Hello. I am inviting you to read and consider Revelation 22:10-17 below:
“He said to me, “Don’t seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand. He who acts unjustly, let him act unjustly still. He who is filthy, let him be filthy still. He who is righteous, let him do righteousness still. He who is holy, let him be holy still.” “Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, to repay to each man according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. Blessed are those who do his commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify these things to you for the assemblies. I am the root and the offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.” The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” He who hears, let him say, “Come!” He who is thirsty, let him come. He who desires, let him take the water of life freely.”
So, what does this mean? The reference to the unjust and filthy is not an endorsement of sin. Rather, it’s an expression that Jesus’ return is inevitable and unavoidable, and judgement is imminent. Verses 11 to 12 could be stated as “people can do whatever they want to, but the time is near, and Jesus is coming soon to justly reward all according to their deeds”.
Likewise, we are reminded that those who demonstrate their rejection of God through disobedience to His commandments, resulting in persistent, wilful, unrepentant sin, will find themselves separated from God, unable to enter the holy city of New Jerusalem. It is a good reminder for us as His children to always be in the right standing with Him through examining ourselves.
We who are in Christ are also reminded to encourage others to repent of their sins and freely come to Jesus Christ. To develop a relationship with Him as Lord and Saviour, to be obedient to His many commandments as Lord, and to put their faith in Him, His biblical account, His sacrifice, His saving grace, the redemption that His blood has purchased for us, and His promise that He will raise us up at the last day (John 6:54).
And all who hear this message and thirst for a relationship with God; for salvation, everlasting life, righteousness, truth, knowledge, peace, love, joy, and any of the other heavenly gifts we are promised, are invited to come to Jesus Christ and be satisfied of these things.
As Jesus states in John 4:14, “but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never thirst again; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” The water that Jesus is speaking of is the Holy Spirit, which all who believe in Him shall receive.
Thank you for reading. I love you all. May the grace of God and our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
u/SeverelyBrainDamaged might find my response tiresome, but I tag him for interest anyway, because as he's against institutions he would consider doctrine that sounds exactly like the SDA church as to be tainted by that association. However, I believe in judging all things by their own words, and our experience of those words, so I affirm what I can and I criticize what I must.
The first part is handled under your thoughtful copy here. The distinction between the Ten Words, and God's Law as given Moses, is useful and beneficial, but doesn't go as far as Adventists believe as noted by some minority-report Adventists who have brought very clear Scriptures forward. IMHO the points about "cancellation" of the Law are wholly eisegetical, as the link shows.
The famous numbers 613 and 1050 are rather arbitrary. The 613 was a number invented in Judaism that circulated for many years without an enumeration until Maimonides listed exactly 613 via various calculations. Nachmanides immediately came along and changed several of them to make up the count of 613 another way, so it's more of a guideline symbolic number. The 1050 was wholly invented by one Finis Dake, but when I looked into his list you can't even make it 1050 without a lot more twisting beyond what he did; he may have left some of his calculations unpublished. So they're both symbolic numbers that are as useful in their contexts as saying 10 or 2. Commands in the 34 books between Moses and Matthew are not traditionally enumerated.
Everybody who studies this recognizes there are distinctions of applicability, which is the fact that allows much mishandling. Obviously some commands are limited only to men, or only to women, or only to the existence of a tabernacle. Some commands are temporal ("get this done") and not counted as any part of eternal law. This allows everyone to fudge about what is applicable to their flock and what is ceremonial or excluded. As I implied, the trick is to escape any "requirement" at all, because the Law was never given to "require" but to grow into by those who have received life and want to show it by grateful obedience. Growing into God's pleasure resolves all quibbles about details and applicabilities, which only become problems when people are focused on themselves and their performance rather than God's pleasure. We can't make ourselves grow, it happens as we live God's life, and is stunted as we don't.
So saying the standing commands are essentially the 10 and the 1050 is as arbitrary as all the other things. All the Law has applicability in the sense that we learn from it, and all can inform our moral actions metaphorically if not literally. I've never had occasion to put a stumblingblock before the blind, but I've learned from that metaphor a heart attitude that informs all my dealings with everyone. The Bible gives marks of being of eternal duration and of outshining every other revelation, and so if it can be accepted without contradiction then that seems to be the Way, and so none of its commands are without benefit.
The link shows that the differences between the Ten Words and God's Law revealed to Moses are slighter than realized. You add reference to "the Jewish sanctuary service that passed away at Christ's sacrificial death on the stake". Unfortunately, several passages reveal the service did not pass away at that time. Hebrews, particularly 7, consistently uses the present tense to speak of the later temple service as if it was the same as the earlier, even the pre-temple service as well. Namely, in 11:4, Abel offered an animal sacrifice by faith in the Messiah to come, and the whole point of the temple was for those who could do the same, not those opportunists who tagged along with the faithful but who were offering out of their own deadness. The destroyed Temple is unknown to Hebrews, which speaks as if the continuation of animal sacrifice is valid for pointing back to the onetime sacrifice of Christ and also valid for those who still have faith. In Acts 21:20, we find that those believers in Yeshua who were zealous for the temple sacrifices numbered many tens of thousands (literally myriads).
