once-in-five-years vacation this spring. This time we went on a tour of the Holy Land. And on that tour Eugene composed a poem that is at appended at the end of this letter.
5. We graduated seven students from iEAT Sr. (The Institute of East Asia Training). All seven are in full-time ministry today.
6. Camp-meetings and family camps and retreats where Eugene spoke were in Romania, Germany, the USA, Malaysia, Indonesia, New Zealand. Heidi accompanied him on most of these trips, though she stayed home in Malaysia during some that were back-to-back with others.
7. The world went crazy. But you know this already, so no examples needed here.
8. We visited Heidi’s and Eugene’s family last June. Eugene’s mom came to Malaysia for her fourth time in September.
9. We printed four more titles in Malaysia and continued the great work of translation of Ellen White’s materials.
10. We had other significant success that we can’t put into a newsletter.

OK, those are the high-lights, and here are the details. (Some redundancy with our October update is inevitable. If you read that already, brace yourself.)

In December of 2018 Eugene met with the administration of Aenon Health Farm, near Tampin, Malaysia. Our three years with them were some of their most prosperous years, and as we were growing also, it was becoming less comfortable to stay on the same campus. (There were philosophical differences that brought things to a head.) Our program (iEAT) had been sharing with Aenon dorms, a café, staff housing, and teachers. Now we were told that we needed to find our own home.

And so, out of the nest we went. We moved to the state of Perak, rented a few homes in a quaint little village called Sungai Durian (literally, Durian River), set about becoming our own institution. Our paid staff in January 1, 2019, was three individuals. But by January 1, 2020, it will be eleven full-time and two part-time staff. And our pay-scale went down to accommodate the need for new staff.

Heidi loves our village here. Many of the villagers love her too, and nearly every dog on the major roads wags and bounces when she appears. (She carries a bag of food with her on every walk, giving a few pieces of dogfood to each dog as she passes.)

In searching for property I (Eugene) have viewed some of the most beautiful places in Malaysia. The most gorgeous are all out of range of our purchasing power (high-power investors and developers have banked on the prolific nature of Malay persons, gambling that the price of property will ever go up and up and up. And this gamble has had the effect of the price of property going up and up and up even before the population expansion warranted it.) But one hill-top property of 3.3 acres has pleased us verily. And in January, if nothing unexpectedly significant changes between now and then, we will make a move on it. Try map point 4.287886 North, 101.046658 E and use “Satellite View” if you want to see the oil palm trees on the property currently.

Just over a year ago, one of our iEAT students, Prescella Francis, accepted a call to help us establish a secondary school in Sabah. She secured land, negotiated with contractors and building supply outlets, and while working on the huge project of building from scratch in a jungle, she opened the school with five students in January, eleven months ago. Those students, four of them, are yet with the school, and fourteen more have joined. Most of these are neighboring persons who are not of a Christian faith. But since attending the school, all seem to be enjoying parts of our faith, like Bible study, scripture songs, and Bible stories, and prayer.

This Sabah branch of our program has been affectionally named, iEAT Jr. (And this inadvertently led to our tertiary program in Perak becoming iEAT Sr.) And iEAT Jr. has started planting many types of fruits and vegetables. (We now know that cassava, sweet potato, peanut, coconut, durian, grow well, and that corn does not grow well at all.)

And over two months ago, the new buildings were finished to such an extent that we were able to use them for our camp, housing all campers, staff and counselors in two buildings (eight rooms). (The camp was, for the second time in a row, sabotaged by well-meaning poorly-informed church administrators. The various strong efforts they made to prevent campers from coming resulted in reducing the number by about 40%. But on a positive note, several elders and pastors visited during the camp and pledged their support going forward.)   

I heard a hopeful rumor there. But is a year-end-letter a place to share hopeful rumors? Maybe if they are introduced that way: I heard that the recent annual council voted to reshuffle this union, attaching Singapore directly to the SSD and making KL the new headquarters for a Malaysia Union. If that is true, I think it will be a positive development for this region as some of the strongest churches in the union are found in that city, as well as some of the ablest administrators.

As iEAT Jr. grew, we added two staff (Fayafa and Fiona). And as all the staff are ladies, the school is currently a ladies-only school for boarding students (though both genders are accepted as day students). But Fiona is enrolling in iEAT Sr this year. And Fayafa, it seems, will marry the man of her dreams this year and move away. So if any of you know a spiritual lady with teaching in her blood that might like to volunteer for a year or so in the jungles of Borneo, let me know. If you would pay your own airfare to and from Sandakan, Sabah, we would pay for your visa runs, food and lodging, and give you a jungle experience of pioneering such as you thought was confined to faded-cover story books. The need will be most pronounced later in 2020, and in 2021. And if you a numbers girl who thinks of bookkeeping as ministry (it is), maybe we could even keep you long term. (We might just have to hope you find a husband here for that to work well.) Men, we can’t take you at our girls’ school. It would just be too awkward and scandalous. Until a married couple is there, that is how things will be. (If you are a retired couple, looking for a fine place to retire and do part time mission work, please talk to me. Maybe this can work too.)

One of the great ironies for life is that the head of state of Myanmar is facing accusations of human-rights violations. She won a noble prize earlier in her life for standing up for human rights in Myanmar, even at the cost of her own freedom. But after emerging from jail and becoming a head of state, she has turned a deaf ear, it seems, to the plights of the tribes that live on the edges of her nation. These (including many of the Chin, Zomi, Karen and Rohingya) have been chased out of Myanmar by violence. And many have made their way to Malaysia (which is about 350 miles from Myanmar through Thailand, or by boat).

So iEAT began serving this community this year in two ways. First, we accepted two darling children into our campus of rented homes, John (14) and Julia (10). We started a rudimentary primary program for them and, when we had developed it sufficiently, we let them invite their friends. That was a few weeks ago, and now we are looking at having six children sharing our small spaces until we secure our own property. Second, we had our first MYB (Myanmar Young Believers Camp). About 20 campers (80% SDA) showed up in October and gave a wonderful report at the close of the short camp. Even today several keep in touch with us and report that they are experiencing daily Bible study.

This is a year-end letter, so here is the personal part: in 2018 the Prewitts were scheduled to take their five-year vacation in Maine. But…mom Prewitt had a stroke just days before we were to head out canvassing, and so we spent that time with her in her home. So in 2019 we made out excursion a year late. We found a deal with an Adventist agent to take a tour of the Holy Land (Jordan, Israel, Egypt) for a total cost of $1800 each (including RT airfare). The trip was full of enlightenment, refreshment, awe, and disillusionment. The latter contributed to this poem that I wrote while waiting in line at a particular popular site:

 
 I walked today where Jesus walked
 So very long ago
 And if you seek for holy land
 I’ll tell you what I know
  
 The hilly meadows that He loved
 The garden-like retreats
 Have long-since been replaced by men
 With masonry and streets
  
 The temple mount now holds a mosque
 A place you cannot go
 But that won’t hurt you e’en one bit
 When the facts you know
  
 When Moses found a holy place
 A bush engulfed in flame
 That land was set aside and blessed
 A wasteland with no name
  
 And why was it called “holy land”
 With no chapel near?
 The angel answered this for us
 “The Lord your God is here”
  
 And so today, for those who seek
 To find a holy place
 If you invite the Lord to come
 And ask the Spirit’s grace
  
 You can have His presence true
 In any hill or dale
 His promise “I will not leave you”
 Is certain not to fail
  
 Jesus loved the garden
 And often plied the sea
 His Word once spoke with power
 And flowers came to be
  
 So not in Old Jerusalem
 Where crowds vie for a view
 But in a quiet nature walk
 Your maker comes to you
  
 And that will be your “Holy Land”
 A venerated place
 A church of highest privilege
 Of heaven, a foretaste 

This poem became, I think, one of the most forwarded items that I posted to social media this year. If you find it there, you’ll find an extra verse or two in the comments. But mostly FB, in 2019, was a place for me to review discoveries I made in years past while reading through the EGW archives that were released in 2015.

Are you looking for more about the holy land? Yes, Sinai, Jerusalem, Galilee, Jordan River, Pyramids, boats, good food, good beds, good tour guides. VERY catholic shrines at each place, except the tomb of David which was VERY Jewish. (I thought about wearing my Jewish skull-cap and Malay robe simultaneously, but Heidi advised me against it on grounds that it would incite violence.)

After years of training, iEAT finally has graduates! Our first graduates in 2019, all seven of them, are currently at work in God’s great Asian field; six in Malaysia and one in Cambodia. Another four have taken up mission posts after studying here less than needed to graduate. So through these ten persons iEAT expects to have a never-ending influence on Malaysia.

Our travels this year (the last trip starts Thursday to Aukland) have placed us with wonderful friends in Achan, Germany and in Romania. In January we visited canvassers in Australia. Then worked with the Division at a missional meeting in Bali. Following this we had a similar meeting in Dubai in June. Due to conflicting schedules, we missed OCI in Cambodia. After YD camp (our fourteenth summer in a row there) we did a series in Germany and then Eugene returned briefly to Michigan to get his mother and to speak at the “BootCamp” of the public campus ministries program under Israel Ramos.

www.mengapa.org took life a few months ago, a website hosted in Germany that offers video Bible studies in English and Malay. And American friends have been advertising the site in various parts of Malaysia. You can do that also. Our part is just to be happy that our German and American friends are doing something for this dark country.

Our visits with family were especially warm in 2019, including time with Pam in Arkansas, Mom W in Tennessee and Mom Y in Virginia. Eugene’s nephews are growing into nature lovers and those of Heidi’s that once lived with us are serving our country in uniform. (I typed “their country” and then thought, wait, I’m still American. That is my country even when I am not there. Fixed.) And mother made her fourth and final visit to Malaysia, and took an exciting excursion over to Cambodia where she visited the home of one of her adopted grandchildren. I guess I have given her three now, two boys and a girl, all aged 18-25, so I completely skipped the complicated years. These three are natives of the Zomi, Dusun and Khmer tribes of Asia.

Wow. You read all the way to here? That was 2300 words, similar to Daniel 8:14. And now are you ready to afflict your souls? It is time for….drum roll….financial needs! (I don’t like it that I am always begging. But I have accepted it. All persons are welcome to go to the next email if they care not to read the rest of this.)

First, a report. Not including the special one-time gift mentioned earlier in this report, we have received since October 10 (the date of our last update and appeal) $26,259.20.* Of this amount, about $8427.20* was donated to help with the salaries of our teachers. Then $1999.06* was given to help with our camps. (We estimated this would be sufficient. But as we needed to buy a large canopy for each camp and a generator for one, so it was about $3200 below the actual costs of the camps). The remaining 15,832.94* was unrestricted and will be used for our upcoming building project, where it is needed much. (*All figures of donations are in USD though many donations were in other currencies. These were exchanged by me into USD to get these numbers.)

So, needs:

1. We need a truck for our west campus. (We have one for our east campus thanks to a donor from earlier in this year).  This will cost, I estimate, about $8,000. [**UPDATE ONE HOUR AFTER PUBLISHING THIS, $9,000 WAS DONATED TO PAY FOR THIS TRUCK** Praise God.]
2. We need two small cars for our work. (Both will be used to travel around to Adventist churches in this nation promoting true education and righteousness by faith, as we understand these things.). I estimate that these two cars will cost $4,000 each. (Unless a donor gives money for a new car and says “buy a new car” we will certainly be buying cars about 5 to 7 years old.)
3. We have found that translation into Malay is more expensive than previously expected. While we raised the entire amount we expected to need, we now expect to need another $3,500 for translation expense. I am living and learning. Ministry of Healing and GC are large books. [**One hour after posting this, one donor gave $4,000 to cover this translation expense. Amen.**]
4. We are starting medical missionary training this semester with a guest lecturer from Germany. We would like about $2,300 to fit up a treatment room and to buy some basic equipment, and to buy some relevant text books.
5. We have recently printed Steps to Christ and Thoughts from the Mount of Blessings, in Malay, as well as a Malay cookbook. These projects were funded just prior to the last update by a friend of our work. I do not want to ask that friend to fund our next printing of GC in Malay and of Ministry of Healing in Malay. We expect to print 4000 copies of each at a total cost of about 92,000 RM ($22,000). (Malay is a larger language in print than is English, so both books will be printed in two volumes to avoid too large a book, so this is 16,000 actual books.) These will be the 10^th and 11^th titles we have printed in Malaysia. Never have we raised money to reprint a previous title as we reserve enough to print again when we run low.
6. The big expense is, of course, our building fund. And this is where I am hesitant to make estimates. Probably we have enough raised, after buying our land, to do the sewer, foundation, electric, framing, roofing, plumbing. But as paint and tiles and outlets and insulation and landscaping and parking lots are all worthwhile, I’d rather not try to do anything too cheaply. So briefly, we don’t desperately need anything more for the building fund. But we would like more. We will build bare bones and add finishing touches as we are able.
7. When asking for these big-ticket needs, it is easy to forget small ticket costs. But there are some things worth mentioning that maybe one of you would like to help with in particular:
   1. A new printer for both iEAT and iEAT Jr. (Geckoes and an unfortunate drop were the undoing of the two we used this year. I managed to get the gecko out, but it was too late for the machine.) With ink, these are each $90 (inkjet) to $150 (laser.)
   1. Great cultivar fruit trees. We will soon be buying our property, and after having the needed land cleared, the one thing we can do while waiting for the architect and government to approve building, is plant high-quality cultivars of fruit trees. In fruit trees, expensive varieties are generally the best deal (a $15 difference in tree price can easily become a $3000 difference in fruit yield and disease resistance over the life of the tree.) Good quality trees here are generally inexpensive and can cost $8 to $30 each. These would make great Christmas presents to us from children around the world. They could give us Mango, or Mangosteen, or Papaya, or Guava, or Durian, or Jackfruit, or Banana, or Avocado, or Coconut, or Rambutan, or Dragon Fruit. Except Bananas, these are all long-term investments ?. As our plot is a hill top, drainage is great, sun is super, and soil is…poor. But most of these varieties grow well in poor Malaysian soil. ?.
   1. Revival and educational videos. We are collecting videos from the USA to use as teaching tools this year around Malaysia. And as most of these are produced in western countries, they are pricey! But if you want to mail us a series you think is great, or want to recommend a series that is great, or want to sponsor a series that is great, our lending library is open for your help.

OK, so those are our needs for the next six to twelve months (remember, I don’t send one of these letters very often: six since 2015). [** There are needs I can’t mention in public settings. But one hour after posting this, $3500 was given for one of those needs].

Thank you for reading this far. May the work in your part of God’s field be as productive as the work is here.

We made contingency plans this week for how the ministry will go forward if I were to die or be kidnapped or be deported, or if bank accounts were to be frozen. Our work will just go forward regardless. Do you have contingency plans for your work? Things are crazy enough these days that such plans are more likely than usual to be implemented.

Also, take a look at www.bibledoc.org if you haven’t been there in a year or two. Some relevant newish articles since 2018. But especially check back for a soon-coming article on demon possession and exorcism, as well as a related one on depression and anxiety.

And look there for this update with a sign-up link. If you know anyone that might like to receive this newsletter, have them sign up.

Be faithful,

Eugene and Heidi Prewitt, December 24, 2019

HOW TO GIVE (I have made this as easy as I can for everyone)

With USD

1. For IRS-recognized receipts, send to Jesus4Asia WITH A NOTE THAT IT IS FOR IEAT MALAYSIA
   1. Send a check made to “Jesus for Asia” to PO Box 1221, Collegedale, TN 37315. Include the note.
   1. Call 423-413-7321 to use your credit card over the phone. Tell who it is for.
   1. Or use this URL: https://jesus4asia.org/invest/projects-missionaries/eugene-prewitt/
2. For no receipts at all, zilch, and hardly a word of thanks, try these convenient methods, no note needed except to specify a project
   1. Paypal to adventexpositor@gmail.com
   1. CashApp to $EugenePrewitt
   1. ACH transfer to:  Routing: 026073150; Account 822000005439 (that is 5 zeros): Account Holder: Eugene W Prewitt
   1. WIRE to: Routing 026073008; SWIFT/BIC CMFGUS33; Acct Hld: Eugene W Prewitt; Address: TransferWise; 19 W 24^th Street; New York, NY 10010; USA
   1. Send cash with a friend headed our way. Easier than it sounds…

With NZD, AUD, Euro, GBP, Rupiah, Ringgits, email me at adventexpositor@gmail.com for local bank details so that we don’t lose much to the exchangers.

Want to get on our email list? Sign up here:

• 

A Short Essay on Christian Duty in Relation to the Old Testament Laws

By Eugene Prewitt. You may contact the author at adventexpositor@gmail.com

Introduction

The New Testament seems, to some persons, to contradict itself in relation to the Law of God.

It advocates, they observe, that the “doers of the law” will be “justified.” It teaches that faith “establishes the law.” It adds that while the “carnal” mind is “not subject to the law of God,” yet the spiritual mind “delights in the law of God.” Ro 2:13; 3:31; 8:7; 7:22.

And on the other hand, the New Testament teaches that we are no longer “under the law.” The law has been “nailed to the cross.” It was a collection of “carnal commandments imposed on them until the time of reformation.” False teachers taught that “it was needful to command [new believers] to keep the law….” Gal 5:18; Col 2:14; Heb 9:10; Ac 15:5.

But there is no contradiction between these passages. All but the last one were written by the same author, a man well versed in the Old Testament. And when one understands just a few facts about the Old Testament laws, it becomes easy to harmonize the references above.

The Old Testament Laws

The Old Testament had several types of laws. These included the following primary categories:

            Moral Laws                 These defined right from wrong, defined righteousness and sin.

            Ceremonial Laws        These illustrated truths, usually truths related to the gospel.

            Civil Laws                    These set limits that were to be enforced by human government.

            Hygienic Laws             These curbed disease by imposing scientifically advanced restrictions on a society that was incapable of grasping germ theory, digestion, etc..

These laws are not difficult to identify in the Old Testament. Civil Laws, for example, are all laws that come with a punishment. The Ten Commandments may say “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery.” But the civil law adds that the adulterer should be stoned by the congregation.

Civil laws do not define right and wrong. The government, for example, may permit anger, divorce, lust. The government does not mean to say that these things are righteous behavior, but merely that these behaviors are not within the realm enforceable by the state.

Hygienic laws, which have their modern counterpart in the sanitation and food and drug laws of our day, dealt with infectious diseases, fungal infections of buildings, sewer disposal, bathing, undertaking, and diet.

Ceremonial laws centered around the Hebrew sanctuary services. Oil, water, blood, wool, lambs, leaven, etc., all became symbols of profound spiritual truths. A large portion of the rituals pointed forward to the work of Jesus as the Messiah, the Lamb of God.

Moral Laws differed from civil laws in that they extended even to the thoughts and, as they were to be enforced in the future judgment, included no civil penalty. They extended beyond the realm of civil law.

No one, for example, could make an enforceable civil law regarding coveting. And while civil laws could punish murder, the moral law extends to the thoughts and condemns hate.

Moral Laws can only be punished by a court that can read hearts and this is why Solomon connects the moral law with the idea of judgment.

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. Ec 12:13-14.

Which Laws Should We Keep Today?

Civil and Hygienic Laws

Civil and hygienic laws were binding in Israel as long as Israel had its own sovereignty as a nation. But when Babylon subjected the nation, the Jews were obliged to keep the civil laws of the nation in which they found themselves. Paul taught that we should obey the laws of the land. And when he taught this, Israel was still in subjection to a foreign power – Rome.

