What Is the Church's Vocation?

17 May 2026

This is Part 2 of a series on Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise.

In this article:

• The Hebrew Vocation
• God’s Election of the Jews
• The Adventist Vocation

Many conservatives in the Adventist church believe that what was wrong about the first sin committed by Adam and Eve was not so much their consumption of the forbidden fruit as Eve’s choice to eat the fruit without her husband’s permission and Adam’s choice to allow his wife to usurp his spiritual authority. Thus, they believe that one of the primary aims of salvation is to restore the gender hierarchy that God had established before the Fall. Conservative Adventists have made it the church’s mission to restore this hierarchy by insisting that women ought to be subordinate to their husbands and that they ought not to be ordained as pastors or elders.

Growing up, I was surrounded by people who promoted a particularly legalistic form of this headship doctrine. Interpreting the Genesis account of the fall in light of 1 Timothy 2:15, one lay pastor of a congregation I attended taught that women could only be saved through childbearing and that men could only be saved through agricultural labor. For these traditionalists, salvation is earned by one’s commitment to an agrarian lifestyle and a hierarchical order between the sexes, rather than being a gracious gift accepted by faith.

Even if they would object to this extreme version of the headship doctrine, the complementarian leaders of the Adventist church seem to believe that the church’s mission is not just to proclaim the three angels’ messages, but to promote heteronormative sexual orientations, cisnormative gender identities, and a hierarchy between the sexes. Because they interpret the seventh commandment as demanding obedience to these norms, they believe that promoting them is an inextricable part of advancing the three angels’ messages, which proclaim the necessity of keeping God’s commandments (Revelation 4:12).

An Adventist complementarian might object to my view that their belief system is legalistic. They would contend that while we are saved through faith, faith itself is only exemplified by one’s willingness to abide by the sexual order established by God at creation. However, from my perspective, there is no difference between conservatives’ claim that their sexual norms are necessary elements of faith and the legalistic position that these norms are necessary conditions for salvation, especially if one teaches that we are saved through faith. Both claims are legalistic, in that they regard works of the law as essential to salvation. In my view, the practical effect of the church’s interpretation of the three angels’ messages, as codified in its thirteenth Fundamental Belief (“The Remnant and Its Mission”), is to defend its legalistic soteriology by grounding it in its eschatology.

The Adventist church’s legalism results from its failure to understand its vocation in light of an interpretation of the Old Testament that is consistent with the writings of the apostle Paul. Paul interpreted the Jewish law not as applying to all people in all periods, but as applying specifically to the ancient Israelites. He maintained that God gave us the law to illustrate its inadequacy in saving us. In doing so, God prepared to reveal to us a moral principle that transcends the norms embodied in the doctrines of any particular culture. This transcendent moral principle consists of the love for one’s neighbor exemplified by Christ. For Paul, we are only bound by the Jewish law’s demands insofar as it embodies this higher moral principle.

Like Paul, the philosopher Benedict de Spinoza also did not regard the Jewish law as universally or unconditionally binding. To defend the separation of church and state against his conservative Calvinist contemporaries, who sought to legally enforce their interpretation of the Ten Commandments, Spinoza argued in his Theological-Political Treatise that the vocation of the ancient Hebrews, as codified in their laws, was not eternally ordained by God. Rather, since God only ordained the Jewish law to be the constitution of the ancient Israelite state, obeying it is neither necessary for salvation nor for the constitution of a new state.

In this article, I will discuss the third chapter of Spinoza’s treatise, in which he examines the Hebrew vocation and whether the Jews were elected by God to serve a special purpose. After summarizing his views, I will evaluate them in light of Paul’s arguments in Romans 9–11. I will show that while Spinoza is correct that the Jewish law was not intended to be universally or unconditionally binding, he is wrong to suggest that there is no sense in which the ancient Israelites were elected by God to serve a particular purpose. After explaining how the ancient Israelites were elected by God, I will consider the implications of these arguments for Adventism. Using its views on sexuality as an example, I will discuss whether the Adventist church has sufficiently avoided the mistake that Paul attributes to the ancient Jews due to their adherence to the Levitical law.