This corresponds to testimony of Paul's practice, which is to answer those by paying for animal sacrifices himself (21:26) and joining in a Nazirite vow with others. This is the resolution to his affirming the Law to those with it and becoming like one without the Law to those without it. He had no issue with sacrificing those animals after Jesus's death. And this is further explained by Col. 2:16-17, where another present tense is often ignored: "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." Jesus says tense is important, and this verse emphasizes that after Jesus the sacrificial meats (like Sabbath itself grouped with New Moons and annual Sabbaticals) still foreshadow things to come later. Therefore the meaning is, don't be judged either about abstaining or about indulging, because the judgment ought to be whether you do the thing to Christ or not (compare Rom. 14). It's not about what laws are cancelled if any, because if it was then we'd all be keeping New Moons.
All these Scriptures indicate that the reason the sacrificial era did not end ca. 33 but ended ca. 70 was that its function was not ever intended to be dead religion. It was the living faith of Abel, the first recorded sacrificer. It was always intended to point backward to what God had done (created, saved, established people) and forward to what he will yet do (provide Christ in a former and a latter rain). If we ignore these passages about meats and Sabbath pointing forward and being observed by faith and not requirement, we get the wrong picture. I grew up thinking the Temple system was about people having to do stuff we don't have to do anymore, but then I realized that the righteous, then as now, were just offering themselves in joyful service to God with perfect faith in what was coming next. Not have to, get to.
So, again, the distinction between the two doesn't apply to validate the Sabbath while invalidating other things like the New Moons and annual Sabbaticals that accompany it. Similarly, kosher laws didn't start up with Moses as noted, nor was there a vegetarian era. Gen. 9:3 doesn't suddenly create permission to eat meat, because Adam and Eve were given animal skins indicating a fellowship meal, and Abel offered sacrifices of lambs as repeated in Hebrews. The details on how fellowship (peace) offerings were distributed as shared meals (as opposed to burnt or ascending offerings) are in Lev. 1-5, but they are well-documented in antiquity as well.
The application of this is that if we want to include kashruth in our eternal laws, we have an excuse because those can sound eternal too. United Church of God does this (for all their idiosyncrasies), I don't think the SDA does much. Some want to make veganism go all the way back too, and the answer on that is Rom. 14, if they want to then it's fine for them if nobody makes a stink about it. Fact is, meat consumption is supposed to be regulated by dedicating its lifeblood to God, and it's ignorance of this regulation that causes all the debate on both sides. If we argue that kashruth is still valid even though it's not explicit in the NT, we could be convicted about any number of other commands. But the reality is that we're all growing into it, and learning Sabbath or kashruth or New Moons, and judging them (or judging not to observe), are parts of that growing, and we need not sweat the details because we'll learn them in time.
There are many criticisms of the Mosaic Law. They're a bit off topic from the OP subject, and they all require deliberative handling and discussion if inquirers want to understand them in context and compare judgments. Whitewash answers abound and are the wrong approach. Most of the above I've already handled in depth here, so would you mind an indefinite rain-check on these while we handle more fundamental matters to allow more helpful discussion on these?
If you are seriously minded to do the rapid-fire like this (especially if you make the judgments from the English text without knowing the culture or even being certain of the historical underpinnings of the text), I'd like a couple of concession points about what the purpose of the discussion would be and what would be gained. If they're put out in the sense "I have questions and would like to seek answers together", that would be a good civil discussion, but often such questions are put out in the sense "I have the end-all of the discussion to affirm what I already believe". So parameters help me, but we might do better to table this discussion for a couple days.
If you read my other comment again, you'll see that the end goal is not what I already hold but whatever Truth I haven't yet uncovered.
I thought it polite to acknowledge your reply to me and affirm the complexity of the question, which automatically pings you, as does this comment. I can use that a little less frequently now that I am told you don't like it that much. I certainly accept that you have this position, but it would shut down discussion if you only listened to people who agree with your position.
The fact that you raised a gallop of issues indicated you wanted, um, conversation and encouragement. (Note, most of those issues were originally raised by the same kind of crowd you criticize, college students that think their objections to the Bible more intelligent than anyone else's, because of their understanding of the pagan historicocultural context of the Bible.) I encouraged you that the topics are worthy and that I wouldn't want to do them injustice by a flip answer. We might, in our other discussion, discover that we have incompatible systems (but I don't believe that necessary). So it's appropriate for me to leave this thread off for now and see separately if we do have means of agreeing to converse for edification voluntarily.