And so Christians today are not obliged to honor the civil laws of a no-longer existing civil power. We obey the powers that “be” (Romans 13:1), not the powers that “were.” But we would do well to study the ancient laws none-the-less. Only today has science advanced to the extent of recognizing the wisdom in many of the laws regarding diet. Those who pattern their personal diet choices after the national hygienic laws of the Jews will, generally, live longer and more productive lives than those who do not. They access the wisdom of the Creator through the laws He gave to His favored people.

Some of the civil laws were useful as a source of moral instruction. Often called “judgments” and “statutes”, these laws helped explain the Ten Commandments and to apply the principles of the Ten Commandments to individuals, enforcing the principles with civil penalties.

So we learn, for example, that God forbids pre-marital sex. See Ex 22:16. The statute helps explain the breadth of the seventh commandment. Not only are we to be faithful to our marriage commitment while we are married, we are to be faithful in saving ourselves for our marriage commitment.

Ceremonial Laws

There is no reason to keep the Old Testament ceremonial laws. This is not to say that there are no more ceremonial laws for man to keep. But the Old Testament ceremonies that pointed forward to the Savior have been replaced by New Testament ceremonies (baptism and the Lord’s Supper) that point backwards to the Savior. As circumcision was the sign of Abraham’s covenant, so Baptism has become the sign of the New Covenant. See Col. 2:10-13.

This last point was not well understood in the first century church. The result was that many converted Jews urged Gentiles to be circumcised and to keep other of the Jewish ceremonies as being “necessary” to salvation. This first-century doctrinal crisis led to the writing of Acts 15, Romans 14, I Corinthians 8, Colossians 2, Ephesians 2, the book of Galatians, Hebrews 9, and many smaller passages.

Ceremonial laws are not optional laws. Men are not excused if they simply choose to refrain from baptism and to forego communion. But ceremonial laws differ from moral laws in significant ways.

First, when their symbolic meaning is not understood, they do more harm than good. This is why God could ask Israel, “who asked you to keep the feasts and to sacrifice the animals?” Isaiah 1:10-14. The ritual of killing lambs has no moral value unless it deeply impresses the sinner with his need of a savior.  In the same way, the New Testament rituals of communion, when conducted by thoughtless persons, incriminate those persons. 1 Co 11:27-29.

The entire ritual system of the Jews came to an end at the cross.

Moral Laws

But moral laws are always binding. Unselfishness is always good. Selfishness is always bad. Sin is defined, in scripture, as the transgression of law. Where there are no moral laws, there can be neither sin nor righteousness.

Moral laws have always been the center around which all other laws revolve. The ceremonial system illustrated how a person could be forgiven. Forgiven for what? Forgiven for sin. But what is sin? It is the transgression of the Law. 1Jo 3:4. The ceremonies were given to illustrate how men could be forgiven for their violations of the moral law.

The moral laws are those that are summed up by the words “love God” and “love man.”

For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Ro 13:9

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Mat 22:37-40.

Moral laws are as enduring as eternity. It will never be sinless to bear false witness.

And moral laws are as ancient as sin. How did Lucifer fall? He became a “liar” and a “murderer.” John 8:44. How did demons come into existence? Angels “sinned” and lost their first estate. 2Pe 2:4. They fell by disobeying the moral Law of God.

Summary: We are obliged to keep moral laws, civil laws and ceremonial laws. The moral laws have never changed. The ceremonial laws have changed dramatically. And the civil laws vary from nation to nation, and have always varied that way. We are not obliged to keep the civil laws of the deceased theocracy of Israel.

The New Covenant, Law, and Grace

The New Covenant includes a promise by God to write the moral law into our minds.

But now hath [Jesus] obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. . . . For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: Heb 8:6, 10.

The miracle of the new birth is this writing of God’s law in our hearts.

Some persons, when they see how highly God’s Law is exulted in scripture, suppose that the Law can justify them if they only obey it carefully enough. But this was never the purpose of Law.

Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. Ga 3:21 

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Ro 3:20 

The Law points out sin. The gospel shows us how to be freed from sin’s power and sin’s guilt.

Why do we need the law? Don’t we already know right from wrong? The truth is that the law is not intuitive. Paul said, for example, that he would not have known that coveting was wrong if it hadn’t been for the Tenth Commandment.

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. Ro 7:7.

So men who seek to earn righteousness by the law are condemned by the law. But Christians, profiting by the moral instruction in the Law, submit to have that law written into their hearts. Only this way can a mortal man hope to obey.

For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. Ro 8:6-7

Where can one find the content of that Law that is to be written into our minds?

The Ten Commandments

God gave Moses an application of the eternal moral law to the conditions of man. The Ten Commandments encompass the whole duty of our race. These commands are the “royal law” – not of an early nation, but of the King Jesus.

If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. James 2:8-12.

These Ten Commandments are the law that pointed out the sin of coveting to Paul in Romans 7. These are the commands listed by Paul in Romans 13 when he says that we owe “love” to each other. These are the commandments of which Jesus said:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matt 5:17-18

And then Jesus went on to show the spiritual nature of this law, showing that cherished thoughts of lust and hate are sinful violations of the Law of God.

When Revelation speaks of the end of time, it points out that men will be keeping the “Commandments of God.” Rev 12:17; 14:12; 22:14.

The Sabbath

Interestingly, only one of the Ten Commandments is typically repudiated by Christians in our day. And even more interestingly, it is the one commandment that begins with the word “remember.”

Some justify their Sabbath-breaking by saying that the Law has been abolished.

But these have forgotten that:

Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. Ro 2:13

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Ro 3:31

Jas 1:25  But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

The passages where Paul discusses the abolition of the ceremonial law they misunderstand.

And this is despite the fact that there are several tell-tale differences between the Ten Commandments and the ceremonial laws. These enable the observant reader to correctly identify when the ceremonial system is being discussed.

For one thing, the ceremonial laws were hand-written while the Ten Commandments were carved in stone by God’s own finger. (Ex 31:18). So when we read of the “handwriting” in Col 2:14, we have a hint that it is speaking of the ceremonial laws.

For another thing, the ceremonial laws involved….ceremonies or, as Paul calls them, “ordinances.” So when we read of the “handwriting of ordinances” we have a hint that we are reading of the ceremonial laws.

For another thing, the ceremonial laws were kept in the side of the ark as a “testimony against them.” De 31:26. (The Ten Commandments, by way of contrast, were contained inside the ark.) So when we read of ordinances “against” men, we have a hint that we are reading of the ceremonial laws.

For another thing, the ceremonial laws were “types” or “shadows” or symbols of future events. When we read of laws that are shadows of a reality, we know that we are reading about ceremonial laws.

These are enough hints to help us understand Col. 2:14-17.

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; . . .  Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Col. 2:14-17.

While Paul speaks of the moral law of Ten Commandments as being “spiritual”, he speaks of these ceremonial laws as being “carnal.”

Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. . . . For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. Ro 7:12, 14

Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. Heb 9:9-10

Part of the Jewish ceremonial system included feast days that were symbols of the Christ’s death, of Christ’s resurrection, of the day of Pentecost, and of other significant events in Christian history. These were ceremonial “sabbaths” and were distinguished from the Seventh-day Sabbath. And being ceremonial, they were not to last past the cross.

When John wrote his gospel, he called them “Jewish.”

Joh 2:13  And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,

Joh 5:1  After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

Joh 6:4  And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.

Joh 7:2  Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand.

Joh 11:55  And the Jews’ passover was nigh at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves.

These ceremonial “sabbaths”, (See Lev 16:31; 23:24, 32; 25:4) particularly the Passover, were the sabbaths “which are a shadow of things to come” and were a “figure for the time.”

The most confusing of the Jewish Sabbaths, for the early Christians, was Passover. On one hand, it seemed that it was a ceremony fulfilled and now pointless. Jesus, the Passover, had been crucified.

On the other hand, Jesus had instituted the Last Supper, with rituals in some ways parallel to the Paschal rituals, at the very time of the Passover.

This led to a widespread belief among Jewish Christians that the Passover should be kept, but without eating the lamb. Passover without lamb is the eating of bitter herbs. (Ex 12:8; Nu 9:11).

And this is the reason for Romans 14. Paul refused to condemn Passover keepers. But he also refused to condemn those who recognized that the Passover was no longer binding. Both parties were trying to honor God by their relation to the day; both were trying to honor God by their relation to the eating of herbs.

Unlike the feasts, which are called Jewish in the five passages quoted above from John, the Sabbath needed no introduction to Gentile believers reading John’s gospel, or the other gospels for that matter. The Sabbath is always called “the Sabbath.”

Jesus calls himself the Lord of the Sabbath (Mr. 2:28; Is 58:13) and so shows that the “Lord’s Day” of Revelation 1 was none other than the Sabbath. Gentiles who wished to hear the gospel after the Jews waited, not one day to Sunday, but a week until the “next Sabbath.” Ac 13:32-34.

Even when taking the gospel to the Gentile nations it was Paul’s normal manner of work to teach on the Sabbath (Ac 17:2). Rather than undermining the truth of the gospel, he used this habit as a manner of persuading “both Jews and Greeks” “every Sabbath.” Ac 18:4.

How the Christian world came to observe Sunday is simple matter of history. The Roman Church sought to distance itself from Jews, and to encourage the conversion of Pagans (who had been worshipping on Sunday for a long time….this is how it became known as the “sun day”). So it adopted the day. Alexandria joined the city of Rome in this plan.  And after Rome gained the ascendancy over other churches, its tradition became general.

Much more could be written on this topic.

But the short of it all is this: God said don’t kill. We shouldn’t. He said to honor our parents. We should. He said not to forget the Sabbath. We did. Shame on us. We ought to make it right.

Jesus said:

Joh 14:15  If ye love me, keep my commandments.

— Prepared August 17, 2008, at the request of Rachel Hyman

FAQ

1.         You keep the Sabbath. Why don’t you stone Sabbath breakers?

2.         Jesus was resurrected on Sunday, making that day honorable.

3.         We are not “under law.”

4.         You can’t earn salvation by obedience to the law.

ANSWERS

1.         In relation to the question about stoning, moral laws are enforced in the judgment. Civil laws are enforced by the state.

But many times the state enforces moral laws with civil laws. When we incarcerate a thief, we are enforcing a moral law with a civil law and penalty.

The Jews did the same. They stoned Achan, at God’s direction, for an aggravated case of stealing and for lying. Josh 7:11. The stealing and the lying were violations of the Ten Commandments. The stoning was a civil penalty.

Today we must neither lie nor steal, but neither should we stone liars. The civil penalty ended with the civil government’s demise. The moral law continues today.

The Sabbath stoning is precisely the same scenario.

Since the end of the theocracy, where judicial appeals could even be taken to the Living God for final sentencing, human government has been restricted morally from enforcing the first four commandments. (Incidentally, this is the reason that the Ten Commandments listed by Paul in Romans 13, where he discusses human government, are all from the last six.)

The idea is simple. I have obligations to God, commands 1-4, and obligations to man, commands 5-10. Human government may regulate and restrict my relations to my fellow men. But it has no jurisdiction over my relations to God. So Seventh-day Adventists would not only oppose a Sunday law, we would solemnly oppose even a Sabbath law. Worship laws are not appropriate for states.

2.         First, we agree that our Savior was resurrected on the first day of the week. And we agree that this tremendous event ought to be commemorated. When we attend a baptism we are attending a ritual that reminds us of the resurrection of the Lord.

But when the Bible speaks about the first day of the week, it never mentions any sanctity ever being conferred on that day.

We find that the disciples once met on the first day of the week “for fear of the Jews.” John 20:19. We find that Paul once preached all Sabbath long, then through Saturday evening, with the intent of traveling on what we call Sunday morning. Ac 20.

Some, reading this passage, are confused because they do not understand that the Jewish day begins at sunset. So when they read that it was dark, on the “first day of the week”, they are thinking Sunday night. But Jews understood “Saturday night.”

We find that men in the New Testament times were paid daily. It was a good question to converted ex-pagans whether they ought to wait until Friday to see how much money that had left over for offerings.

But Paul didn’t leave generosity to chance. We are to honor God with the first-fruit of our increase. And so Paul instructed the believers to “lay” up in “store” from the very “first day of the week.” Some reading this have thought that an offering was taken on the first day of the week. But a simple reading of 1Co 16:2 will show that the offering was stored with each individual in view of a future collection.

These three incidents, along with Christ’s resurrection, are the entirety of the New Testament references to the “first day of the week.” It is never called anything more special than that. And this contrasts with the Holy Sabbath which is named 55 times in the New Testament (compare to 61 in the Old).

There is no Biblical evidence that the Sabbath has been changed. And in view of the fact that it was given before sin entered the world, in view of the fact that it was written in stone, in view of the fact that it says “remember”, and in view of many other facts, there is no reason to conclude that it has been changed by the Creator.

3.         Regarding being “under law,” Christians should agree that we are not “under law.” Ro 3:19; 6:14-15; Gal 3:10, 23; 4:21.

But this phrase has been poorly understood. It means “depending on the law for righteousness.” If Christians are trying to earn their way to heaven, they are “under the law.” If they believe that their obedience today can atone for their disobedience yesterday, they are “under the law.”

Since the law was given to show us sin and to condemn our sin, anyone who depends on the law for justification will be condemned by the law. In that since, those that are “under the law” are condemned by the law.

We obey because sin should not have dominion over us, because we are risen in newness of life. Our obedience is the best commemoration of Christ’s resurrection. But we do not expect any merit from our obedience.

Lu 17:10  So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

4.         Amen. This objection against our position is no objection at all. We agree heartily. Obedience is commanded, commended, rewarded. But never does it atone for a past wrong. Never can it save us. Never do we deserve a good thing from heaven. Any reward we receive for right doing is undeserved.

Conclusion:

There is still much more that could be written on this topic. We could study into the covenants, into the books of Daniel and Revelation, and find a rich collection of beautiful truths that explain how it came to be that the church was confused on the issue of Sabbath and Law.

But for now, we have seen that the Law of God is the standard by which men are to regulate their lives. Our love is shown by our obedience. And we learn about love through obedience.

While the ceremonies of the Old Testament have passed away, they have been replaced by a few ceremonies of the New Testament. While the civil laws of Israel have no land over which they have jurisdiction, every land does have civil laws that Christians should obey.

While the health and sanitary laws were part of the civil laws that no longer have a civil state, we still have bodies that are the temples of the Holy Ghost. And with utmost respect and care for these temples we should gather all we can from those ancient laws that could help us live more productive God-honoring lives.

But the moral laws are for all time and all places. Christians outside of Rome’s influence kept the Ten Commandments for many centuries before falling under her influence. She claims to have modified those Ten Commandments, eliminating the third and adjusting the fourth.

But mere men have no such authority. And those who wish to “make the law honorable” and to be faithful to their Creator and Redeemer, will concur. Standing for the right makes a gospel light.

October 9, 2018

Prewitt Update

So much has been happening! My mother has been visiting Heidi and I here in Malaysia, mostly for birthdays. First, she turned 80 on September 16. Then her adopted grandson, Deam, turned 26. And finally, I turned 47 yesterday. But though that was the pleasant reason for mom’s long visit, far more wonderful things have been happening.

And the biggest one is that I am making so many new friends. In the last month or so I have made friends from Kenya, Cashmere, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Jordan, Palestine, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia, besides of course from Malaysia and Indonesia. And on a Sabbath walk four days ago I met no less than three brand new people, two of which are now actively involved in studying the prophets or helping those who are studying the prophets.
And those who have heard me tell of Aub, the man that was studying religions seven years ago, you will be glad to know that he is now employed by our Indonesia branch, iEAT-extension, as our organic gardener instructor! And his daughter Boni has taken a good interest in all that we are doing.

And those who have heard me tell of Rozie, well, the good news is that if we are faithful unto death, the Lord will give us a crown of life. But as of today, no evidence of his continued existence has turned up.

And Ree, whom some of you may remember as the man that Heidi met while shopping, has helped me do research for our next local church plant, a Malay speaking congregation. (Our English-speaking church is about at capacity, so it is a good time to plant another.)

Regarding Publishing…we start a new canvassing program this coming Sunday (October 14) in Seremban, a large city with one small SDA church. And already we have sold over 11,000 copies of the Great Controversy and Ministry of Healing in our two years of knocking doors. Remember, these are doors in areas were only one door in 5000 has an active Adventist, so that is a great widening of the opportunities of people in this region of the world.

And regarding our most recent travels….we made a visit to the UK for PEACE (that stood for Pan-European Center of Evangelism before politics made the name mean something else. But I never could remember the something else.) And there I made the acquaintance of several of the most precious searching persons I have yet to meet, one of which recently made the blessed and dangerous decision to get baptized.

But perhaps the best thing that happened there was that I met persons who can help translate the prophetic studies I have written into the languages of several countries where access to such things is not available. But more about this at the end of this update where I ask for money.

Then we made our first trip to Kenya. There we spoke for Kenya ALIVE, a revival movement largely composed of young professionals. I always enjoy meeting young professional persons who are faithful Adventists and who are bending their energies at doing God’s work. I encouraged them to reach out to the large and nearly unreached Somali group in nearby sections of Nairobi.

Back in Malaysia we continued our big projects of starting a primary/secondary school in Sabah that will open (see the end-part regarding needs) and our second Borneo Youth Conference (not mentioned at the end, but still shy about $1,000 from the needed budget). And now our June recording spot on Jesus4Asia’s mission update might be showing soon on 3ABN, so we are hoping that will generate something for expanding work in Thailand also.

OK, in short, it is all systems go. I am putting heavy responsibilities on men and women who have been studying here only two or three years and they are carrying them like persons who have been administrators for that many years. And I don’t see any reason to back down and to make smaller plans. One of these, a young lady who was a camper last December, is now taking significant responsibilities organizing Camp II.

A few weeks ago, one of our courageous young ladies returned form Germany where she was recording a series of 45 prophetic studies in the Malay language. These are in post-production (video editing) now and soon will be ready for usage all around this nation. And again, see the end regarding needs.

After our experience with prison this summer (have you read Joshua’s incredible story at Bibledoc.org about it? If not, you should. Three thousand people already have) some changes came to our work. The mission and Aenon were both concerned that our education program could perhaps involve other mission efforts in legal hassle. So to alleviate such possibilities, the Institute of East Asia Studies has taken steps to register as a legal organization in Sabah that will promote holistic wellness through sales and educational programs. And our campus here at Aenon will start renting these facilities from Aenon so that, if trouble arises, the paper trail will show clearly that neither the mission nor Aenon were involved in the administration of our program.

Oh, and the two young men that were in jail so famously…are both planning to do more mission work publicly less than a week from now. Their experience damped no zeal on their own part.

So just who are the administrators then? They are our teaching staff and a handful of students who are legally able to own a corporation in Malaysia. And they are full of faith and courage.

Meanwhile, on the writing front, I was privileged to work with Hart Research on their recent Three Angels’ Messages Project. By now Adventist schools around North America are getting ready to introduce Adventist children to the very messages that make us who we are.

And on another writing front, I have entered the fray over abortion. Both by an article and by a sermon, I have put myself on record as advocating that Adventist hospitals not be an option for people seeking abortion services.
And on another writing front, I have been helping draft Sabbath-school materials for the system that will be replacing Grace-link. My particular duties in that involve coming up with hundreds of activities for use in the lessons. So my creativity is being strained. That must be good for me.

