The False Teaching of Ed Lapiz: Yahweh vs. El Elyon

By: Omar Rushlive L. Arellano

Ed Lapiz, a well-known preacher of Day By Day Jesus Ministries, caused no small controversy with his recent teachings. This article seeks to (1) reconstruct his teachings and supporting arguments, and (2) show what a proper interpretation of Scripture exposes about them. The basis for the following discussion is his YouTube video lecture 2024–03–03 ‘Of Legal Age Na Sya.’¹ His words are translated to English to reach more audience, and timestamps of his speech are provided to assure reconstruction accuracy.

Ed Lapiz’s Argument

Ed Lapiz introduces his listeners to two different positions. He coins the first one interchangeably as Pharisee-ness, Moses-ness, or Yahwism, and the second one as Jesus-ness,² intimating that there are two different objects of worship: the “God and Father of the Pharisees” whom he calls Yahweh, and the “God and Father of Jesus,” whom he calls El Elyon. The point of his sermon is for us to choose El Elyon.

The Name of God and Light vs. Darkness

Lapiz cites John 9:1–2: “As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”.³ He comments that this is an important question that reveals many issues and that there was no monolithic religious faith in Jesus’ time. Jesus’ disciples are said to have asked the question because they were exposed to “Yahwistic teachings,” which asserts that “Yahweh punishes the generations of descendants for their parents’ or ancestor’s sins.”⁴ According to Lapiz, this is commonly held by Scripture readers. He says:

Because of this belief that many sick people are so because of the sins of their ancestors, many people are becoming insensitive to the sufferings of people. They say, “That’s a punishment from God, and they deserve to experience that. This is a generational sin, we can’t do anything about it.” It encourages not to be kind, not to be understanding, not to be helpful. This desensitizes and emboldens cruelty to the sick even.⁵

Furthermore, he says that people think that people are sick because God is angry with them. People expect that sickness is caused by sins that are committed, and this rationalizes their apathy for the plight of others. He then cites Exodus 34:7, saying: “… but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.” He attributes these words to Yahweh.⁶

Prompting his audience to go back to the story of the blind man in John 9:3–4, Lapiz repeats Jesus’ answer that the man’s blindness was not due to his nor his parents’ sin but for God’s glory and power to be seen through him. Lapiz comments that symbolism can be found in this particular and isolated case; and that a great lesson is to be learned from the man’s situation because Jesus needed “to do the will of the One who sent [Him] while it’s still day, for when night comes, then no one could work.”⁷ He then asked these questions, “Who sent Jesus?” Why can’t [the] Yahwistic people (those who believe in Yahweh and live under the law) accept him?” He answers that if their teaching is the same as Jesus’ teachings, then they should be in harmony with Jesus since this would mean that they have the same God and Father.⁸ But why were they the first ones who wanted Jesus murdered?

Lapiz explains the seeming cognitive dissonance:

Jesus says, “While there is still light, we should do the will of the one who sent me.” And what action is that? In this particular case, it is to give sight to the blind. To give light to those who are in darkness. Both physically, clinically, and also as symbolized by this particular episode, spiritually. There are those that are blind physically, and there are those that are blind spiritually. They can’t see the light of reason, because they were blinded by their religious beliefs. Now, Jesus is sent by the Most High God and Father, El Elyon. A name that is not familiar with many Christians.⁹

He reasons that because of the immense theologizing and propagation of various doctrines for 2,000 years, the real name of Jesus’ God and Father gradually faded from memory. He even gives credit to evil spirits who still recognize God’s real identity.¹⁰ He cites Luke 1:32–33 to validate this: “He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High…”¹¹ About God’s true name, Lapiz says that

the most High God is El Elyon Elohim. When we read the Old Testament in the original Hebrew, that is the name of God, but it is loosely translated into English as just “God.” And when God is used, then the identity of Elyon or El Elyon is hidden, because of the generic word, “God.” The word “God” and the concept of God is a much later development in religion. They did not call Him in the Old Testament “God.” They call him, “Elyon, Elohim, El.” That’s why I encourage you to read, especially the Old Testament in the original Hebrew. But because we could not read it in its entirety in Hebrew, read the “Names of God Bible Version,” where the names of God are not translated to the English, God. It is really said when the name is Elyon, El, or Elohim.¹²

After Lapiz’s clarification on the name of Jesus’ true God and Father, he begins to point out the contrast between light and darkness. He again cites John 9:4–5 where Jesus says, “We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” Lapiz deduces that when Jesus says, “I am the light,” he points to the fact that there is someone who is “not light, but darkness”; when Jesus says, “I am the way,” he alludes that someone is the “wrong way”; when he says “I am the truth,” he implies that someone is false or holds to falsehood; when he says, “I am the Savior,” this also means that other saviors are not really such; and when he says “I am the Good Shepherd,” then there must be a bad or false shepherd. He continues that the statements of Jesus were not given in a vacuum, but are said to be reactions to a prevailing thought he is correcting. He then rhetorically asks whether Jesus was sent to continue what was happening to Israel or to change it. Why did he risk his life? Is it to support or oppose the teachings of religious leaders? Lapiz answers that Jesus was sent to be light to the darkness, to straighten what is crooked, and to right the wrong, and adds that darkness has an object. He maintains that Jesus’ teachings were a reaction to a false teaching prevalent in His time.¹³

