Disclaimer


IAUA

IAUA End Time Ministry

Preparing for the End of Time

The Lord is Coming!   Are you ready?

Home

I have spoken often and highly of Bible Explorations and the book An Innovative Approach to Holy History, which I read for the first time about the summer of 2002. In 2006 I received a copy of the second Edition, which had a wide mailing to Seventh-day Adventists in the United States. I spoke of my concerns about a change in the book in the 2006-10-06 newsletter.

Chapter Two, Page 16 of the Second Edition of the Holy History book (81 page mailing edition) by Elder John L. VanDenburgh contains a two paragraph quote of Pam Benton. This quote states that you can get an idea of the difference between statutes that remain and those that don't by the difference in the two Hebrew words used for Statutes. This was added in the second edition and is not found in the original edition.


REGARDING THE STATUTES

Pam Benton, in her book Diamonds in the Sand, points out which statutes are to be observed forever and which are not. “Our English word statute comes from two original Hebrew words, Strong’s #2706 choq and Strong’s #2708 chuggah. According to Strong’s Lexical Aids, the definitions for both words are the same, except #2708 has the added qualifier of being permanently binding. The word statutes (#2706) most always refers to the sacrificial system and is not permanently binding. The word statutes (#2708) most always refers to the moral law, including God’s holy days in Leviticus chapter 23, and is permanently binding. Thus the original Hebrew words themselves suggest to us which statutes are permanently binding.

Another interesting point she makes is that “sacrificial system statutes (#2706) are in the masculine tense, whereas God’s Holy Day statutes (#2708) are in the feminine tense. Jesus, our Bridegroom who became a man and died for our sins, fulfilled the sacrificial system statutes that are in the masculine tense and were binding until the cross. God’s Church the Bride, fulfills the moral law statutes that are in the feminine tense and are binding forever. The Bride (God’s people) recognizes the tremendous price that the Bridegroom (Jesus) has paid and so she honors her Groom by spending extra time with Him every year for eternity. She does this because of the deep love that she has for Him and not because of a sense of duty that she must “do.” Keeping God’s Holy Days fulfills part of the Church’s covenant to be the Bride. (See Revelation 21:2,9). Only those who wear the white wedding garment (Day of Atonement message), representing the righteousness of Jesus, will be saved. (Matthew 22:11-13).”


I have studied this quote very carefully and I do not see the pattern that is claimed to be there. What I read in the Bible does not seem to match the description given. The information on the Hebrew words can be verified at the web site links. This is a summary of the problems I see with these words.

Pam says that Strongs #H2706 represents statutes that no longer apply. It is used in dozens of proof texts for the statutes including my favorite:

Malachi 4:4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes (#H2706) and judgments.

Pam says that Strongs #H2708 which applies to numerous sacrificial and temple rituals still applies.

Numbers 19:2 This is the ordinance (#H2708) of the law which the LORD hath commanded, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke

Ezekial 43:18 And he said unto me, Son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; These are the ordinances (#H2708) of the altar in the day when they shall make it, to offer burnt offerings thereon, and to sprinkle blood thereon.

Ezekial 46:14 And thou shalt prepare a meat offering for it every morning, the sixth part of an ephah, and the third part of an hin of oil, to temper with the fine flour; a meat offering continually by a perpetual ordinance (#H2708) unto the LORD.

This inconsistency in a pattern Pam claims to see is confusing and misleading causing a stumblingblock for those seeking truth.


Revised 2014-12-05