Note: Francis David Nichol (1897 –1966) was born in Australia, but his family moved to Loma Linda, California, in 1905, when he was 8 years old. Nichol was graduated from Pacific Union College in 1920 and joined the staff of Signs of the Times the next year. In 1927, he became an associate editor of Adventist Review; in 1945, upon the retirement of Francis Wilcox, Nichol became the editor of the Review, a post which he held until his death in 1966.
In addition to editing the Review, Nichol was chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Ellen G. White Estate, and supervising editor of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. He was widely considered the leading twentieth-century apologist for the prophetic ministry of Ellen G. White. Walter Martin described Nichol as “the most able Adventist apologist.”
His greatest work of apologetics was, “Answers to Objections,” a defense of Seventh-day Adventist beliefs first published in 1932 and updated in 1952. In it, Nichols answers what, in the Internet age, have become known as FAQs or “frequently asked questions.” They are frequently-voiced criticisms of, or objections to, the doctrines or practices of Seventh-day Adventism.
We will be publishing these answers at the rate of one per week, as a regular Monday feature. I might occasionally streamline or modernize the style and correct typos, but the substance will be F. D. Nichol. Because 109 objections are answered in Nichol’s magnum opus, I intend for this series to continue for about two years, Lord willing. DCR
Adventists quote much from the Old Testament in proof of their doctrines, particularly the law and the Sabbath. Shouldn’t Christians find their guidance and doctrines in the New Testament?
We do quote much from the Old Testament. We also quote much from the New. Because we are Christians and believe that all Scripture is inspired, we make no distinction in authority between the Old and the New Testament. We believe that the whole Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is inspired by God and thus rightly the guide for our lives.
Some people, when they discuss the law and the Sabbath, seek to set up a contrast or even conflict between the Old and the New Testament, as though the former were of little or no value and superseded by the latter. This false contrast lies at the root of much of the erroneous reasoning of those who contend that the Sabbath was abolished at the cross.
The “Bible” of the apostles was what we know as the Old Testament. What is now known as the New Testament did not exist during the life of Christ, and did not even begin to be written until years after His ascension. Nor were there printing presses and overnight mail to distribute these writings. Only slowly did they gain circulation. During most of the first century of the Christian Era, the term “the Scriptures,” often mentioned by the New Testament writers, referred to what we call the Old Testament. To sum up, the Old Testament was the Bible of Jesus, His disciples, the Apostles, and the other gospel and New Testament writers, such as John and Luke.
Moreover, the Old Testament is about the Messiah, his atoning death, his resurrection, and much else about him. The reason the disciples did not understand the events of crucifixion week was that they did not rightly understand the Old Testament.
Christ admonished the Jews to “search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” John 5:39. And then He added, “Had you believed Moses, you would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if you believe not his writings, how shall you believe my words?” Verses 46, 47.
On His resurrection day, on the Road to Emmaus, “beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.” Luke 24:27. Then, back in Jerusalem, He appeared to the disciples, saying,
“‘This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.’ Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.” Luke 24:44-45.
Again, for Christ, the Scriptures were the Old Testament; He knew nothing of any notion of discounting, deprecating, or running down the Old Testament.
Nor did the apostles give any hint that they discounted the Old Testament in favor of the writings they were then producing, and would later produce. Paul wrote to Timothy:
“From a child thou has known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Tim. 3:15-17.
Could the New Testament accomplish more than this! Both Christ and the apostles repeatedly cited the Old Testament in confirmation of their teachings. To Satan, Christ said, “It is written,” and thrice quoted the Old Testament. (See Matt. 4:4-10) He chided the scribes and Pharisees by quoting the fifth commandment, from the book of Exodus, and by quoting the words of Isaiah. (See Matt. 15:1-9) See also Christ's conversation with the rich young ruler and with the lawyer. (Matt. 19: 16-19; Luke 10:25-28) Prominent in these references to the Old Testament are the quotations from the Ten Commandments.