Lapiz cites different passages that reveal the identity of the one who represents darkness. These are:

• Amos 5:18: “Woe to you who desire the day of the Lord! Why would you have the day of the Lord? It is darkness, and not light,”
• Zephaniah 1:14–15: “The great day of the Lord is near, … A day of wrath is that day, a day of distress and anguish, a day of ruin and devastation, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness,”
• 2 Samuel 22:12: “He made darkness around him his canopy, thick clouds, a gathering of water.”
• Psalm 97:1–2: “The Lord reigns, … thick darkness are all around him…”¹⁴

Based on these references, Lapiz separates “Jesus as light” from Yahweh, whom he regards as “darkness.” Jesus is said to represent peace, love, and rest, while Yahweh is said to represent anguish, ruin, devastation, darkness, and gloom. He argues that Yahweh is not God, since

1 John 1:5 says that “God is light and there is no darkness in Him.” Remember that God, the true God does not have any darkness in Him. And if someone has darkness? Then He is not God, He is not the true God, because the true God is light, and there is no darkness in Him.¹⁵

No Work on the Sabbath vs. Doing Good on the Sabbath

Lapiz proceeds with John 9:6–11 to talk about Jesus’ healing of the blind man from birth. He spat on the ground and made mud which he placed on the blind man’s eyes. Being instructed by Jesus, the blind man went to Siloam to wash and he came home seeing. His neighbors then wondered whether he was the same person that they knew or only someone who looked like him.

Lapiz then comments that the account symbolizes the transition from darkness to light and from being blind to being able to see because of the work of Jesus who brings light. He says that while there is a very physical and practical value in the story, there is a higher truth contained in it as well. He continues, pointing out the differing opinions the crowd formed about the blind man. After claiming that he was indeed the same blind person they knew, he was questioned by the Pharisees, who were said to investigate miraculous healings and acted as judges. Lapiz remarks that the act that should be deemed as good was disapprovingly frowned upon by the religious leaders since Jesus made the mud that he used to heal the blind man on the Sabbath. The prohibition to work on that day was included in what Lapiz labels as “the dictates of the law” or “Yahwistic religion.”¹⁶

Lapiz then cites Exodus 20:8–11, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy…. but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work…,” commenting that Sabbaths are days when there is endless killing of animals to sacrifice their blood and burnt meat to Yahweh. He claims that Jesus is not pleased with this, and supports this reasoning by pointing to Jesus’ acts of flipping the tables in the temple and the chasing away of the vendors of animals for sacrifice. Lapiz empathically says, “This kind of thing was not a Jesus thing.” Lapiz claims in addition that Jesus was against the temple because he told his disciples to not be impressed by it as it would undergo a thorough destruction, which indeed happened in 70 A.D.¹⁷

Lapiz then cites Exodus 31:14 to say that anyone who does not uphold the Sabbath will be killed. He complains that there are many cases of this in the Bible, such as a young man who was killed for gathering dry wood on the Sabbath to start a fire for his pot. He contrasts this with what he thinks is Jesus’ argument: that doing good on the Sabbath is more important than giving people rest. Lapiz then cites Matthew 12:9–12, or the account of the healing of the paralyzed man on the Sabbath. Wanting to trap Jesus, the people asked him if healing on the Sabbath is in accordance with the letter of the law or Yahwism, and he answered, “if you have a sheep that fell in a well on a Sabbath day, wouldn’t you save it? And a person is more valuable than a lamb. That’s why it’s in accordance with the spirit of the law or Jesus-ness. So Lapiz urges that it is right for Jesus to do good on the Sabbath, and he says that this is not allowed in the Jewish law: people are not allowed to wash their dishes, and even to cook, and that’s why people should cook on the day before the Sabbath since they can’t do any work, even to clean. Then Lapiz narrates that the religious leaders asked Jesus if he would heal the paralytic, and Jesus answered, “Why not?” Lapiz then rhetorically concurs, “If we will do what is good and right, why not? It should be allowed.”

