Chapter12 elijah vs. false prophet

Elijah Vs. The False Prophet
CHAPTER TWELVE
ELIJAH VS. FALSE PROPHET
The Dragon is Paganism, the Beast is the Papacy, and the False Prophet is
apostate Protestantism. Did God, in His foreknowledge of the trinity of evil, determine
that He would send a warning to the world about the great false religious system? Yes,
Malachi 4:5, 6 says that God would send Elijah the prophet. Who is Elijah the prophet in
the last days? We are going to see that Elijah represents God’s last day Church. It is a
Church that comes in the spirit of Elijah and proclaims a message similar to what Elijah
proclaimed to ancient Israel: that we must abandon sun worship and return to the
commandments of God; it is a prophetic movement that reveals the trinity of evil as the
apostate Babylon worshipping Satan on world wide Mt. Carmel; moreover, it is a
movement that God has sent into the world to prepare people for translation [as Elijah
himself was translated] into heaven at Christ’s second coming.
Old Testament Histories Applied Symbolically To The Church
In the first block of this course, we have demonstrated that ancient Israel, in its local
settings, served as a type of the Church in its worldwide settings. We see this pattern in
the seven churches. John uses seven literal Churches of his day and applies symbolical
language to represent seven periods of Church history. Let us immediately underscore
this principle of interpretation with the church of Pergamos. The church of Pergamos
spans a period of approximately A.D. 325 – 538. Pergamos was known as the seat of
Satan (Rev. 2:13). The “Seat of Satan,” as a label, undoubtedly points to the fact that in
this time frame, the Chaldean priesthood, which became so prominent in Rome, became
concentrated in the Papacy, for it was in this time frame that the Papacy began its
ascension to power with the ideological platform of Paganism. Revelation 12 uses the
Dragon to represent, not only all the seven successive pagan kingdoms, but also the
Pagan Roman Empire. We have learned that the Dragon (Paganism and Pagan Rome)
gave its seat to the Beast (the Papacy). The pattern of Revelation 12 and 13 coincides
well with the depiction of Pergamos, for it was in that Era that the Papacy received her
seat from the Dragon. John shows that the church of Pergamos held the doctrine of
Balaam and the Nicolatians. Numbers’ 22 – 24 show that Balaam was a prophet who was
seduced by greed. Balaam’s avariciousness led him to compromise truth with falsehood.
Balaam’s goal was to entrap Israel into sin in order that he may acquire wealth from the
side of Satan. Both Balaamism and Nicolatianism, in the context of history, depict
religious compromise with Paganism and worldliness. The following citation is a good
demonstration of the compromise in the church of Pergamos:
Little by little, at first in stealth and silence, and then more openly as it increased
in strength and gained control of the minds of men, the mystery of iniquity
carried forward its deceptive and blasphemous work. Almost imperceptibly the
customs of heathenism found their way into the Christian church. The spirit of
compromise and conformity was restrained for a time by the fierce persecutions
which the church endured under paganism. But as persecution ceased, and
Christianity entered the courts and palaces of kings, she laid aside the humble
By D. S. Farris1
1

PROPHETIC TOOL CHEST
simplicity of Christ and his apostles for the pomp and pride of pagan priests and
rulers; and in place of the requirements of God, she substituted human theories
and traditions. The nominal conversion of Constantine, in the early part of the
fourth century, caused great rejoicing; and the world, cloaked with a form of
righteousness, walked into the church. Now the work of corruption rapidly
progressed. Paganism, while appearing to be vanquished, became the conqueror.
Her spirit controlled the church. Her doctrines, ceremonies, and superstitions
were incorporated into the faith and worship of the professed followers of Christ.
This compromise between paganism and Christianity resulted in the development
of the "man of sin" foretold in prophecy as opposing and exalting himself above
God. That gigantic system of false religion is a masterpiece of Satan's power—a
monument of his efforts to seat himself upon the throne to rule the earth
according to his will (E. G. White, The Great Controversy, 47, 48).
John used a historical reality of Israel’s past to describe spiritual, worldwide conditions in
the church of Pergamos. This was also the case with John’s description of Thyatira. The
church of Thyatira spanned a period of approximately A.D. 538 – 1500. The symbols in
this letter describe the Papacy in her reign of spiritual darkness. The problem that is seen
in Thyatira is the tolerance of Jezebel. It is written in 1 Kings 16 – 21 and 2 Kings 9 that
Jezebel was a heathen woman who worshipped the sun. When Jezebel married Israel’s
king, Ahab, and influenced him to follow after the pagan deities, she established 850 Baal
priests as spiritual authorities and instituted a state religion that required the whole nation
of Israel to worship the sun. Those Israelites who chose not to participate in sun worship
were persecuted and killed. Obviously, John uses Jezebel, a historic figure in Israel’s
history, as a symbol within the church of Thyatira to show that sun worship and pagan
idolatry had infiltrated Christianity.
The system of Jezebel is the system of 666 (see chap. 6). The system of Jezebel is
the Papacy, and this system ruled from A.D. 538 – 1798 (the Beast that was); then the
Papacy received a deadly wound that kept its power in check from A.D. 1798 – 1929 (the
Beast that is not); finally, since 1929, the Papacy has grown substantially (the Beast
that yet is). That the symbol of Jezebel is homogeneous with the Papacy can be
visualized by means of correlating Revelation 2 with the Harlot in Revelation 17.
Revelation 2:22, 23 depict Jezebel lying in a bed waiting to commit adultery, and Jesus
promised that Jezebel’s children would be killed with death. Similarly, Revelation 17:2 –
5 describe the Harlot as committing fornication with the kings of the earth and being the
MOTHER OF HARLOTS. In other words, the Harlot has offspring which themselves
are harlots. During the 1,260 years of Papal supremacy Jezebel was symbolical of the
Papacy. In modern times—meaning the time frame of Papal restoration—Jezebel
symbolizes all of fallen Christendom. In modern times the Papacy and her daughters, in
the Protestant world, are also described as Babylon. Revelation 16:19 describes Babylon
as being divided into three parts. The three parts of Babylon are described in verse 13:
The Beast, The Dragon, and The False Prophet. Paganism, Catholicism, and apostate
Protestantism constitute Babylon; thus, all three religious systems are implicated in the
terminology, Jezebel. The reason that the book of Revelation applies both Babylon and
Jezebel interchangeably to represent the fallen religious world is simply because;
Jezebel’s religion—in Old Testament times—was another form of the Paganism from
Babylon. Therefore, John, in Revelation, applies names from the ancient world—as they
apply to Paganism—to the modern religious world, because the same idolatry continues.
Copyright 8/27/032
2

Interpretational Problems To Avoid
How do some Bible teachers misinterpret key terminologies of prophecy? Notice
the following observation:
Babylon was a literal city (2 Kings 20, 24, 25; 2 Chr. 36; Ezra 5; Isaiah 39; Jer. 27 – 29,
50 – 52; Dan. 2 – 7) that sat on the literal Euphrates River (Gen. 2:14; 15:18; Deut. 1:7;
11:24; Jer. 13:4 – 7; 46:2, 6, 10; 51: 63).
Question: Who was Babylon antagonistic to in the Old Testament?
Answer: Literal Babylon on the literal Euphrates was antagonistic to the literal city of
Jerusalem (2 Sam. 15:29; 2 Kings 21:4, 7; 24:14; 1 Chr. 6:32; 23:25; 2 Chr. 6:6; Ezra
1:2; Neh. 2:11; Matt. 23; Luke 2:22, 42, 43).
Jezebel was a literal woman in the Old Testament (1 Kings 16:31; 18:4, 13; 19:1, 2; 21:
11 – 25)
Question: Who was Jezebel antagonistic to in the Old Testament?
Answer: Jezebel was antagonistic to the literal man, Elijah (1 Kings 17 – 21; 2 Kings 1,
2; 3:11; 9:36; 10:10, 17; 2 Chr. 21:12).
Some Bible teachers accept that Babylon is symbolic but insist that the Euphrates and the
city of Jerusalem must be interpreted as literal. Likewise, some teachers interpret Jezebel
symbolically but insist that Elijah must come literally. This is inconsistent! The history
of Babylon on the Euphrates is inextricably connected to Jerusalem, and the history of
Jezebel is inextricably connected to Elijah. In other words, the elements of these
typologies within the framework of their histories—when applied to an antitypical
interpretation—must maintain their unity in symbolism. Babylon (Rev. 17, 18) and the
Euphrates River (Rev. 17:15) are both interpreted as symbolic by John. Babylon
represents world wide spiritual apostasy in the three religious movements: Paganism,
Catholicism, and Protestantism; and the Euphrates River, which Mystical Babylon sits
on, represents the masses of humanity, not a literal river. Therefore, Israel must be
interpreted symbolically as the worldwide body of faithful Christians with the actual city
of Jerusalem in heaven, not a literal building in the Middle East.
If we are to understand who Elijah is in the last days, first of all, we must realize
that John applied a symbolic interpretation to the other backgrounds surrounding Elijah—
such as Jezebel. Since John applied “Jezebel” symbolically to represent the apostasy of
Christianity, then it only makes sense, based on a consistent methodology, to interpret
“Elijah” as a worldwide reformation from apostasy.
Elements Of The Historic Elijah
Where is the promise of Elijah’s coming? Malachi 4:5, 6 says:
By D. S. Farris3
3

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and
dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children,
and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with
a curse.
In order to understand what the coming of Elijah will be in the last days, we must
understand the historical background of the actual Elijah the prophet. What was the
problem in Elijah’s day? 1 Kings 16:30 – 33 reveals:
And Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of the Lord above all that were
before him. And it came to pass, as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in
the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he took to wife Jezebel the daughter
of Ethbaal king of the Zidonians, and went and served Baal, and worshipped
him. And he reared up an alter for Baal in the house of Baal, which he had built
in Samaria. And Ahab made a grove; and Ahab did more to provoke the Lord
God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him.
In Elijah’s day, Israel was in apostasy; they were worshipping Baal. God sent Elijah to
tell king Ahab that that there would be three and a half years of famine as a result of the
apostasy (1 Kings 17:1; Luke 4:25). Following the time of famine in Israel, 1 Kings 18:1
says, “And it came to pass after many days, that the word of the Lord came to Elijah in
the third year, saying, Go, show thyself unto Ahab; and I will send rain upon the earth.”
What happened when Elijah and Ahab met again? 1 Kings 18:17 – 19 says:
And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he
that troubleth Israel? And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and
thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord,
and thou hast followed Baalim. Now therefore send, and gather to me all Israel
unto mount Carmel, and the prophets of Baal four hundred and fifty, and the
prophets of the groves four hundred, which eat at Jezebel’s table.
The problem in Elijah’s day was that Israel had forsaken the commandments of God and
worshipped the sun. According to the record, Elijah called all of Israel and the Baal
priests to Mt. Carmel for a contest. 1 Kings 18:23 – 46 show that the contest consisted of
the Baal priests calling fire down from heaven to consume the sacrifice; they attempted
this all day long to no avail. At the evening Elijah took twelve stones and built the Alter
of the Lord, and he made a trench around the Alter. Elijah then had four barrels of water
poured over his bullock three times. So much water was poured over the alter that the
trench around the alter filled up with water. Elijah then said a prayer to God, and fire
came down from heaven and devoured the Alter and licked up the water out of the trench.
The final result was that the Baal priests were slaughtered for their inculcation of national
apostasy.
Copyright 8/27/034
4