The Hebrew Vocation

In the third chapter of his Theological-Political Treatise, Spinoza argues “that the Hebrews excelled other nations neither in knowledge nor piety” and that they “were chosen above others by God not, despite their frequently being admonished, with a view to the true life and elevated conceptions.”¹ Rather, he suggests that the ancient Hebrews had no unique qualities or virtues that distinguished them from other nations, and that it is therefore inappropriate to claim that they were elected by God to fulfill a special purpose. The only sense, in Spinoza’s view, in which it is possible to state that the Hebrews excelled other nations is that “they conducted the affairs that affected the security of life successfully and overcame great dangers, and did so, on the whole, solely through God’s assistance.”² Spinoza’s concern, throughout the rest of the Treatise, is to determine the nature of the assistance that God provided the Jewish people and to derive principles of just governance from the model of the ancient Hebrew state, especially one that preserves the respective domains of philosophy and theology, which I introduced in the previous part of this series.

Spinoza begins this argument by stating, “All things which we honestly desire may be reduced to three principal categories: (i) to understand things through their primary causes; (ii) to control the passions, that is to acquire the habit of virtue; (iii) and, lastly, to live securely and in good health.”³ Because the causes of the first two categories of desires are to be found in our innate or natural abilities, he states, “it may be categorically asserted that these gifts were never peculiar to any one nation but were always common to the entire human race.” By contrast, our success in attaining the third category of desires depends on our social environment. Spinoza argues that “reason and experience have taught us no surer means [of securing this aim] than to establish a society with fixed laws, to occupy a determinate region of the earth and to bring everyone’s resources into one body, if we may call it that, the body of a society.”⁴ It is how various groups of people have approached the problem of forming societies that distinguishes one from another.

According to Spinoza, what distinguished the ancient Israelites from the other nations was simply the way they approached the problem of state-building. He argues, “The Hebrew people … was chosen by God above others not for its understanding or for its qualities of mind, but owing to the form of its society and the good fortune, over so many years, with which it shaped and preserved its state.” That is, “Their election and vocation therefore lay only in the success and the prosperity at that time of their commonwealth.” Spinoza suggests that this is evident from the Bible itself: “Nothing else is promised in the Bible in return for their obedience but the continued prosperity of their state and the other good things of this life; while, conversely, for disobedience and the breaking of the covenant, they are threatened with the ruin of their polity and severe hardship.” These consequences are only natural, he continues, because if the people of a society disobey its laws, chaos and dissolution will inevitably result. Here Spinoza is promoting a nationalistic and naturalistic conception of the Jewish laws: “I would add merely that the laws of the Old Testament too were revealed and prescribed only to the Jews; for since God chose them alone to form a particular commonwealth and state, they had necessarily to have unique laws as well.”⁵

Spinoza quotes several Bible passages to claim that the Hebrews were not alone in “acquir[ing] their own particular laws and government via God’s external direction.” First, citing Genesis 14, he notes that “before God founded the Israelite nation, he had appointed kings and priests in Jerusalem”—namely Melchizedek—“and given them rights and laws.” He argues that Abraham must have observed these rights and laws as they were given to Melchizedek, for Genesis 26:5 indicates “that Abraham observed the cult, precepts, practices and laws of God” although God had not explicitly revealed them to Abraham. Second, Spinoza quotes Malachi 1:11: “I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name and a pure offering, for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.”⁶ This passage indicates, in Spinoza’s view, “that other peoples had rites and ceremonies which made them acceptable to God.” Third, Spinoza notes Job 28:28: “And [God] said to humankind, ‘Truly, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.’” This indicates “that God prescribed this law to the whole human race,” namely, that people should do good.⁷

Spinoza finds the best support for his argument in the Book of Romans. In Romans 3:29–30, Paul says: “Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.” Here Paul is responding to an issue he raises in the preceding chapter (2:25–26): “Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you are a transgressor of the law your circumcision has become uncircumcision. So, if the uncircumcised keep the requirements of the law, will not their uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?” Moreover, although Paul states that “both Jews and Greeks are under the power of sin” (Romans 3:9), he states, “but where there is no law, neither is there transgression” (Romans 4:15). From these passages, Spinoza concludes,

It is entirely evident from this that the law has been revealed to everyone without exception (as we also proved above from Job 28:28), that all men have lived under it, and that this law is the law which aims at true virtue alone, and is not the law which is shaped by the form and constitution of one particular state and adapted to the character of a single people. Finally, Paul concludes that God is the God of all nations … and all men are equally under law and sin, and that is why God sent his Christ to all nations, to free all men equally from the servitude of the law, so that they would no longer live good lives because the law so commanded, but from a fixed conviction of the mind.⁸

