If you have read my series on the New Covenant you know that it was treasure I had found in the Bible that led me out of Adventist Beliefs.  If you want a positive presentation of it I recommend you follow the link above and set aside some time in your day to dig in,  if your story is like mine was you won’t want to stop.

For those who are familiar with this Biblical teaching though I am going to present a sample of the passages that the Bible teaches the New Covenant doctrine in and compare them to those found in the Clear Word.

Did the author of the Clear Word feel the need to change New Covenant texts?  Did these texts bug him at all?  Or did he leave them be?  Let’s take a look!

Something important to understand is that when the Bible refers to the Old Covenant it consistently does so in a broader sense, as a whole.  There is no distinguishing between say, the Law of Moses and the Ten Commandments like SDA like to assert.

You can see above that the writer of the clear word may have been picking up on this because he narrowed the text for his reader so that it only applies to something “Levitical” and pertaining to “Moses”.  The casual reader will probably miss this but those accustomed to Adventist lingo will not.

Where did Abraham come from in this verse?  He isn’t mentioned at all in the Holy Bible.  Also, why are positive statements of something becoming obsolete and being done away with changed into negative statements of “NOT” doing away with?  It’s a complete reversal of meaning.

Also, we see the old covenant narrowed to Levitical and juxtaposed against Abraham.  These themes are not conveyed in the Holy Bible.  If the writer believed that Hebrews taught SDA theology why did he feel the need to monkey around with the text?

Notice that in the Holy Bible you have two distinctly different covenants juxtaposed against each other.  The new is replacing the old.  Also, the New Covenant is “not according” to the Old.  This is consistent with the language from Hebrews 8 I quoted above.

Notice when we were in Hebrews the author of the Clear Word felt the need to narrow the covenant to a Levitical / Moses thing.  But here in Jeremiah he is handling the same language and doesn’t even render it in the same manner that he did Hebrews.  Instead, now we have an everlasting covenant that only seems like a new one but isn’t.  And he puts in an extra covenant created by the Israelites.  What????

The passage in Hebrews is quoting and interpreting Jeremiah.  How can the author of the Clear Word think that they are not talking about the same thing?  Why does he feel the need to change both of these, and make the same essential text teach and convey completely different meanings while both squeeze in room for SDA beliefs by alternate means?

This one makes me very sad to read.  The author of the Clear Word removes new covenant completely from the text and then adds in a symbolic referent.  The New Covenant is not symbolic, it is the literal body and blood of Christ.  Let us agree that here, it is clear that the author has exactly what he says he has.

He does not have a New Covenant in the Body and Blood of Christ.  He has grape juice representing the Old Covenant, and that’s not what Christ instituted.  This is a false Christ and and false institution of a “symbolic” covenant being taught in the Clear Word.

Notice that the Holy Bible demonstrates the law as being overcome by the Gospel.  The Clear Word however transforms this concept into one of Moralism, and in doing so removes all meaning from the Gospel.  So at the end of the day you are left with neither.

Notice right at the outset the term “ministry of death” applied to the Ten Commandments was completely removed.  Why did the SDA feel the need to remove that?  In my opinion this is simply because the Ten Commandments is their gospel.  Here Paul has profaned the gospel of the Adventist Church by calling it the Ministry of Death.  Obviously that had to be deleted.

Carefully read the text of the Holy Bible on the left.  Notice that the referent to Glory is the law engraved on stones.  The face of Moses shines as an effect of the Glory, but the referent to glory itself is not his face.  Thus the referent to passing away is that which was engraved on stones as well.  There is no escaping this without changing the words around and adding in new concepts not in the text.  Which is what SDA have done.

Notice that the Glory in the Clear Word is changed to the face of Moses only.  They switch it so that it is the shine on his face that is passing away instead of that engraved on stones.  Then they add in a juxtaposition of what was written on stones being written on the heart.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say the ten commandments are written on the heart.  The Bible will use the word law but it doesn’t use the term “Ten Commandments”.  SDA want this in there badly which is apparent in that they felt the need to change the Bible to incorporate it.

Notice in the Holy Bible the referent for ministry of condemnation is the ministry of death associated with that which was engraved on the tablets of stone in the context of the preceding verses.  This is juxtaposed over and against the Ministry of Righteousness which remains, while the prior is passing away.

The Clear Word narrows these broad statements and juggles the referent around.  Words like promises and services and put in to obfuscate referent and bring to mind specific elements of the Old Covenant rather than the whole entire thing.  Why did the writer of the Clear Word feel the need to narrow broad terms?  If he truly believed that the Bible taught Adventist beliefs would he not be able to keep it as it was?

Notice that the Holy Bible maintains the referent of the passing Glory as apart from the face of Moses while the Clear Word draws them together.  This is because the author of the Clear Word doesn’t seem to like the idea of the tablets of stone passing away.

Notice this even comes out in the Clear Word, he has to narrow this veil to “in one sense” and insert the concept of “misapply[ing]” it.  With regards to the author of the clear word and those who hold to it’s teachings, the veil spoken of in this passage applies to them as well.  This is apparent from reading this passage alone in the Clear Word, as the meaning of the Holy Bible must be hidden from them and altered for SDA doctrine to survive.

Conclusion

One can easily discern from how SDA have had to mangle just a few passages on this topic that they simply don’t believe in the New Covenant taught by the Bible.  They have a different covenant not instituted by Christ.  Make no mistake, as you read the Bible under SDA teaching you need to re-arrange those words in your mind.  The Clear Word has simply given us a visual display of this brain washing.

I hope by following this series you are seeing that this is how SDA expect you to understand the words.  You end up losing the Bible, though you have it in your hand all the words need to be filtered through a lens whenever you approach something that contradicts SDA teaching.

The sad part is, that in doing so you lose the New Covenant Christ instituted.  You end up with a false covenant and a false gospel given by a false prophet.  It’s is a cheap and burdensome exchange.