Law vs. Gospel

Lapiz proposes that if we think that Jesus fulfilled the law, we should read it through another lens. He reasons that if we mean the literal fulfillment of all the Law, then obviously, Jesus did not do that, since He broke a lot of those laws to set people free from the imprisonment of the law. He then gave some examples of this, such as Jesus’ healing people on the Sabbath, the feeding of the disciples by letting them pluck heads of grain during the Sabbath, etc.¹⁸

He also cited Matthew 10:34–36: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.” He explains that Jesus is not really making people fight against each other, but it is the people themselves that do the fighting because they will choose whether they will believe in Jesus, or the Pharisees, Elyon, or Yahwism. He also adds that “Grace divides from the law. Love divides from judgment. Jesus-ness divides from Pharisee-ness or Moses-ness or Yahwism. People only need to understand and choose their side.”¹⁹ Lapiz remarks that we cannot be fence-sitters. Furthermore, he comments that it is sad that many Christian churches today mix Jesus-ness and Pharisee-ness, law and grace, judgment and love. He said, “So what should we do now? What day is it today, Wednesday? Then MWF is love, and TThS is law, and in [sic] Sundays, it could be up to us.”²⁰ He mentions that this is what happens and that is the reason that people are confused if they should be good or evil, judgemental or forgiving.

He then continues by citing John 9:17–18: “So they said again to the blind man, “What do you say about him, since he has opened your eyes?” He said, “He is a prophet.” The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight”. Afterward, he cites 2 Corinthians 3:14–16 to explain why they do not want to believe in Jesus: “But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.” Lapiz comments that they were blind and stiff-necked because they read the Old Testament but not the New Testament. As a result, they are still under the law and not under grace, that they are under Pharisee-ness and not Jesus-ness. He reiterates that they are under the laws and not under the gospels. Furthermore, he comments that their hardened minds or the veil will only be removed if they shift to Jesus, or to grace and love.²¹

He asserts that the Jews still have a veil over their minds because they read the books of Moses. He explains that our judgment will be darkened if we immerse our minds in the law. He then remarks that if we don’t want to believe him, then we should dispute with 2 Cor 3:14–16 and not with him because he claims that he is just reading what the text says. He then says that if we draw near to Jesus, then the veil will be removed. So if we want to understand Jesus, we need to draw near to Him and believe in Him. He says that we need to apply His teachings so that everything will become crystal clear. He then says, “A one-half Christian is a one-whole nonsense. If you are one-half in Jesus and you are one-half in Moses, one-half under the law, and one-half under grace, it will be a very confusing universe.”²²

Biblical Analysis of Lapiz’s Argument

Now that the argument made by Ed Lapiz is clear, let us dive into what the Bible will say about his teachings. We will discuss his teachings in this order: (a) The Name of God and Light vs. Darkness; (b) No Work on the Sabbath v. Doing Good in the Sabbath; © Law vs. Gospel.

Analyzing The Name of God and Light vs. Darkness

Lapiz separates Yahweh and El as different beings, attributing darkness to Yahweh and light to El. Before proceeding with the verses he cited, let’s talk first about whether it is reasonable to think of Yahweh and El as two separate entities. To answer this, we will rely on Michael Heiser’s “Are Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deuteronomy 32:8–9 and Psalm 82?”

In this paper, Heiser shows that there are scholars who interpret Deuteronomy 32:8–9 and Psalm 82 as proving that Yahweh and El are different deities. There are even those who say that the Deuteronomy passage predates and influences Psalm 82.²³

Let’s cite Psalm 82 first, and then talk about Heiser’s insights:

God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.” Arise, O God, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!

He answers Psalm 82 by first citing S. Parker as saying that the high god El presides over the assembly of his sons. Yahweh, who was one of the sons, accuses others of injustice, and his role is to prosecute and not to judge, which is a role that belongs to El. It is said that since Yahweh is not a presiding deity, then this implies His inferior status.²⁴

He then cites Parker's interpretation of Psalm 82, which is that in 2–5, the accusation is uttered by Yahweh as the prosecution:

How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

And then Heiser says that the charges are immediately followed by the judicial sentencing, which also comes from Yahweh:

I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.”

Heiser explains that Yahweh issues both the charge and the sentence, and no explanation is provided. El is not seen to pronounce the sentence, which makes him not have any function at all. He then comments that Parker remarked that in the Elohistic psalter, the Psalmist in Psalm 82:8 appealed to Yahweh to rise up, which is considered to be the basis to say that there are two deities in the passage, but it is unwittingly a weak argument, for if Yahweh is pleaded to rise up, then it implies that Yahweh himself is seated and that he is the one in fact presiding. Heiser then proposes that it is more coherent to say that Yahweh is the head of the council and that He performs all the roles of the divine court, which includes making the accusation and the sentence. This is consistent with the desire of the Psalmist to show that only Yahweh can fix the mess described in the Psalm.²⁵

Next, Deuteronomy 32:8–9 reads:

When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.