Given this biblical evidence, Spinoza rejects the idea, prevalent among his Calvinist opponents, “that the election of the Jews was not temporal and applicable only to their commonwealth, but eternal.” Rather, when “the prophets announced to them a new and eternal covenant of God, a covenant of knowledge, love and grace,” this covenant must have been “promised only to the pious.” And “since this election is made solely on the basis of true virtue,” it must have been promised to other pious peoples besides the Jews. The fact that God prescribed his law to other nations indicates either that the other nations knew through natural knowledge what the Jewish people only knew through a prophetic revelation, or that the other nations also had prophets. Therefore, “we must accept that the true gentile prophets … also promised the same election to the faithful of their peoples and offered them its consolation.”⁹

God’s Election of the Jews

Spinoza raises a significant theological issue when he states that God’s election of the Jews was only temporal and concerned with the constitution of the Jewish state. Although Spinoza cites Paul in support of his views, his claims contradict Paul’s arguments in Romans concerning God’s election of the Jews. Although we might agree with Spinoza that God did not favor the Jews over others, Paul explains in Romans 9 that God elected the Jews not only to serve as an example of the Law’s inadequacy to secure our salvation but also to be the nation from which the Messiah would come.

Paul’s discussion of the election of the Jews in Romans 9 is challenging for two reasons. First, it is difficult to reconcile Paul’s remarks concerning the predestination of the Jews with the rejection of predestination by Christians who believe in free will or universal reconciliation. Second, the idea that God chose the Jews to exemplify the Law’s inadequacy seems either unjust or even antisemitic, if one is inclined to believe that the Jews deserved this lot either because of their repeated lapses into idolatry or their rejection of Christ. I will briefly address each of these problems.

Concerning the first difficulty, I do not believe that Paul’s statements concerning the predestination of the Jews are incompatible with believing in universal reconciliation or, at least, the doctrine of unlimited atonement. When we consider the entirety of Paul’s argument, it becomes clear that the predestination to which he is referring is not a predestination to salvation or damnation, but a predestination to serve a particular vocation—namely, to demonstrate the Law’s inadequacy and to thereby make way for the arrival of salvation by grace through faith in Christ. Paul notes two biblical examples of God’s election of people to serve his purposes: God chose Jacob over Esau (vv. 10–13), and he hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that he could deliver the Hebrews from Egypt (v. 17). Paul then inquires why God finds fault with anyone if they cannot resist his will (v. 19). His initial impulse is to say that human beings ought not to argue with God (vv. 20–22). However, he then suggests the possibility that God might wish to demonstrate his power against “the objects of wrath that are made for destruction” so that he can show the riches of his glory to those who have obtained mercy (v. 22). It is important to note that Paul is here referring not to the predestination of individuals for salvation, but to the predestination of the Jewish nation to serve as God’s means of bringing salvation to the world. This is clear from the Bible passages he quotes, which speak of a vocational election rather than a soteriological election (Hosea 2:23; 1:10; Isaiah 10:22–23; 13:19).

Paul continues to speak in terms of salvation and destruction, stating, for instance, “Though the number of the children of Israel were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved” (v. 27). Nonetheless, it is obvious that Paul is uncomfortable with his account of God’s election of the Jewish people. This becomes immediately evident in the following passage. “What then are we to say?” he asks. After all, the Gentiles attained righteousness by faith without having the law, while the Jews, who endeavored to faithfully keep the law, did not attain righteousness (vv. 30–31). The problem, as Paul recognizes it, is that the Jews strove for righteousness through their works rather than by faith (v. 32). This was inevitable: it was God who stated, “I am laying in Zion a stone that will make people stumble, a rock that will make them fall” (v. 33). Paul expresses no ill will towards the Jews: “my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved” (10:1). Rather, he commends them for their “zeal for God” (v. 2).