Antitypical Elijah Portrayed Through Historical Prophetic Picture
How are the last days similar to Elijah’s day? When we understand the historical
approach to the seven churches, seals, and trumpets, we find an antitypical pattern of the
events in Elijah’s day. As Elijah appeared to Israel after the three and a half years of
famine (Luke 4:25) to contend with sun worship, so the antitypical Elijah appeared after
the three and a half prophetic years of Jezebel supremacy in the Papacy. When we
understand that Jezebel is a symbol of the Papacy during the 1,260 years, and when we
understand that Jezebel after 1929 represents a resurrecting Papacy with her Protestant
daughters; we must conclude that Elijah’s appearance must be sometime during the final
resurrection of Papal power. We have clear indication of this pattern in the historical
prophetic constructs that have been applied throughout this course. We are now going to
see how the coming of Elijah can be illustrated through the depiction of the 2300 years of
Daniel 8.
The 2,300 years of Daniel 8 commenced with the 70 weeks or 490 years of Daniel
9 (see chap. 2). Between the finality of the 70th
week in A.D. 34 and the finality of the
2,300 years in 1844, existed the first phase of the Abomination of Desolation in the
Papal power for 1,260 years; this is the antitypical three and a half years of spiritual
famine over Jezebel’s kingdom. Knowing that Revelation—Church history—is structured
in the format of the sanctuary leads us to the conclusion that 1844 signifies a second work
in the priestly ministry of Christ. We see 1844 as the beginning of the “time of the end”
and Christ’s work in the Most Holy place of the heavenly sanctuary. This is the
antitypical Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16) where judgment begins with the household
of God. In the antitypical Day of Atonement—like its type in ancient Israel—the LAW of
God comes into focus, for we are to be judged by the Perfect Law of Liberty, says James
2:10 – 12. Because of the seriousness of this time frame, God rose up Elijah as a
movement with a message to combat the Jezebel system of sun worship that arose again
after 1929, which is being authenticated by the False Prophet.
Thyatira
538 1500 1750 1844
The Key of David that opens
the door of the Most Holy
2300 Years
3. 5 Prophetic Years of Jezebel Rule
1798
1453 1844
391 years of the Sixth Trumpet
Rev. 3: 7
Thyatira Sardis Philadelphia Laodicea
Day of the Seventh Trumpet
1929 2002
Worldwide
Mt. Carmel
By D. S. Farris5
5

Before we say anymore about the antitypical Elijah, we must confirm three important
correlations:
(1) The 2,300 years are inextricably connected to the Daily, which was trodden down by the
Antichrist;
(2) Both the finality of the 2,300 years and the opening of the little book of Daniel 12 have
their focal point in the time of the end—after the taking away of the daily; and thus
(3) The little book of Daniel 12 is inextricably connected to the Daily and the 2,300 year
prophecy.
Concerning the first correlation, notice the following scriptures:
Daniel 8:
13. Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to that
certain one who was speaking, "How long will the vision be, concerning
the daily sacrifices and the transgression (Heb. Pesha: “transgression,
rebellion”) of desolation (Shamem), the giving of both the sanctuary and
the host to be trampled under foot?
14. And he said to me, "For two thousand three hundred days; then the
sanctuary shall be cleansed (Tsadeq: “to be put or made right").
Dan. 11:
31. And forces shall be mustered by him, and they shall defile the
sanctuary fortress; then they shall take away the daily sacrifices, and
place there the abomination (Shiqquts) of desolation (Shamem).
Matthew 24:
15. Therefore when you see the abomination (Gr. Bdelugma: “foul thing,
detestable thing) of desolation (Eremosis: “making desolate”),' spoken of
by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place whoever reads, let him
understand.
In both chapters’ four and five, we have confirmed that the daily of Daniel 8:13 points to
the continual priestly ministry of Christ, which was trodden down for the 1,260 years of
Papal supremacy. This time frame—the first phase of the abomination of desolation—is
within the 2,300-year prophecy; therefore, the daily is inextricably connected to the 2,300
years. In the second correlation, we find that both the opening of the little book of Daniel
12:4 and the finality of the 2,300 years are to meet fulfillment at the “time of the end.”
How is this the case? Daniel 12:11, 12 says:
11. And from the time that the daily (Tamid) sacrifice is taken away, and
the abomination (Heb. Shiqquts: “Detested thing”) of desolation (Heb.
Shamem: “to be desolated, appalled”) is set up, there shall be one
thousand two hundred and ninety days.
12. Blessed is he who waits, and comes to the one thousand three
hundred and thirty-five days.
From the time that the daily, which pertains to the 2,300 years of Daniel 8, began to be
taken away, which began in 508 (through the Franks), there were two time periods until
Copyright 8/27/036
6

the end: the 1,290 and the 1,335. The 1,290 extend to 1798 and the 1,335 extend to 1843.
Daniel 12:13 brings us to the conclusion that the end of the 1335 is “the end of days” or
the end of these time prophesies, which indicates the time of the end. Notice that Daniel
12:11 – 13 connect the “taking away of the daily” with the 1,335, which ends at
approximately the same time the 2,300 years end. This leads us to the third correlation:
that the little book is inextricably connected to the Daily and the 2,300-years. Daniel 12:5
states that there is a little book that is sealed till the time of the end. In other words, the
little book is not to be opened and understood until the time of the end. This correlation
only needs simple logic. Notice the following propositions:
(1) Within the context of Daniel 12, both the little book and the 1,335 have their focal point
at the time of the end.
(2) The 1,335 began commencement when the daily—inextricably connected to the 2,300
years of Daniel 8—began to be taken away.
(3) Both the 1,335 and the 2,300 years end in 1843/1844.
(4) 1844 is obviously the time of the end.
(5) Because the little book is not to be opened until the time of the end, the little book is
inextricably connected to the 2,300-year prophecy.
27
31
34
Ephesus Smyrna Pergamos Thyatira Sardis Philadelphia Laodicea
1844
2,300 years until sanctuary is cleansed ( Dan. 8: 14 )
Little Horn
Three Horns
538
1, 290 years
1798
Papacy Rules
100 313
1st seal 2nd seal 3rd seal 4th seal 5th seal 6th seal 7th seal
( Rev. 2 and 3 )
( Rev. 5 and 6 )
( Rev. 8 and 9 )
( Rev. 11: 19; 15: 5 - 8 )
( James 1: 25; 2: 8 - 12 )
( Rev. 6: 9; 11: 1, 2 )
( Baptism )
( THE SPIRITUAL DAVIDIC SANCTUARY )
plucked up
7 Horns left
17501500508
1, 260 years
1,335 years
Now, let us recapitulate the preceding information with additional elaborations. Daniel
8:17 states that the vision (the all out vision of succeeding events leading to the
completion of the 2,300 years) pertains to the time of the end. Daniel 12:4 indicates that
By D. S. Farris7
7

a little book was to be sealed until the time of the end. In other words, both the 2,300
years and the little book point to the time of the end. We find a connection of both Daniel
8 and 12 in Revelation 10. Compare Revelation 10:1, 2, 5, 6 with Daniel 12:5 – 7; the
angels in view are almost identical. The angel of Revelation 10 is depicted as possessing
a little book in his hand. This is the little book of Daniel, the 2,300. Revelation 10:6, 7
indicate that at that point in time, “there will be time no longer.” In fact verse 7 shows
that at that time, “the day of the voice of the seventh angel” had begun commencement.
In looking at Daniel 8 and 12 with Revelation 10, we can say that Revelation 10 confirms
the finality of the 2,300 as being the time of the end and the beginning of the day of the
seventh angel (Christ). Logically, whatever time frame Revelation 10 has in mind, this
time frame is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel 12, which points back to the 2,300
years of Daniel 8.
When we apply the historical method of interpretation to the trumpets, we find out
some astounding probabilities of 1844 being significant to Revelation 10. Some
Historical commentators on the sixth trumpet of Revelation 9:15 recognize this trumpet
as pointing to the overthrow of Constantinople in 1453 by the Ottoman Turks. The
prophecy reveals that the effects of the sixth trumpet were to extend for: the hour (15
days), the day (one year), the month (30 years), and the year (360 years) = 391 years and
15 days. 391 years from the overthrow of Constantinople—in 1453—extend to 1844.
Note: Immediately after visualizing the historical account of the 6th
trumpet we run
directly into Revelation 10, an account that fulfills the vision of Daniel 12, which leads
back to Daniel 8. Well did Maxwell point out in his GOD CARES series in the BOOK
OF REVELATION that the Book of Revelation is set up in units. Chapters’ 8 – 11
represent a unit in the book Revelation. Revelation 8 and 9 cover six of the trumpets,
which stretch from Jerusalem’s destruction, in A.D. 70, to 1844. Revelation 10 confirms
1844. Revelation 11 recapitulates the 1,260 years of Papal supremacy within the picture
of the trumpets and focuses on the French Revolution—leading up to the 7th
trumpet
(Rev. 11:15) with the letting loose of the 7th
plague (verse 19).
This unit speaks loudly to the point that Revelation 10 initiates the time of the end
or the “day of the voice of the seventh angel” which meets its conclusion in Revelation
11. Moreover, the Church era of Philadelphia (A. D. 1750 – 1844) in Revelation 3:7
brings to light the opening of the door of “something” with the key of David. In
Revelation 11:19—after 1844 (Rev. 10)—we see a vivid picture of the “Ark of God’s
Testament,” something that belongs in the Most Holy Place. When we take the sixth
church era, the structure of Revelation 8 – 11, Revelation 10 in conjunction with 391
years from 1453 – 1844, and all these correlations with Daniel 12—leading back to
Daniel 8, we say that these concepts profoundly paint a very clear picture of the
importance of 1844 in the word of God.
Copyright 8/27/038
8