Our next must-take trip will be in December (we leave every 90 days). Then we will visit Germany and perhaps Belgium and Serbia. I guess I think the whole world needs what the same truth that the whole world needs. So I am pleased when I can present in a new place. And there is a subject that is swallowing up every other, that of the Messiah and His Righteousness. And this subject seemed entwined with the need to fill one’s lamp before drifting off to a fitful sleep.

In January we employ a Bible worker in Sabah that will focus attention especially on groups that receive scant attention. Funding for this Bible-worker salary is already received for seven months. As I ought to have another newsletter seven months from now, I am not asking for help with this salary.
And now to the needs I am asking about:

1. Renting a new building for our Malay church plant will cost about $400/month. I think the combined church budget offerings of the likely participants is about $200/month. So that leaves an initial deficit of about $200/month for probably about ten months until more members means less need.

2. Regarding translation: Malay is paid for. Arabic looks to cost about .07 per word for translation plus editing, so about $2,800 for the 40,000 word set of studies. For Farsi, I think we will pay about .04 per word including editing, so about $1,600 for the 40,000 words. I have volunteers to help with several other languages, but will yet need to hire editors to make sure the quality is good. So I think for Urdu, Indonesian, Kurdish, and Bangladeshi, it will cost about $800 each if I can get the main work done by volunteers. If I hire it out, more like $1,600 per language.

3. For the primary/secondary school starting in 2019 in Sabah (following all our counsels), the first year’s cost (aside from the teacher’s salary which is already donated) will be $42,400. That includes mostly one-time costs (putting up a two-bath, 2 class-room, two staff-residence room, 1700 ft2 building on already land purchased with this money too; and buying a vehicle that will be needed for canvassing and busing of students). By the second year we expect this school to be self-sustaining.

4. For the video work, what needs to be funded now is the advertisement of the videos that are nearly ready for use. We will advertise them in Malaysia. For this we would like an initial advertising budget of $3,000. On a pay-per-click basis we think we can reach quite a collection of persons with that advertising.

5. For our new program in 2019 in Thailand…I don’t know how much we need. The property situation there is in upheaval legally in some of the areas we were thinking of working. Nothing you give will be wasted. But I just can’t give a meaningful estimate now of the costs there. But if we have money on hand, we can be ready to jump on a good deal when we see it. That means, it seems, renting rather than buying.

So if this letter falls into the hands of persons who are willing to shoulder some of these loads of getting the work finished in the least reached parts of the world, the total of the above projects is about $53,500. So you could help with 1% ($535) or $25 (that would translate one full Bible study into a key language) or $2,500 (that is how much I intend to give, my earnings from the Hart Project after tithe and taxes) , or, yes, whatever you want to invest where thieves and robbers and rust do not cause problems.

Am glad I can invest in a safe market. Am glad I can offer you an opportunity to do the same.
For an American tax-deductible receipt, give through Jesus4Asia at this link:

https://jesus4asia.org/invest/projects-missionaries/eugene-prewitt/

And specify there which of the above projects you want the money to go for.

Also, J4A above always tells me who gives. But if you ask them to make the gift anonymous, they will gladly do it, and you may claim the reward from your Father that sees in secret.

For donations that need no tax deduction, you may give by banking to any of these accounts (all set up through a Transferwise “borderless” account):

AUD (Australian Dollars):
Account Holder: Eugene W Prewitt
Account: 498510530
BSB Code 082-182
Address: TransferWise; 800 Bourke Street; Melbourne, VIC 3008; Australia

BPD (British Pounds)
Account Holder: Eugene W Prewitt
UK Sort Code: 23-14-70
Account: 36749730
Address: TransferWise; 56 Shoreditch High Street; E1 6JJ; London United Kingdom

Euros: Account Holder Eugene W Prewitt
Swift Code: DEKTDE7GXXX
IBAN: DE95 7001 1110 6052 0291 45
Address: Handelsbank
Elsenheimer Str. 41
80687
München, GERMANY

Or for those who prefer, you may give through PayPal at Adventexpositor@gmail.com

Please note that donations to Jesus4Asia that do not specify a purpose will generally be given to Heidi and I as taxable personal income.

Someone says, “Aren’t you going to invite poor people to at least pray for the project if they can’t give?” Answer: Hmm. I think that all people who care about the truth will be praying work like ours when they hear about it. Still, I solicit your prayers. But regarding poor people, I wish they would give $1 or $0.25 or something. I think that two bits from one of them might be a great deal useful if it comes the way two bits did earlier.

Someone else says, “why did you send this to me? I am only 13 years old!” I answer, “You have power to let adults know about these needs. You have power and can use it to make a large difference even at 13.”

Be faithful,
Eugene Prewitt

PS How did I get on this mailing anyway?

Answer: Either you asked, or…you sent ME an email about something in the last year and I am returning the favor this way ?, or maybe I just met you somewhere in 2018.

FINALLY: Do you need an electrical engineer or a professor in the engineering of electronics (in the communication field) or a profession middle eastern cook? I have three new friends, natives of Yemen and Syria, that understandably, don’t hope to return to their home countries into the midst of an ongoing war. They all seem like highly intelligent and disciplined and faithful men. So if you could like to perhaps see their CVs with an eye to maybe assisting them in legally settling into some country that has freedom, let me know.

Donations to Date (11-01-18 6:05 AM)
From all verifiable sources (PayPal, Transferwise) $4853
From Jesus4Asia.com: $34,981.93 (after the transfer fees from stripe/paypal/etc.)
From Eugene Prewitt: $2,500.00
From Promises yet to come by January 31, 2019: $18,800.

Total All sources: $61,134.93, including three promises of monthly support due before January 31, 2019.

So still needed, including the added note from yesterday: Only about $2,800 more, and then for more advertising. The more we get, the more we will use. This is advertising the translated materials in the countries where the languages are used.

Items covered by these donations so far.

45,600 Land and Building for new school in Sabah
2,000 Vehicle for school in Sabah
7,500 Translation into Urdu, Farsi, Arabic, Malay, Bengali, Indonesian
4,500 Advertising
2,400  Camp
1,250 Renting a church building for our Malay church plant for six months.

 

PSS… if you have a project to do, like translation, or writing, or IT work, or etc., try freelancer.com and use this link. I have found it to be a decent way to quickly find willing workers at a decent price:

https://www.freelancer.com/get/EugenePrewitt?f=give

 

The Encounter

I, Joshua Cinsnanmang, was excited because it was Thursday, the last day of canvassing for the week. My team was working a predominantly non-Christian area called Kuantan, about three hours east of Kuala Lumpur. And as I said, I was excited that it was Thursday, our last work day for the week. Not that I don’t like canvassing but just that I love Sabbaths.

After having our late lunch we continued working from 3 pm. As we only had four hours more to go I was full of energy and happiness.

Once we reached our destination Peter (my team leader) stopped beside a row of businesses and asked Timothy to hop out first. Timothy was situated between Marcella and me and that made it difficult for him to get out of the vehicle. So Peter changed his mind and asked me to hop out first instead since I was sitting by the door.

After canvassing for a while I finally reached the last shop, a café. As usual I spoke to the counter and after that asked if I could speak to the customers. They kindly said “no” so as I was making my way out a man called to me. I went over to him and he said, “I know you all; you’ve been going around Kuantan selling books right?” And I answered, “Yes” with hope in my heart because I thought he was going to buy my books because we work hard and are persistent. But the first words he said were, “I’m going to put you in prison,” not something I expected to hear.

Turns out he was a local political elder called a “YB”, which is an acronym for a Malay word that means “respected one”. He was a man with authority and power; a man with influence that had political powers too. He told me that lately a few of his people had complained to him that there are some people going around in Kuantan who claim to be students. They thought we were con-artists selling books and collecting donations by telling lies. I told him I was a student and he straightaway asked me for my student ID.

Well, the training centre I attend is an underground program. It isn’t technically a tertiary school in the formal sense. So we don’t have the standard formal student ID’s. And when I tried to explain this, that just confirmed to him that I was lying. He then asked me for a permit to collect donations and again I told him we don’t have one (since we are asking help for our training expenses, not for some charity). Then he asked for my personal ID.

Now you should know that I am a refugee from Myanmar and need to get my refugee status updated each year. Consequently, my passport and UN card were at the UN Office. So I didn’t have them either, and thus… he called the police immediately.

Well, almost immediately. But before that, he first called the reporters. He wanted to make some statement, it seems, about being hard on crime, or something.

When I think back, what’s amazing is the peace I had throughout that time. When all that was going on, when the man was on the phone, Psalm 27:1 just kept ringing in my head and I had peace that whole time because I knew that I was not a liar taking advantage of the people and stealing their money.

When he was making those calls he went out of the café and if had I wanted to run, I could have easily escaped. I could have easing outrun him and his friends. But I never thought of doing anything like that. I had peace the whole time. It felt like all things would soon be settled.

Soon the police arrived, and they handcuffed Peter and I and took us to the police station. There we had nothing to do so we were singing and praying together. We thought things would soon be settled and we would be released that very night, but it was not so. They told us that we would be put in the lock up because they had do an investigation on our case. (During this time I was able to communicate with Mr. Prewitt who was in America and with several other persons who wanted to help us.)

So into lockup we went. And God is so good; I got to experience the quote in Ministry of Healing, page 248.2, in reality. We were asked to memorize this quote in the class and I got to experience it. It says, “Those who surrender their lives to His guidance and to His service will never be placed in a position for which He has not made provision.” Amen.

I must admit that God had already prepared and made provisions for us; He who knows the beginning from the end already had prepared the way for us. I say that because everyone was good to us. By the way we conducted ourselves the guards and police could tell that we were not criminals and so we gained favour in their eyes through the grace of God.

In fact the Police, before transferring us to the lockup, bought us drinks and food! It was late, around 10:00 pm in the evening, so they didn’t want us to go to the lockup with empty stomachs! They got us chicken burgers but we don’t eat chicken so we thanked them and told them that we are vegetarians and thankfully declined the food. But I could tell that they cared and I hope we were a witness to them through our life.

By the way, all the police found it funny and were surprised when they found out that we were being locked up for finding ways to pay our tuition fees.

They put us in the lock up and I still had peace but soon when the next day came, my faith was on the balance. The devil began to tell me all the possibilities of what could happen, things like I would be put in prison or get deported back to Myanmar and separated from my dear family. And as a refugee the last thing you want to do is get deported back to Myanmar. There were carvings in the lockup walls by people who missed their family. Words about how they missed their mom, dad, brothers and even their children. I didn’t want to even look at those carvings because I didn’t want to miss my family. The devil began suggesting every reason to get discouraged and I was so tempted to ask God, why? Why me? Couldn’t it have been Timothy? I reasoned that “he’s a citizen and it would be a lot easier for him than for me, a refugee without any proper document and identity.” Verses like Romans 8:28 were hard to accept when I had those feelings. It was hard to “count it all joy” or to “rejoice evermore” and give thanks in all things. Experiencing it in your head and in reality is totally different; knowing is so different from experiencing it.

Believe it or not, God who is so good already prepared me for this trial. In dreams and when I would just sit by myself and meditate; God would ask me, “if you were put in a prison how would you react.” In my dreams and imaginations I told to Mr Prewitt who is my teacher, “Please don’t pray so that I can get out but rather pray for me that I stay faithful.” But let me tell you experiencing it is totally different, probably because I was naïve and inexperienced.

All I could do was to cling to this promise, “Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on thee, because he trusted in Thee.”

God Speaks
The first days were tough; the devil was torturing me with all the possibilities and negative things that could happen. I would try to exercise and sing and meditate upon bible promises so that I don’t get depressed. I even prayed for everyone that I knew so to draw attention away from myself to the people I loved. I prayed for my family, friends and teachers. But amidst these trials, “God is love”, that’s all I can say. He does not allow us to be tempted above what we can bear. The reason he allows trials to come is because he knows that we can get through them. If it was going to break us rather than fix us he would avert them as a protective parent would. He was with me comforting me.

When I prayed, “God please be with me through this.” He replied, “I am with you even to the ends of the world, I have never left you nor forsaken you.” I had to repent of by feelings because he was always with me and yet I had doubted his presence.

When the devil told me that my future was done and there is no hope for me, God would speak to me through Jeremiah 29:11. God would send his sparrows into the cell and one sat right beside me at arm’s length, and I was reminded of the love of God found in Matthew 10:29-31.

There was even a time when I prayed a prayer of repentance and was in doubt whether God would forgive me and his reply to me was Isaiah 43:18, 19. That literally moved me to tears. God spoke to me and it was always through His Word and if there’s one thing that I learned in my time there it is that I should memorize more of the Bible. I thank God for Scripture songs; they were a source of encouragement to me during my time there. Also, songs like He’s Able, God Will Make a Way, etc. means a lot more in situations like these. You sing them with all your heart.

Whenever God spoke to me it was always through His Word.

“The study of the Scriptures is the means divinely ordained to bring men into closer connection with their Creator and to give them a clearer knowledge of His will. It is the medium of communication between God and man.” {GC 69.2}

I began to have a peace that surpasses understanding when I trusted in him. (Isaiah 26:3)

God’s Presence

A cell-mate named Atan became our friend. Later he told me that the moment he first saw us he could tell that we were different. He said, “I looked at your faces and you were not like the others, there was something different about you all.” I believe it was the presence of God that made him notice the difference in us, I’m sure it wasn’t us but God in the working. Atan continued to say that he knew that our religion was real and that he could tell we had been trained up since we “were kids.” That we had been brought up with good and He could see that we were devoted and trusted in God.

People noticed the difference in us and wanted to be our friends. One boy even told the police that he lonely in hope that I would be put in the same cell with him.

I told Atan that we are Adventists and began finding common grounds with him; like we don’t eat pork, we don’t smoke, we don’t drink alcoholic beverages; we like the Muslims believe in Jesus’ return. We became very good friends. He told me that he had heard of Adventists and this is the first time he is seeing Adventists in person. He was arrested for the use of drugs when he failed the urine test. He told me that this was the third time he’s in the lockup and all three time it was because of drugs. He has two daughters who are still very young. I don’t remember their ages. But they are still too young to go to school.

I asked him how he was feeling; he replied he was feeling nervous. We prayed with him and for him. We even sang songs for him, hoping he would have peace. We sang I surrender all and I noticed that while we were singing for him he fell asleep. I hope the reason he could fall asleep was because he had peace and not because our voices were out of tune.

The day he was taken out of the lockup to be transferred into the prison he came over to my cell to say goodbye. I was sleeping at that time and he came and called me by my name; being surprised I woke up to find it was Atan. He came to say goodbye to me and I could see that he was happy to see me and to be able to say goodbye.

A Good Friend
The day after we were put in the lockup a new man joined us. His name is Suehaidie. He, like others, was brought in because of drugs. About 99% of the people that come in the lockup are because of drug use. Suehaidie was a good man and we became friends quickly. He cared for me as his child because he was almost the same age as my dad. Since we don’t have pillows or blankets in the lockup what he did for me was he removed his shirt and made a pillow out of his shirt for me. It was cold during the nights but he would sleep shirtless because he insisted I use his shirt as a pillow. He sacrificed feeling cold just because he cared for me. When it was cold in the night he would cuddle me so I felt warm.

During lunch and dinner we were always served watermelon so he would give me his watermelon. Not that he didn’t like them; it’s just that he cared for me. This man was always at peace; most of the time he would sleep and was always happy and calm. He never prayed or did anything at the prayer times. The reason he was calm was because he thought his parents would get him out. He thought his parents could get him out by bribing the lawyers. He would say with a big smile I’m going out on this date.

His attitude was a rebuke to me sometimes; here is a man that trusts in his parents is so peaceful and I who have a Father in Heaven am not as happy as he is. I would encourage myself through songs and bible verses. To not get depressed I would pray for every single person I knew, my family, my teachers, my friends, my cell mates etc. so that I don’t focus on my condition. Finally, as expected the day came for Uncle Sue to be released. We said goodbye and he left. But something happened and he returned to the lockup again. His parents couldn’t get the job done so he was rather sentenced to 5 years in prison with 2 years on probation. He requested to the police that if he could stay in the same cell as me. He told them he had a friend and they agreed.

So we were reunited; but this time I noticed something different. He started to pray; every time before we ate breakfast, lunch or dinner he would join us to say grace for the food. Sometimes he would wait for us just to pray, he’d say, “Let’s pray.”

I told him that the “reason God brought you back is because He missed you. He wants you to talk to him that’s why He has brought you back,” and I began to share with him the story of Adam and Eve, the fall of man, the love of God, 1 John 1:9, the Ten Commandments, the Sunday law and so on. He learned and listened.

You know, we don’t get down on our knees until the burdens we carry are too heavy for us to carry that we are forced to get down on our knees. I was not an exception; I prayed like I never did before during my time in that cell.

We Found Favour as did Daniel and Joseph
God was with us and he helped us find favour in the eyes of the police. From the first day we requested if we could get vegetarian food and our request was granted. Not only that we were also given water, so we didn’t have to drink water from the toilet. As I said earlier God was helping us. I even got promoted to serve food for the cell mates. Yes, I was asked to help in serving food. They trusted me so they even asked me to sweep and mop their office and corridor. Nothing was in vain, they bought me food and even offered me cigarettes. I told them I don’t smoke and shared that I am an Adventist and we follow whatever the Bible says.

Jeremiah 33:3
During my time in the prison I was clinging to this promise found in Jeremiah 33:3. The investigative officer told us that he would investigate our case; he said that they suspected that we were either con-artists using the name of being students to get money or that we could be puppets in the hands of others and that we are being used. Our case even reached to the court and we were summoned to the court. It didn’t sound hopeful, it looked like we might be put in prison because we didn’t have anything solid to show to them or to prove to them that we are not liars so I was getting more worried but I would always pray this prayer in Jeremiah 33:3.

I can’t explain it but I kind of felt that God is going to show me great and mighty thing that I have never seen before; there was something that felt like God had answered my prayer and I had peace. All along there were evidences that God was with me and when I put the puzzle all together I felt like God was going to show me something mighty.

Sure enough something happened. Me and Peter were called and were told that we had visitors.
It was the YB (respected one)! Yes, the man that put us into the lockup was there with pastor Janssen and my dad and friends. They had come to visit us. The YB apologised to us because he found out that we were not lying. He confessed that he’s been a Christian for 20 years and he deeply regretted and repented that he was fighting against God’s messengers. He closed the case and the whole case was settled and my friend Peter was released the next day.

But I was not, because I had some issues with my identity. They had to confirm whether I was a refugee or not and there was a possibility that if I was not confirmed to be a refugee I could either be put in prison or fined or get deported back to Myanmar. It didn’t feel so nice to be left behind but I was really happy for my friend because it meant that the charges were dropped and I didn’t have to worry too much. Now the only issue I had was with my refugee status and that was a relief.