How did Paul prove that all men, Jews and Gentiles, were guilty before God and thus in need of the salvation offered through Christ? By quoting from the Old Testament. (See Rom. 3:9-18)
How did Paul know that he himself was a sinner before God and in need of the gospel? By calling to mind what was written in the Old Testament, specifically what was written in the Ten Commandments. (See Rom. 7:7) To the church at Rome Paul commanded: “Owe no man anything, but to love one another: for he that loves another hath fulfilled the law.” Rom. 13:8.
Did Paul profess to be setting forth a new code, which was the result of a new revelation then given to him? No, he quotes the Old Testament, and specifically the Ten Commandments. (See verses 9, 10) And how did Paul support his appeal to children to obey their parents? By quoting from the Old Testament, specifically the Ten Commandments. (See Eph. 6:1-3.)
As James develops his argument against having “respect to persons,” does he set forth new laws? No, he quotes the Old Testament, focusing on citations from the Ten Commandments. (See James 2:8-12)
And what proof did Peter offer in support of his declaration that we should be “holy”? “Because it is written, Be you holy; for 1 am holy.” 1 Peter 1:16. His proof is a quotation from Leviticus 11:44.
The Scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation, are one whole. The source of the Old and the New Testament is the same: the inspiration of the Spirit of God. Their objective is the same: to unfold the plan of God, to reveal Christ, to warn against sin, and to present God's holy standard of right.
Someone long ago well observed: The New Testament is concealed in the Old, the Old Testament is revealed in the New. We can best understand the promise in the last book of the Bible, of a re-created, a new, earth and a verdant tree of life, when we turn to the first book of the Bible that describes. The good earth, with its original tree of life, that came forth from God’s hand when He first created this world. We best grasp the meaning of the cross, and Christ’s words, “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me,” when we read the Genesis account of man’s fall.
We should never forget that the very titles “Old Testament” and “New Testament” are man-made titles. Bible writers do not thus divide the Scriptures. Both Testaments deal with the drama of sin and salvation. The Old Testament presents the promise of a new earth and a new covenant, as well as picturing man’s iniquities from earliest days. The New Testament discusses at length the “old man” of sin and the ancient problem of man's rebellion, as well as describing the “new man” in Christ Jesus and the glories of a world to come.
The interrelationship of Old Testament to New, the dependence of one on the other, has ever been understood by our adversary the devil. That is why he long ago began his attacks on the Bible by seeking to undermine the historicity and authenticity of the Old Testament.
It was at this point that higher criticism of the Bible began. And with the Old destroyed, the New soon collapses for lack of historical foundation and meaning. It is understandable that Modernists [liberals] should be found minimizing the spiritual authority and significance of the Old Testament.
But what is inexplicable is the attitude toward the Old Testament of some who consider themselves Fundamentalists. Why would they seek to tear in two the seamless garment of Scripture? Why should they set forth the doctrine that a holy command of God in the Old Testament must wait for restatement in the New before it has authority in the Christian Era?
It is beyond clear that the New Testament writers quoted from the Old, not to inform their readers that a particular passage from the Old was still binding, but rather to corroborate, and lend the Old Testament’s authority to, their own new writings. In other words, the apostles, who reminded their readers that the “holy men of God” in “old time” “spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” wished their readers to see that they were speaking by the same Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:21) Hence they repeatedly cited, in support of their own teachings, the words of those “holy men” who wrote the Old Testament.
It is true that the ceremonial ritual described in the Old Testament expired at the cross, because it had been fulfilled—shadow had met reality, type had met anti-type. And of course the New Testament writers clearly state that those rites had come to an end. (Gal. 5:1-6; Eph. 2:14-16; Col. 2:14-17; Rom. 14:1-15:7) But that fact in no way makes the Old Testament inferior to the New, or justifies the contention that the New supplants the Old.