Printer Friendly Page

The Law Of Moses Versus The Law Of The Spirit

How The New Covenant Differs from the Old

by Mike Vinson

Reformatted May 3, 2009 so scriptures will be searchable with Esword TOA

[Also available in PDF Format]

Introduction

The law of God is surely a revelation of the very character and personality of God. Yet the scriptures appear to many to be filled with contradictions on this subject.

For example, Christ says:

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

From this point on, Christ begins a series of six 'you have heard it said by them of old time...' followed by, but I say unto you... In every case, the but I say unto you... is a dramatic change from "the law" which Christ quotes every time he says you have heard it said by them of old time...

In several instances, Christ's teachings flatly contradict the law of Moses. This is done immediately after warning us whosoever... shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.

How can this be? The writings of the Apostle Paul contain these things...which are...hard to be understood, by they that are unlearned and unstable...(2Pe 3:16).

Paul asks the question Do we then make void [Greek word - katargeo] the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law (Rom 3:31). Yet later he says having abolished [same Greek word katargeo] in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances... (Eph 2:15).

Is the law "abolished" or not? These are but a couple of examples of the confusion that is the rule whenever "the law" is discussed.

It is the purpose of this paper to show that neither Christ nor Paul contradicted themselves. We will do this by demonstrating that there are two completely separate laws under discussion in the scriptures.

It will be revealed that generally the phrase "the law" when it stands alone refers to the law of Moses. It will also be shown in graphic detail how this law is "oldness of letter" and is completely different and separate from the "newness of spirit" (Rom 7:6). It will be shown how in many instances the "newness of spirit" flatly contradicts the "oldness of the letter." The scriptures will be provided which show that while the oldness of "the letter killeth...the spirit giveth life" (2Co 3:6). Yet the "letter of the law," while it defines sin, is not of itself sin.

The preordained function of the law of Moses corresponds with the function of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. By both we come to know what sin is (Rom 7:7) and what good is and therefore both become "ministrations of death" (2Co 3:7).

While the "law of commandments contained in ordinances" (Eph 2:15) is a "ministration of death" (2Co 3:7) and is indeed "abolished" (Gr.- katargeo) and "done away" (also Gr. - katargeo), this is only so "after that faith is come" (Gal 3:25).

"The law" was not a "schoolmaster" just to bring Paul's generation to Christ and then disappear. "The law" was OUR schoolmaster to bring US unto Christ" (Gal 3:24). This statement can be made in its past tense only "after that faith is come". "Before faith comes" (vs. 23) we are all, generation by generation, concluded under sin.

Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

It will be demonstrated "after faith is revealed" in each generation of believers:

Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

It will be shown that it is only by the law that all the world may become guilty before God. (Rom 3:19).

The law is "abolished" and "done away" only for those "in Christ." We know that what things soever the law saith it saith to them who are under the law... guilty before God (Rom 3:19).

We know [and hope to demonstrate] that the law is good when used lawfully [meaning] that the law is not made for a righteous man but for the lawless and disobedient... (1Ti 1:8,9). "Lawful use of the law" is for the "lawless and disobedient". Thank God it is not "abolished" or "done away" for those folks.

This paper will show that "the law of Christ" (Gal 6:2) is as superior to the ten commandments as Matthew 5 is to Exodus 20 and as meat is superior to milk.

The reader will be pointed to the scriptures which show that both laws, like both trees in the garden of Eden, were given by God and both have served and continue to serve their different and separate functions in God's plan and purpose.

We will show that the law of Moses was for a carnal, Christ-rejecting Israel.

Yes, even "the Israel of God" (Gal 6:16), those who come to know Christ, "also shall be cut off" (Rom 11:22) if not continuing to see that our standing in Christ brings us out from under the "yoke" (Act 15:10) of "bondage under the elements of the world" (Gal 4:3). These "elements of the world" under which the heir is kept until he is brought to Christ, are the ten commandments and the law of Moses.

We will determine that the failure to distinguish between these two laws keeps us from being able to differentiate between the two Israels. That failure is as vital as distinguishing Ishmael from Isaac. One of them is the heir, no longer under the "yoke" and "bondage to the elements of this world", but the one under the law is the son of the bondwoman and will not be made heir (Gal 4:21-31). Christ cannot "be formed in those under the law" (Gal 4:19-21).

Understanding the law is just that important!

Finally, we reveal that the perfection of the lamb of God; the blamelessness of the Being without blemish; the perfect righteousness of Christ was not reckoned by His perfect obedience to the "law of Moses" which He deliberately violated on more than one occasion for the sole purpose of showing that His new covenant law was far superior to the passing old covenant law; yes, even the ten commandments.