The Significance Of Revelation 10 In The 19th
Century
Revelation 10:8 – 11 points us to a great
event, which happened in history, an event
that pertains to the date of the fulfillment of
this prophecy. The angel of Revelation 10 is
described as standing on the sea and on the
earth. Since “sea” and “earth” are both
being used together in the context of this
prophecy, this may point to a symbolic
interpretation. The angel is standing on the
vast population of the Old World and
standing on the scarcely populated area of
the New World. The angel is described as
placing his right foot on the sea, first; and
then placing his left foot on the earth,
second. This points to the Great Advent
Awakening at the commencement of the 19th
century, which began in Europe, and then
spread to America. After the French
Revolution and the fall of the Papacy, the
clergy in Europe took great interest in the
prophecies pertaining to Christ’s second
coming. One of the main focal points in both the Old and New World on prophetic
fulfillment was the year 1844. We learn:
This discussion of the 2300 years was not confined to a few enthusiasts but
became the prevailing concern of a growing number of leading minds in religious
thought . . .men in Great Britain and America came separately to similar
conclusions (Leroy froom Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 3, 272).
The new focal point of prophetic study and concern—the terminus of the 2300
years, leading to the cleansing of the sanctuary, whatever that might be, to occur
around 1843, 1844, or 1847—had now reached the proportions of an
international quest. The caliber of these expositors and their geographical
spread are noteworthy. Aside from British writers those works were read and
reprinted in America, writers in various lands sounded the same note—in
Germany, Holland, Switzerland, India, Africa, Western Asia (Froom, Prophetic
Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 4, 301. Emphasis mine).
During the Advent Awakening in Europe, some historical Protestant interpreters began to
accept the premillennial doctrine of Christ’s second coming—in place of
postmillennialism. These historicists became known as, British Literalists. Froom gives
an excellent definition of British Literalism as follows:
By D. S. Farris9
9

[Historic premillennialists believed:] Antichrist, developed during the Christian
Era, is to make a final assault on the church just before the advent. At the close
of this great tribulation Christ comes, the dead in Christ rise, the living righteous
are transformed, the Jews repent and believe, and all are taken up to meet the
Lord in the air. Then Christ and the saints descend, Antichrist is destroyed, the
wicked are condemned to eternal punishment, Satan is bound, and the millennial
kingdom is set up. At the close of the millennial period Satan is loosed, the
nations follow him in rebellion and are destroyed by fire. Then the resurrection of
the wicked and the final judgment are followed by the new heaven and earth and
the eternal kingdom (Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 4, 416).
British Literalists visualized in the date, 1844, the coming millennium and the return of
the Jews to the land of Palestine. What were British Literalists? They were historicists
that applied a literal interpretation of Old Testament prophecies concerning Israel. The
premillennial historic view on prophecy made its way to America in the Millerite
movement. What was the difference between Millerism and British Literalism?
It was chiefly the Judaistic nature of the millennial kingdom on earth that was to
draw the line between the Literalists and the Millerites in the 1840’s; Historicism
was not the primary issue. That is why in the early 1840’s the Millerites could
regard Literalists, on the whole, as brethren and colleagues in the fight
against the “spiritualizing” interpretations of the postmillennialists
(Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 4, 426).
It is noted in history that there were a multitude of views proclaiming the possibilities of
1843, 1844, and 1847 as significant dates in relation to Daniel 8. In both Europe and
America there was great expectation for the conclusion of world affairs in these years. In
the United States William Miller (1782 – 1849) led a huge movement called, the Advent
Movement, which expected the return of Jesus in 1844. When the Millerites in America
did not witness Christ’s second coming in 1844, they were extremely disappointed, and
they received a great amount of ridicule. Both the historical literalists in Europe and the
Millerites in America experienced a great “let down” in their own expectations of the
dates that were seen as the fulfillment of the 2,300 years. This gave room for the growth
of the new developing dispensational futurist system.
During this time frame—before, and especially after the great disappointment,
British Literalists had begun to go to great extremes in their literalistic approach on
Israel’s prophecies and became—what we know today—dispensationalists. The further
they entrenched themselves into extreme literal interpretations pertaining to Israel’s
distinction, the more problems they found in Historic prophecy. When the Oxford
Tractarian movement began to spread the doctrine of the psudepigraphal, Jesuit system of
futurism, and when these ideas made way to the Powerscourt Conference, the way was
paved for the acceptance of futurism as a befitting prophetic construct for the extreme
literalism that was made to apply to the nation of Israel.
It is astounding that dispensationalists like to portray Adventists as being a
heterodox—sometimes cult—movement because Adventists apply the date, 1844, as
significant to Bible Prophecy. Dispensationalists often ridicule Adventists of being a
movement that came from a gross error of predicting Christ’s second coming, and that
they changed the purpose of that date to save face. We have this to say:
Copyright 8/27/0310
10

(1) The prediction of 1844 as being the second coming of Christ, or a date that pointed to
a great event of “some kind” in history, is not an idea indigenous to Millerism. That was
an idea that existed among a multitude of scholars throughout the globe.
(2) As far as committing the gross error of predicting Christ’s second coming, are we to
begin our deprecating frowns with Miller and the other scholars who used 1844 as a date
of importance? Or, should we begin our frowns down with Hippolytus (see chap. 8) who
was the first one to predict—concretely—Christ’s second coming in A.D. 500, a result of
pseudepigraphal, extra-biblical errors. In my personal experience with dispensational
futurists, they never even touch on Hippolytus, for he is considered one of the great
progenitors of futurism. I have heard it said that the acceptance of the date, 1844, as
pertaining to the second phase of Christ’s priestly ministry—opposed to it being Christ’s
second coming—is the “greatest face saving lie” of Adventism.
Such innuendo from dispensationalists hardly distinguishes them in the realm of
superior theological knowledge, considering the fact that their system of futurism is, in
essence, based on a construct totally concocted with the predilection that Christ’s second
coming would take place in A.D. 500—all based on pseudepigraphal myths. The fact of
the matter is, the whole system of futurism is based on the error of predicting Christ’s
second coming in A.D. 500—all for the sake of keeping the Beliar myth attached to the
70 weeks of Daniel 9 and keeping the pseudepigraphal messianic age connected to the
Beliar myth. Dispensationalists would do well to drop the 1844 argument, for their
arguments against the reasons of the 1844 Millerite movement are the very reasons for
their theological existence as futurists.
The difference between the 1844 reason for predicting Christ’s second coming
and the dispensational reason are based on two different realms of thinking: The 1844
reason was based on a misunderstanding of the “cleansing of the sanctuary” in the
logical sequence of historic prophecy; while on the other hand, Hippolytus’s reasons were
based on pseudepigraphal mythology. Which is worse? Miller proceeded on the basis of
Biblical facts that seemed to point to an incorrect conclusion. Hippolytus proceeded from
Jewish and Pagan mythology.
(3) Dispensationalists, with their pseudepigraphal, Jesuit, Zionist theological construct
cannot even begin to understand the reasons why Miller, like many others, would come to
a conclusion that 1844 is significant, because dispensationalists do not have perspicacious
insight on the internal correlations of events in historic prophecy. They cannot visualize
the logic of the parallelisms in the all out blue print of the connecting perfections of
prophetic fulfillments—fulfillments based on the nature of God (Rev. 1:4, 8, 19).
Dispensationalists, as long as they continue down the path of Loyola, cannot and will not
understand these depths. The fact is Miller, like many others, understood the historic blue
print of prophecy to a large degree. In their estimation: the 42 months of Papal supremacy
during the Church period, the seals, and the trumpets had and were being fulfilled. To
them 1844 was a date based on the logical connection between Daniel chapters’ 8 and 9.
It was a date based on the logical projection of the 70 weeks.
By D. S. Farris11
11

70 Weeks (Daniel 9: 24 - 27)
34
31
27
69 Weeks
1, 260
or
42 months
The Papacy Lisbon earthquake 11 - 1 -1755
Sun Dark = Dark day 5 -19 - 1780
Moon to Blood 5 - 19 - 1780
Stars fell 11 - 13 - 1833
Seals
Trumpets
Churches
1844
2300 Years (Daniel 8)
MILLENNIUM
Sixth Seal
For Miller and others, it was logical to conclude—in light of all the other fulfillments of
Bible prophecy—that 1844 had to be the great consummation of prophecy. From Miller’s
point of view, under the sixth seal Christ would return. Miller believed that a large part
of the sixth seal had just previously been fulfilled. Just 10 years before the date, 1844,
there had been the greatest meteor shower that the world had ever seen. Elijah Burritt in
Geography of the Heavens, p. 157 says, “The most sublime phenomenon of shooting
stars (November 13, 1833) . . .covered no inconsiderable portion of the earth’s
surface . . .covering the entire vault of heaven with myriads of fire balls.” Miller, in
realizing this fulfillment in conjunction with the dark day and Lisbon earthquake, realized
that the next event under the sixth seal was the second coming of Christ. The cleansing
of the sanctuary in 1844, as applied to Christ’s second coming, seemed like the logical
conclusion in light of the preceding fulfillments.
Even British Literalists visualized 1844 as the restoration of the Jews’ temple and
the millennial period, which coincides with the idea of “consummation.”
Dispensationalists have not even begun to understand the depth of the reasons why many
historicists came to certain conclusions on prophecy, because dispensational futurism, as
a system, overlaps the research inherent in the Church age, a research that is extremely
necessary in an understanding of prophecy. So, it is obvious why the ideas of Miller or
early British Literalists could never really be understood in this age of lethargy where the
essence of what most people hear in Christendom is “hand me down” theology from the
Jesuits—all for the sake of disguising the totalitarian principles of Popery.
Elijah Came Out Of The Advent Movement
The fact of the matter is that 1844 was and is very significant. It was
misunderstood, not chronologically so much, but rather it was a date that was
misunderstood conceptually. Concerning the Advent movement in America we read:
When the final disappointment came, there were two obvious courses open to
those who refused to throw away their faith entirely and brand the whole
message as a delusion. Something clearly was wrong: Either the time was a
mistake, in which case the 2300 days had not yet ended, or else the period had
ended but the event anticipated was wrong (Froom, Prophetic Faith, Vol. 4, 830).
The Millerites attempted to resolve their problem in 1845 at the Albany Conference. Out
of this conference there came about three divisions. Two of them were: The Evangelical
Copyright 8/27/0312
12