John 3:16
During the time when I was asked to clean the office I found a 5 cent coin lying on the floor as I was sweeping the floor and I took it with me back to the cell. (This has about the same value as an American penny). The reason I was glad to find the coin was because I wanted to carve something on the wall. So using the coin I carved out John 3:16; the verse that sums up the entire Bible on the wall in bold. By the grace of God I was put into the biggest cell where about 8-10 people fit and according to standard procedure people were moved to different cells as their case progressed. But for me I requested that I remain in that cell and my request was granted. The reason I wanted to remain there was because it was big and the chances of me being able to talk to people was higher if I remained there and also because I wanted to exercise and take walks after every meal to aid digestion and also to stay healthy because the last thing I wanted was to get sick in a lockup. I would always look at that verse and meditate upon it and try to grasp its meaning prayerfully.

On Thursday morning the police called me out. Remember, by this time I was alone because Peter my friend had already been released. They cuffed me and I began to think to myself, “What are they going to do to me?” They put me in the car and we hit the roads. I thought they were going to transfer me to another lock-up or put me to prison and I was a little bit worried because I hoped my family and friends knew the location where they were going to put me if it was true that they were going to transfer me.

My thoughts were running all over and I began to claim Bible promises and sang “You are My Hiding Place” and God spoke to me and said, “I have a surprise for you.” And that gave me peace. So much so that I was sleeping all the way. The police that took me looked surprised because he knew that they were taking me to the court and he was surprised that I had peace. (But no one had told me where we were going and I hadn’t asked, so I didn’t know.) He was thinking, “no criminal is so calm when they are taken to the court.” I could sleep peacefully eager to see the surprise that God had for me. We made our way to the court in Temerloh. Now you should know that this is a large unreached city. Only a few months before my friends and I had come to Termerloh and left hundreds of truth-filled books in that dark place. It was surreal to see the places that I had canvassed. I had flashbacks of those days and it felt nice.

Soon we reached the court and sure enough I saw the surprise that God had in store for me.
It was my parents and my friends with Pastor Janssen! I was surprised and happy to see them there.
I went inside the court and they read the charges against me if I was guilty and not a refugee. The charges for illegally entering the country is either 6 years imprisonment and 6 slash or Rm 10,000 fine. I told them I was a refugee and the judge gave me one week to see whether I was a refugee or not. So I was told that I had to stay one more week in the lock-up and return to the court on the 28th June after the investigations are done so I was put back into the lockup.

I spent another Sabbath in the lock-up; I really missed my friends and singing in the church.

Deliverance
The devil again began to torture me by reminding me that I could go to prison for 6 years and waste my best years there. My time in the lock-up was a time of ups and downs; there were times when I would have perfect peace but there were times when I was tempted to doubt God’s presence. The Devil even used a drug Lord who was in and out of prison. This man began to share with me all the reasons not to go to prison and also how he was slashed 10 times in his bottoms. (Malaysia punishes some crimes by hitting the convict with canes.) How much it hurt and that he had to stay in the hospital for weeks. And that really got me thinking of the negative things that could happen. And Thursday, the end of my week for bringing proof, was soon approaching and I had to pray more earnestly as the day was approaching.

It was Tuesday evening and there were only two days remaining and as usual I took a stroll in my cell because I had just eaten dinner. As I was walking back and forth my eyes were fixed on John 3:16 that I carved on the wall and I began meditating upon the Father’s love for us. You know when I met my parents in the court I could tell that they had suffered a lot. I could tell from their eyes that they had cried a lot although they didn’t want me to know. There was a time when my dad visited me in the cell and I could tell that he tried his best to not break down to see his son with prison clothes and handcuffs. The visitation time of 5 minutes was over so he prayed for me but this time he couldn’t hold back. He broke down and he began to weep as he was praying and seeing my dad so hurt moved me to tears. Both father and son were just weeping like never before.

And as I was meditating upon John 3:16; I compared it to my dad’s love for me. As a matter of fact, I can say with confidence that my parents suffered more than I did. And I began to think about how much God the Father would have gone through to have his son slain from the foundation of the world. How His heart would have been pierced to witness his only son being tortured at the hands of sinners. Yet he loved us so much that he was willing to give up his only son and go through all that.

As my eyes were opened to behold John 3:16 like never before I literally broke down to tears while taking my walk in the cell. I got down on my knees and asked for forgiveness to God for failing to realise His love for me. I asked for forgiveness for always praying only for deliverance and not knowing that God loves me with an “everlasting love” (Jeremiah 31:3) and that he loves me more than parents ever will (Isaiah 49:15). And God began to speak to me through verses like Jeremiah 29:11 (His thoughts towards me are not evil and he has a better future for me with hope), Matthew 28:20 (He’s with me even to the ends of the world) and Hebrews 13:5 (He will never leave me nor forsake me) and my heart understood a little bit of God’s love for me.

So right then and there I gave my life to God again. I told Him, “I surrender all; I know that you love me so much and that you will be with me always. If I have to go to the prison or get deported back to Myanmar I know you will be with me so I surrender my life to you. Whatever happens let it happen.”

“God is love.” Immediately after I prayed a prayer of surrender a police came up to me and said “Joshua, you are going out.” I believe it was because of everyone that prayed for me but I also believe that God was just waiting for me to surrender my life to Him. I got released on Tuesday evening; two days earlier than I was supposed to. All God wanted me was to surrender like Abraham did and He did not require my sacrifice because all he wanted was a “willing mind” (2 Corinthians 8:12) and He accepted it. I learned that when I surrender my life to Him; I’m not surrendering my life to a tyrant. I’m surrendering my life to my Father who has my best interests in mind.

And I was released two days earlier without any charges right after a prayer of surrender.
Every day my prayer was that God would give me a new heart, a heart of flesh. I was praying for the promise in Ezekiel 36:26. I didn’t know what I was asking for. I was actually asking for a heart transplant and that is exactly what God did for me. But the thing is He didn’t use anaesthesia this time. God knew that if he just gave me a new heart without any pain I would not value it so he had to make sure i appreciated it. He told me, “I will hurt you but will not injure you.”
I learned that God allows us to get hurt but not to injure us but to heal us.

Job 23:10 tells me that God knew every step I took; the path I was taking during Canvassing. He knew I was going to meet the YB and be put into the lock up. I know that if I was not only going to get hurt but also injured God would have let Timothy, who is a Malaysian citizen with proper documents to take my place but He knew that I could get through this trial and that I could come froth as gold tried in the fire. He had faith in me and I learned many valuable lessons during my time there. I called upon God and He answered me and showed me great and mighty things I had never seen or experienced but the greatest of all miracle was my Eyes being opened to John 3:16. I had it memorised since I was a kid but never really meditated on it.

Thank you for your prayers; not a single prayer was unheard or in vain. God answered every single one of them.

 

---

Adventist Adornment

By Eugene Prewitt

Introduction

When John Wesley began to take the Bible very seriously he discovered many aspects of the worldly life that differed from the life of the believer. He began to oppose the theater and dancing, jewelry and alcohol, immodest dress and racism. And in every case, he drew his ideals from the standard book, the Bible.

But not all studious men agreed with him. Spurgeon famously clung to his cigars though Wesley had taught the disuse of such “needless self-indulgence.”

Adventists concluded like Wesley on all the above points.

But maintaining our values was no natural effect of having once taught them. At the heart of the work, Battle Creek, there was need of vigilance and work to prevent things from slipping. (And slip, slip, slip, slip they did! See the final section of this article.)

Today Adventists are heavily divided in faith and practice regarding these points.

The purpose of this writing is to address the values we hold as a church regarding jewelry. And my aim is to do this in such a way as to meet the objections to such values I have encountered personally.

I will present the simple aspects of truth first and complex truths later.  In the first section find what the Bible says in its primary texts on this point. There I will also address a number of secondary passages from which we may infer useful information relevant to the primary texts.

In the second section, I will address several of the complexities with which the question of adornment has been shrouded.  Why, for example, might we refuse to baptize someone with simple earrings while inviting her husband into the font despite his ostentatious lifestyle and tastes? What does the wedding band issue have to do with jewelry more generally? What about the obvious truth that God enjoys gemstones and gold (as manifest in his construction of the heavenly Jerusalem)? And what about the question of very inexpensive and artificial “jewelry”?

In the third section I will address the contributions of Ellen White to our understanding of values generally and of this issue in particular. We will see that it is a rational approach to harmonize her teachings with Scripture without dodging their truest import.

Finally, I will conclude with some additional thoughts on why studious minds may conclude differently on points well established by the prophets. (This happens routinely). This concludes the introduction. Let us proceed to the simple truths of the Bible.

The Simple Truth

The Primary Texts

Jesus directly addressed the question of anxiety regarding adornment in his first recorded public sermon. There He contrasted the simple natural beauty of the lily with the glorious artificial adornment of King Solomon.

Guidance regarding choices of adornment comes later. Paul, when setting out his instructions for how the Gentile churches should be organized, directly instructed Timothy regarding the weaknesses and issues facing both men and women. The former were to be urged to be more forward in their religious life, to subdue their anger and not think it a mark of intelligence to doubt what God has said. And women were to adorn themselves, not with jewels and fashionably expensive clothing, but with a beautiful character.

 1Ti 2:8  I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. 9  In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10  But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.[1]

The verses are clear that women should “adorn” themselves with both modest clothing and with good character. But that clothing is not to include “gold, or pearls or costly array.” We observe that the forbidden clothes are compared to gold and pearls and contrasted with “modest apparel.”

When Peter addresses the very same issue he says about the same thing. Speaking to Christian wives who should be respectful of their own husbands, he testifies:

1Pe 3:3  Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 4  But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. 5  For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:”

These are, as the heading indicates, our primary passages that were written for the direct purpose of guiding our choices regarding what we wear and what we refuse to wear. Jesus and Paul and Peter all say about the same thing. Paul and Peter give more information and explain each other well.

And when John Wesley found these passages, they matched the general spirit of the New Testament as he understood it. Our lot is to take a humble position here. And this brings us to our secondary passages.

Secondary Passages

Our secondary passages fall into two categories: those that treat on Christian values directly and those that allude to dress and adornment indirectly.

In the first category are those showing our humble position mentioned earlier.

Php 2:5-7  Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, … made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

We understand this lowly position to be a temporary one that will end at the right time, when Christ will return:

1Pe 5:6  Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:

Wesley understood the Christian life to be one of denying self and of repressing worldly desires.

Luk 9:23  And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

1Jn 2:15  Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16  For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

While we might look at perhaps a score of texts that describe the general idea that Christians should flee from their natural inclinations, these will have to suffice to show why so few enter the narrow way. We now proceed to our second class of secondary passages: those from which we might infer information regarding jewelry and adornment.

Secondary Passages involving Inference

It is important to separate primary from secondary passages for this reason: what God says to do (a primary text) can never be sensibly countered by what we infer from other passages. Too much of our own self gets into the business of inference. Let me illustrate by a bit of satire:

There is no need to get on the ark. Enoch was an ideal man and he never got on the ark. And more than that, he walked with God for decades. Adam became a godly man and he never got on an ark. In fact, even the builder of the ark, Noah, can’t produce any direct command from God to get on the ark. More than this, all scientists who have studied the potential for water drops to fall thickly and rapidly from the sky declare that it cannot happen. (The cooling of the night is too gradual to tip the dew point violently so as to replace dew with massive precipitation.) And measurements of humidity indicate that insufficient moisture is in the air to swamp the world even if it all turned to liquid. These things, each of them, authorize thinking persons to spiritualize Noah’s message. Instead of getting on his dry boat literally, his message should be understood as “get on board” or “get with the program,” a metaphor for being participatory in religious activities. This interpretation has been well accepted by theologians outside of Noah’s little circle, but also with a few of his construction workers.

What I am trying to show by the nonsense above is that inference allows us to mass a great deal of apparently valuable arguments that, at their base, are simply fallacious. When God has spoken, we must infer reverently (if at all) lest we despise Him inadvertently.

Now the Bible does have a fair bit of data about how godly persons have related to jewelry. And the story ends with the decent of a Holy City that features massive pearls, abundant gold and the largest gems in the universe (I speculate).

Rev 21:19  And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. . . :21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.

And more than this, the saved will have harps of gold and crowns of gold as part of their reward. And Jesus Himself wears a crown. So from these things we may safely infer, I think, that God thinks well of His own creation of precious metals and gems and mother-of-pearl. And if we want more than an inference, we do have Genesis 1, “and God said, ‘it is good.’”

And reason affirms that the God who created broadbills and tanagers and pitas appreciates beauty.

So we can’t well say that Peter and Paul forbade us to wear jewelry on the basis of God finding it distasteful or evil. And such a conclusion, that God likes jewels, matches the idea that we have seen already that our earthly life of humiliation of self-denial will give way, by and by, to a life of being exalted “in due time” to reign with Christ on His throne. Its lowly-now-and-glorified-later.

But why did our primary texts say “not” to adorn ourselves with gold and pearls and expensive clothing? Such a question carries risks. God may have many reasons for telling us something. When He says “don’t eat from the tree in the middle of the garden,” our research may fail to find all of His reasons and may even fail to satisfy us while we stand looking at the tree. What I am saying is that obedience precedes thorough moral understanding in a life of faith. We should obey even when we fail to see the value of doing so.

In regard to our key texts, however, we do have some reasons. Peter and Paul both affirm the value of women having a meek and quiet “spirit” that beautifies the inner self as being a reason for choosing internal adornment over external adornment.

And among our secondary texts are two special ones that, together, may give greater insight into why Paul and Peter say what they do. Both are in Ezekiel.

In the first (Ezekiel 16) God illustrates his care for Israel by a story of a man that finds a bloody muddy infant girl that has been left to die. He cleans her, feeds her, raises her and, when the time is right, marries her. And as part of that metaphor, he decks her with jewels and uses some of the same words found in our primary texts:

Eze 16:10  I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers’ skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk. 11  I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck. 12  And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head. 13  Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom.

Many have used this passage as evidence that God enjoys jewelry. And as we have already seen Revelation 21, how can we deny that it is true?

But the metaphor continues that though God gave the nation perfect beauty that was His own, yet the nation used the gold and gems and broidered works and expensive gifts to attract God’s enemies and to honor idols. And why? Because she, the nation, “did trust in [her] own beauty.”

Eze 16:15  But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was. 16  And of thy garments thou didst take, and deckedst thy high places with divers colours, and playedst the harlot thereupon: the like things shall not come, neither shall it be so. 17  Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them,

This picture plays out again a dozen chapters later. There we find the history of Lucifer’s fall. Notice the same plot, but literal this time, as in the metaphor above:

Eze 28:13  Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets[2] and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14  Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15  Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

But how was it that Lucifer was found to harbor iniquity? Part of it was Lucifer’s preoccupation with his own beautified person.

Eze 28:17  Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

Here we have two classic stories of a beautiful servant of God becoming His enemy through temptations related to their beauty. And if that is the eventual result of beautiful bedecking (in metaphor and in reality) can we be surprised that God, through the heads of Gentile and Jewish Christianity, has asked believing women not to imitate the whore and the devil even in their first steps?

The first of these metaphors, of an apostate woman acting the whore, is repeated in Revelation in another of our secondary passages where the very words of Paul and Peter are used to describe her adornment:

Rev 17:4  The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. 5  And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: “Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth’s abominations.”

In another metaphor (of the prodigal son) a young man is given a good robe and is provided with a bracelet or a ring. And as a picture of how God exalts the one that humbles himself, the metaphor is fitting. But it would be a stretch, and an unwise one, to reason from the metaphor of God’s graciousness to lost persons that we are at liberty to exalt ourselves contrary to God’s directions. We wouldn’t want to make inference a tool for self-justification. Again, He will exalt us in due time. And today isn’t the time.

Let me say that again. The Bible’s prohibition of jewelry is not based on a supposed immoral nature of gems and metals. Rather, it is founded on the tendency of especially the female heart (for both primary passages are written to females) to find in outward adorning a poor substitute for inward holiness.

In a later section we will look at a few more of these secondary passages that are alleged to show God’s approval of women wearing gold and jewels. But before that, let’s deal with a few complex questions that plague any effort to resolve the question of whether believers[3] ought to wear jewelry.

The Complex Truth

The Difference between Morality and Church Order

We may disfellowship a man for operating a tobacco shop on Sabbath. But we won’t take away his membership for playing video games while pigging out on fried chicken. Both activities are disrespectful of the information God has given to the church.

Again, we will discipline the adulterer. But we will not discipline the man who admits to sometimes fantasizing about sex with various ladies.  Both are sin.

Again, the state will incarcerate the person that lies under oath in court. But the chronic liar in your home has nothing to worry about from the law.

These are all ways of illustrating an important idea: God enforces true morality in the judgment. That is where immoral thoughts, covetous thoughts, prideful thoughts and hateful thoughts will be condemned. Church laws and state laws, by way of contrast, defend much lower standards. They exist to allow the church and the state to function best as a body.

There is nothing inconsistent then in the church disciplining someone for wearing jewelry while neglecting to discipline her husband for his Lamborghini. The church is not, by setting a standard, competing with the judgment in an effort to condemn all wrong. There is a good reason why it does not discipline pride, gluttony, racial slurs, and hatred, though it should condemn each of these.

Simplicity in dress was chosen as a minimum guideline for church membership because of the very plain reading of the two primary statements.

But the high road of modesty is the goal set before believers. They have a long road ahead of them in learning about holy living even after being baptized. The church does not address these issues with discipline because it has been told to “judge nothing before the time.”

The Difference Between Beauty and Self-Exaltation

Which is prettier? A rosebud or a stud in the tongue? Beauty is a function of discretion. We discern attractiveness. And to be neat and attractive is certainly in harmony with God’s character. The priests were dressed that way.

Exo 28:2  And thou shalt make holy garments for Aaron thy brother for glory and for beauty.

One part of this outfit even included solid gold and more than a dozen precious gems. And the sanctuary was incredibly beautiful otherwise with an appearance of massive gold to anyone who entered.

What I am trying to say is that our primary texts are not anti-pretty. The verses are not recommending the wearing of earth tones only. They are not advocating a principle that would rob our homes of flower gardens and solid-wood furniture.

What they are saying is that women should resist their natural inclination to use jewelry as a means of publicly exalting themselves.

And, again, some lines are easier to draw than others. So a school rule against chewing gum indoors is easier to enforce than a rule against depositing gum on furniture. But imagine a student group protesting the no-gum rule. “Gum isn’t the only gross thing on campus. What about spitting? What about hair all over? What about goo below urinals? What about teachers whose cars bellow smoke? What about students who leave crumbs on the floor after lunch? Why not ban all lunches?” Well.

The fact is that a few rules are all that man can well handle. And so we outlaw the gum and hope to teach people principles about all the rest.

So when Paul and Peter say “no” to wearing of gold and pearls and costly array, please don’t give them hassle for leaving many other unscrupulous behaviors unmentioned. This one has, quite reliably, served a purpose of showing which ladies were willing to give up all for Jesus. And so it seems picking on this point was well done.

The Truth is not Compelling

In heaven no one is going to say, “Will I get in big trouble if I do this thing?” Heaven is guided by the idea that men do what they believe would be pleasing to the King. Let me say this another way. It is not in God’s interest for you to think that every issue is, as they say, “salvational.” If you only do God’s will when you are afraid of eternal consequences for not doing so, you are not submitted to God truly.

If you understand this, then you can easily comprehend why angels don’t blaze the gospel into the sky at night and warn people in loud commanding voices to get ready for the end. That would be compelling truth. Men would submit, not because of love and trust, but because of fear and more fear.

This is why Jesus said that very non-intuitive truth that only those who are willing to do what God says will understand what God wants them to do.