Heiser makes five arguments against the view that Yahweh is not the Most High:

First, he mentioned that the indictment of Deuteronomy 32 is against God’s people, for Israel abandoned their true Rock, which is identified as Yahweh in v.3, and they, in turn, worshiped other gods. The one who passes judgment in the passage is Yahweh, so the straightforward reading is that Yahweh is presiding over “the lawsuit procedures and heavenly court.”²⁶

Second, Heiser remarks that the view that makes Yahweh and El distinct in the passage relies on the argument that the word “But” or “However” in verse 9 is an adversative. Heiser points out that scholars differ on this. Others see the words as emphatic, and there are those that accept that it is indeed adversative, but it does not prove that Yahweh and El are distinct deities. Thus, Heiser maintains that the lack of scholarship consensus on the issue shows that the foundations where the argument that Yahweh and El rest cannot be relied upon.²⁷

Third, Ugaritic scholars are said to note that the Ugaritic corpus does not attribute the title ‘Most High’ to El, but to a “second-tier deity” named Baal, as the ruler of the gods. Heiser clarifies that his point is merely to show that the mere mention of this title does not automatically mean that it refers to El. And the attribution of this epithet used for Baal to Yahweh is said to be widely established, thus, it could be said that the title should reasonably make us see that it refers to Yahweh.

Fourth, there are scholars who say that the view that “when the title ‘Most High’ refers to El, it refers to Yahweh,” is a later tradition. Yet, Heiser remarks that it is interesting that earlier texts speak of Yahweh performing the same deeds that are attributed to the ‘Most High’.

Fifth, separating Yahweh and El as a lens is internally inconsistent within Deuteronomy 32 and the whole book.²⁸

Indeed, it is not reasonable to think of Yahweh and El as different gods. As 2 Samuel 22:32 says:

For who is God [El] besides the LORD [Yahweh]? And who is the Rock except our God [elohenu]²⁹?

So now that it is clear that Yahweh and El are not separate gods, let us now proceed to explain the passages that Lapiz provided. He cited Amos 5:18, Zephaniah 1:14–15, 2 Samuel 22:12, and Psalm 97:1–2, to paint Yahweh as the “god of darkness.” But what does the context for each show us?

• Amos 5:18: “Woe to you who desire the day of the Lord! Why would you have the day of the Lord? It is darkness, and not light,”

John Oswalt, in the ESV Study Bible, explains that the religious activities of Israel alienated God further. The point of the passage is that God does not delight in mere outward religiosity if they are not really devoted to obeying God in their lives. Regarding the “day of the Lord,” he explains that perhaps in Amos’ day, the term referred to the time that God would intervene and put Israel as head of the nations, and Amos was telling Israel that if they remained unfaithful to the Lord, then God’s visit would mean a day of judgment for them. We can see this interpretation in verses 23–24: “Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” So “darkness” here does not refer to evil, but God’s justice, which evil people could deem as a “day of darkness” for them.³⁰

• Zephaniah 1:14–15: “The great day of the Lord is near, near and hastening fast; the sound of the day of the Lord is bitter; the mighty man cries aloud there. A day of wrath is that day, a day of distress and anguish, a day of ruin and devastation, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness,”

David Baker in Zephaniah explains that the “day of the Lord” is a “day of wrath.” This shows that God will come as a judge against His people.³¹

• 2 Samuel 22:12: “He made darkness around him his canopy, thick clouds, a gathering of water.”

Take note that this was part of a song that David spoke to the Lord when He delivered him from all his enemies. David was saying that he was in distress because of his enemies and he cried out to the Lord, and God listened. The darkness here does not mean that God is evil, but David provides an imagery of God’s power. Here is what verses 8–14 said:

Then the earth reeled and rocked; the foundations of the heavens trembled and quaked because he was angry. Smoke went up from his nostrils, and devouring fire from his mouth; glowing coals flamed forth from him. He bowed the heavens and came down; thick darkness was under his feet. He rode on a cherub and flew; he was seen on the wings of the wind. He made darkness around him his canopy, thick clouds, a gathering of water. Out of the brightness before him, coals of fire flamed forth. The Lord thundered from heaven, and the Most High uttered his voice.

• Psalm 97:1–2: “The Lord reigns, let the earth rejoice; let the many coastlands be glad! Clouds and thick darkness are all around him; righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne.”

C. John Collins says that the “clouds and thick darkness convey the mystery of God’s unapproachable majesty, while righteousness and justice as the foundation of his throne show that the mysterious majesty is not that of an arbitrary despot but one who can be trusted.”³²

So we can see that the verses that talk about darkness pertaining to Yahweh nowhere suggest that He is evil, and the analogy provided in the above passages is consistent with God being depicted as light. In 1 John 1:5, “light” symbolizes both knowledge and purity, so this shows that God is perfect in moral excellence. If this is the contrast to “darkness,” then the latter refers to moral corruption, which is not the sense of the darkness used in the Old Testament passages.

