What are Our Standards for Right and Wrong? - YouTube

This article dissects the question of moral standards, exposing how modern traditions, particularly within Adventism, deviate from the enduring Hebraic-Messianic understanding of right and wrong. We affirm the Torah as the immutable foundation for righteousness, fulfilled in Yeshua.

Quick Answer

What are Our Standards for Right and Wrong? Exposing Deviations from Hebraic Truth Quick Answer Quick Answer: Our standards for right and wrong are immutably rooted in the Torah, given by YHWH, and perfectly exemplified by Yeshua HaMashiach, not in shifting human traditions or post-1844 Adventist interpretations. True righteousness is by faith, credited through Yeshua's…

What are Our Standards for Right and Wrong? Exposing Deviations from Hebraic Truth

Quick Answer

Quick Answer: Our standards for right and wrong are immutably rooted in the Torah, given by YHWH, and perfectly exemplified by Yeshua HaMashiach, not in shifting human traditions or post-1844 Adventist interpretations. True righteousness is by faith, credited through Yeshua's atoning work, leading to Torah-observant living, as Deuteronomy 6:24 affirms for lasting prosperity.

The Scholarly Case

The foundational question, "What are our standards for right and wrong?", finds its definitive answer not in evolving human philosophies or denominational innovations, but in the eternal Word of Elohim as revealed in the Tanakh and affirmed by Yeshua. From a Hebraic-Messianic perspective, morality is not a subjective construct but an objective reality, rooted in the very character of YHWH, the One and Only Elohim, as declared in Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is One." This core declaration, the Shema, establishes the singular divine source of all ethical truth. The Torah, often mistakenly viewed as a burdensome legal code by post-apostolic Greek-speaking commentators, is in fact YHWH's benevolent instruction for living a righteous and prosperous life. Deuteronomy 6:24 states, "And the LORD commanded us to observe all these statutes and to fear the LORD our God, that we may always be prosperous and preserved, as we are to this day." This demonstrates that the Torah's commands are not arbitrary but are for our ultimate good, leading to life and blessing. Yeshua Himself unequivocally upheld the eternal validity of the Torah, stating in Matthew 5:17-19, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." This directly refutes any notion that the Law was abrogated or rendered irrelevant by His coming. The concept of "righteousness" (צדקה, *tzedakah*) in Hebraic thought is inextricably linked to adherence to YHWH's standards. It is not merely a legalistic performance but an internal disposition that manifests in external obedience. However, the Brit Chadashah clarifies that no human can achieve perfect righteousness through works alone, as Romans 3:20 declares, "Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the law. For the law merely brings awareness of sin." This does not negate the Law but highlights humanity's inability to perfectly keep it, thus revealing the need for a redeemer. This is where Yeshua's role becomes paramount. The Brit Chadashah teaches that righteousness is imputed to those who place their trust (*emunah*) in Yeshua. Romans 4:5 states, "However, to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." This is further expounded in 2 Corinthians 5:21, "God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God." This profound truth means that through Yeshua, believers are declared righteous in YHWH's eyes, not based on their flawed performance, but on His perfect sacrifice. This imputed righteousness *then* empowers believers, through the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit), to walk in the righteous standards of the Torah, as Romans 8:4 confirms: "so that the righteous standard of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." The idea that morality is a subjective human construct, as often seen in modern secular humanism or moral relativism, stands in direct opposition to the Hebraic understanding. Such views, promoted by sources like "Logic Over Faith" in "12 Religious Laws That Break Common Sense," assert that "common sense" and "human empathy" are the ultimate arbiters of morality. However, this begs the question of an objective basis for such "common sense" or "empathy," failing to account for how these concepts have been twisted to justify atrocities throughout history. Without a transcendent, divine standard, as argued by "Jewish Clarity" in "The Morality Imperative," all choices become mere personal inclinations, never truly "right" or "wrong." Isaiah 5:20 powerfully condemns this relativistic mindset: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who turn darkness to light and light to darkness, who replace bitter with sweet and sweet with bitter." The Hebraic understanding of YHWH's oneness (Echad) is a compound unity, as seen in Genesis 2:24 where husband and wife become "one flesh" or Numbers 13:23 describing "one cluster" of grapes. This concept allows for the plurality within the Godhead, hinted at in Genesis 1:26, "Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.”" and further illuminated by the Targumim. For example, Targum Jonathan on Genesis 1:26 speaks of the "Word of the Lord" (Memra) being involved in creation, indicating a distinct divine agent alongside YHWH. This Hebraic framework, acknowledging the "Two Powers in Heaven" as discussed in rabbinic literature (b.Sanhedrin 38b; b.Chagigah 14a, and explored by Alan Segal in "Two Powers in Heaven"), provides a robust theological foundation for understanding Yeshua's divinity without resorting to later Latin scholastic categories that often obscured the Hebraic context. Our standards for right and wrong are therefore not merely a list of rules, but an emanation of the very being of our Echad Elohim, revealed through Torah and Yeshua.