Joh 7:17  If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

What I am saying, relevant to this article, is that if you are not pleased with the idea of denying yourself for Christ’s sake in the area of adornment, then the Spirit will not be giving you help in understanding regarding your duty.

Nevertheless, there are four issues that need to be addressed yet. These are:

1. The Antitypical Day of Atonement
2. Wedding Rings
3. Texts Favoring the Wearing of Jewels
4. The Current Reality of Many Inexpensive Pieces of Jewelry.

Four Specific Issues

We Live in the Day of Atonement

The people on the Day of Atonement were to humble themselves. But no recipe for this self-humbling on the Day of Atonement was provided for them. Consequently, they sought in other Scripture for help in knowing what to do. And they found the following story about the aftermath of the golden calf (which was made of bullion from golden jewelry) to be particularly helpful[4]:

Exo 33:4-6  And when the people heard these evil tidings, they mourned: and no man did put on him his ornaments. For the LORD had said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel, Ye are a stiffnecked people: I will come up into the midst of thee in a moment, and consume thee: therefore now put off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee. And the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments by the mount Horeb.

We live in the judgment time that was illustrated by the Day of Atonement. And this does have a practical application to our lives. While inferring a certain duty to strip ourselves of jewels while the judgment is ongoing would be a stretch (because inferring certain duty is always a stretch) still it matches well with what Peter and Paul gave as a more general instruction.

Our duty to keep the Sabbath, by way of illustration, has always been. But since 1844, it has been made a test for Christians. And in view of God’s special instruction in Exodus 33 above to those facing potentially lethal judgements, it makes sense that God would call His people back to holiness on the point of adornment especially during this time.

Let me say this again: While the Judgment is ongoing we are to be doing something analogous to “afflicting” our souls. And whatever that means, it most certainly means humbling ourselves. That is what every last faithful Hebrew did on the Day of Atonement anciently.

Lev 16:29  And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you:

Lev 16:31  It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever.

Lev 23:27  Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD.

Now our primary texts are quite related to this idea naturally. They speak of “shamefacedness” and “sobriety” and of a “meek and quiet spirit” in the context of submitting to one’s husband. In both Ezekiel 16 and 28 it was pride of appearance that came before the fall. And in Isaiah 3 it was “haughty” ladies that were to be stripped of their jewels. In short, jewelry is associated with self-exaltation in Scripture. Humbling one’s self is associated with the Day of Atonement.

And consequently we must be not surprised that the Jews generally removed their jewelry for that day. We are under no obligation to follow their example. But we are under the same obligation (to humble self) that led them to put their gold away.

And this is how I explain the very clear call in the Testimonies to come higher and to wear no gems or golden jewels. For more on this, see the section on the Testimonies.

But if the first and second and tenth commandment enforce the prohibition against wearing jewelry, the seventh requires that we honor our marriage vow everywhere we might go. And that brings us to the question of the wedding ring.

The Wedding Ring

It is just like the devil to put two things together that don’t belong. And in the case of the wedding band, he has done so. On one hand, we ought to follow any harmless custom that is designed to honor the sacredness of marriage. On the other hand, we should boycott the jewelry the devil uses to cheat persons who are seeking beauty.

But what to do when the custom is to have a ring to show the marriage?

For the sake of this article it is sufficient to ask the question. Even if wearing jewelry is contrary to God’s will for us now, it might be best to wear a wedding ring. (I don’t think it is.) And even if God wants you to wear a wedding ring, it would be no evidence that He wants you otherwise to be pierced and decorated.  So I leave the question for you. And if you have confidence in Ellen White, I assure you that relevant material is found there.

Texts Apparently Favoring the Use of Jewelry

We have briefly considered the ring on the prodigal son and the sapphire foundation of the heavenly Jerusalem. We have shown that humbling ourselves today is preparation for an exalted afterlife.

And there are a few more passages we could study. First, even good kings of Israel wore crowns. And Saul apparently even encouraged the wearing of gold on the part of the ladies. But as the behavior of the kings was never anything like faultless, and as showing off his jewels was the low point in the life of one of the best of them, I won’t spend any time here drawing significant inferences here.

But one difficult passage does come to mind. God invited the children of Israel to borrow gems from their Egyptian masters just before jettisoning them into the wilderness with those precious items decorating the bodies of their children.

Exo 3:21-22  And I will give this people favour in the sight of the Egyptians: and it shall come to pass, that, when ye go, ye shall not go empty: But every woman shall borrow of her neighbor, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.

We remember that for these people these jewels were their pay for years of service. It was their wealth and when placed upon the children it showed that it was not being worn in self-exaltation. When God soon instructed them to build a sanctuary, this was precisely the kind of money that they brought to contribute.

Exo_35:22  And they came, both men and women, as many as were willing hearted, and brought bracelets, and earrings, and rings, and tablets, all jewels of gold: and every man that offered offered an offering of gold unto the LORD.

In a similar way when the war against the Midianites had been waged successfully, the people brought an offering of thankfulness gathered of the very money they had at the time. (Jewels make good money, being light, precious, testable, Numbers 31:50.)

To summarize this data, God’s counsel to us in our primary passages not to adorn ourselves with gold is not counsel to avoid owning the same. Money and Jewelry serve two different functions even if composed of the same materials. (If we inherit family jewels, we will not wear them. But neither would we discard them.)

One of the more interesting verses showing a positive use of jewelry by a well-trusted servant is found in Genesis 24. Abraham, in his old age, didn’t instruct his servant how to secure a wife for his son. But the servant was his treasurer and so did have his money under his hand. And that money would have been precious jewels and gold.

Here is part of the story:

Gen 24:12  And he said, O LORD God of my master Abraham, I pray thee, send me good speed this day, and shew kindness unto my master Abraham. . . .16  And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up. . . .21  And the man wondering at her held his peace, to wit whether the LORD had made his journey prosperous or not. 22  And it came to pass, as the camels had done drinking, that the man took a golden earring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her hands of ten shekels weight of gold; 30  And it came to pass, … [Laban her brother] saw the earring and bracelets upon his sister’s hands, and when he heard the words of Rebekah his sister…

Does this story tell us how Isaac acquired a wife? Yes. Does it give us any information about how God would have us dress? Not any at all. In fact, it isn’t even information on how to find a wife for your late-blooming son. The story shows God’s providence, but not man’s wisdom. It is, as they say, descriptive rather than prescriptive. It shows what happened, not what should have happened[5].

Our primary texts, by way of contrast, tell us what should be done generally by church women.

In a similar way the luxury of Solomon’s court is no guideline for us regarding what is best. His harem and their jewelry are of interest, but not in a way as to help us know how to dress. In the Bible there are a number of references to royal courts (of Pharaoh, David, Artaxerxes, Belshazzar) where jewelry was noted in the text. And in those passages both Joseph and Daniel, two of the most faithful royal slaves in scripture, were ceremoniously honored by these kings with golden neck chains of great value. Gen 41:42; Dan 5:29.

Now we don’t have any information on how Joseph felt about receiving such a chain. He certainly didn’t select it for himself as a way of looking more beautiful. But we do know something about how the 87 year old Daniel related to the promise of his king to give him one such necklace:

Dan 5:16  [Belteshazzar said], “And I have heard of thee, that thou canst make interpretations, and dissolve doubts: now if thou canst read the writing, and make known to me the interpretation thereof, thou shalt be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about thy neck, and shalt be the third ruler in the kingdom. 17  Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy gifts be to thyself, and give thy rewards to another; yet I will read the writing unto the king, and make known to him the interpretation.

And again, when that chain was placed on his aged body a few minutes later, there is nothing in our primary texts that would suggest that he should vehemently refuse it. It would have been perfectly consistent to remove it when doing so would not appear impudent. Daniel didn’t put it on as a means of personal adornment.

When Solomon sought for ways of showing the great value of excellent words and of constructive criticism, his mind was drawn to gold ingots and jewels. These were the treasures of his time that men sought. And ears ought to seek for needed words in a similar way,

Pro 25:11-12  A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver. As an earring of gold, and an ornament of fine gold, so is a wise reprover upon an obedient ear.

But are we wise to counter this fine metaphor to the literal instructions written for our practice? Certainly not.

And that concludes our consideration of the data of texts that are supposed to favor the wearing of jewelry by believers. We find that faithful persons were sometimes gifted with gold, sometimes traded with gold, sometimes illustrated value with gold, and sometimes were corrupted by gold. But neither some nor all of these amount to God teaching us how to adorn ourselves. And where we do find passages that show the moral impact on ladies and Lucifer, we find nothing but encouragement to dress simply.

Finance and Cheap Jewels

The world has always been more or less artificial. Step off the vibrant tourist path on a Caribbean island and you may find squalor only meters away. Cruise ships have very cramped quarters for service personnel. And a $3,000 Rolex watch has an almost indistinguishable $20 knock-off manufactured in Asia somewhere.

If the Rolex was purchased for adult show and tell purposes then the spirit of our primary passages would frown on it. But what about the fake? The fake serves the very same purpose as the real and falls afoul of good principles for that very reason.

1Th 5:22  Abstain from all appearance of evil.

Cost is an issue raised in both of the primary passages, but particularly in relation to stylish clothing. But the cost was never the primary concern. It had nothing to do with the storylines in Ezekiel 16 and 28.

When you wear the cheap earring, you cooperate with a diabolical plan to fill the earth with vain searching. You say to your neighbors, “you need to wear it also.” And to those that despise the artificial, you tempt them to get something more precious.

The Testimonies don’t ask you to compare your needless expenses to the cost of repaving your church drive. Rather, they ask you to compare it to the value that money would have on the mission front (unless it is paying western wages there). That $500, for example, could employ a half-time worker all year in several of the countries of Southeast Asia. That $10 trinket could buy six copies of Ministry of Healing in Malaysia if you give it to the children’s offering this fourth quarter.

Now the truth about these things is not compelling. It is easier to see if you are searching for it. But as the church ought to present a united front to the world, God has given the church a gift that was intended to strip us of our excuses for not following the plain direct counsel.

That gift is the Spirit of Prophecy. I think it warrants a more thorough treatment here. After we look at what can be found there, we will return to review the ideas of the article and to close it.

Ellen White and the Bible for Adventists and Others

The Ellen White statements need not much comment to be helpful. The first shows God’s purpose in giving the Testimonies of Ellen White. The statements following reveal the plain requirements of God. And then the final section deals with a few faulty arguments drawn from her life and writings. All forms of emphasis are supplied.

“The Lord designs to warn you, to reprove, to counsel, through the testimonies given, and to impress your minds with the importance of the truth of His word. The written testimonies are not to give new light, but to impress vividly upon the heart the truths of inspiration already revealed. Man’s duty to God and to his fellow man has been distinctly specified in God’s word, yet but few of you are obedient to the light given. Additional truth is not brought out; but God has through the Testimonies simplified the great truths already given and in His own chosen way brought them before the people to awaken and impress the mind with them, that all may be left without excuse.5T 665.1

“Pride, self-love, selfishness, hatred, envy, and jealousy have beclouded the perceptive powers, and the truth, which would make you wise unto salvation, has lost its power to charm and control the mind. The very essential principles of godliness are not understood because there is not a hungering and thirsting for Bible knowledge, purity of heart, and holiness of life. The Testimonies are not to belittle the word of God, but to exalt it and attract minds to it, that the beautiful simplicity of truth may impress all. 5T 665.2

A New Believer “Much Adorned”

Today I have had an interview with one who is just taking her stand for the truth, but she is much adorned with gold bracelets and rings. I think she is good material, and will bear to hear kindly advice. The word must be presented: (1 Peter 3:3, 4 quoted). I believe that this sister has received the truth and will practice the truth. If she loves the truth she will obey the words of Christ. Letter 112, 1896, p. 3. (To Sister Wessels and Children, October 16, 1896.)

A Vanity that is Sinful Encouraged by Gifts of Jewelry

Shall those who profess the name of Christ see no attraction in the world’s Redeemer? Will they be indifferent to the possession of truth and righteousness, and turn from the heavenly treasure to the earthly? Can you, my sister, use the Lord’s money to purchase diamonds or any other jewels for any person? These cannot save one soul. They will not lead anyone to accept the saving truths for this time. Let us do nothing to encourage a vanity that is sinful. No, my sister, save the money you may be tempted to spend in this way, and place it where it will bring honor and glory to Christ. … 9MR 119.3

Jewelry and Expensive Dress Will Not Give Us Influence

We have not time now to give anxious thought as to what we shall eat and drink, and wherewithal we shall be clothed. Let us live simply, and work in simplicity. Let us dress in such a modest, becoming way that we will be received wherever we go. Jewelry and expensive dress will not give us influence, but the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit—the result of devotion to the service of Christ—will give us power with God. Kindness and forethought for those about us are qualities precious in the sight of heaven. If you have not given attention to the acquirement of these graces, do so now, for you have no time to lose. 9MR 120.2

Where Elder Simpson Preaches, Jewelry become an Offering

Elder Simpson explains the prophecies by the means of charts, and makes it very plain that the end of all things is at hand. … The truth takes hold of hearts; and men and women give their rings and bracelets although no call has been made for them to strip themselves of these idols. The work is earnest and quiet. The people take off their jewelry of their own freewill, and bring it to Elder Simpson as an offering up of their idols. 14MR 250.4

First and Highest Thoughts of Most Women are of Display. Christians Must Not Ape Them

We see the world absorbed in their own amusements. The first and highest thoughts of the larger portion, especially of women, are of display. Love of dress and pleasure is wrecking the happiness of thousands. And some of those who profess to love and keep the commandments of God ape this class as near as they possibly can and retain the Christian name. Some of the young are so eager for display that they are even willing to give up the Christian name if they can only follow out their inclination for vanity of dress and love of pleasure. Self-denial in dress is a part of our Christian duty. To dress plainly, abstaining from display of jewelry and ornaments of every kind, is in keeping with our faith. Are we of the number who see the folly of worldlings in indulging in extravagance of dress as well as in love of amusements? If so, we should be of that class who shun everything that gives sanction to this spirit which takes possession of the minds and hearts of those who live for this world only and who have no thought or care for the next. 3T 366.1

Ten pages of one testimony in the 4^th volume of the Testimonies is devoted to the topic of dress. Part is reproduced below though all is interesting. Here we find how serious the issue of dress is to God and man, and how displeasing it is to God when we neglect to do our part to repress fashion’s influence in cheapening the lives of church women.

God has been testing His people. He allowed the testimony concerning dress to become silent, that our sisters might follow their own inclination and thus develop the real pride existing in their hearts. It was to prevent the present state of worldliness that the reform dress was recommended. Many scorned the idea that this dress was necessary to preserve them from following the fashions; but the Lord has permitted them to prove that pride was cherished in their hearts, and that this was just what they would do. It is now shown that they needed the restriction which the reform dress imposed. 4T 639.3

…

Many a soul who was convinced of the truth has been led to decide against it by the pride and love of the world displayed by our sisters. The doctrine preached seemed clear and harmonious, and the hearers felt that a heavy cross must be lifted by them in taking the truth. When these persons have seen our sisters making so much display in dress, they have said: “This people dress fully as much as we do. They cannot really believe what they profess; and, after all, they must be deceived.…How little did those professedly believing sisters know of the sermon their dress was preaching! 4T 641.2

… Many unbelievers have felt that they were not doing right in permitting themselves to be slaves of fashion; but when they see some who make a high profession of godliness dressing as worldlings dress, enjoying frivolous society, they decide that there can be no wrong in such a course. 4T 641.3 …

Why will our sisters rob God of the service due Him, and rob His treasury of money which they should give to His cause, to serve the fashions of this age? The first and best thoughts are given to dress; time is squandered and money wasted. The culture of the mind and heart is neglected. The character is considered of less importance than the dress. The ornament of a meek and quiet spirit is of infinite value, and it is the wickedest of folly to waste in frivolous pursuits our opportunities to secure this precious adorning of the soul. 4T 642.1

Sisters, we may do a noble work for God if we will. Woman does not know her power. God did not intend that her capabilities should be all absorbed in questioning: What shall I eat? what shall I drink? and wherewithal shall I be clothed? There is a higher purpose for woman, a grander destiny. She should develop and cultivate her powers, for God can employ them in the great work of saving souls from eternal ruin.4T 642.2

On Sunday the popular churches appear more like a theater than a place for the worship of God. Every style of fashionable dress is displayed there. The poor have not courage to enter those houses of worship….

Not one word was said of Christ or of the sermon preached. How, thought I, can Jesus regard that company, with their display of ornaments and extravagant dress? What dishonor is shown to the house of God! Were Christ upon earth, and should He visit such churches, would He not drive out those desecrators of His Father’s house? 4T 643.1

…[if you have teens, read what I omitted here]…

Simplicity of dress will make a sensible woman appear to the best advantage. We judge of a person’s character by the style of dress worn. Gaudy apparel betrays vanity and weakness. A modest, godly woman will dress modestly. A refined taste, a cultivated mind, will be revealed in the choice of simple and appropriate attire. 4T 643.4

There is an ornament that will never perish, that will promote the happiness of all around us in this life, and will shine with undimmed luster in the immortal future. It is the adorning of a meek and lowly spirit. God has bidden us wear the richest dress upon the soul. By every look into the mirror, the worshipers of fashion should be reminded of the neglected soul. Every hour squandered over the toilet should reprove them for leaving the intellect to lie waste. Then there might be a reformation that would elevate and ennoble all the aims and purposes of life. Instead of seeking golden ornaments for the exterior, an earnest effort would be put forth to secure that wisdom which is of more value than fine gold, yea, which is more precious than rubies. 4T 643.5

Peter gives valuable instruction concerning the dress of Christian women: “Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves.” All that we urge is compliance with the injunctions of God’s word. Are we Bible readers and followers of Bible teachings? Will we obey God, or conform to the customs of the world? Will we serve God or mammon? Can we expect to enjoy peace of mind and the approval of God while walking directly contrary to the teachings of His word? 4T 644.2

The apostle Paul exhorts Christians not to be conformed to the world, but to be transformed by the renewing of the mind, “that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” But many who profess to be children of God feel no scruples against conforming to the customs of the world in the wearing of gold and pearls and costly array. Those who are too conscientious to wear these things are regarded as narrow-minded, superstitious, and even fanatical. But it is God who condescends to give us these instructions; they are the declarations of Infinite Wisdom, and those who disregard them do so at their own peril and loss. Those who cling to the ornaments forbidden in God’s word cherish pride and vanity in the heart. They desire to attract attention. Their dress says: Look at me; admire me. Thus the vanity inherent in human nature is steadily increasing by indulgence. When the mind is fixed upon pleasing God alone, all the needless embellishments of the person disappear…

The love of dress endangers the morals and makes woman the opposite of the Christian lady characterized by modesty and sobriety. Showy, extravagant dress too often encourages lust in the heart of the wearer and awakens base passions in the heart of the beholder. God sees that the ruin of the character is frequently preceded by the indulgence of pride and vanity in dress. He sees that the costly apparel stifles the desire to do good. The more means persons expend in dress, the less they can have to feed the hungry and clothe the naked; and the streams of beneficence, which should be constantly flowing, are dried up. Every dollar saved by denying one’s self of useless ornaments may be given to the needy or may be placed in the Lord’s treasury to sustain the gospel, to send missionaries to foreign countries, to multiply publications to carry rays of light to souls in the darkness of error. Every dollar used unnecessarily deprives the spender of a precious opportunity to do good. 4T 645.3