Adventist body and the Advent Christian Church. These groups abandoned the
importance of 1844 and did not proceed to find more prophetic light on this date. The
third group did continue to emphasize this date and found new revelation as to 1844’s
true meaning. This third group consisted of Sabbatarian Adventists, which latter became
known as Seventh Day Adventists. This group realized that the sanctuary of Daniel 8
pointed to the heavenly sanctuary, whereas Miller interpreted the sanctuary as the earth.
William Miller believed that the cleansing of the sanctuary pointed to the cleansing of the
world with fire. Sabbatarian Adventists, after more research, realized that the sanctuary in
Daniel 8 was homogeneous with the sanctuary in the book of Hebrews. As we analyzed
in chapter four, the sanctuary in Daniel 8 points to the heavenly sanctuary of the
Melchizedek priesthood being fulfilled in Christ.
After the great disappointment of 1844, in that Christ did not return, many of the
historic literalists in Europe abandoned this date as anything significant; they abandoned
it for the extreme system of dispensationalism. The Millerites divided up into three
groups; the first two also abandoned this prophecy, like the European literalists. Seventh
Day Adventism, then, becomes the focal point of the issue at hand. We see it this way:
When Revelation 10:8 – 11 talks about the little book (the 2,300) being eaten and making
the belly bitter; this points us to the great disappointment. The greatest part of the
disappointment concerning the date, 1844, was felt in America—in the Millerite
Movement. The Millerites preached the message of the 2300-year prophecy with power
that shook North America; in this respect the little book “was in their mouth sweet as
honey.” But their misunderstanding of the prophecy caused the bitterness of the
disappointment. Revelation 10:11 tells us that this message—the message of the little
book—must again be prophesied before many peoples, nations, tongues, and kings. The
first two branches of Adventists out of the Albany conference did not continue this
message; therefore, the third group is the group who has and will prophecy AGAIN the
real message of the little book.
When Daniel 8:14 states that after 2,300 years, the sanctuary will be RESTORED;
this restoration points to the restoration of the twofold aspect of the sanctuary: God’s
sanctuary in heaven—the Davidic temple where Jesus is high priest—and the spiritual
sanctuary on earth—the Church, which is now the Israel of God. Both sanctuaries are
inextricably connected. The restoration of the heavenly sanctuary is accomplished by the
restoration of the earthly sanctuary. In other words, after 1844 God was to restore the
Church sanctuary on earth by raising up a movement that teaches the message of the little
book—the sanctuary. This movement was destined to be a people that restore the Gospel
in its pure form. This remnant movement, by restoring all the truth, will lighten the earth
with God’s glory—bringing glory to God in heaven.
God’s remnant Church is described in Revelation 12:17; 14:12; and 19:10.
God’s remnant Church keep all of the commandments—including the fourth
commandment. And why would they? They keep the seventh day Sabbath, because the
Sabbath is the SIGN of the Everlasting Covenant. They are also described as “having the
testimony of Jesus Christ.” This is the spirit of prophecy. This means that God’s remnant
will have a correct understanding of prophecy, and will also possess the “voice of
prophecy” in their movement. We find this in Adventism. We emphasize this: Seventh
Day Adventism rose up out of the movement mentioned in Revelation 10. Adventism is
the only movement that teaches the 1844 sanctuary message; Adventism teaches the
By D. S. Farris13
13

restoration of all God’s commandments; and Adventism has the correct understanding of
prophecy. Adventism, we assert, represents the rising of Elijah the prophet, which came
after the three and a half prophetic years of Jezebel rule in the Papacy.
Thyatira
538 1500 1750 1844
2300 Years
3. 5 Prophetic Years of Jezebel Rule
1798
1453 1844
391 years of the Sixth Trumpet
Sardis Philadelphia Laodicea
Day of the Seventh Trumpet
1929 2002
Worldwide
Mt. Carmel
Thyatira
Dragon, Beast, False Prophet
SUN WORSHIP
Spiritual Famine From The Early Rain
Elijah comes in the form
the Seventh Day Advent
Movement
In a different study we cover the historical approach on Revelation and illustrate that the
feast system of Leviticus served as a type of the Church period. Pentecost was a feast
that commemorated the spring harvests. Pentecost, as described in Acts 2, was the former
rain of the Holy Spirit. During the 1,260 years of Jezebel rule (the Papacy), there was a
spiritual famine for Biblical truth. Sun worship dominated the teachings of the Catholic
Church. Under the third seal, there is mentioned that there was a scarcity of wheat and
barely. The scarcity of the wheat and barely point back to the spring harvest, which was
the former rain of the Spirit at Pentecost. Under the third seal, there is mention that the
oil and the wine were not to be lost sight of. This points to the fall fruit harvest in the
feast system; this points to the latter rain. In the antitypical day of Atonement—since
1844—we have in focus the prospect of the Latter Rain which is to bring about the final
harvest of saints for the Feast of Tabernacles, the Feast which will take place with Jesus
in heaven after the second coming.
As Elijah came after the three and a half years of famine to contend with the Baal
priests on Mt. Carmel, God has sent the Adventist message to the world, after the three
and a half prophetic years of Papal or Jezebel rule to warn the world about spiritual world
wide Carmel. The issue in our day is like that of Elijah’s day; the issue revolves around
keeping the commandments—opposed to sun worship.
As we saw in chapter 9, “The Mark of The Beast,” Sunday serves as the sign of
the Dragon covenant of pagan idolatry. It is a day that points to the numerical system of
666, found in the sun’s rotation in the Zodiac. The Sabbath is the sign of God’s
Everlasting Covenant with spiritual Israel, and Sunday is the sign of the pagan system of
sun worship completely manifested in Catholicism and apostate Protestantism. God sent
the Seventh Day Advent Church to warn the world that we are in the antitypical Day of
Atonement when the Law of God becomes the extreme focus (Rev. 11:19). It is this Day
of Atonement when the Sabbath—being the sign of the Everlasting Covenant—becomes
the great focal point of loyalty to God.
Copyright 8/27/0314
14

ELIJAH MOVEMENT Vs. THE FALSE PROPHET ON THE ISSUE OF LAW
One of the greatest errors of fallen Christendom is the notion that the 10
commandments are abolished or either applies specifically to the Jew. Coupled with this
notion is the idea that the seventh day Sabbath applies only to the Old Covenant or only
to the Jew. As we have analyzed in chapter five, it was the little horn (The Papacy) who
thought to change times and laws. Christ said in Matthew 5:17 – 19 that not the least bit
of the law have passed away. Nevertheless, dispensationalists—along with many other
evangelicals—attempt to justify the works of popery with their cherished Jesuitical
theologies. Clear statements, like Matthew 5:17 – 19, are wrestled into insignificance by
popular theology. Specifically, dispensationalism by nature is a system that is honed—by
means of compartmentalized dispensations—to remove the Sabbath out of the Church
dispensation. Dispensationalism is a clever work that inadvertently justifies the work of
Rome, while pretending to maintain distance from Rome. Dispensational focus on
Futurism leads multitudes away from realizing that the Papacy is the Antichrist, while
Dispensationalism itself argues in favor of the Papal Sabbath. This point on top of all
that has been said in this course is the reason that we know dispensationalism to be one of
the main components of the False Prophet. It is in the very action of the Little Horn and
his attempt to change God’s times and laws that we find the issues revolving around the
Seal of God and the Mark of the Beast. The Elijah movement not only exposes the
Beast and his attempt to add, subtract, and rearrange God’s law, but the Elijah movement
exposes the deceit and slyness of the False prophet in his attempt to justify the Beast.
Revelation 12:17 and 14:12 emphasize that God’s remnant people will keep the
commandments, for the antitypical Elijah knows the meaning of Revelation 22:14:
“Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the
tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.” The Elijah Movement tells
the world that God’s commandments are very important, while on the other hand; the
False Prophet tells the world that Elijah is a liar, and the False Prophet says that the law is
abolished. Walter Martin has told the world in his book, The Kingdom Of The Cults, the
following: “The Adventist’s contention, therefore, concerning the eternal nature of
the Decalogue and the time of its application to man, are mere conjecture” (Kingdom
Of The Cults, 493). Martin says this in the context of arguing against the “dual law
argument,” which we will talk about in following pages, and Martin argues that the whole
of the law—including the 10 commandments—are abolished. In other words, Martin
attempts to refute the Adventist belief that the 10 commandments are eternal or
everlasting. Martin is not merely attempting to refute some sect of Christianity—
sequestered in a bubble of heterodoxy—as he politely attempts to impugn the Adventist
position; but rather, Martin is trying to refute the Elijah message and God Himself.
Martin constantly, in his work, with a polite but arrogant overtone, says that Adventism is
destroyed; but as we saw in chapter 10, Martin’s theory of the authentication of Sunday
through the apologists was rather destroyed, and so it will be in this argument. The
eternal nature of the 10 commandments is not merely an argument of Adventism, but is
the binding fabric of God’s universe—described in the Bible. Let us prove this with the
following observation:
By D. S. Farris15
15

The Perpetuity Of The Law—In The Blue Stone
In the vision of Ezekiel 1, we see a picture of God and His throne. Verse 4 says,
“And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire
infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the color of
amber, out of the midst of the fire.” Verses’ 26 – 28 says:
And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a
THRONE, as the appearance of a SAPPHIRE STONE: and upon the likeness
of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. And I
saw as the color of amber, as the appearance round about within it, from the
appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even
downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round
about. As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was
the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the
likeness of the glory of the Lord. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I
heard a voice of one that spake. (Compare this with Rev. 4:1 – 3)
Intermingled with this sight in Ezekiel’s vision there is mention of wheels (Verses’ 15 –
17). We learn in Daniel 7:9 that God’s throne has wheels. Wheels on God’s throne
indicate that his throne moves. Notice the following analysis:
(1) God’s throne has the appearance of SAPPHIRE (Blue Stone).
(2) God’s throne has wheels; thus, His throne travels.
(3) God’s throne also has the appearance of a fiery cloud.
Why are these deductions significant? We learn that the throne of God led the children of
Israel to Mt. Sinai. Exodus 13:21, 22 says, “And the Lord went before them by day in a
pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light;
to go by day and night: He took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of
fire by night, from before the people.” The throne of God traveled to Mt. Sinai, and this
mountain became the location of God’s sanctuary (Ex. 15:13, 17). Exodus 15:13 calls the
mountain “God’s Holy Habitation.” Verse 17 says, “Thou shalt bring them in, and plant
them in the mountain of thine inheritance, in the place, O Lord, which thou hast made for
thee to dwell in, in the Sanctuary, O Lord, which thy hands have established.” Hebrews
8:5 states that Moses made the earthy sanctuary “according to the pattern showed to him
in the mountain.”
Up to this point, what are we demonstrating? We are demonstrating that the Blue
Stone, God’s throne, and God’s sanctuary are inextricably connected to each other.
According to 1 Chronicles 28, when David gave Solomon the pattern of the sanctuary
that was to be built, in verse 18 David explained that the pattern of the Ark of the
Covenant was “for the pattern of the chariot of the cherubims, that spread out their
wings, and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord.” This depiction looks similar to
the depiction in Ezekiel 1. The chariots represent the wheels of God’s throne. Therefore,
God’s throne, which had traveled to Mt. Sinai, possessed the Ark of the Covenant,
and Moses built Israel’s sanctuary on the basis of what he saw in the mountain. Why
is this significant? Exodus 24:9 – 12 states:
Copyright 8/27/0316
16

Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of
Israel: And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a
paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his
clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also
they saw God, and did eat and drink. And the Lord said to Moses, come up to me
into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone (The Heb.
indicates: “tables of the stone.”), and a law, and commandments which I have
written; that thou mayest teach them.
The law of God was taken from the BLUE SAPPHIRE stone, which God was standing
on. The law was taken from God’s throne. This indicates that God’s law is the
foundation of His government. The fact that the law was written with the finger of God
in the stone from His throne indicates the perpetuity of the law. This is why Psalm
111:7, 8 says, “The works of his hands (Ex. 31:18) are verity and judgment; all his
commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and
uprightness.” In Matthew 5:17 Jesus Himself said that he did not come to destroy (Gr.
Kataluo: “dissolve” “demolish” “loosen down”) the law; but rather, He came to fulfill
(Gr. Pleroo: “to accomplish” “to carry through to the end” “to do”) the law.
Question: How important is the law? James
1:25 says that we are to “look intently” (Gr.
Parakupto: “To stoop over” or “to bend down
to examine something with precision.”) into
the “Perfect Law of Liberty.” James 2:8 – 12
shows that the Perfect Law of Liberty is the
10 commandments. In fact, we will be judged
by this Law, says James. Ecclesiastes 12:13,
14 are in perfect correlation with James in that
we will be judged by the law. Hebrews 8:4, 5
clearly show that the Mosaic sanctuary was an
“example and shadow of heavenly things.”
We have discovered in chapter four that there
is very much a heavenly sanctuary. If the
Mosaic was a type of the Heavenly, then there
must be an original copy of the Law in
heaven. Revelation 11:19 says, “And the
temple of God was opened in heaven, and
there was seen in his temple the ARK of his
TESTAMENT: . . .” Revelation 15:5 gives us
more insight as to what is involved with this Ark in heaven: “And after that I looked,
and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened.”
What is the Testimony? Exodus 24:16: The Lord told Moses, “And thou shalt put into
the ark the testimony which I shall give thee (see also verses’ 21, 22).” Notice that the
Testimony goes into the Ark. Exodus 31:18 says: “And he gave unto Moses, when he
had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony,
tables of stone, written with the finger of God (see Ex. 32:15; 34:29).”
By D. S. Farris17
17

Revelation 11:19 and 15:5, 8 clearly illustrate that there is a heavenly Ark with an
original copy of the two tablets of testimony. What is the Testimony in the Ark in heaven?
The Perfect Law of Liberty is the Testimony, and James 1:25 says that we are to “look
intently” into that law, for we will be judged by that Law (James 2:8 – 12). This is why
Revelation 22:14 says, “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may
have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.”
Therefore, we can conclude even further that when God made Moses the two
Testimonies out of the Blue Sapphire Stone from the throne, this was a law of
perpetuity.
In light of this section, Martin’s statement, “The Adventist’s contention,
therefore, concerning the eternal nature of the Decalogue and the time of its
application to man, are mere conjecture, becomes vain, for it is impossible for the
works of God’s hand—written in the blue stone—to “stand fast forever and ever,”
according to the Psalmist, only to be abolished because the False Prophet movement
wishes it so. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus said that He did not come to do away with the law,
but to fulfill (Pleroo: “do” “fill up”) the law. Romans 8:4 tells us that the righteous
requirements of the law are to be fulfilled (Pleroo) in those who are walking in the Spirit.
As Jesus fulfilled the law in His perfect life of obedience, He desires that His people
fulfill the law through a consecrated life of self-denial. This is why Jesus said in John
15:10: “If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; even as I have kept
my Father’s commandments and abide in His love.” 1 John 2:3 – 7 clearly shows that we
must keep God’s commandments. Verse 6 says—in the context of keeping His
commandments—that if we say we abide in Christ, we should walk as He walked. How
did Jesus walk? John 15:10: Jesus kept His Father’s commandments, and we are to keep
the commandments of Christ (John 14:21). There are those who say that Christ’s
commandments are different from the Father’s. Such reasoning divides Christ from the
Father falsely. 1 Corinthians 10:1 – 4 says Christ was the Rock that followed the children
of Israel; consequently, He was also the lawgiver. Christ did not come to institute a
separate list of commandments, from what He instituted at Sinai; Christ simply enlarged
the 10 commandments to include far more details in defining sin (see Galatians 5:19 –
22). James 4:12 says, “There is one (not two) lawgiver, who is able to save and to
destroy.”
1 John 2:7 speaks about the Old Commandment that we had from the beginning.
What is John talking about? 2 John 4 – 6 explain that the “old commandment, which we
had and heard from the beginning, is love that walks after the Father’s commandments.”
1 John 2:24 states that we will continue in the Son and the Father if we have this love
which walks after the Father’s commandments. Note: Love is the fulfilling of the Law
(see Rom. 13:8 – 10; 1 John 3: 22 – 24; 5: 2, 3). In the context of scriptures, such as 1
John 2:3, 4; 3:22, 24; 5:2, 3, which emphasize keeping God’s commandments, Martin
argues:
To support their argument that a Christian must obey the commandments,
Adventists and other Christian bodies cite such passages…We, too yield to the
authority of those verses; but the fallacy of the position lies in the concept that
the word “commandments” always refers to the Ten commandments, which they
maintain are “the moral law of God.” This claim cannot be substantiated from
scripture, in fact, it is contradicted by the Bible (Kingdom Of The Cults, 491).
Copyright 8/27/0318
18

We ask the reader to please compare the above argument from Martin with the following
illustration in Matthew 19:16 - 19:
16. Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I
do that i may have eternal life?"
17. So He said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but One, that is,
God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."
18. He said to Him, "Which ones?" Jesus said, "You shall not murder, you shall not
commit Adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness
19. Honor your father and your mother, and, you shall love your neighbor as
yourself."
Apparently, Jesus really meant what He said in Matthew 5:17 - 19, because Matthew
19:16 - 19 confirms His thoughts all the more. Martin argues that the commandments of
God in the New Testament cannot be the 10 commandments, for Martin emphasizes: “By
‘the righteousness of the law’ and the fulfillment of the law, Christ and all the New
Testament writers mean not the Ten Commandments but the eternal law of love”
(Kingdom Of The Cults, 492). Martin of course bases this statement on Matthew 22:37 –
40 which emphasizes that “to love God” and “to love man” fulfills the law, or that the
whole of the law rests on these two commandments. Yes, the Decalogue is summed up by
these two commandments, but what Martin has failed miserably to understand is that
these two commandments would not exist if there were no Decalogue. Why? The first
four commandments are based on love towards God, and the last six commandments are
based on love to man. Martin, in essence, tells us that the two great commandments have
no internal definition. In other words, Martin makes the two great commandments a form
of lawless love, for, idolatry, taking God’s name in vain, committing murder, committing
adultery, and etc—being the internal definition of the two great commandments—no
longer has any meaning.
According to this “no law theory” we don’t know what it means to love God and
to love man. Martin’s confusion is glaring where he says, “We have seen that the greatest
of all commandments is not included in the Decalogue or ‘moral law.’ And yet upon this
great commandment, love for the Lord and for one’s neighbor, ‘hang all the law and the
prophets’” (Kingdom Of The Cults, 493). Martin’s argument is amazing, because he says
that the greatest of all commandments is not in the Decalogue, when in fact, the
Decalogue defines the greatest of all commandments. As we are going to see in further
pages, dispensationalists apply sessions of theological jugglery around this bald face
contradiction.
The problem with Martin, like many evangelicals who advocate the “no law
theory,” is that he would have us believe that James 1:25; 2:9 – 12 and Revelation 11:19
are imaginary texts and do not exist. These scriptures, along with all that has been shown,
depict that God’s heavenly sanctuary contains the “Ark of His Testament,” the very
original which Moses patterned the earthly sanctuary (Hebrews 8:4, 5). Are we to dream
that God’s ark contains AIR in it, or shall we come to the logical conclusion that the
original copy of the Decalogue is contained there, for it was James who said that we will
be judged by the “Perfect Law Of Liberty”—quoting commandments from the
Decalogue.
By D. S. Farris19
19

Law And Grace Cannot Be Separated
In contrast to the worldwide Mt. Carmel baal preachers, the Elijah movement
knows that law and grace are inextricably tied together. In reference to Christians keeping
the Law, Cyrus Scofield says, “The Christian is not under the conditional Mosaic
Covenant of works, the law, but under the unconditional New Covenant of grace” (The
Scofield Reference Bible, Ft. notes on Ex. 20, 95). Clarence Larkin defines Scofield’s
thought with more clarity where he says, “to join “Law” and “Grace” is to unite what
God has forever separated” (Dispensational Truth, 31). These statements are what the
Elijah movement calls “Untempered Mortar,” meaning, “that which is improperly
worked, and will not therefore hold together or stand the test.” Larkin’s statement is
neither Biblical nor logical, for we cannot say that we have grace unless there is still a
law. We only have Grace, because there is still a law. Romans 4:15 tells us that the “law
works wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.” Romans 5:13 says, “Sin is
not imputed when there is no law.” Here is the logic that reveals the ludicrousness of
separating Law from Grace:
Romans 4:15
(1) If there is no law, there is no transgression.
(2) There is transgression
(3) Therefore, there must be law.
Romans 5:13
(1) When there is no Law, sin is not imputed.
(2) Sin is imputed. (Otherwise, there would be no need for the Great White Throne Judgment.)
(3) Therefore, there is a law.
The reason Paul stated proposition one in each of the above arguments is simple. 1 John
3:4, Romans 3:19, 20, and 7:7 – 13 teach that sin is the breaking of the law. Without
law, we would not know what sin is. We know that sin exists; therefore, there must be a
law. To teach that the Law is separate from Grace is beyond stupid.
In the antitypical fulfillment of the contest between Elijah and Jezebel, the baal
priests and preachers tell Elijah that the Ten Commandments are not important. The baal
preachers tell Elijah the following: “Don’t you know that we are not under the Law.”
Note: The term “under the law” is a very misunderstood term in spiritual Babylon. It
must be realized that Paul was speaking to societies who were UNDER the jurisdiction of
Rome, and Roman society was over half slavery. Paul used terms that the people could
understand, for many of the people he taught were UNDER a slave master. The term
UNDER is indicative of being a slave or being held in bondage by something. The
confusion in Christendom over the law is based primarily on a misunderstanding of the
Gospel. We must now take some time to discuss this matter.
Justification Does Not Abolish The Law
Copyright 8/27/0320
20