Adversary Teardown: Ellen White writings

The Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) tradition, particularly through the writings of Ellen G. White, presents a significant deviation from the Hebraic-Messianic understanding of moral standards, primarily through its unique doctrines emerging from the 1844 Great Disappointment. While claiming adherence to biblical principles, the SDA framework for "right and wrong" is ultimately filtered and redefined by White's "prophetic" interpretations, which often lack historical and exegetical support from primary Hebraic sources. The pivotal break point for SDA moral standards lies in the rationalization of William Miller's failed prediction of Yeshua's return on October 22, 1844. This "Great Disappointment" led to Hiram Edson's "investigative judgment" vision the following day, which posited that Yeshua had entered the heavenly sanctuary to begin a work of judgment, rather than returning to Earth. This novel doctrine, unknown in 1st-century Hebraic exegesis, became the cornerstone of SDA theology and, by extension, its moral framework. Ellen G. White (1827–1915) subsequently solidified this interpretation in her seminal work, "The Great Controversy" (first edition 1858, later expanded 1888, 1911). Within this framework, specific moral imperatives, such as Sabbath absolutism, were elevated to eschatological markers, distinct from the Torah-observant Sabbath keeping practiced by Yeshua and the apostles. The SDA emphasis on the Sabbath, while ostensibly Torah-based, derives its unique urgency and salvific implications from White's visions and the 1844 investigative judgment doctrine, not from the Tanakh alone. The Acts 15 council, for example, clearly outlined minimal requirements for Gentile believers, which did not include a specific day of worship for salvation. Furthermore, White's authority as a "prophet" meant that her writings became the de facto standard for many aspects of right and wrong within Adventism. Critics like Walter Rea, in "The White Lie" (1982), meticulously documented extensive plagiarism in White's works, demonstrating that much of her "inspired" material was borrowed from other authors like D'Aubigne, Andrews, and Wylie without attribution. This undermines the very foundation of her moral authority, as the source of her "revelations" was often earthly, not divine. The SDA worldview subtly shifts the focus from Yeshua's completed work on the cross as the sole basis for righteousness (Romans 4:5, 2 Corinthians 5:21) to a system where human adherence to specific "standards" (often derived from White's interpretations of the investigative judgment and health reforms) becomes a critical component of one's standing before Elohim. This creates a works-based understanding of righteousness, where "right behavior" (as defined by SDA tradition) is seen as essential for justification, a direct contradiction to the Brit Chadashah's teaching that "no one will be justified in His sight by works of the law" (Romans 3:20). While adventist.org might present general moral guidelines, these are ultimately informed by the unique theological developments stemming from Millerism, Edson's vision, and White's subsequent "prophetic" authority. This lineage—Miller (1833 Adventist movement) → Edson (Oct 23, 1844 cornfield "vision") → Joseph Bates + James White → Ellen G. White (formal SDA 1863)—shows a clear departure from the 1st-century Hebraic faith, inventing new moral and soteriological standards based on post-1844 interpretations rather than the enduring truth of Torah and Yeshua.

Counter-Arguments Anticipated

Objection 1: The New Testament abrogates the Old Testament Law, making Torah-based morality obsolete for believers in Yeshua.

This objection fundamentally misinterprets Yeshua's own words and the teachings of the apostles. Yeshua explicitly stated in Matthew 5:17-19, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." The Brit Chadashah consistently presents Yeshua as the *fulfillment* of the Torah, not its destroyer. Paul's writings, often misunderstood, clarify that salvation is not *by* works of the Law (Romans 3:20), but that the Law reveals sin and guides righteous living for those saved by grace (Romans 8:4). The Hebraic understanding is that the Law is good and eternal, but humanity is incapable of perfect obedience without divine intervention, which Yeshua provides.

Objection 2: Morality is a personal choice, and different cultures or individuals can define "right" and "wrong" for themselves.

This stance, often termed moral relativism, collapses under its own weight, as highlighted by "Jewish Clarity" in "The Morality Imperative." If morality is purely subjective, then there is no objective basis to condemn any act, no matter how heinous, if a society or individual deems it acceptable. This directly contradicts the universal moral conscience evident across cultures (Romans 2:14-15) and the prophetic declaration in Isaiah 5:20, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil." The existence of an inherent sense of justice and injustice, as argued in "Atheism's Borrowed Morality" (Catholic.com), points to a transcendent standard beyond mere human consensus or evolutionary adaptation. YHWH, as our Judge and Lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22), provides the objective standard.

Objection 3: Ellen G. White was a prophet of God, and her writings provide divinely inspired guidance on moral standards, including the Sabbath.

While Ellen G. White's followers believe in her prophetic authority, her claims and teachings, particularly regarding the 1844 "investigative judgment" and its implications for moral standards, lack support from primary Hebraic texts and stand in stark contrast to 1st-century Messianic Jewish theology. The detailed exposés by scholars like Walter Rea in "The White Lie" reveal extensive literary borrowing without attribution, casting serious doubt on the divine origin of her writings. Furthermore, the unique SDA emphasis on the Sabbath as an eschatological test, derived from post-1844 interpretations, deviates from the simple Torah-observant Sabbath practiced by Yeshua and His disciples. The authority for "right and wrong" must stem from the unadulterated Word of Elohim, not from later traditions or unverified prophetic claims.

Position Lock

Position Lock: Our standards for right and wrong are unequivocally established by YHWH through His eternal Torah, perfectly embodied and fulfilled by Yeshua HaMashiach, and are apprehended through faith in Him, which empowers genuine, Spirit-led obedience to His divine instructions, not through human traditions or post-apostolic interpretations.