…The fact that worldliness and pride bear almost universal sway is no excuse for one Christian to do as others do. God has said: “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.”4T 647.1

…. Obedience to fashion is pervading our Seventh-day Adventist churches and is doing more than any other power to separate our people from God. I have been shown that our church rules are very deficient. All exhibitions of pride in dress, which is forbidden in the word of God, should be sufficient reason for church discipline. If there is a continuance, in face of warnings and appeals and entreaties, to still follow the perverse will, it may be regarded as proof that the heart is in no way assimilated to Christ. Self, and only self, is the object of adoration, and one such professed Christian will lead many away from God.4T 647.2

Instructing New Converts on Idolatry of Dress

One of the points upon which those newly come to the faith will need instruction is the subject of dress. Let the new converts be faithfully dealt with. Are they vain in dress? Do they cherish pride of heart? The idolatry of dress is a moral disease. It must not be taken over into the new life. In most cases, submission to the gospel requirements will demand a decided change in the dress. Ev 268.2

. . . Very specific were the directions given in regard to Aaron’s robes, for his dress was symbolic. So the dress of Christ’s followers should be symbolic. In all things we are to be representatives of Him. Our appearance in every respect should be characterized by neatness, modesty, and purity. But the Word of God gives no sanction to the making of changes in apparel merely for the sake of fashion,—that we may appear like the world. Christians are not to decorate the person with costly array or expensive ornaments. Ev 268.3

New Converts Confused by Adventists Wearing Jewelry

One Said, “We are not so Particular as Formerly”

A sister who had spent some weeks at one of our institutions in _____, said that she felt much disappointed in what she saw and heard there…. Before accepting the truth, she had followed the fashions of the world in her dress, and had worn costly jewelry and other ornaments; but upon deciding to obey the Word of God, she felt that its teachings required her to lay aside all extravagant and superfluous adorning. She was taught that Seventh-day Adventists did not wear jewelry, gold, silver, or precious stones, and that they did not conform to worldly fashions in their dress. When she saw among those who profess the faith such a wide departure from Bible simplicity, she felt bewildered. Had they not the same Bible which she had been studying, and to which she had endeavored to conform her life? Had her past experience been mere fanaticism? Had she misinterpreted the words of the apostle, “The friendship of the world is enmity with God, for whosoever will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God”? Ev 270.1

Mrs. D, a lady occupying a position in the institution, was visiting at Sr. _____’s room one day, when the latter took out of her trunk a gold necklace and chain, and said she wished to dispose of this jewelry and put the proceeds into the Lord’s treasury. Said the other, “Why do you sell it? I would wear it if it was mine.” “Why,” replied Sr. _____, “when I received the truth, I was taught that all these things must be laid aside. Surely they are contrary to the teachings of God’s Word.” And she cited her hearer to the words of the apostles, Paul and Peter, upon this point, “In like manner, also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broidered hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but, as becometh women professing godliness, with good works.” “Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel. But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit.”Ev 270.2

In answer, the lady displayed a gold ring on her finger, given her by an unbeliever, and said she thought it no harm to wear such ornaments. “We are not so particular,” said she, “as formerly. Our people have been overscrupulous in their opinions upon the subject of dress. The ladies of this institution wear gold watches and gold chains, and dress like other people. It is not good policy to be singular in our dress; for we cannot exert so much influence.” Ev 271.1

We inquire, Is this in accordance with the teachings of Christ? Are we to follow the Word of God, or the customs of the world? Our sister decided that it was the safest to adhere to the Bible standard. Will Mrs. D and others who pursue a similar course be pleased to meet the result of their influence, in that day when every man shall receive according to his works? Ev 271.2

Sell Your Jeweled idols

Those who have bracelets, and wear gold and ornaments, had better take these idols from their persons and sell them, even if it should be for much less than they gave for them, and thus practice self-denial. Time is too short to adorn the body with gold or silver or costly apparel… Let us live simply, and work in simplicity. Let us dress in such a modest, becoming way that we will be received wherever we go. Jewelry and expensive dress will not give us influence, but the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit—the result of devotion to the service of Christ—will give us power with God. Kindness and forethought for those about us are qualities precious in the sight of heaven. If you have not given attention to the acquirement of these graces, do so now, for you have no time to lose. 3SM 248

Professed Christians Wearing Jewelry and “Costly Apparel”

… There are many whose hearts have been so hardened by prosperity that they forget God, and forget the wants of their fellow man. Professed Christians adorn themselves with jewelry, laces, costly apparel, while the Lord’s poor suffer for the necessaries of life. Men and women who claim redemption through a Saviour’s blood will squander the means intrusted to them for the saving of other souls, and then grudgingly dole out their offerings for religion, giving liberally only when it will bring honor to themselves. These are idolaters (The Signs of the Times, January 26, 1882). 2BC 1011-1012

Money Expended for Display and for Forbidden Ornaments Sufficient to Fund Benevolent Work

Let not the cries of the widow and fatherless call down the vengeance of Heaven upon us as a people. In the professed Christian world, there is enough expended in extravagant display, for jewels and ornaments, to supply the wants of all the hungry and clothe the naked in our towns and cities; and yet these professed followers of the meek and lowly Jesus need not deprive themselves of suitable food or comfortable clothing. What will these church members say when confronted in the day of God by the worthy poor, the afflicted, the widows and fatherless, who have known pinching want for the meager necessities of life, while there was expended by these professed followers of Christ, for superfluous clothing, and needless ornaments expressly forbidden in the Word of God, enough to supply all their wants? We see ladies professing godliness wear elegant gold chains, necklaces, rings, and other jewelry … while want stalks in the streets, and the suffering and destitute are on every side. These do not interest them, nor awaken their sympathy; but they will weep over the imaginary suffering depicted in the last novel. They have no ears for the cries of the needy, no eyes to behold the cold and almost naked forms of women and children around them. They look upon real want as a species of crime, and withdraw from suffering humanity as from a contagious disease. To such, Christ will say, “I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: … sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.” BLJ 269

Your Beauty Should Come From…

Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 1 Peter 3:3, 4, NIV. The pure religion of Jesus requires of its followers the simplicity of natural beauty and the polish of natural refinement and elevated purity, rather than the artificial and false.…A disposition in you to dress according to the fashion, and to wear lace and gold and artificials[6] for display, will not recommend to others your religion or the truth that you profess…. Simple, plain, unpretending dress will be a recommendation to my youthful sisters. In no better way can you let your light shine to others than in your simplicity of dress and deportment. You may show to all that, in comparison with eternal things, you place a proper estimate upon the things of this life. ..LHU 305

How Do Artists Draw Angels? Why?

“Female loveliness never appears to so good advantage as when set off with simplicity of dress. No artist ever decks his angels with towering feathers and gaudy jewelry; and our dear human angels, if they will make good their title to that name, should carefully avoid ornaments, which properly belong to Indian squaws and African princesses. These tinselries may serve to give effect on the stage, on the ball-floor, but in daily life there is no substitute for the charm of simplicity. A vulgar taste is not to be disguised by gold or diamonds. The absence of a true taste and refinement of delicacy cannot be compensated for by the possession of the most princely fortune. Mind measures gold, but gold cannot measure mind.HR November 1, 1871, par. 15

The Less we Bejewel and Paint Ourselves (as Heathen do) the Better

There should be perfect cleanliness, with frequent baths, clean and neat persons, homes, and grounds. Clothing should be simple, neat, and healthful. The fashions of that day had many things in dress that were wrong and harmful, and so too are some of the fashions today. God made for us beautiful bodies, and the less we deck them with foolish frills and jewelry and paint, like the heathen, the more pleasing we make ourselves and the better able we are to give God’s message. SWhite 64.3

Note that the statements above are not nearly exhaustive.

Now what of the idea that Ellen White used a pocket-watch with a chain, or that she wore a brooch as a simple clasp for her collar? What about the brooch that, though “serviceable,” had white stones in it that “were not showy at all?” (Ellen White wore this for a few weeks or more.) Ellen White sold one of her pocket-watches for the very reason that some persons thought her inconsistent to have it. There is, however, nothing inconsistent with having a golden pocket watch in one’s pocket while advocating the non-wearing of jewelry. Nor is there any inconsistency to wear a tasteful and simple clasp for one’s collar.

But these stories should hold little weight with anyone who is looking for truth in the Testimonies. Why? Because it is the ideas of prophets, not the practice of prophets, that is inspired.

Ellen White explained her view of such stories when the rumor spread around that she was a cheese eater. She had no value for a religion based on her example rather than on God’s instructions. Listen:

Oh, how it has hurt me to have blocks thrown in my way in regard to this subject. Some have said, “Sister White eats cheese, and therefore we are at liberty to eat cheese.” I have tasted cheese once or twice, but that is a different thing from making it an article of diet. Once when at Minneapolis, I sat down at a table on which there was some cheese. I was quite sick at the time, and some of my brethren told me that they thought if I ate a little cheese, it might do me good. I ate a small piece, and from then it has been reported in large assemblies that Sister White eats cheese.13MR 202.1

I have not had meat in my house for years. But do not give up the use of meat because Sister White does not eat it. I would not give a farthing for your health reform if that is what it is based upon. I want you to stand in your individual dignity and in your individual consecration before God, the whole being dedicated to Him. “If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.”13MR 202.2

I want you to think of these things. Do not make any human being your criterion. …13MR 203.1

Conclusion

The Bible is a small book for the volume of issues that it addresses. Six thousand years of history and prophecy, with counsel on families and parenting and health and health care. Find there guidance for politicians and pastors, for generals and slaves. Learn how to form a character that amounts to a fitness for heaven. And learn how to get a title to the place.

On the issue of dress it speaks with authority. We find to the two primary apostles both teaching that women should seek “not” outward adorning of gold and pearls and fashionable clothing, but an inward grace of simplicity and meekness.

In the future we will be given mansions and crowns and a glorious existence. But today we are to humble ourselves before the mighty hand of God.

In the past Lucifer thought too much of his beauty. He accentuated the same. And those thoughts corrupted the purity that was once his.

In the metaphorical past, God’s special nation thought too much about their beauty and privileges and was corrupted accordingly.

And anyone really seeking to see what the Creator said through Ellen White will find no confusion. He will find that Paul and Peter were speaking for God in way that should be respected. They will find that pride in dress as manifested in open disregard of those passages should be disciplined. And they will find that a slipping into carelessness regarding these things is a step in the wrong direction.

But if you want to wear jewelry specifically and or to dress like normal worldly people, you won’t see light in any of these things. You won’t discern the light in them. No one will likely be able to make you see it.

Nonetheless, lilies will still be more beautiful than Solomon and simple women more beautiful that decked ones. And these passages will still be in the Bible:

1Ti 2:8  I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. 9  In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10  But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

Luk 9:23  And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

1Jn 2:15  Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16  For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

And this is why I believe that it is no coincidence that the persons you know who are more earnestly seeking to please God and to warn the world of the impending time of trouble, are also the least likely to be wearing jewelry.

 

 

[1] As the issue of ordination is current the Adventist church even today, some persons will think of it when reading this chapter. I will not address it as I swore off doing so after 2015. But the verses that conclude this chapter are, as I understand them, addressing the issue of teaching with authority as opposed to teaching generally (the “nor” being a “not both together”). And the saving in the final verse is referring to the woman Eve being saved by her seed, Jesus, on condition of living by faith. Though these verses have been handled roughly by those with an agenda, they are good solid Bible teaching.

[2] I affirm the KJV translators on this one. Lucifer was created with vocal skills, not with gem studs preinstalled.

[3] When the Bible warns men against domestic violence (1Ti 2:8) and women against showy adornment (1Ti 2:9) it doesn’t mean that women may beat up their husbands and men may don jewelry. It does mean, however, that domestic anger is largely caused by males and concern about jeweled appearance is largely a female concern.

[4] Not having the New Testament, they would also have placed more weight on the story of Jacob’s family burying their idols and jewelry (in Genesis 35) while seeking to be “clean” before God. They would also have likely considered, as opposite of the right spirit for judgment day, the “haughty” women of Isaiah 3 that were decked out in jewelry.

[5] And there is no evidence in this passage that Eliezer pierced Rebecca’s nose out at the well. The word translated “nose ring” in a few translations is generically a ring and usually refers to finger rings in scripture.

[6] Make-up.

Download an abridged version of this article.

Listen to Eugene Prewitt’s sermon “Gifts, Jobs, and Homosexuality”

The Origin of Sexuality and of Homosexuality

Human sexuality, along with a pleasing sexual imperative, is introduced at the very beginning of the Bible story. Mankind was created with gender. Gender was created with purpose.

Ge 1:27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.  28  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:

Compliantly, in the narrative, Adam “knew” his wife and she conceived a son, and then another, and then a third. And though we don’t have details about differing sexual orientations before the flood[1], it is certain that only heterosexuals were on the Ark.[2]

Ge 7:7  And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons’ wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.

Obviously the origin of same-sex attractions significantly predated its rise to the epic proportions apparent in Sodom four centuries after the flood. However rare gay practice must have been at its beginning, we find men and boys (na’ar) from “every quarter” of Sodom involved in the assault on Lot’s home.

How did homosexual practice come into existence? The Bible teaches that it rose as part of a judgment on those that invented idolatry. As they abandoned the true worship of Jehovah, their willful ignorance[3] was judged by God by a two-step process. First, God let them slide into same-sex practice. Then He permitted a “due penalty” (sexually transmitted diseases?) to take its toll.

For although they knew God, they …  exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24  Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25  because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26  For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27  and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another[4], men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28  And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. Romans 1:20-28, ESV.

Same-sex Attraction and Sodom

As we have already mentioned, four centuries was long enough to lead to a wholesale adoption of unnatural sexual experiences. Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities of the same plain, were particularly guilty of immorality. And more particularly, they were pursuing satisfaction of “unnatural” sexual desires, Jude’s word for gay desires.

Jude 1:7  just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. ESV

Some persons have denied that gay lifestyles ought to be fingered as the leading evil of Sodom. They quote Ezekiel as pointing to a different collection of sins. “They were proud, obese, and lazy”, say they, “and unconcerned with social justice.” To this I would reply that Ezekiel is not arguing with Jude and Moses.

Rather, Ezekiel exposes another path to homosexuality. It was a sinful self-indulging environment, something akin to our western idea of prosperity, that led to the rise of Sodom’s violent homosexual mobs.

Ezekiel 16:49  Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50  And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

Someone says, “How do you define sexual orientation from the word ‘abomination’”? That is a good question. The convergence of all three lines of evidence points to this conclusion. Those evidences are the story (below), Jude’s phrase “unnatural desire,” and the use of the same Hebrew word in the catalogue of sexual abominations (Leviticus 18.)

In the story Lot entertains angels unawares. We pick up the story after their meal:

Genesis 19:4  But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5  And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

Their evil serves to demonstrate the moral character of the urban center.

Moses, who authored the story of Sodom, also very directly connects Ezekiel’s word for “abomination” with homosexual practice in the catalogue of sexual perversions, Leviticus 18. There to’ebhah (abomination) is first used for what God abhors. (Earlier references are to what Egyptians abhor).

There God’s abhorrence of perverse sexual sin is offered as a leading reason why God expelled the Canaanites from their land.

Le 18:22  Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. 23  Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. 24  Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: 25  And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. 26  Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: 27  (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) 28  That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. 29  For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations , even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. 30  Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable  customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.

Le 20:13  If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

When you considering these passages, when you think of Jude’s statement that the Sodom dwellers were pursuing “strange flesh,” when you read the Genesis story itself, it is not hard to identify Sodom’s notable sin. In view of these things there can be no reasonable doubt regarding the meaning of the “abomination” of Sodom mentioned in Ezekiel 16:50 as the immediate cause of their destruction.

Gender Confusion and Egyptian Habits

Deuteronomy identifies other abominations: idolatry (and such associated practices as burning infants in the fire), eating of unclean meats, profits from prostitution, experimental divorce[5] and defective offerings.

Additionally, Deuteronomy forbids prostitutes and “sodomites.” The ESV renders the word as “male cult prostitutes.” Regardless of the version, the word denotes homosexual ritual sex. And it is forbidden.

De 23:17  There shall be no whore {margin: sodomitess} of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. 18  Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog[6], into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

One other gender-oriented “abomination” is mentioned by Moses. That is the act of cross-dressing.

De 22:5  “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.

Think about this question: Why would cross dressing be particularly evil? How this would be immoral is difficult to conceive unless one accepts the idea that a confusion of gender roles is abhorrent to God.  Weighty are the implications as they relate to homosexuality.

Leviticus’ larger prohibition against homosexuality, already mentioned above, is found in a section of the Torah that deals with many types of sexual sins. That section is introduced with a prohibition of the evils that Egypt committed (Leviticus 18:3). Did these practices include homosexual activity as the chapter goes on to forbid? One of the more respected Jewish historians (Moses Maimonides) thought so.  He summarize an ancient midrash on Leviticus 18:3.

For women to be [married] with one another is forbidden, as this is the practice of Egypt, which we were warned against: “Like the practice of the land of Egypt … you shall not do” (Leviticus 18:3). The Sages said [in the midrash of Sifra Aharei Mot 8:8–9], “What did they do? A man married a man, and a woman married a woman, and a woman married two men.”[7]

Sodom II and Homosexuality in the Time of the Kings

Seven centuries after fire destroyed Sodom, history largely repeated itself in an Israeli town of Benjamin. Again travelers are hosted. Again the host is assaulted by would-be gain rapists with a same-sex preference. But no angels are there, so a victim dies at the hands of the mob. The narrative ends with the near extinction of the entire tribe of Benjamin.

God authorized and empowered this massacre of those who protected the wrong-doers. See Judges 19-20. Only a few hundred Benjamite males survived the war. The genocidal solution to the Benjamite abomination assured that the particular perversion would come to a dead end.

Nevertheless, less than two centuries later, homosexual activity appears again. The Bible again reminds us that it had been homosexual religious rituals that warranted the expulsion of the original inhabitants of Canaan.

1 Kings 14:22  And Judah did evil in the sight of the LORD, and they provoked him to jealousy with their sins which they had committed, above all that their fathers had done. 23  For they also built them high places, and images, and groves, on every high hill, and under every green tree. 24  And there were also sodomites ^<qadesh> in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

Two of the next three generations sought to remove the homosexual prostitutes from the land. Asa “took away the sodomites ^<qadesh> out of the land,” and his son removed “the remnant of the sodomites ^<qadesh> which remained in the days of his father Asa.” 1 Kings 15:12; 22:46.

Much later, the last good king of Judah again took up this work of removing abominations that threatened national stability. Josiah removed the “houses of the sodomites” that were in the vicinity of the temple. But it appears he was unable to uproot the gay practitioners from the nation generally.

2Ki 23:7  And he brake down the houses of the sodomites ^<qadesh> that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.24  And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

Josiah’s children witnessed Babylon’s complete victory over the forces of Judah and the scattering of the people. The heathen had been cast out of the land for abominations earlier. Now Judah was cast out for its abominations. The two that are mentioned repeatedly throughout their history were idolatry and ritual homosexuality.

Paul on Homosexual Behavior

When the remnant of the captivity returned to Jerusalem under Ezra and Nehemiah, the idolaters (and apparently, the homosexuals) were not among them. Even in Jesus’ day, idolatry was yet despised by the Jews. And there is no record of homosexual interest of any type in Judah while Jesus was teaching. His frequent allusions to marriage are always to the union of a man and of a woman.