In Revelation 14:12, the saints are described as not only keeping God’s
commandments, but having the faith of Jesus. The Faith is indicative of the Gospel. In
other words, John emphasizes that the Gospel will produce commandment keeping in the
saints of the last days. This is undoubtedly why Paul, in Romans 3:31, emphasizes that
the faith does not abolish the law, but rather establishes (builds it up) the law. Regardless
of the clarity of these scriptures, the baal preachers of worldwide Mt. Carmel attempt to
synthesize the phrase, “not under the law,” into a definition that is antagonistic to the
unity of all the scriptures.
The term Under The Law indicates a state of bondage. How did the law keep
mankind in bondage (see Heb. 2:15)? Romans 6:23 says, “The wages of sin (law
breaking) is death.” As we saw in chapter 2—dealing with the 70th
week of Daniel 9—
every person is born into a humanity (Psalm 51:5), the Adamic nature, which stands
condemned under the law. On top of this, every human being has his or her own personal
sins. The whole human race is under the law in that the law holds mankind in
condemnation to die (see Ezekiel 18:4). Jesus, however, has made it possible for all men
to be delivered from being UNDER the CONDEMNATION of the law. How? Galatians
3:13 says, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us:
for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree.” The curse of the Law is death,
and Jesus was made a curse for us. Galatians 4:4 says: “But when the fullness of the time
had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law.” Jesus was born
into the world in the same predicament as the human race—under the law. How did Jesus
make deliverance from being under the law possible? Jesus, in his humanity, gave the
Law the requirements it asks for.
The law requires two things: (1) Perfect Obedience; (2) Perfect Justice (The soul
that sins must die.). How did Jesus accomplish the first requirements of the Law? Jesus
obeyed the Law perfectly in His life on earth (Hebrews 7:24-26). How did Jesus
accomplish the second requirement of the Law? The works of Christ disqualify Him from
the Perfect Justice of the law; however, Galatians 4:4 says that Christ was born under the
law; this can only indicate that His humanity was under the law.
The fact that Christ obeyed the Law perfectly and the fact that Christ crucified the
Adamic nature on the cross allows Him to be our substitution. Faith in the life, death,
burial, and resurrection of Christ allows one to enter into the Everlasting Covenant. In
this Covenant, through Faith in Christ as Savior, we are given the imputed righteousness
of Christ as a free gift (see Romans 3:18-24). This is what it means NOT to be UNDER
the law: Free from the condemnation by means of the imputed righteousness of Christ.
But does the grace of imputed righteousness (Justification) abolish the law?
Popular theologians would have us believe that this is the case. They often use texts such
as Romans 3:28: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from
the deeds of the law.” Popular Bible teachers want scriptures such as Romans 3:28 to
prove their position, but it cannot, because Paul teaches the exact opposite in the context
of Romans 3. In Romans 3:31, Paul says, “Do we then make void the law through
faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.” Very clearly the Bible
teaches that the Christian cannot be Justified (to be set right or accounted as righteous) by
the works of the Law, for the Christian is Justified through the righteousness of Christ;
hence the Christian possesses imputed righteousness by the grace of God through faith in
By D. S. Farris21
21

Christ. However, the fact that the Christian possesses imputed righteousness—apart from
works—does not abrogate the law, for in Romans 3:31 Paul makes this clear.
That Justification does not abolish the Law is seen in other Pauline scriptures.
Romans 7:1 – 4 illustrate that before a man is married to Christ, he is married to the Law.
(Of course man is married to the law through the Adamic nature and personal sins.)
While being married to the Law, the Law has power to place man under condemnation
(Rom. 7:7 – 13); for the job of the Law is to reveal sin (Rom. 3:19, 20). This is the reason
that Paul emphasizes the marriage between sinful man and the perfect Law as
dysfunctional, so in Romans 7:1 – 4 Paul brings into focus a very important issue: If the
law were to die, man could be set free from the condemnation of the Law. Does Paul
conclude that freedom came by means of the death of the first Husband, the Law, which
Paul defines as Good and Holy (Rom. 7:12)? No! Paul says that those who accept Christ
have died; and therefore can be legally married to Christ (Gal. 3:23 – 25). But in this
illustration, notice that in freedom from the condemnation of the Law (Justification), the
Law did not die (Matt. 5:17); and not so much as a hair of the first Husband’s head died
(Matt. 5:18). Thus, the first Husband (the Law) still exists, and he can indeed have
dominion over those who are not married to Christ. With this in mind, it becomes very
important to conceptualize what it means to be married to Christ—in order not to be
married to the Law.
Sanctification Upholds The Law
For the Christian, death to the law and marriage to Christ is freely given to him
through the imputed righteousness of Justification, but Paul also emphasizes “death to the
law” and “marriage to Christ” through imparted righteousness. Paul says in Romans 7:1
that the law has dominion over those who are still ALIVE. Paul says this in respect to
what he says in chapter 6, that Christians are to be crucified to the “Old Man.” Romans’ 6
and 7 emphasize crucifixion, not only through imputation as described in Romans 5:12 –
20, but impartation as the means of being divorced from the Law. Romans 7:5, 6 says:
For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did
work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered
(Gr. Katargeo: Abolished) from (Apo: Away from) the law, that being dead
wherein we were held (Katecho: “to hold back” “to hinder” “to restrain”); that
we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
In Christ—through imputed righteousness—we have been abolished away from the
law’s condemnation. But with freedom from condemnation, there is also mentioned in
Romans 7:5 the fact that the law revealed sin WHEN WE WERE in the flesh; meaning,
we are to be set free from the flesh and sin, which is the breaking of the law. So, with
freedom from condemnation, there must also be freedom from sin. (see Rom. 8:10 – 14; 1
John 3:5 – 9). This unequivocally proves that the free gift of justification must be
followed by an experience that abolishes the Old Man of sin. Walter Martin argues:
The concept of law in Seventh-day Adventism, then, leads them to the un-
Biblical and at times legalistsic position that although they are “under grace,” by
failing to “keep the commandments” they are in danger of coming “under law”
again. The word of God, however, describes the Christian under grace as “dead
Copyright 8/27/0322
22

to the law” and “alive unto God” (Galatians 2:19), and nowhere is it taught that
one can “come alive” again so that the function of law is resumed (Kingdom
Of The Cults, 494. Emphasis mine).
In other words, according to Martin: once a Christian possesses the imputed
righteousness of Christ, he can never again be implicated under the Law—regardless of
what he does. Martin's argument inadvertently says that once one receives Salvation, he
can never lose it. Unfortunately, Martin has failed miserably to grasp the Biblical truth
and necessity of ABIDING in Christ. The Greek word is: Meno (meaning: to remain; not
to depart). What does it mean to abide in Christ? 1 John 2:6 says, "He who says he abides
in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked." What does it mean to walk as the
Lord? Notice 1 John 3:6: "Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither
seen Him nor known Him." According to this clear example, we must eliminate sin
(known sin) out of our lives. We must take heed to the warning Jesus gave in John 15:6:
"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they
gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned." The seriousness of this
matter is also stated in Hebrews 10:26, 27 "For if we sin willfully after we have received
the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins. But a certain
fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the
adversaries." Martin wants us to believe that our salvation is secure regardless if we turn
our backs on God, but this is not the case. Notice also 2 John 1:8, 9: "Look to yourselves
that we do not lose the things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward.
Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.
He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son" The Bible is
clear! If we do not abide in Christ, we lose our relationship with Christ and find ourselves
under the law.
Martin also used Galatians 2:19 to support his argument, but Galatians does not support
him. Galatians 5:18 – 26 teach that if we walk in the spirit, we are not under the law. If
we arbitrarily walk in the flesh in an anti nomos (law) mindset, we are under the law. 1
John 2:4 says, “He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a
liar, and the truth is not in him.” Martin’s theory says, in effect, that a Christian is “alive
unto God” and “dead to the law,” even if He chooses to reject sanctification. What
Martin, like many who advocate the “no law theory,” have failed to emphasize is that
“not being under the law” and “alive unto God” through Justification is inextricably tied
to “not being under the law” and “alive unto God” through sanctification. Notice the
following scriptures in Romans 6:
13. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin:
but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your
members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but
under grace.
15. What then? Shall we sin (break the law) because we are not under the law,
but under grace?
16.God forbid. Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to
obey, his servants you are to whom you obey; whether of sin unto death, or
obedience unto righteousness.
By D. S. Farris23
23