Rather, His righteousness was based on the righteousness of the new covenant, "the righteousness of God without the law... being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ..." (Rom 3:20-22).

Christ was not "justified by deeds of the law" (vs. 20) any more than we are.

Two Opposing Theologies

There are two opposing theological thoughts and teachings among Christians today:

  1. The vast majority of Christians (especially fundamentalists) believe that we fulfill the New Covenant (law) by keeping the Old Covenant (law) in our hearts. In this teaching, grace fills in the gaps should we fall short of perfection.
  2. A smaller group of believers (libertarians) believe and teach that we are not under the Old Covenant (law) OR the New Covenant (law). But rather, we are free from ALL law. In this teaching grace covers all of our actions good or bad, with no consequences for anything we do.

Both of these views are untrue and unscriptural.

The New Covenant Is Not A Modification Of The Old Covenant

Lest anyone should seriously entertain the notion that the New Covenant is in harmony with the Old Covenant or that it is a modification of the Old Testament or that it is still in force today, consider the following Scriptures:

Old Mosaic Covenant New Spiritual Covenant
OLD Cov........................2Co 3:14 NEW Covenant.....2Co 3:6
1st Covenant...............Heb 8:7, 9:1 2nd Covenant........Heb 8:7, 10:1-9
Came by Moses.................Joh 1:17 Came by Christ.....Heb 8:6, 9:15
Law of God in STONE.....2Co 3:3 Law of God in HEART ..Heb 10:16
Law of MOSES........Act 13:38-39 Law of CHRIST.....Gal 6:2
Law of flesh...................Rom 7:5-6 Law of the SPIRIT.Rom 8:2
NOT of faith....................... Gal 3:2 Law of FAITH... Rom 3:27
Yoke of BONDAGE...........Gal 5:1 Law of LIBERTY. Jas 1:25
Law of SIN................... Rom 7:5-6 Law of RIGHTEOUSNESS .. Rom 9:30-31
Law of DEATH..................2Co 3:7 Law of LIFE ..Gal 3:11,6:8
Christ removes OLD........ Heb 10:9 Christ enacted NEW.... Heb10:9
A SHADOW...............Col 2:14-17 REALITY.....Heb 10:1-18
FULFILLED...............Mat 5:17-18 NOW IN FORCE....Heb 8:6, 10:9
Priesthood CHANGED...Heb 7:12 UNCHANGEABLE Priesthood.... Heb 7:24
MANY sacrifices........Heb 9:12-13 ONE sacrifice for sin....Heb 10:12
IMPERFECT.................. Heb 7:19 PERFECT.......... Heb 7:19
Blood of ANIMALS........Heb 9:19

Blood of CHRIST... Mat 26:28

Circumcision.................. Exo 12:48 Uncircumcision Rom 4:9-12
WORKS of law.................Gal 3:10 NOT of works-GRACE ..Eph 2:8-9
REMEMBERS sins..........Heb 10:3 FORGETS sins..Heb 10:17
YEARLY atonement..........Heb10:3 PERMANENT atonement Heb 10:14
SINFUL priests..................Heb 5:3 SINLESS priest...Heb 7:26
AARONIC priests.............Heb7:11 MELCHISEDEC priest ...Heb 5:5-10
MAN MADE tabernacle....Heb 8:5

HEAVENLY tabernacle ...Heb 8:2,9:11

Out of LEVI.................... Heb 7:11 Out of JUDAH...Heb 7:14

WEAK,UNPROFITABLE..Heb7:18

POWER of ENDLESS LIFE ... Heb. 7:16
NO inheritance................Rom 4:13 ETERNAL inheritance ...Heb 9:15
Sacrifice of ANIMALS....Heb 9:13 Sacrifice of CHRIST ......Heb 9:28
Purified the FLESH......... Heb 8:13 Purged the CONSCIENCE ...Heb 9:14
PRODUCES wrath........ Rom 4:15 SAVES from wrath...Rom 5:9
Perfected NOTHING..... Heb 7:19 Perfects BELIEVERS..Heb 10:14
NO MERCY.................Heb 10:28 COMPLETE MERCY ..Heb 8:12
NO justification...............Act 13:39 BELIEVERS justified...Act 13:39
BRINGS a curse...............Gal 3:10 REDEEMS from curse...Gal 3:13
ABOLISHED..................2Co 3:13 CONTINUES IN GLORY ...2Co 3:11
Brought DEATH................2Co 3:7 Brought RECONCILIATION ... 2Co 5:18
ISRAEL ONLY.......Deu 4:7-8, 5:3 ALL MANKIND......Mar 14:24, 2Co 5:14-19

So we have an abundance of scriptures that tell us there was an Old Covenant (for Israel) that was an administration of condemnation and death: it was but a "shadow" of a better covenant to come and has been "annulled'. Now Christ has given us a New Covenant of the spirit based on spiritual law:

(1) the Law of God,
(2) the Law of Christ,
(3) the Law of the Spirit,
(4) the Law of Faith,
(5) the Law of Liberty,
(6) the Law of Righteousness and
(7) the Law of Life.