But the state of things in Judea differed a great deal from the state of things in the larger sphere of Rome. In the empire itself idolatry was everywhere prevalent. And sources outside of scripture confirm what we find implicitly in Paul’s writings, that homosexual practice also abounded.

This simple contrast, between the sexual orientation of Judeans and the sexual orientation of Roman persons, illustrates the connection between the religion of God and the sexual experience. Where His religion prevailed monogamous heterosexuality did also. Where paganism prospered, sexual immorality of every kind existed. Every list of serious sins in the New Testament includes one or more references to sexual evils.

In his letter to the Romans, the apostle addresses the joint origin of same sex attractions and idolatry. (See the first portion of this article.)

But he first contrasts the practical outworking of the gospel (Romans 1:16-17) with the guilty practice of “unrighteousness” by those that “hold the truth.” He warns the Roman believers that God is known in this world by the character of those that profess to believe in Him. And, accordingly, God’s wrath is kindled against wicked professed Christians. (Romans 1:18-19).

Even heathen, however, have enough evidence in nature of God’s power and existence to make them accountable for their moral choices. They should cherish what they can learn about God. Otherwise, their choices will lead them to greater darkness (idolatry) even while they think they are being enlightened. (Romans 1:20-23.)

From this introduction Paul moves directly into his statements on the unnatural[8] nature of same sex attractions. It is apparent, in their connection with the previous verses, that the Roman believers would merit wrath if they were to imitate the heathen in regard to indulgence of same-sex attractions. They would be like those who were changing the “truth of God” “into a lie” by idolatry.

Romans 1:24  Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: 25  Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.  26  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Paul went on to explain that these homosexual idolaters, when they preferred not to “retain God in their knowledge,” were eventually handed over by God to their own desires. The result of that was a life filled with evil fruits including “fornication,” “murder,” “malignity,” etc. The long list of evil leads, the apostles says, to persons who are “proud, boasters, inventers of evil things, disobedient to parents, without natural affection.”

The fact that society at large is full of these same fruits should not shock us. Jesus characterized even his own age as “adulterous and sinful,” Mark 8:38.

How does Paul tie off his discussion of sinful behavior? He shares two solemn thoughts.

First he reproves those “who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” Christians are guiltier than others when they permit themselves to slip into perversion.

In fact, Christians may fellowship and befriend perverted persons in the world in an effort to help them. But when believers, members of the church, practice immorality (or other abhorrent and open sins) they are not to be fellowshipped. Friendly association with them, like eating together, that might communicate approval of their behavior, is forbidden to Christians.

1 Corinthians 5:9  I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—10  not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world[9]. 11  But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.

This balances Paul’s other truth (Romans 2:1-4) that guilty persons are the least charitable in their evaluation of other people. They are the ones inclined to “judge” those with wicked behavior. And by their lack of mercy they show that they have no just appreciation of God’s mercy to them. This is the explanation of how they became hard-hearted: They never cherished God’s “goodness and forbearance and longsuffering,” the very traits that could have led them to repentance.

Romans 2:1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2  But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. 3  And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4  Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? — NKJV

To summarize the long passage (Romans 1:16-2:4), God’s gospel condemns sin especially in those who hold the truth. Homosexual activity is described as being originally part of the experience of backsliders. They are in danger of being abandoned to their desires. But while we recognize evil for what it is, we ought not to become what LGBT persons call “haters.” We know God’s lethal judgments against sexual sins, but we also cherish the fact that God has been forbearing and merciful to us. We know that God’s mercy is what led us to turn away from sin. And it is sensible, then, that it will lead others to do the same.

From Homosexual Acts to Holiness, the Gospel for Gays and Lesbians

To be tempted is to be tested. To fall is to sin. These two thoughts express the difference between sinful urges and sinful practice. By extension, they illustrate how a gay man may live a holy life. Though tempted, he may live victoriously.

But victory today never atones for sin yesterday. The man who wants holiness must turn away from sins. He must forsake both the thoughts and the actions that amounted to surrender to same-sex urges.

Isa 55:7  let the wicked forsake his ways and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

Is there any Biblical evidence that a man ever did gain victory over a homosexual lifestyle? Indeed, there is explicit testimony that in Corinth heathen homosexuals did find Jesus and the gospel to be powerful enough to set them free from their sin.

ESV 1Co 6:9  Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, {The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts [10]}  10  nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11  And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Three of the condemned evils (four if we count both words for homosexual partners) are related to sexual conduct. Paul goes on to explain that the body was created with a purpose. It was created to be a habitation for the Lord Jesus. When Christ lives in us, we become “one spirit with him.” (1 Co 6:18.) And when the body of a Christian is used for immoral behavior (like visiting a whore), he wickedly unites himself as “one flesh” with the sexual partner. “Should members of Christ,” Paul asks, “becomes members of a harlot? Never!”

1Cor 6:13 The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14  And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15  Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never!  16  Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.”[11] 17  But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18  Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19  Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own.

Marriage sanctifies the union of a man with a woman. It is apparent that the bodies of both were made for such a union. And the complementary nature of the male and female person extends far beyond the obvious physical shapes of each. (Marriage complements the genders as thoroughly as they complement each other. When God makes things to go together, they fit well. “All his ways are perfect,” De 32:4.)

Paul’s argument about what the body was “meant for” (v. 13) relates directly to the issue of homosexuality. Does this need to be explained? The body wasn’t made for that. Men don’t complement each other. Neither do ladies complement each other. Laws permitting same-sex marriage can’t overcome this incongruity regarding what the body was “meant for.”

Various Aspects of Immorality and the Christian

Paul’s letters to Christian churches in pagan centers all mention “sexual immorality.” Often it is named under more than one heading, as in the letter to the Corinthians above that mentioned the “immoral,” the “adulterers,” the “effeminate,” (KJV) and the “abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV).

To the Galatians, just before listing the famous “fruits of the spirit,” Paul listed the less-known “evident” “works of the flesh.” The first three of fourteen are sexual sins. And the last is “orgies.” He concludes the list with a warning that persons with these works “will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

Ga 5:19  Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, Ga 5:20  idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, Ga 5:21  envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Other lists of sins that exclude men from heaven include John’s mention of immoral persons outside the city (Revelation 21:8; 22:15). Similar thoughts are found in the letter to the Ephesians (Ephesians 4:19, 5:4-5.) And in that letter we find the common-sense reason that Paul doesn’t describe sordid details of the immorality he condemns.

Eph 5:12  For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

When Paul did not detail in his letter to the Ephesians, he did describe more fully in his letter to their lead pastor, Timothy. From that letter it appears likely that even sex slavery existed in that city. (Children and young ladies have always been the persons victimized by slave makers in urban centers. Only they are typically weak enough to be so abused.) Timothy is also apprised that general immorality and homosexuality are both “contrary to sound doctrine” and out of harmony with the “glorious gospel.”

1 Timothy 1:8  Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9  understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10  the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexual behaviour, enslavers, {That is, those who take someone captive in order to sell him into slavery [12]} liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11  in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. – ESV

Cause and Prevention of Immoral Behavior: Fantasizing and Masturbation

Jesus didn’t mention homosexual behaviour, except by his direct affirmation of male-female marriage. But the Savior did touch on sexual sin in a way highly relevant to the question of same sex attractions. Jesus explained that sexual sin begins in the mind with lustful thinking about someone other than one’s spouse.

Mt 5:28  But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

From this we can gather that fantasizing about someone other than your spouse is a violation of the seventh commandment. This is, by a simple extension, an explanation of the demoralizing power of masturbation. The practice of autoeroticism is part of the evil of fantasizing. It is an addictive behavior that weakens moral power.

The relation of this to homosexual activity is not stated by a prophet. But neither was it unperceived by the translators of the King James Bible. When they called the active person in gay sex an “abuser” of one’s self “with mankind,” (1 Corinthians 6:9) they were using phraseology that was a thinly veiled allusion to what was called “self-abuse” and “self pollution” in the 17^th and 18^th centuries.

Autoeroticism is, in other words, a same-sex sexual experience. It is an indulgence practiced, not as a result of warm care for one’s self, but of a hunger for sexual stimulation. Practiced largely by heterosexuals, it shows how straight orientation can find a perverted satisfaction in sex devoid of true love.

The result of its widespread practice cannot but be expected to weaken morality to an alarming extent. And as a cause of same-sex attraction, weakened morality is certainly fingered in Romans 1.

The letter to the Hebrews doesn’t mention homosexual activity. But it offers an insight into the root cause of immoral behavior. Bitterness in the home is like a plague, or like a weed that grows up and causes problems to many persons (not just to the bitter one.) One of those problems is sexual immorality. And as bitterness causes immoral behavior, so a careful considering of Jesus represses both the bitterness and its varied fruits.

Heb 12:15  Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;  16  that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal.

A few verses later Paul shares two other correctives to the moral degradation of society: promoting a universal respect for the marriage institution and warning persons regarding the judgment of God against the “immoral and adulterous.”

Heb 13:4  Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.

These practical ideas are not to be confused with the gospel. It is the ultimate cure for immoral habits and addictions. And while it is not the purpose of this article to explain righteousness by faith, it certainly fits within its scope to recommend a study of the topic. Before I conclude this study, let me cite one most-precious statement from the pen of Ellen White:

All are free moral agents, and as such they must bring their thoughts to run in the right channel. Here is a wide field in which the mind can safely range. If Satan seeks to divert the mind to low and sensual things, bring it back again and place it on eternal things; and when the Lord sees the determined effort made to retain only pure thoughts, He will attract the mind, like the magnet, purify the thoughts, and enable them to cleanse themselves from every secret sin. “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5).  {2MCP 595.2}

Conclusion

Monogamous heterosexual activity was created in Eden as God’s plan for mankind. The couple’s joint worship of their Creator fulfilled the second of two of the purposes God had for the human body. The first was to be a physical complement to a spouse. The second was to be a spiritual complement to the indwelling Spirit of God.

But from Eden things went downhill fast. God’s plan for marriage gave way to bigamy (Genesis 4:19), and then to widespread disregard of God’s wishes even by the descendants of Seth (Genesis 6:1-7.)  Then came the flood. Jewish sources mention same-sex marriage as existing both before the flood (and also in Moses’ time in Egypt.) Whether or not these are reliable, we know that by the time of Lot, same-sex lust was highly prevalent in Sodom.  Jude styles homosexual desires as “going after strange flesh.” Jude 1:7.

Men did not want to retain thoughts of a holy God. So they escaped feelings of conviction by honoring images. God punished this unnatural worship attraction by an equally unnatural sexual orientation. Men and women were abandoned to same-sex attraction.

What God illustrated by the destruction of Sodom, Moses spelled out in Leviticus 18 and 20: God condemns homosexual activity and classes it with the deadly abominations.

Soon after the days of Moses, homosexual practice reared its head in the tribe of Benjamin. The tribe harbored the violent sexual offenders to their shame and nearly to their tribal extinction. Thus was rewarded their bravado in facing the wrath of the whole church over their protection of the sinners.

The gospel adds to Moses’ prohibition a promise of pardon to those who will turn away from their sin.

Joh 1:17  For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

While the gospel offers pardon, it does not condone the sin. Sexual evils are pointed out and condemned in the epistles. Among those described are homosexual activities.

In our day, those who take the Bible as their rule of life have no reason to be confused regarding God’s view of same-sex attraction. It is unnatural. And they have no reason to doubt how God regards homosexual fantasizing and practice. It is evil. And they have no reason to hate or despise those who sin sexually. The whole world sins sexually.

But Christians that sin sexually and openly are not to be fellowshipped lest the moral values of the church be misrepresented. (Disfellowshipped persons should be loved and cared for. As part of the world, they may be treated with the same grace extended to other worldly persons. See 2 Corinthians 2.)

Why are persons confused on the topic of same-sex sexuality? If they trust in the “wise men” of the world, they are outwitted until they can’t see anything in the Bible on the topic. If they trust their feelings, they sympathize with persons who have same-sex attractions and no apparent legitimate outlet for their affections.

But feelings mislead as surely as do the wise men of the world. God has provided proper social satisfaction to gay men and to lesbian women in celibate living[13], and in some cases, in heterosexual love. This article, on what the Bible teaches, is not a venue for testimony. But venues can be found.

And it will be seen that those that turn from their sin, no matter how preciously it has been held, never have cause to regret it. God’s holy plan at Creation is the only truly satisfying one.

The End

[1] It does appear, however, that homosexual practice prevailed to some extent before the flood. “[Around us] there is a strange abandonment of principle, the standard of morality is lowered, and the earth is fast becoming a Sodom. The Sodomitish practices which brought the judgment of God upon the world, and caused it to be deluged with water, and which caused Sodom to be destroyed by fire, are fast increasing.” {TSB 120.3}. It should be noted, however, that Ellen White uses phrases similar to “Sodomitish practices” in plural, and at least once to describe sexual abuse of children. See TSB 124-125.

[2] Ham’s unnatural crime of viewing his father’s drunken nakedness in sport, was singularly punished by a curse on his descendants. But though this was a same-sex incestual-like viewing, the text treats it rather as base disrespect than as incestual attraction.

[3] “They did not like to retain God in their knowledge…” Romans 1:28, KJV.

[4] LGBT scholars have labored to mute the Bible’s teachings on homosexual activity. This has been done, often, by appealing to various Greek and Hebrew words and arguing that they are not properly translated in Bibles that associate them with homosexuality. In other arguments they suggest that the idea of “gender” is a recent one and therefor any reference to same-sex acts must be to presumed heterosexuals committing them. In other cases they argue that it the violent aspect of same-sex interest that is condemned, not the interest itself. To all these vain arguments the Bible narrative gives a direct rebuttal. The homosexual individuals of Romans burned in their same sex attraction.

[5] My phrase for divorcing someone without Biblical grounds, trying out someone else as a marriage partner, and thinking better to leave her and come back to the original wife. See Deuteronomy 24.

[6] Some understand the parallelism between verse 17-18 to make this a derogatory word for male prostitute. And this would cast some light on Revelation 22:15. But I don’t know what to think of this.

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_and_Judaism; accessed 6/26/14

[8] Unnatural, in this context, means “contrary to God’s created order.” It does not mean, “contrary to the urges one honestly feels.” There is another way to use the word “natural.” Many adulterers, for example, feel very “right” about adulterous sex and find it perfectly natural to gravitate to their guilty partner. They naturally (by feelings) commit an unnatural (unlike God’s created order) act.

[9] See verse 1. The Corinthian contained immorality that scandalized even heathen ears.

[10] Textual note by the translators, not by the author of this paper.

[11] See Genesis 2:24. The phrase “cleave unto his wife” is similar to what God asks of us, that we “cleave” to him. Deuteronomy 10:20.

[12] Textual note by the translators.

[13] Some persons born with cerebral palsy, and others born as “eunuchs,” are handicapped. But we understand that they may have hope of a fulfilling and unhandicapped afterlife. Likewise, some gay and lesbian persons may have to look to heaven for their ultimate fulfillment and satisfaction. Being born with a weakness never has been a legitimate excuse for a Christian to misbehave. It is just a reason to cherish hope for a better tomorrow.

Affirming both through a Biblical Balance

Introduction

“Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” Amos 3:3.

Religious Liberty, that noble principle that animated the framers of the American Constitution, assures men in disagreement that though they may not be able to walk together, at least they are both welcome to walk as they see fit. It is the right to be Baptist, Quaker, Adventist, Muslim, Atheist, Hedonist, or to be ambivalent.

Within an organized body of believers, religious liberty takes on a different hue. It does not authorize the Baptist minister to practice mass, or the Muslim imam to espouse the Trinity. It does not grant an Adventist minister the liberty to practice monogamous homosexuality.

It does, however, grant these three men an important liberty. The Baptist is at liberty to become Catholic. The Muslim is at liberty to become Baptist. And the Adventist is at liberty to espouse hedonism. Liberty grants these men the right to believe as they choose and to live according to their conscience.

Liberty is justly limited by relationships. I have a right, for example, to believe that God has given me your car. But you also have a right to believe that God has not given me your car. Our mutual right to believe, an aspect of Liberty, collides if I feel at liberty to act out my understanding.

When liberties collide in more difficult situations, which ought to prevail? My liberty to oppose the heretical teaching of the Sabbath-school teacher may oppose his liberty to bring his class to order. If he asks me to leave the class or to be orderly, do I have liberty to expose his errors out of turn?

In corporate situations such as schools, churches, nations, or families, individual liberties may also collide with the liberties of corporate bodies. What right does a school have to impose rules upon its students? Do churches have the right to say who will and will not be permitted to preach before the congregation?

The affirmative answer to this question illustrates a principle that individuals must surrender a portion of their individual rights to each other for the greater good if they are to work together. Further, an infant has no right to self-rule to be surrendered. Our rights to self-rule derive from our responsibilities to God. While parents are responsible, they are authorized to rule. If they rule well, they shed layers of authority as they skillfully teach their growing children to bear personal responsibility.[1] Teachers derive their authority from the parents that delegate it to them.

In this essay we want to examine the principles of religious liberty so as to be able to answer the question, what authority legitimately belongs to the church body and what rights regarding faith and practice are rightly left to the individual.

Religious Liberty

Jesus preached as an unauthorized person in Palestine. What got under the skin of some persons is that He sometimes did it in the temple.

Matthew 21:23  And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?

Luther preached as an unauthorized person. He even wrote books when banned by the empire of Charles V. And Luther absolutely refused to submit his faith to the authority of any man or to any set of men. The German princes defended his views regarding freedom. And Adventists today lobby for those views worldwide.

But when we Adventists began to organize in the 1860’s, we had to give the issue of liberty more scrutiny. Is the right to speak up in protest of the Little Horn proof of a universal right to speak up against the elders in your own congregation? In short, can order be maintained and church authority be exercised properly without violating the religious liberty of members? Our pioneers said “yes, it can.”

The Basis of Authority

God hasn’t authorized men to think for their fellow men. We are authorized to counsel and to suggest plans, but that is all.

It is not the work of any man to prescribe the work of any other man contrary to his own convictions of duty. It is right to give counsel and suggest plans; but every man should be left free to seek direction from God, whose he is and whom he serves.   {6T 334.1}

The principle in this statement could be worded this way: Since I am responsible for my actions in the judgment, I have authority to choose my actions. Since no one can answer for me in the judgment, no one has authority to tell me what I should do with my life.

To say this more generically, authority and responsibility are directly related to each other. God gives the church authority for this reason: He gave the church responsibilities. The church has just the authority it needs to carry out its mission responsibilities.

Intrinsic to this authority is the responsibility to regulate doctrinal integrity. The Adventist Church has authority to make sure that its workers are faithfully promoting the present truth, the Three Angel’s Messages.

Church Order and Doctrinal Regulation

Paul and Timothy charged men not to teach certain errors that countered the decision of the Acts 15 council. These errors included the idea that persons must be circumcised to be saved. (See Acts 15:1-2; Titus 1:10). Paul wished that men harming churches and opposing the true gospel by these errors, years after the council, would be “cut off.” Galatians 5:12

 1 Timothy 1:3  As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, . . . that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

The work of maintaining doctrinal integrity, in other words, was a warfare that included, in certain situations, the disfellowshipping of false teachers.