Analyzing No Work on the Sabbath v. Doing Good on the Sabbath

I have no problem with the account that Lapiz cites. It shows us that Jesus healed a blind man from birth. He did this by spitting on the ground and making mud with his saliva, then he anointed the man’s eyes with it and told him to wash in the pool of Siloam. The man who was born blind was healed when he did what he was told. In this narrative, people are divided when they see him again as healed, and the Pharisees do not want to believe him, since Jesus healed him during the Sabbath. I have no problems in affirming that there is a spiritual truth here as well, since in verses 39–41: “Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things, and said to him, “Are we also blind?” Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.”

The issue here is more on Lapiz’s attempt to dichotomize Jesus against the Sabbath. There was nothing wrong with the Sabbath per se, but the Pharisees’ interpretation of it. To support his dichotomy, Lapiz first makes it seem that the mere act of doing an animal sacrifice counts as something evil. Then he supports this further by saying that the killing of animals was not pleasing to Jesus, and that is why He flipped the tables in Israel.

But mere animal sacrifices were not evil in itself:

• Noah built an altar for the Lord and sacrificed to him and this pleased Him (Genesis 8:20–21).
• Abraham sacrificed a ram for the Lord and called the place, “The Lord will provide (Genesis 22:13–14).”
• Jacob offered a sacrifice in the hill country (Genesis 31:54).
• David sacrificed burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to the Lord (2 Samuel 6:17–18)
• Even Joseph and Mary obeyed the Law in offering a pair of doves or two young pigeons based on their income (Luke 2:22–24).

The reason that Jesus flipped the tables was not because He hated animal sacrifices, but because the Gentiles were not able to pray in the outer courts.

Matthew 21:12–13 said:

And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.

Jeffrey Crabtree comments that the setting was the Court of the Gentiles, which were the outer courts. Gentiles were only permitted to go up to this point. Jesus here drove out and overturned those who bought and sold animals. He condemned this trading by citing Isaiah 56:7. The point was that God’s temple was supposed to be a house of prayer for all nations, and the trading caused so much distraction and commotion, that God’s intended purpose for the temple was no longer being obeyed.³³

Another evil being mentioned by Lapiz is the killing of people who did not uphold the Sabbath law. One example he gave was about a young man who was gathering dry wood to start a fire for his pot. We can see this in Numbers 15:32–36:

While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses.

Lapiz’s comments about this make it seem that he finds this incident as an evil committed against the young man, but since this is a deliberate sin against God’s command, I think we need to think otherwise. There is this explanation about Numbers 15 attributed to pastor Douglas Comin that I find helpful:

In the 15th chapter of Numbers we find an account of the punishment of a man who boldly broke the fourth commandment. The fact that most modern readers tend to view the penalty, which was death by stoning, as too harsh for the crime indicates how backward our thinking has become.

The Sabbath was given to Israel as a continual reminder that the Lord God dwelt in the midst of His people. To ignore the Sabbath is to deny God as Creator, Governor, Judge and Redeemer.

As Creator, He sanctified the seventh day and declared it holy, as an example for His creatures in all their generations. To break the Sabbath is a practical denial of God as Creator.

As Governor, He instituted a command, based upon the pattern of creation, incorporated in the Moral Law which contains a summary of man’s whole duty toward God and toward his neighbour. To break the Sabbath is a rebellious denial of God as Governor, or Law-Giver.

As Judge, He holds men accountable for obedience to His commands, and punishes those who disobey. To break the Sabbath is a higher-handed denial of God as Judge, as though He had no power and no intention of enforcing His own word.

As Redeemer, God has provided an eternal rest from the ravages of sin — and the Sabbath rest is typical of this eternal rest which remains for the people of God. To break the Sabbath, therefore, is a denial of God’s gracious provision of salvation itself — and the transgression of the Sabbath deprives us of the very means by which God has ordained that this salvation be communicated and applied to His people.

In summary, Sabbath-breaking is a direct offence [sic] against God, tantamount to declaring Him dead. James Philip writes, “Reverence for the Sabbath symbolized reverence for God Himself, and violation of its sanctity was therefore…an insult to His majesty. It is in this regard that we can best understand the widespread contemporary neglect and desecration of the Lord’s Day. It symbolizes our generation’s neglect and contempt of the things of God. It is man’s refusal of God.³⁴

With this in mind, this does not necessarily mean that the Sabbath still applies today. We don’t need to stone people for violating the Sabbath, for this is something that is limited to the history of Israel as a theocracy.