For Paul, Christ represents the solution to the problem of God’s election of the Jewish people, who despite their zeal were unable to attain righteousness: “For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes” (v. 4). Paul contrasts the righteousness by works, promised by Moses in Leviticus 18:5, with the righteousness by faith promised in Deuteronomy 30:12–14. He suggests that the latter passage foretells Christ’s resurrection (in its reference to the “abyss,” which in its original context referred to the sea) and ascension (in its reference to the heavens).¹⁰ Salvation comes from believing in one’s heart and confessing with one’s mouth that Christ was resurrected (vv. 5–10). Both Jews and Gentiles can thereby be saved, as God’s name is accessible to all (vv. 12–13). The purpose of proclaiming the gospel is to make Christ’s name known to all. Indeed, Paul states, God’s name has already gone out to all the earth (vv. 18–21). This is consistent with his statement at the outset of Romans, that “what can be known about God is plain” to everyone, because “his eternal power and divine nature” have been expressed in “the things he has made” (1:19–20). What remains is for people to accept by faith the salvation that God has already made available to them, as evidenced by Christ’s resurrection. God has predestined all to be recipients of this grace; and therefore, the predestination whereby God has made the power by which Christ was resurrected accessible to all is not incompatible with, but complements, the predestination whereby God chose the Israelites to demonstrate the inadequacy of static laws.

Concerning the second difficulty noted above, I do not believe we can hold Paul accountable for the subsequent misappropriation of his ideas by antisemites. Paul himself was Jewish, and his frustration was not with Jewish people as an ethnic group, but with the inadequacy of the Jewish ceremonies and laws to enable people to attain blessedness. Moreover, Paul nowhere suggests that God has rejected the Jews because they rejected Christ. To the contrary, he devotes the entirety of Romans 11 to arguing for exactly the contrary view. God, he states, has not rejected the Israelites (v. 1). A remnant of the Jewish people, saved by grace and not by works, still follows him, as in Elijah’s time (vv. 2–6). God elected the Jews to have a “sluggish spirit” and to face a “stumbling block,” but they have not stumbled as to fall, that is, to lose their salvation (vv. 8–11). Rather, they have stumbled to make salvation available to the Gentiles, who in turn will make Israel envious so they can again be included in God’s salvation (vv. 12–15). Paul hopes that his people will eventually be grafted back into the “olive tree,” a symbol representing those who are saved (vv. 17–24). Israel’s hearts have been hardened, as God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, but all Israel will nonetheless be saved (vv. 25–27). While they may be enemies of the gospel, they are still beloved by God, and their calling by God is irrevocable (vv. 28–29). Moreover, they are not unique in their disobedience to God: “God has imprisoned all”—both Jews and Gentiles—“in disobedience” by giving them the law, “so that he may be merciful to all” by giving them his Son (v. 32).

The Adventist Vocation

It is important to note how Paul’s argument in Romans 11 has been misappropriated, if not outright ignored, by Adventists. First, it is clear from the context of verse 5, which Adventists occasionally argue does not refer exclusively to literal Israel, but to a “spiritual Israel” consisting of those who believe in Christ and keep the Ten Commandments,¹¹ that their interpretation is incorrect. Paul was not speaking symbolically, as a prediction of the emergence of the Adventist church, but rather literally, as a reference to the Jewish people.

Second, it directly contradicts the church’s teaching that God has rejected the Jewish people because they rejected Christ. For example, Paul’s argument contradicts this statement by Ellen White: “In rejecting Christ, the Jewish nation put from them the blessings which he came to bring them. They bound themselves in everlasting chains of unbelief and resistance.”¹² Far from condemning the Jews for binding themselves in “everlasting chains of unbelief,” Paul expresses hope that all Israel will be saved because they were specially chosen by God.

Even if we were to suppose, however, that the remnant to which Romans 11 refers is a “spiritual Israel” rather than literal Israel, Paul’s overall argument in Romans 9–11 indicates that those who constitute the remnant are those who have faith in Christ, and not those who continue to regard the Jewish law as necessary for salvation. Although Paul is sympathetic to the Jews, he does not portray those who cling zealously to the Jewish law in a flattering light. He explicitly compares them to Esau and Pharaoh, stating that God has hardened their hearts to exemplify the Law’s inadequacy in securing salvation. There is no reason to suppose that this comparison applies only to literal Israel: anyone who tries to attain salvation through legalism becomes a living demonstration of the Law’s inadequacy and the need for salvation through faith, and this is as true for Adventists as it was for the Jews in Jesus’ time. The Adventist church should beware that God has not elected it to become a stumbling block because of its insistence on the Law, just as he elected the ancient Israelites (Romans 9:33).