Martin’s theory: “nowhere is it taught that one can “come alive” again so that the
function of law is resumed” does not correlate with the Bible, for Romans 8:12, 13 says:
“Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For
if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the
deeds of the body, you will live.” Now, before proceeding any further, let us look at
another statement made by Martin, where he says, “Now although Seventh-day
Adventists affirm that law-keeping cannot merit salvation, nevertheless they teach that by
breaking the law one forfeits salvation” (Kingdom Of The Cults, 490). Martin’s allegation
can be true or false—depending on which context we are dealing with law breaking. The
Bible divides this issue between “the Christian struggle as humans” (as is described in
Romans 7) and “cheap grace”(as is described in Romans 6).
In the context of the Christian struggle over the flesh, Paul’s emphasis is not
salvation through works (Eph. 2:9, 10; Rom. 3:28); his emphasis is salvation that leads to
works; meaning, Justification that produces Sanctification (Titus 3:5 – 7). This principle
is emphasized by Paul in Titus 2:11, 12: “For the grace of God that brings salvation has
appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should
live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age.” “Salvation that leads to Works”
opposed to “Salvation by Works” is also emphasized by Paul in Romans 7:6 where he
says, “we will keep the law in the newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.”
In 2 Corinthians 3:3 we read: “Forasmuch as you manifestly declared to be the
epistles of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the spirit of the living
God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart.” The law is not to be merely
an object outside of our minds that we attempt to obey through dead works (Heb. 9:14).
The law of God is to be placed in the mind and heart (Heb. 8:10); then and only then, will
“the righteousness (Dikaioma: “requirements” “ordinance”) of the law be fulfilled
(Pleroo: “done” “filled up”) in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit (Rom.
8:4).” Ephesians 2:10 is in perfect correlation with Romans 8:4; that God desires us to
fulfill the law by means of “becoming a partaker of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).
Galatians 2:20 emphasizes this principle as: “not I, but Christ.” “Not I” means that we
put to death the Old Man; “But Christ” means that we accept His grace in our lives to
walk in the new man “which is created in righteousness and true holiness” (Ephesians
4:21 – 24). This in effect is what it means to ABIDE in Christ.
It must be emphatically stated that, in the context of the Christian struggle over
the flesh, though the platform of Justification does not give the Christian a license to
trample upon the divine precepts, God is a Being of infinite mercy, and He understands
that we are incapable in and of ourselves to perform the righteous requirements of the
law. This is why He gave us the Holy Spirit, and even with the Spirit, Sanctification is a
growth process. The issue is not whether or not we become perfect; the issue is our
attitude about sin. Are we willing to be crucified to the flesh, the world, and the devil?
Are we willing—through Christ’s imparted righteousness—to allow Jesus to work
through us? In this context, Martin’s allegation towards Adventism is not correct, for
though there are some Adventists who fit Martins description, the whole of Adventism
does not believe that personal sins—in the struggle of overcoming—perpetually forfeits
salvation.
Copyright 8/27/0324
24

However, in the context of “cheap grace,” which teaches that we can accept Jesus
as Savior and then deny him as Lord by continuing to live as the pagans (James 2:14 –
26; 1 John 3:5 – 9), we do agree with Martin’s allegation against Adventism. The
Adventist position is in agreement with Jesus Himself where He says in Matthew 5:19
that if one breaks the least of His commandments and teaches others to do the same, they
will be called the least in God’s kingdom; and that does not mean low status in God’s
kingdom; that means low status outside of the sea of glass. This is something that all
evangelicals who advocate the “no law theory” aught seriously to consider, for the
perfidious theology of the “no law theory” is akin to the Gnostic heresy of the early
centuries, and is now cloaked with dispensational technicalities of semantic
Jugglery.
The False Prophet’s Jugglery With The Decalogue
It is through the meticulously constructed system of dispensationalism that the
devil has attempted to justify the Papacy in the face of Elijah. Dispensationalists in an
attempt to justify their neglect to honor the fourth commandment go to great lengths to
exclude the Sabbath in every age except for the Jews. They teach:
The command to observe the Sabbath was given to Israel Exclusively. It was not
given to the Gentiles. It was given to Israel as the “SIGN” of the “Mosaic
Covenant.”
...the “Sabbath” does not belong to the Church, and is not to be observed by
Christians, for the “Sabbath Day” is a part of “The Law,” and Christians are not
under “Law,” but under “Grace.”
If Christians are under obligations to keep the “Jewish Sabbath,” then they are
under the Jewish “Ceremonial Law” and should observe all ordinances and Feast
Days of the Jewish Ritual (Clarence Larkin, Dispensational Truth, 31).
Dispensationalism, as we have analyzed in chapters’ 1 – 4, is a meticulously constructed
theory of racial and theological divisions—superimposed on the Bible. It is a system that
divides what God has not divided and brings together what God has divided.
Dispensationalists try to justify the belief that the Sabbath does not belong to the
Christian by teaching that the Sabbath belongs to the law, and the law is not for the
Christian, but for the Jew. This has already been proved false. Is “thou shalt not kill” or
“thou shalt not commit adultery” or “thou shalt have no other gods before me” only for
the Jew? Of course not! Then it is senseless to separate the Sabbath from the rest of these
commandments. Matthew 5:18 and Ecclesiastes 3:14 state that none of the law would
pass away. Though this makes complete sense on the basis of Biblical unity,
dispensationalists have created additional theories to compensate for their apparent
contradictions.
On pages back we showed how Martin emphasized that the 10 commandments
are not the commandments of the New Testament; however, in another place Martin says,
“9 of the commandments are enunciated in the New Testament” (Kingdom Of The Cults,
p. 490). Similarly, Ralph Riggs, tells us: “The Commandments, with the exception of the
By D. S. Farris25
25

fourth, were carried over and repeated in the New Covenant” (Dispensational Studies,
91). In other words, God had to abolish the 10 commandments in order that He could
reinstate 9 of them. Said another way, God had to abolish the 10 commandments in order
to eliminate the Sabbath, then, He could reinstate 9 of them. Do dispensationalists
understand the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:18 that not one iota of this law will pass
away? Apparently not! So, they concoct theological jugglery as was just cited. Does the
jugglery stop here? No! They go even further. Dispensationalists, when confronted with
Matthew 5:18, then take a new stance; they acknowledge that the Law has not changed;
they just say that it belongs only to the Jew. Dispensationalists say the law is preserved
in whole for Israel, but when they are confronted about adultery, murder, or idolatry, they
all the sudden accept 9 of the commandments, but insist the Sabbath is completely
Jewish. This is chicanery! This is exactly what Jesus warned against in Matthew 5:19 and
also James 2:10.
Though dispensationalists say the law has not changed for the Jew in any detail,
when confronted with 9 of the commandments, as applicable to the Church, the fourth
commandment has changed for the Church. These men cannot get their theology straight.
The reason for this confusion is simple. Dispensationalism was created by the devil to
inadvertently justify the Papacy’s changing of God’s law. We have already seen that
dispensationalism justifies Catholicism through the futurist system, and it justifies the
Zionist conspiracy, which is used as a tool to create the New World Order.
Dispensationalism, while appearing not to agree with Popery, supports Popery in all
aspects of the great deception; consequently, this system represents one of the main
ideologies that cause the world to worship the first Beast in Revelation 13. It is
dispensational anti nomos theology that has paved the way for evangelicals to trample
upon God’s law in the sight of Papal wants.
The False Prophet’s Jugglery With The Laws To Abrogate The Sabbath
Dispensationalists tell us that the institution of law in the Mosaic covenant is
divided in the following way:
1. The Moral Law. Ex. 20: 1 – 26. This consists of the Ten Commandments.
2. The Civil Law. Ex. 21: 1 – 24: 18.
3. The Ceremonial Law. Ex. 25: 1 – 40: 38. This includes the Tabernacle, the Priesthood, and the
order of service. The “Sign” of this Covenant is the Sabbath. Ex.31: 12 – 18 (Clarence Larkin,
Dispensational Truth, 150).
It is good that dispensationalists can indeed see the divisions between the Moral and
Ceremonial laws. The preceding citation is accurate in that the laws were divided.
However, the inaccuracy of dispensationalism comes to view in the following statement:
If Christians are under obligations to keep the “Jewish Sabbath,” then they are
under the Jewish “Ceremonial Law” and should observe all ordinances and Feast
Days of the Jewish Ritual (Clarence Larkin, Dispensational Truth, 31).
Dispensationalists try to insist that the Sabbath is ceremonial in nature. Clarence Larkin
states that the Law was divided between Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial. If the Moral law
Copyright 8/27/0326
26

of 10 commandments can be mutually excluded from the Civil and Ceremonial laws, and
the 7th
day Sabbath is within the moral law; then there is no justification to remove the 4th
commandment from one institution to the next? Though the Mosaic system of the three
laws was jointly exhaustive, God placed the Sabbath in the 10 commandments as
mutually exclusive from the other laws. Let us raise the question: What is the main
difference between the moral and ceremonial laws? Notice the following illustration:
The Moral Law The Ceremonial Law
Is called the royal law. James 2: 8 Is called the law in ordinances. Eph. 2: 15
Was spoken by God. Deut. 4: 12, 13 Was spoken by Moses Lev. 1: 1 - 3
Was written by God on tables of stone. Was the handwriting of ordinances.
Ex. 24: 12 Col. 2: 14
Was written with the finger of God on Was written by Moses in a book.
stone. Ex. 31: 18 2 Chron. 35: 12
Is to stand forever. Psalm 11: 7, 8 Was nailed to the cross. Col. 2: 14
Was not destroyed by Christ. Was abolished by Christ. Eph. 2: 15
Matt. 5: 17
Was to be magnified by Christ. Was to be taken out of the way by
Isaiah 42: 21 Christ. Col. 2: 14
Gives knowledge of sin. Was instituted in consequence of sin.
Rom. 3: 20; 7: 7 Lev. 3 - 7
Was placed in the ark. Ex. 40: 20 Was placed in the side of the ark.
1 Kings 8: 9; Heb. 9: 4 Deut. 31: 24 – 26
With such clarity, as is described by the preceding illustration, dispensationalists should
have no problems in realizing that the Sabbath is not a ceremonial law, but yet they still
insist the Sabbath is ceremonial. It must be emphasized, before proceeding any further
on this matter, that dispensationalists, though they can mutually exclude the laws in
citations to clarify points of theological interest; they visualize the ceremonial and moral
laws as only one Jewish law jointly exhaustive. This is emphasized by Martin where he
says, “We do not mean that the law has no moral and ceremonial aspects, for it has, but
they are only aspects, not separate codes or units” (Kingdom Of The Cults, 486). We do
not argue that the ceremonial and moral laws were jointly exhaustive within the Mosaic
covenant. However, that these laws were not mutually exclusive within the jointly
exhaustive system of law, we do argue against; for it was God Himself that ordained the
distinctions noted in the preceding illustration.
That contextual relationships with the word “law” distinguish between the moral
law and the ceremonial law can be visualized in Matthew 5:17 – 29. When Jesus said
that he did not come to do away with the law, He was speaking of the 10 commandments,
By D. S. Farris27
27