Thomas Schreiner said that the Sabbath is no longer required for Christians because Jesus had already established the New Covenant.³⁵ He remarks that Jesus does not clearly abolish the Sabbath nor does He violate its requirements. He explains that Jesus’ observance of this law does not mean that it continues to the New Covenant, but it does show us that Jesus lived under the Old Testament law. He cites Paul to say that Jesus was “born under the law (Gal. 4:4). And yet, the Sabbath will still not continue to have a significant role, since Jesus proclaims Himself as the “Lord over the Sabbath (Mark 2:28).” He explains that Jesus is the Messiah, to which the Sabbath and all the Old Testament Scriptures point towards. He even points out that Jesus, like the Father, works during the Sabbath (John 5:17).

With this in mind, Schreiner argues that the Sabbath is a covenant sign that celebrates Israel’s Exodus from Egypt, but the New Testament writers say that this Exodus points towards the redemption of Jesus Christ. And since we are not freed from Egypt, the covenant sign does not apply to us. Furthermore, he cites Paul’s letters to show that the Sabbath is not binding to believers. Paul is said to identify the Sabbath as a shadow along with foods, festivals, and the new moon (Col. 2:16–17). The word for “shadow” here is explained as similar to the use of Hebrews, which the author used to talk about Old Testament sacrifices. The shadows point to the substance of the reality that is to come. He notes that Paul does not dismiss the Sabbath, but he shows respect for its place in redemptive history. Since it is a “shadow,” Paul shows higher regard to what it points to, which is Christ. Thus, the Sabbath is no longer binding.

In addition, Schreiner also points to Romans 14:5 where Paul mentions that some people esteem one day better than another and that others esteem all days alike. He explains that Paul in Romans 14:1–15:6, discusses food that is deemed by certain people as defiled. Paul’s position on the matter is that all foods are clean, but he is concerned that those who are stronger in their faith should respect the opinions of the weak so that they will not be a stumbling block to their faith. With that said, though Paul watches out for the welfare of the weak, the fact remains that Paul undermines their theological view since he argues that what a person eats and what a person observes is a matter of no concern. Schreiner concludes that Paul’s argument is that such laws are no longer valid since we are no longer under the Mosaic covenant, and since we are under a different covenant or dispensation, then to observe the Sabbath is up to our conscience whether we will do it the same as the Jews or not.

Nevertheless, Schreiner mentions that the Sabbath is still significant for believers, for it is a foreshadowing of our eschatological rest. A Sabbath rest that awaits us. He distinguishes this, however, from the Lord’s Day, since it was a day when most believers were required to work, but they still set aside time to meet together to worship God.

Thus, Lapiz’s simplistic dichotomization of “No work” and “Doing good” does not properly take into account the teachings of Scripture, for he demonizes an aspect of what the Pharisees mention that Jesus would not really be against in itself. So we can agree with Lapiz that it is good to do good on the Sabbath, yet we can disagree that this means that Jesus hates the Sabbath and animal sacrifices.

Analyzing Law vs. Gospel

I think that Lapiz is grossly mistaken when he says that Jesus did not “fulfill” the law because “he broke a lot of those laws.” Matthew 5:17–20 says unequivocally:

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 truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

The Law or the Prophets here refers to the whole Old Testament Scriptures. Jesus is very specific when he says “not an iota, not a dot,” and these refers to the smallest strokes being made in the Hebrew alphabet, which means that Jesus never intended to abrogate the Law, but to establish the “spirit of the Law,” which refers to its true intent or purpose. We can see that this interpretation is consistent with the passage because Jesus shows different examples of how this is fulfilled after he mentions that we should be more righteous than the scribes and the Pharisees if we want to enter heaven. He mentions things about anger, lust, divorce, oaths, retaliation, and in loving our enemies. Here is one example in “lust” in Matthew 5:27–29:

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

In addition, since the Pharisees are seen as the “paragons of human virtue” in their time, then to be “better” than them would also mean that we should go beyond merely the “letter of the law,” but by the “spirit of the law.”

With this in mind, it is clear that Lapiz’s statement is wrong, because his mention of Jesus breaking a lot of laws, would imply that Jesus is abrogating the Law, which obviously contradicts His statement that He will not do away with any of them. And if this is the case, then how should we interpret Lapiz’s examples of Jesus supposedly breaking a lot of those laws?

In Matthew 12:3–8, we see that the Pharisees accused Jesus’ disciples of violating the Sabbath law because the disciples plucked the heads of grain to eat when they were hungry. But it is not prohibited to pluck the heads of grain to eat in the Old Testament, in fact, Deuteronomy 23:25 says:

If you go into your neighbor’s standing grain, you may pluck the ears with your hand, but you shall not put a sickle to your neighbor’s standing grain.