As noted above, in Romans 10, Paul contrasts righteousness by works with righteousness by faith by comparing two passages from the Torah. He states, “Moses writes concerning the righteousness that comes from the law, that ‘the person who does these things will live by them’” (v. 5). This is a quotation from Leviticus 18:5: “You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances; by doing so one shall live.”

Do Adventists continue to believe that they will only be saved if they obey the Law? The answer is undoubtedly “yes.” Consider, for instance, that the church’s position statement on homosexuality explicitly cites Leviticus 18:5 to argue, “Sexual acts outside the circle of a heterosexual marriage are forbidden”¹³—and this even though Paul regards this verse as promoting righteousness by works! In recent years, the Adventist church has increasingly made opposition to non-heterosexual orientations and non-cisgender identities central to what it considers its missiological vocation. For instance, in 2023, the General Conference released a website, HumanSexuality.org, dedicated to promoting “God’s ideal for marriage,” which in its view consists of a monogamous, “heterosexual duality, between ‘a husband [Hebrew, ‘man’] and his wife [Hebrew, ‘woman’].’”¹⁴

The reason for the church’s insistence on a traditional conception of marriage is that church leaders regard this idea as foundational to the entirety of its conservative theology. Consider that according to the adherents of the headship doctrine, the original sin consisted of a violation of the gender hierarchy that, in their view, constitutes a marriage—namely, that Adam abdicated his spiritual headship over Eve by allowing her to usurp his authority in choosing whether to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. This doctrine effectively teaches that sin is primarily a disordering of the human relationships that God established in the Garden of Eden. Given this interpretation of sin’s origins, it is no wonder that Adventist church leaders regard the restoration of the order established in Eden as the main aim of the plan of salvation. Since conservative Adventists regard the seventh commandment as prohibiting all forms of non-procreative sexual activity—and not simply adultery—they regard the restoration of a heterosexual, cisgender hierarchy as part of the vindication of God’s Law.

A glance at HumanSexuality.org readily shows that to advance its conservative theological agenda, the church relies extensively on the argument that the prohibitions contained in Leviticus 18 are still in effect. For instance, in one article on the site, Ekkehardt Mueller argues—notwithstanding Paul’s explicit statement in Romans 10:5—that “in Romans 1:26, 27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10, Paul alludes to Leviticus 18 and 20 and makes his own statement about homosexuality. The law was still valid in Paul’s time, and Paul did not indicate that it was to be abolished.”¹⁵ Elsewhere, Mueller explains,

Although Paul lived several hundred years after the giving of the law through Moses, obviously this law is—in his opinion—still applicable to NT times. The mention of the adult–adult homosexual intercourse in [Romans 1:27] is dependent on Lev. 18 and 20… . Dealing with the objection that Romans 1 “identifies a temporary Jewish purity rule rather than a universal moral principle” De Young insightfully remarks: “God cannot consign the Gentiles to punishment for breaking a Jewish purity law.” Since God punishes people who practice homosexuality, the laws of Lev. 18 and 20 must have a moral quality and be universal in nature.¹⁶

In other words, according to Mueller, Paul regarded the prohibition of homosexuality to be universally applicable to all people, and not simply to the Jews who lived under the Levitical laws. Mueller’s argument rests on the assumption that in Romans 1:24–27, where Paul regards homosexuality as the natural consequence of idolatry, he is basing his argument on Leviticus 18. However, although Paul’s opposition to homosexuality was certainly conditioned by his Jewish upbringing, Mueller ignores the obvious fact that in addressing the Gentiles, Paul is not relying on the authority of the Levitical law, but on an argument from natural law. Paul argues that the idolatry that results from people conflating nature with God leads people to engage in homosexual acts.