for he deals with issues that revolve around adultery and murder—two commandments
out of the 10. The context of the chapter demands that Jesus was speaking about the 10-
commandment law. The same principle can be applied in Romans 3, for Paul speaks of
the law that reveals sin; the 10 commandments reveal sin. This is why, in verse 31, Paul
emphasizes that the law is not abolished. Martin argues that such distinctions are
fictitious:
If, however, the ceremonial law and the Decalogue are inextricably bound
together, and if both are referred to as “the law,” the distinction which the
Adventists and others make between them is fictitious. To prove this is to nullify
their interpretation concerning “the moral law” (Kingdom Of The Cults, 486).
If there are no distinctions between the moral and the ceremonial laws, as
dispensationalists maintain, then the Bible contradicts itself; for Ephesians 2:15 and
Colossians 2:14 say the law is abolished, while Matthew 5:17 – 19 and Romans 3:31 say
the law is not abolished. Dispensationalists—through their methods of interpretation—
would have us believe that the Bible says: “The law is abolished”; “the law is not
abolished”; “the law is abolished”; “the law is not abolished”; and on and on. We have
emphasized from the beginning of this course that dispensationalism is a system of self-
contradictions. Dispensationalism by nature is a systematic methodology—superimposed
on the Bible—that creates a superfluity of oxymorons. As the “Four pillars” were clearly
revealed to be a complete contradiction to, not only to the Bible, but also within
dispensationalism itself, so it is with the issue of the law. Here is the problem with
dispensationalism:
Dispensationalism THE BIBLE
The Rapture is secret The Rapture is visible
Christ’s second coming is split in two There is one phase
The Day of the Lord is different from the Day of Christ Both Days are identical
There are two first resurrections There is only one
There are two New Covenants There is only one
There are two gospels There is only one
There are two distinct thrones There is only one
There are two kingdoms There is only one.
The Jews are God’s chosen people Distinctions are abolished
There are two seeds of promise There is only one
The Sabbath is done away Not one iota passed away
The ceremonial laws are to be reinstituted. They are abolished
What is amazing is the fact that dispensational theology says that the moral and
ceremonial laws are one law…abolished by Christ; but yet, they insist that the ceremonial
law is to be reinstituted during the millennium for national Israel. This is a bald face
contradiction to Colossians 2:14 and Ephesians 2:15. In other words, dispensational
theology juggles the scriptures to suit its superimposed design for Zionism. Not only do
dispensationalists—by asserting that the laws have no distinctions—make the scriptures
say, “the law is abolished”; “the law is not abolished”; the “law is abolished”; “the law is
not abolished,” but they go even further into jugglery and blatantly contradict Colossians
2:14 and Ephesians 2:15 and say that the very laws, which Paul said are abolished, will
Copyright 8/27/0328
28

be reinstituted; and moreover, dispensationalists take the law (Matthew 5:17 – 19) that
Jesus said would not be abolished, and abolish it. In all truth, this worthless Gnostic
theology has only one real purpose—to eliminate the Sabbath—and they “dance between
the rain drops”—even when the contradictions are glaring.
It is a fact that God’s moral law of 10 commandments is not to be abolished by
any human hand. When God took the blue stone from His throne and—with His finger—
wrote the 10 commandments, He was writing a perpetual law that could not be abolished.
Neither are we to imagine that, some how, the fourth commandment has been chiseled
out of the Decalogue. We agree that the ceremonial laws have been abolished (Col. 2:14;
Eph. 2:15), but not the moral law (Matt. 5:17 – 19). Martin’s argument, “The Adventist
insistence that there are two separate codes of laws, the moral and the ceremonial, and the
former is in effect today and the latter was abolished at the cross, finds, we believe, no
exegetical or theological basis in Scripture,”(Kingdom Of The Cults, 493) is obliterated
by Paul himself:
Ephesians 2:15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of
commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from
the two, thus making peace,
Colossians 2:14 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.
The phrase “in ordinances” distinguishes—in a mutually exclusive framework—a
distinction between certain laws. Therefore, categorically, we must conclude that the
ceremonial, shadow, or ordinance laws are distinct from the moral law. This logical
conclusion eliminates the idiotic result of: “The law is Abolished”; “The law is not
abolished,” an outcome—in the hand of the “no law” theorists—which makes the Bible a
grotesque monstrosity. In all the main themes of Scripture, dispensationalists contradict
the plain utterances. Throughout this course we have demonstrated this fact, and so it is
with the issues of the Law and the Sabbath.
Shadow And Ordinance As Terms
There are 2 terminologies—classifications—that contain within their brackets the
Ceremonial laws: The words’ “ordinances” and “shadow.” Let us now define these
terms. Exodus 25:9, 40 tell us that the sanctuary materials were made after a pattern
(Heb. Tabnith, “Form, plan, figure, image”). We learn in Hebrews 8:5 that the Old
Testament sanctuary was an example (Gr. Hupodeigma, “Imitation, representation,
figure, copy”) and shadow (Gr. Skia, “An image cast by an object and representing the
form of that object”) of heavenly things. In essence, a shadow is something that serves as
an image of a future reality. A shadow—being an image—finds its consummation or
finality once that reality has come into being. The whole Mosaic sanctuary service—with
its ordinances, laws, and sacrifices pointed to Jesus. When Jesus died on the cross, the
Jewish nation no longer needed to sacrifice animals, for the animal sacrifices were a
shadow—an image—that found their consummation at Calvary. Now, with this in mind,
let us underscore which law was a shadow.
By D. S. Farris29
29

Hebrews 10:
1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very
image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer
continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once
purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.
5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: "Sacrifice and offering You
did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me.
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure.
7 Then I said, 'Behold, I have come -- In the volume of the book it is written of
Me -- To do Your will, O God.' "
8 Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin
You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the
law),
9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the
first that He may establish the second.
The commandments: “thou shalt have no other gods before me”; “thou shalt not make
graven images”; “thou shalt not kill”; “thou shalt not steal”; and ect cannot be described
as shadows that reach an end at the cross. These laws are the basis of the Christian faith.
Indeed there is a distinction between the 10 commandments and the shadow laws.
Therefore, in light of the fact that the Sabbath was placed by God—not Moses—into the
10 commandments, perspicuously shows that it is not ceremonial in nature but moral in
nature.
Ceremonial Sabbath Issues
Now that we have discovered that the Moral and Ceremonial laws are ultimately
different, we can now proceed to deal with the issue of the Sabbath. Dispensationalists
believe that the 7th
day Sabbath no longer applies today, for they believe that the Sabbath
was a ceremonial law. One of the main scriptures that is used for this argument is
Colossians 2:16, 17 which says, “So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or
regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to
come, but the substance is of Christ.”
Undoubtedly, Colossians 2:14, 20 – 23 indicate that the shadow or ordinance law
is the law in question in this chapter. Could it be that the Sabbath or Sabbaths (plurality
or singularity is irrelevant, for God has used plurality for the 7th
day Sabbath—Ezekiel
20:12, 20 and singularity for the ceremonial Sabbaths Lev. 23) in question here belong to
the shadow laws that were abolished. The context of the chapter demands this outlook;
moreover, Colossians 2:16 actually connect “festivity” and “new moons” with the
Sabbaths in question. Let us ask: Are there Sabbaths of festivity that revolve around the
new moons?
NKJ Leviticus 23:
1 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
Copyright 8/27/0330
30

2 "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'The feasts of the
LORD, which you shall proclaim to be holy convocations, these are My
feasts.
The Seventh Day Sabbath
3 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn
rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work on it; it is the Sabbath of
the LORD in all your dwellings.
Note: First God set in perspective the Seventh day Sabbath before explaining the
additional ones.
Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread
4 These are the feasts of the LORD, holy convocations which you shall
proclaim at their appointed times.
5 'On the fourteenth day of the first month at twilight is the LORD's
Passover.
6 'And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened
Bread to the LORD; seven days you must eat unleavened bread.
7 'On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall do no
customary work on it.
8 'But you shall offer an offering made by fire to the LORD for seven
days. The seventh day shall be a holy convocation; you shall do no
customary work on it.' "
Firstfruits (Fall harvests)
9 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
10 "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'When you come into
the land which I give to you, and reap its harvest, then you shall bring a
sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest to the priest.
11 'He shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted on your
behalf; on the day after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it.
12 'And you shall offer on that day, when you wave the sheaf, a male lamb
of the first year, without blemish, as a burnt offering to the LORD.
13 'Its grain offering shall be two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed
with oil, an offering made by fire to the LORD, for a sweet aroma; and its
drink offering shall be of wine, one-fourth of a hin.
14 'You shall eat neither bread nor parched grain nor fresh grain until
the same day that you have brought an offering to your God; it shall
be a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.
The Feast of Pentecost
By D. S. Farris31
31

15 ' And you shall count for yourselves from the day after the
Sabbath, from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering:
seven Sabbaths shall be completed.
16 'Count fifty days to the day after the seventh Sabbath; then you shall
offer a new grain offering to the LORD.
17 'You shall bring from your dwellings two wave loaves of two-tenths of
an ephah. They shall be of fine flour; they shall be baked with leaven.
They are the firstfruits to the LORD.
18 'And you shall offer with the bread seven lambs of the first year,
without blemish, one young bull, and two rams. They shall be as a burnt
offering to the LORD, with their grain offering and their drink offerings,
an offering made by fire for a sweet aroma to the LORD.
19 'Then you shall sacrifice one kid of the goats as a sin offering, and two
male lambs of the first year as a sacrifice of a peace offering.
20 'The priest shall wave them with the bread of the firstfruits as a wave
offering before the LORD, with the two lambs. They shall be holy to the
LORD for the priest.
21 'And you shall proclaim on the same day that it is a holy
convocation to you. You shall do no customary work on it. It shall be a
statute forever in all your dwellings throughout your generations.
22 ' When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the
corners of your field when you reap, nor shall you gather any gleaning
from your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger: I
am the LORD your God.' "
Blowing Of Trumpets
23 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
24 "Speak to the children of Israel, saying: 'In the seventh month, on the
first day of the month, you shall have a sabbath-rest, a memorial of
blowing of trumpets, a holy convocation.
25 'You shall do no customary work on it; and you shall offer an
offering made by fire to the LORD.' "
Day of Atonement
26 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying:
27 "Also the tenth day of this seventh month shall be the Day of
Atonement. It shall be a holy convocation for you; you shall afflict your
souls, and offer an offering made by fire to the LORD.
28 "And you shall do no work on that same day, for it is the Day of
Atonement, to make atonement for you before the LORD your God.
29 "For any person who is not afflicted in soul on that same day shall be
cut off from his people.
30 "And any person who does any work on that same day, that person I
will destroy from among his people.
Copyright 8/27/0332
32

Chapter12 elijah vs. false prophet

Chapter12 elijah vs. false prophet

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Chapter12 elijah vs. false prophet

Similar to Chapter12 elijah vs. false prophet (8)

More from Antonio Bernard

More from Antonio Bernard (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (17)

Chapter12 elijah vs. false prophet