However, the interpretation of the Pharisees is only based on an oral tradition, which implies that what the disciples are breaking is the added man-made tradition, which is not based on God’s law. Furthermore, Jesus responded to the Pharisees by saying that when David was hungry, he entered God’s house and ate the bread of the Presence, which was “lawful” only for the priests to eat. It is suggested that Jesus meant to use “air quotes” when He said that David’s eating of the showbread was unlawful.³⁶ Their argument is that in verse 5, we can see Jesus remarking that the priests are “desecrating” the Sabbath by doing more work than usual, and they are deemed as guiltless nevertheless. Their point here is that there are exceptions to the Sabbath day rule, and in Mark 2:27 Jesus introduces this concept by pointing to the principle “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” The theologian Robert Picirilli explains that this applies to the whole law, which includes ceremonial laws, and the point is that the Sabbath is not an end in itself, but it is something meant to serve the needs of the people. He states two ways that this law serves mankind: First, it reminds us that we are not merely physical creatures, for it points out that we need communion with God, which implies that we have a higher spiritual nature. Second, it provides us with regular rest and recreation. Thus, Picirilli reasons that the Pharisees made a mistake by subjugating every human need to the law. Furthermore, he states that Jesus claimed that He is the Lord of the Sabbath, which means that He is the rightful interpreter of the Sabbath, and since He is the Lord of the Sabbath, he is also the one who established it in the first place.³⁷

This shows that Jesus did not violate the Sabbath by healing in it, or by allowing His disciples to eat. No laws were broken, and this is consistent with His statement on not abrogating the Law but in fulfilling it.

In addition, Lapiz forced his listeners to choose between the Law and Grace, which is a false dichotomy. We can actually choose both. This is because the Bible itself does not label the Law as evil. Galatians 3:21 says:

Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.

This means that the Law is not against God’s promises. They are not against each other.

But the Law is a “guardian” and verse 24 says:

So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.

So the Law is good, for it helps prepare us for Christ. The Law points to our sins and helps us see that we are in need of Jesus because of it.

Paul also said in Romans 7:7:

What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

This means that the Law is good. Like Jesus who did not do away with it, we should not do away with it.

How about judgment? Lapiz seems to be against “judgment” when he says “Grace divides from the law. Love divides from judgement. Jesus-ness divides from Pharisee-ness or Moses-ness or Yahwism.” What is clear to me is that the Bible is only against hypocritical judgment, but it encourages us to judge righteously. So judgment per se is not evil.

Matthew 7:1–5 says:

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

This shows that we should apply the measures we use against others to ourselves, and we should make sure that we are consistent by correcting our own flaws.

In addition, 1 Corinthians 2:2–3 says:

Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!

In context, this is Paul’s rebuke of believers who sue other believers before unbelieving courts, and the principle here is that believers will judge the world and even angels.

We see that Paul applies this in his letter to the Corinthians. In chapter 5, we see him rebuking the church as arrogant for tolerating the person who committed incest. He has his father’s wife. Paul commanded them to “deliver this man to Satan.” The purpose of this excommunication is for the person to see his wrong, to eventually be saved. In verses 12–13, Paul urges the church to remove from the fellowship those who are unrepentant in their sin: “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

For this reason, Lapiz is wrong in separating the Law from the Gospel and dichotomizing them. As Christians, we should affirm both the Law and the Gospel. For the Law is good and it helps us see that we need Jesus, and as Christians saved by the Gospel, it helps us in having a standard of righteousness that we could follow to glorify God.

Ultimately, if we dichotomize the Law and the Gospel and say that Jesus broke the Law, then this would imply that Jesus cannot be our Savior, for if He sinned, then His death on the cross would mean that it is a righteous judgment served against Him. This means that believing in Him will not credit to us a righteousness that was won by someone perfect. No righteousness would be imputed to us. So if Lapiz is right, then the Gospel he claims to uphold serves no value whatsoever.

Conclusion

In this article, we organized our discussion to show Lapiz’s real argument in three points: (1) The Name of God and Light vs. Darkness; (2) No Work on the Sabbath vs. Doing Good on the Sabbath; (3) Law vs. Gospel.

We were able to clarify that in “The Name of God and Light vs. Darkness,” Lapiz intended to say that Jesus and the Pharisees have different “Fathers.” The Father of Jesus is El Elyon, and He is light, while the Father of the Pharisees is Yahweh, which is darkness.

In “No Work on the Sabbath vs. Doing Good on the Sabbath,” Lapiz paints the Sabbath as a legalistic practice where people are murdered for non-participation, and that animals are killed because of the sacrifices. He contrasts this picture by showing that Jesus hated the practice and that Jesus’ focus is to “do good on the Sabbath,” which the Pharisees are against.

In “Law vs. Gospel,” Lapiz said that Jesus did not fulfill the Law in the sense of obeying everything in the Law, for He is said to break a lot of those laws to free people from its imprisonment. He also makes a dichotomy that we need to choose if we should believe in Jesus or Grace or Law or Yahwism.

When we analyzed each of Lapiz’s claims, for each point, we were able to show:

In “The Name of God and Light vs. Darkness,” there is no good reason to separate Yahweh and El as different gods, but they are one God. The passages that were used to attribute “darkness” to Yahweh turn out that it does not mean that He is evil, but is something consistent with God being described as light.