1 Timothy 1:19  . . . some . . . concerning faith have made shipwreck: 20  Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

Not all errors, however, were so grave as to require church discipline. There were false ideas of a more benign nature. And some of these were also related to the council in Acts 15. Some wrongly believed  that Christians should keep Passover. And some believed that food offered to idols was thereby cursed.

These errors relate to liberty because they were doubtful conclusions. Earnest faithful Bible students came to opposite conclusions regarding these points. Liberty, then, demands that we settle the question of responsibility.

Individuals stand before the judgement seat of Christ and answer directly to Him as individuals. They should, therefore, have liberty regarding their convictions on doubtful points.

Romans 14:4  Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. . . . 10  But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

I Must Never Violate my Conscience

If I answer directly to Jesus in the Judgment, then no man and no set of men has authority to tell me to violate my conscience. To violate my conscience is sin, even if my conscience is mistaken. In other words, if I believe it is wrong to wear shoes, it is a sin for me to wear shoes even though I am greatly mistaken in my opinion.

 Romans 14:23  But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.

I should assume that though differing from me in your views that you are sincere in your stated convictions and that you are faithfully serving the Lord by practicing your convictions.

 Romans 14:3  Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. . . . 6  He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. . . .

I should, in fact, respect your convictions so highly that I modify my own behavior so that I don’t influence you to violate your conscience. Paul explained it this way: Even if I know that food offered to idols is just food, I should be careful around other believers. If they see me eating it, they might surrender to their temptations to give up the faith. So, for their sake, I should curtail my liberty and live kindly.

 1 Corinthians 10:28  But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: . . . 29  Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience? . . . . 31  Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

Not only may individuals stumble through my unkind liberty, the church is also to be guarded as if it were a weak brother.

 1 Corinthians 10: 32  Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God.

The issue in 1 Corinthians 10, food offered to idols, was an issue of gigantic proportions. It was part of that argument that was threatening to split the early church. It was part of that issue that consumes the books of Galatians, Ephesians, and Titus. It is alluded to by other books. It was part of the controversial decision made by the highest authority on earth – the representative body of the church session in Acts 15.

 Should I Submit my Reason and Judgment to the Church?

The answer is “no, that is hypocrisy.” But a more precise answer is, “No, but you may humbly admit that you are weak and could be mistaken. You may offer to change your opinion if constrained to do so by clear reasoning from God’s Word. You may reasonably agree that since your beloved brethren see differently, that you will not make an issue of your doubtful opinion.”

But in certain cases the answer is “yes, you may submit to the church’s judgment.” And that will require a little explaining later.

The answer is “no” when it is a local church, or a conference, or a division, or a non-universal representative body of the General Conference. As a weak person, the church should receive me with my doubtful opinions, but not to the extent of letting me be argumentative.

 Romans 14:1 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things.

The “no” in the paragraph above parallels thoughts by Luther at the point of his greatest trial.

I cannot submit my faith either to the pope or to the councils, because it is clear as the day that they have frequently erred and contradicted each other. Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the word of God, I cannot and I will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me. Amen.” –Ibid., b. 7, ch. 8.  {GC 160.2}

Luther was initially a member of the Little Horn power. It is no wonder he differed with its pronouncements. But even if you find yourself part of the church that is taking the everlasting gospel to the whole planet, you may at times differ with its official pronouncements. To what extent are you at liberty to oppose its actions and statements? And to what extent may it suppress your potentially-heretical self without impinging on your liberty of conscience?

Romans 13 and Rebellion

Not all authority is created equal. Authority is tiered and obedience is well rendered only with rank in view. When authorities differ, we must obey the higher authority.

 Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing [read “higher”] authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2  Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

Lovers of liberty do not often quote these two verses. And neither are some men fond of their parallel thoughts in 1 Peter 2:13, “submit yourself to every ordinance of man.” And reader, how do you feel personally about 2 Peter 2:9? Peter rebukes those who “despise authority” and who “are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries.” (Doesn’t it seem that very few today are afraid to speak evil of dignitaries?)

It was angels, of course, that pioneered being subversive (Jude 1:6) and that is why Samuel says rebellion is “as the sin of witchcraft.” 1 Samuel 15:23.

Two strong truths, now, seem to be on a collision course:

We must never submit our conscience to the mind of another.

We must submit to authority.

The Authority of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

Can the General Conference make a mistake? Yes. The General Conference has, in fact, made at least two notable blunders in its voted policies.

In 1888 the brethren voted to require potential ministers to first be successful canvassers. This was a pragmatic decision based on the observation that successful canvassers make successful ministers. But pragmatic or not, it was not a good decision. God reserves the right to call men to ministry without channeling them through the canvassing work[2].

Ellen White’s protest (“the Lord did not [authorize] that resolution” PM 260) aided one worker who had been stymied by it. He never would have been hired without her intervention.

The second notable mistake happened on Friday, July 7, 2000. Its most objectionable feature was the way the decision was made. Instead of being voted by the entire body (through representatives), it was brought to the floor after most delegates had left.  That undermined the 1901 reorganization. Let me explain.

In 1901, a century earlier, the church was reorganized to give the highest authority in the church to a large committee of representative men from the whole world field. That is not how it had been organized at the time of 1888 (woe to the world.) But that 1901 reorganization is, thankfully, still the basis for how the church is organized today. And that is how it was organized in Acts 15 also.

These two decisions illustrate the idea that not all authority is equal. It isn’t the vote of the GC that carries weighty authority. It is the vote of the GC as a representative collection of the whole world field. When the vote is truly representative of the body, it has the authority of the body.

That is why the decision of Acts 15 was so authoritative.

The four servants of God were sent to Antioch with the epistle and message that was to put an end to all controversy; for it was the voice of the highest authority upon the earth.  {AA 195.3}

And that is why the GC in session should also be so authoritative. When deciding the duty of the church, or the duties of the workers, it is the highest human authority on earth. While it has no authority to command me to break the Ten Commandments, it does have authority to give me marching orders. It is truth that I have personal responsibility to decide my duty – no man can tell me my duty. But it is equally true that I am part of the church. And when the church decides its duty, it may tell me mine as a constituent part. What no man can tell me, the church can tell me. Taking my individual responsibility to an extreme makes me unruly.

      Brother A, your experience in reference to leadership two years ago was for your own benefit and was highly essential to you. You had very marked, decided views in regard to individual independence and right to private judgment. These views you carry to extremes. You reason that you must have light and evidence for yourself in reference to your duty.  {3T 492.1}

I have been shown that no man’s judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any one man. But when the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon the earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be maintained, but be surrendered. Your error was in persistently maintaining your private judgment of your duty against the voice of the highest authority the Lord has upon the earth. . . .You did not seem to have a true sense of the power that God has given to His church in the voice of the General Conference. . . . You accordingly manifested an independence, a set, willful spirit, which was all wrong.  {3T 492.2}

Making Sense of the Highest Earthly Authority

What is the right way to understand and apply these principles? Here are a few thoughts:

Choir members need a choir leader so they can work in concert. Angels and angle choirs need leaders for the same reason. And so does the church. To look beautiful, to honor God well, it needs to operate as a unit. Voices united well are more beautiful and more powerful than lonely voices. Reasoning done in concert by a world-wide representative body is more accurate and more powerful than lonely reason.

But lonely reason can’t admit such a thing without help from above. Pride denies its need of help thinking.

So when I find that the worldwide body of Adventists has judged that such and such is true regarding some controversy, I must put my own judgment above the combined judgment of the saints to oppose that conclusion. This is not to say that the body is infallible, only that it is less fallible than an proud individual. If I deny it, then that which God intended to “put an end to all the controversy” is neutered by my arrogance. That happened after Acts 15 also. Since the decision was made by representatives (rather than by a democratic vote of each member in the worldwide church), it was despised by some.

 Elders from Jerusalem, and deputies from Antioch, were present; and the most influential churches were represented. The council did not claim infallibility in their deliberations, but moved from the dictates of enlightened judgment, and with the dignity of a church established by the divine will. . . . The entire body of Christians were not called to vote upon the question. The apostles and elders–men of influence and judgment–framed and issued the decree, which was thereupon generally accepted by the Christian churches. All were not pleased, however, with this decision; there was a faction of false brethren who assumed to engage in a work on their own responsibility. They indulged in murmuring and fault-finding, proposing new plans, and seeking to pull down the work of the experienced men whom God had ordained to teach the doctrine of Christ. The church has had such obstacles to meet from the first, and will ever have them to the close of time.  {8Red 33.3}

Since God has given the church responsibility for guarding its internal doctrinal integrity, He has granted it authority to regulate the same. If you find the church, then, being opposed to the present truth for your time, your only consistent position would be to leave it. The faction took a different course and worked to undermine the wise course of the council.

Sometimes there is little authority in the decisions of a General Conference or Council. In 1901, before the reorganization, that authority we are attributing to the General Conference had been lost as a few men had hijacked the church’s highest committees.

      O, my very soul is drawn out in these things! Men who have not learned to submit themselves to the control and discipline of God, are not competent . . . . It is just as much an impossibility for them to do this work as it would be for them to make a world. That these men should stand in a sacred place, to be as the voice of God to the people, as we once believed the General Conference to be,–that is past. What we want now is a reorganization. We want to begin at the foundation, and to build upon a different principle.  {GCB, April 3, 1901 par. 25}

It was the reorganization of 1901 that reconstituted the General Conference as a potentially representative body with authority. With what authority? With the authority of the very men who were represented by it. To borrow from a patriotic document, it is authority “by the people, for the people.”

The difference between 1900 and 1902 is not trivial. And it is relevant to us. It explains why the decisions of 1888 and of 2000 cannot be treated as ultimately authoritative over our judgments. And it explains why a decision in 2015 could, indeed, be either authoritative or non-authoritative depending on how it is made.

     I have often been instructed by the Lord that no man’s judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any other one man. Never should the mind of one man or the minds of a few men be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work and to say what plans shall be followed. But when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body.  {9T 260.1}

At times, when a small group of men entrusted with the general management of the work have, in the name of the General Conference, sought to carry out unwise plans and to restrict God’s work, I have said that I could no longer regard the voice of the General Conference, represented by these few men, as the voice of God. But this is not saying that the decisions of a General Conference composed of an assembly of duly appointed, representative men from all parts of the field should not be respected. God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. The error that some are in danger of committing is in giving to the mind and judgment of one man, or of a small group of men, the full measure of authority and influence that God has vested in His church in the judgment and voice of the General Conference assembled to plan for the prosperity and advancement of His work.  {9T 260.2}   (Published in 1909.)

But What about Religious Liberty?

Today the church’s collective wisdom doesn’t designate every decision as a test question. You may be an Adventist and believe any number of things differently than do I. Rarely, and on only a few issues, is the world-wide church likely to use its incredible authority in doctrinal pronouncements.

The principles laid out in this paper counter the brainwashing techniques of men who feel competent to think for others. God has laid the great mass of issues requiring good judgment on the shoulders of individuals and local churches, rather than on the body. Acts 15 was a solution used only once, as far as we can tell, in the period of the early church. The authority of the body was reserved for an issue that seriously threatened the unity of the body.

It wasn’t the judgment of the brethren that each region of the church could decide for itself whether Gentiles should be circumcised. Teachers that differed with the decision were asked, not to stop thinking, but to cooperate by dropping the issue. This level of compliance, since it is in harmony with God’s will, must not be an impingement of religious liberty.

But for more on the limits of liberty and authority in more local situations, see the article “Forbid Them Not” published by Adventists Affirm. It is  available online in several places.

No authority, other than the highest authority, is authorized to establish tests of fellowship for the body. Not even careful Bible study warrants me the right to limit membership in our local church in ways unique to us. Even when the revered Stephen Haskell in the 1850’s made pork-eating a test question, he was rebuked for not waiting until the whole church would see it and make it an issue. Obviously, they did see it and did make an issue several years later. (See 1T 206 for fascinating details.)

Which Questions Should be Made Test Questions?

It is up to the world-wide church to establish its fellowship test questions. From Ellen White statements we can gather that any question used as a test should be one that is easily and simply defendable from Scripture. (This is why the Reform Movement has erred in making dress reform and vegetarianism into test questions.)

Confidence in the present truth should be a test issue. And why so? Because the church exists to promote the present truth (compare 1Timothy 3:15 to Matthew 28:18-20). But the present truth must be expressed in broad terms. To believe in the end-time manifestation of spiritual gifts is sufficient. That is what can be proved from Scripture. Though confidence in Ellen White is a critical issue in the end of time, it is not fit that it be a test. Persons should have plenty of time to conclude for themselves regarding this question.

In this regard, the issue of ordination certainly shouldn’t be a test question. No one should be refused baptism on the basis of their view of ordination. The question is not settled by a collection of plainly stated unambiguous commands.

It is sensible for the church to have a higher standard for responsible church offices than it has for entry-level at baptism. In this sense, qualifications for overseers in the church are parallel, but unequal,  to tests of fellowship. In another sense, the standards differ fundamentally. Tests required for baptism divide believers from unbelievers on the basis of their views of individual duty. Qualifications for overseers divide believers on the basis of their preparedness to execute the church’s duty.

Constitutions and bylaws determine how an organization functions. They should not be confused with the company goals, vision, or mission. Rather, they are the mechanics of how men work together to accomplish the goals and mission in view of the vision. Qualifications for the overseer position are like that. They are not the present truth for the world or church. But they are the mechanics of how the church functions together to accomplish its mission.

A man that is baptized in Mexico and ordained in Peru has no need to be rebaptized or reordained on account of his emigration to the United States. The tests related to ordination and baptism, then, are all issues of church order. Since membership and ordination introduce persons into special fellowship with the world church, it would be incongruous for various parts of the field to establish alternate or competing tests.

So though ordinations views should never be a test of fellowship, it is nonetheless sensible that the church adopts God’s counsels on the topic as an essential aspect of its unity so that the church may function Biblically.

Conscience in Acts 15-21

What is “conscience”?  It is more than a value judgment. When I think it is better to eat almonds than peanuts, that is a value judgment. (That is what I think.) But if you give me peanuts, I will eat them. That is another value judgment. Now if you give me a shot of whisky, I won’t accept it. I believe it is evil abuse of my mind to indulge in the use of whisky.

Conscience is your view of morality. When you violate it, you know that you have done something to displease God. And that is why a man should never violate his conscience. That would be breaking the first commandment.

Sometimes the word “conviction” is used quite differently than this. I may be convicted that I should work as a missionary in the United States. But that conviction is not, properly, conscience. More properly, it is a value judgment regarding my duty. That is the kind of conviction that may need to be sacrificed to the better judgment of the world church.

In the New Testament the question over the Law of Moses created a mass of conflicting consciences. All sides agreed that sin was breaking the law. The question was whether circumcision and other laws of Moses were still obligatory. This is where Pharisees show up again in Scripture. In Act’s succinct way:

Acts 15:5  But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

With an equally strong conviction, Paul believed that it was morally wrong to require such a thing from believers. He went so far as to openly rebuke Peter for capitulating on this point. Galatians 2:11-14.

When I say that these things were convictions, I am not exaggerating. Both parties believed that the truth about salvation was at stake. They had a serious argument about it even in the sanctified halls of the Jerusalem Council, Acts 15:7.

How could men with such strong convictions surrender them to the decision of the council? Let’s get this straight – they couldn’t. Instead of surrendering their conclusions to the conclusions of the council, they were to surrender attention and pride to the council. They could even surrender their value judgments regarding what they should do about the truths they believed.

They could, in other words, sacrifice their convictions regarding personal duty, but not their consciences regarding what was true. That is why the council itself was obliged, not only to decide, but to persuade. That is how it could win consciences – a much safer than solution than merely winning submission.

The decision was made and the work of persuading the Pharisees began. But a group of Pharisees refused to submit. How do we know they didn’t submit? We know because the “prison epistles” of Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians continue to mention their influence. Years after the Jerusalem council, Paul warns against them, calling them the “mutilation party” (my phrase for what the KJV calls “the concision” Philippians 3:2.) They desired to be “teachers of the law” but were ignorant of the truth of the law.

Second Hand “Convictions”

What I am saying is that I can submit my value judgments to the spiritual authority of a general council of the church. I can submit my ideas regarding my individual duty (where I should go, when, and to do what). But I can’t surrender my conscience (to obey the Law). Most importantly, I can submit my pet ideas and conclusions regarding the church’s duty.

Did you follow that? I can’t have a “conviction” regarding what the church should be doing. Only the church can have a conviction regarding its duty. As no man is authorized to think for the church, no man can have a conviction for the church. And when the church makes a judgment about its own duty, no man can say that the church was violating his convictions.

But if the church makes a decision about my personal duty, that is different. I can submit plans and goals (and I should), but I must follow my conscience because I answer to God for how I obey His Law.

I’m going to say it again because I am worried you may misunderstand me. When the church in Acts 15 decided that new believers were not obliged to keep the ritual washings and circumcision laws, the Pharisees couldn’t have a conscientious conviction contrary to this point.

One of them could be convicted that he should be circumcised. And he could be convinced that everyone should be. But I can’t have a conviction for you. And I can’t have a conviction for the church.

And that is why I can submit my judgment to the decision of the church council. I am submitting my judgment about the church’s duty to the church itself which must answer to God for its faithfulness to duty.

When my views differ from those of men delegated to teach me, I am not obliged in any sense to submit to their views. I am obliged to prayerfully listen. Further, I am obliged to exert my local influence in favor of the truth even while I am obliged to be a learner. (See 1888 532.4 for information on properly opposing error in Sabbath-school.)

Do you remember Paul’s counsel that we observed in 1 Corinthians 10:31-32? He said that we should guard the conscientious convictions of both Jews and Gentiles. But he added something more. We should be careful not to offend “the church.” He spoke of the church as a weak brother (to use his own phrase for less-enlightened persons).

That is key. The church may have convictions about its own duty (such as it convictions regarding unclean meats) that differ from your own. You are not to act or speak in a way that would encourage the church let go of its conscientiousness. It would be better for you as an individual to give up your liberty than to cause the church, or any weak brother within her communion, to stumble.

Regarding the doubtful question, let each be fully persuaded in his own mind. You may be persuaded. And so may the church. It has ultimate authority for its practices and answers to God accordingly. It is not to be despised for differing from you. Romans 14.

Conclusion

Authority and responsibility are the twin pillars that uphold order. The church has the highest responsibility of any entity on the planet. The individual has a life-and-death individual responsibility to God. Neither the individual nor the church can safely outsource their authority.

So when the church decides its own duty, if that decision is made properly by a representative authority, it is the duty of all members to recognize the church’s authority to decide its own duty. It is even the duty of members to respond to calls from the properly represented body to take up responsibilities.

And when a local church decides the duty of individual members, it has no authority at all except to preach the Bible truth. The individual is obliged to obey the Bible.

In Acts 15 the church decided its own duty and no teacher in the church had a right to teach otherwise in the church, though they had a right to think and even to separate from the church’s communion. To oppose the decision of the church on doctrinal grounds would be to place individual judgment above the judgment of the body and would be grounds for church discipline.

We have no liberty in the gospel to rebel against properly constituted church order. But we have broad liberty to think for ourselves and to use our judgment to know our own duty even if men in the highest rank of the church try to assume the authority that belongs solely to the properly constituted church order.

 

 

 

 

–February 21, 2003, Eugene Prewitt

For a the Word Doc: Poem-Outside_of_Your_Tent