Nevertheless, despite Paul’s statements in this passage, when we consider his overall argument in Romans, we find him teaching that through faith in Christ, we are saved not only from the Levitical law, but also from the natural law, to which all are universally subject. When Paul states that what we can know about God’s divinity and power has been expressed in nature (Romans 1:19–20), he indicates, to use Spinoza’s words quoted above, that “the law has been revealed to everyone without exception … , that all men have lived under it, and that this law is the law which aims at true virtue alone, and is not the law which is shaped by the form and constitution of one particular state and adapted to the character of a single people.” In other words, the law to which all are universally subject is not the Levitical law, which was only intended as the constitution of the ancient Israelite state (a point to which I will return in the next part of this series), but the natural law which can be known by everyone. The only actions that are prohibited by this natural law are those which harm our endeavor to persevere in our existence. Moreover, the punishments for actions that the natural law deems bad must themselves be natural consequences of those actions, otherwise we cannot say that nature prohibits them. If we cannot demonstrate through the natural light of reason that something is naturally harmful to us, then we cannot affirm that it is prohibited by God’s natural law.

Paul’s argument against homosexuality in Romans 1 breaks down at this point, for it is not evident how the natural law prohibits homosexual acts. Paul suggests, in Romans 1:27, that gay men “received in their own persons the due penalty for their error,” suggesting, perhaps, that they contracted some venereal disease. However, not all same-sex intercourse causes people to contract venereal diseases, nor are venereal diseases exclusive to those who engage in same-sex intercourse. If there are natural punishments for sexual activities, it can only be due to promiscuity in general, and not specifically homosexuality. Paul’s prejudice against homosexuality appears to be conditioned by his Jewish upbringing, and not by a consideration of the empirical evidence.

When the Adventist church cites Paul’s remarks in Romans 1:24–27 in support of its prohibition of homosexuality, it is only relying on him to the extent that he uncritically parrots the prohibition against homosexuality in the Levitical law. If it were Paul’s intention in Romans 1 to argue that the Levitical prohibition of homosexuality applied equally to Gentiles as to Jews, then he subsequently undermines his argument in Romans 10:5 by suggesting that the Levitical law amounts to righteousness by works. However, this was not Paul’s intention. Rather, it is clear that Paul was trying to ground Jewish moral norms in a more universally accessible view of the natural law. Given the weakness of the correlation he establishes between homosexual activity and the natural, harmful consequences of this behavior, his attempt was, in my assessment, a failure. Nevertheless, the Adventist church is not concerned with identifying, on a scientific basis, the reason why nature prohibits homosexuality—and the reason for this is not only that there is no evidence that homosexuality is a harmful medical condition, but that the church does not regard empirical evidence as worth considering.

The church’s uncritical appropriation of Paul’s argument in Romans 1 reflects a deeper misunderstanding of his overall point in Romans, which remains valid despite his poorly justified comments on homosexuality. Regardless of our actions, we are all subject to the law of nature, in that we are all part of nature. Nature, in turn, is subject to degeneration and death. Although we can endeavor to persevere in our existence for as long as possible, and it overcome by disease or old age. Those who indulge too heavily in sensual pleasures may be more likely to meet an early demise, but even those who faithfully keep the law—whether the natural law or the Levitical law—will eventually die. Although the natural law can, as Spinoza argues, teach us what is virtuous by showing us how we can live healthily, it cannot save us from death, as it is because of the natural law that we will eventually die.

In contrast to righteousness by works, righteousness by faith does not seek the source of life in obedience to the Levitical law, which cannot counteract the natural law. Rather, it finds the source of life in Christ, who dwells universally in our hearts (Romans 10:8). Christ, it should be emphasized, is not the special possession of a remnant. Rather, since we are all subject to the natural law of death, all should likewise have the ability to find within their hearts the source of liberation from death, namely Christ, whose resurrection demonstrated to the early Christians God’s power to overcome death. Paul maintained that by believing and confessing Christ’s resurrection, we can likewise participate in this salvation from death (Romans 10:9–10). This is the position Paul explicitly contrasts with the righteousness by works promoted in Leviticus 18:5, which promises life through obedience to the Levitical statutes. Insofar as Adventists continue to promise eternal life through obedience to these statutes—and more generally, insofar as the church continues to teach that the purpose of salvation is to secure our obedience to God’s law—their teachings likewise stand in sharp contrast with the Christian message proclaimed by Paul.

The church should not adopt as its vocation the same zealous fidelity to the Levitical law by which the ancient Israelites demonstrated the Law’s inadequacy. Rather, if the church is to remain faithful to the Christian message, it should proclaim the salvation that comes from believing and confessing that the power by which Christ was resurrected from the dead is likewise present in our hearts. Only then can it demonstrate that it belongs to the true spiritual remnant of those who are saved through faith.