In “No Work on the Sabbath vs. Doing Good on the Sabbath,” the analysis showed us that the Sabbath and the animal sacrifices per se are not evil and that it does not necessarily contradict Jesus’ position that we must do good on the Sabbath.

In “Law vs. Gospel,” the analysis showed us that Jesus indeed fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, and He surpassed the righteousness of the Pharisees by living according to the spirit of the law. The supposed laws that Jesus violated are not part of the Law, but it is part of the added man-made tradition of the Pharisees. This also showed that the Law and the Gospel do not need to be dichotomized, for the Law is good and it prepares for the Gospel. It is also shown that Jesus cannot be our Savior if He had broken the Law.

In light of these discussions, since the teachings that Ed Lapiz contradicts are part of Christianity’s essential doctrines, such as the nature of God, the works of Jesus Christ, the Law, and the Gospel, then it is right for us to deem the beliefs he proposed as false teachings. It is appropriate for anyone to have grave concern over this, for teachings like this would bring a person to eternal destruction.³⁸

References:

1. His video is no longer available, but we were able to get a manuscript of it with timestamps. With that said, there are still videos that are available that you could watch where you could compare my translations such as this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjUaOD--10U.

As a disclaimer, the approach of this essay focused more on the substance of what Lapiz taught. This is because he denied on his Facebook page that he adheres to Marcionism. So I think that insisting on the terms will be unproductive. He also did not make an unequivocal denunciation of his teaching. When the controversy started, he just removed the video from his YouTube, then he made a statement that even the whole video could be taken out of context if it is watched alone and without regard to his other teachings. Other people who commented on his teaching showed agreement with it instead of defending him that this is not his view. So his attempt for explanation did not really bring clarity to his position but confusion. The statements he made as an attempt for explanation seem to not be available on his Facebook page anymore.

2. Lapiz, Ed. “OF LEGAL AGE NA SYA by Pastor Ed Lapiz,” July 24, 2024. 35:16–37:11, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjUaOD--10U.

3. Ibid., 0:27–48.

4. Ibid., 2:04–2:06.

5. Ibid., 2:07–2:36.

6. Ibid., 2:58–3:08.

7. Ibid., 3:32–4:00.

8. Ibid., 4:00–4:18.

9. Ibid., 4:25–5:10.

10. Ibid., 5:10–5:36.

11. Ibid., 5:36–5:43.

12. Ibid., 5:57–6:55.

13. Ibid., 9:46–15:23.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid., 15:23–18:37.

16. Ibid., 18:38–22:52.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid., 35:16–37:11.

20. Ibid.

21. Ibid., 37:11–39:15.

22. Ibid., 39:15–40:29.

23. Heiser, Michael, “Are Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut. 32:8–9 and Psalm 82?” (2006). Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary (1973–2015). 5. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lts_fac_pubs/278.

24. Heiser, Are Yahweh and El Distinct Deities, 4.

25. Ibid., 5.

26. Ibid., 6.

27. Ibid., 7.

28. Ibid.

29. Ibid., 5.

30. John Oswalt, Notes on Amos, The ESV Study Bible, ESV, Lane Dennis et al., eds., Illinois: Crossway, 2008), 1668–1669.

31. David Baker, Notes on Zephaniah, The ESV Study Bible, ESV, Lane Dennis et al., eds., Illinois: Crossway, 2008), 1734.

32. C. John Collins, Notes on Psalms, The ESV Study Bible, ESV, Lane Dennis et al., eds., Illinois: Crossway, 2008), 1061.

33. Robert Picirilli and Jeffrey Crabtree, The Randall House Bible Commentary: Matthew (Tennessee: Randall House, 2015), 351.

34. Douglas Comin, “Comments on Numbers 15,” Facebook, August 11, 2015, https://www.facebook.com/groups/reformedpub/posts/439091776279470.

35. Thomas Schreiner, 40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law (Michigan: Kregel Publications, 2010), Chapter 37, “Is the Sabbath Still Required for Christians?,” Ebook.

36. “Was it wrong for David to eat the showbread in 1 Samuel 21:1–6?,” GotQuestions, n.d., https://www.gotquestions.org/David-showbread.html.

37. Robert Picirilli, The Randall House Bible Commentary: The Gospel of Mark (Tennessee: Randall House, 2003), 82–86.

38. I disagree with theologians who labeled him as merely committing an error, for I see “error” as a category that pertains to non-essential doctrines. For example, since I have an Arminian persuasion, then I would see Calvinism as erroneous. I expect them to see my persuasion to be the same. There is nothing wrong with this since we both believe in objective truth and this does not necessarily mean that Christianity is divided. But for doctrines that are considered to be against essential doctrines, it is right for them to be deemed as false teaching.