These seven (perfect) laws (for all mankind), written on our hearts by the spirit of God, cover every aspect of human life making the Old Covenant of none effect.

Defining Righteousness And Sin

This composition is not directed at anyone who wonders "what the definition of 'is' is." While it is conceded that scriptural words and phrases do not always carry their original primary meaning, it is also asserted on scriptural grounds that the intended meaning can easily and scripturally be demonstrated to the edification of "those with eyes to see, and ears to hear" Mat 13:16. To have any rational discussion on the subject of the law of God, we simply must define two words; righteousness and sin.

Righteousness
Definition #1

Let's look first at the word 'righteousness'. The first mention of this word in scripture is Gen 15:6 - "And he [Abraham] believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness." Paul quotes this verse in Gal 3:6 arguing that righteousness attributed to ones self saves no one.

God was so pleased with Abraham's faith that He "counted it to him for righteousness." Is this saying that Abraham wasn't really righteous at all, but because he believed God, God decided to substitute his faith for righteousness?

No, this is not what is meant by "counted", neither here in Genesis nor by Paul in Gal 3:6. The Hebrew word for "counted" is chashab - Strong's Concordance #2803. This is the word used repeatedly in Leviticus in connection with selling real estate. We today would not call these transactions, sales. We would call them leases of 49 years or less. The land shall not be sold forever: ...If your brother be waxen poor, and hath sold his possession... Then let him count [chashab] the years of the sale thereof, and restore the overplus unto the man to whom he sold it; that he may return [the land] unto his possession (Lev 25:22-27).

This was an equivalent value that had to be returned to the man who bought the land: Counting (chashab) from the date of the sale up to the jubilee.

And so it is with faith. Faith is the equivalent of righteousness! "Without faith it is impossible to please... God" (Heb 11:6). The author of this verse in Gen 15:6 seems to assume that we all already know what righteousness is.

Righteousness
Definition #2

The first time this word is defined is...:

Deu 6:25 And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

Psa 119:172 ...all thy commandments [are] righteousness.

Luk 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

Mat 19:17 ...if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

To sum it up, we have two definitions of righteousness:

1) believing God and
2) obeying God's commandments and sayings.

Combining these two definitions, we can say that doing through the faith of Christ the things God commands seems to be a good, sound, scriptural definition of 'righteousness'. As we will demonstrate with scripture though, obedience is now defined by "love," by "spirit," "by grace [of God]" (Tit 2:11-12) "through faith" [of Christ] (Gal 2:20); by "these sayings of mine" not Moses (Mat 7:24 and 26); by "the word that I have spoken" (Joh 12:48) not the law of Moses. This is the only righteousness God recognizes (Eph 2:8-10).

Sin
Definition #1

The Hebrew word for sin is chattaah (Strong's #2403). Sin was certainly brought in through Adam's disobedience (Rom 5:12), but the word sin (chattaah) first appears in Gen 4:7. Cain did not see the need for a blood offering, and the Lord had consequently rejected his offering. Beginning in verse 6, The Lord said unto Cain, Why are you wroth? And why is your countenance fallen? (Verse 7) If you do well [righteously], shall you not be accepted? And if you do not well, sin lies at the door...

There's our first definition of sin: ...you do not well.

Sin
Definition #2

In Judges 20, the Israelites are gathering an army to fight against the tribe of Benjamin. Some Benjamite men had killed a concubine belonging to a man of Ephraim.

Jdg 20:13 Now therefore deliver [us] the men, the children of Belial, which [are] in Gibeah, that we may put them to death, and put away evil from Israel. But the children of Benjamin would not hearken to the voice of their brethren the children of Israel:

So the Benjamites gathered their own army against Israel. They numbered 7,700 men. Now verse 16; Among all this people there were 700 chosen men, left-handed; everyone could sling stones at an hair breadth and not miss (chata). This word chata (Strong's #2398) has the same root as chattaah (#2403). This is the only place out of the 220 times it is used in the Old Testament that it is translated miss. It is normally translated sin, sinning, offend, blame, fault and harm. By far the most common translation in the KJV is "sinned."

So our second scriptural definition of sin is to "miss" the mark. The "mark", of course, is always understood to be God's commandments, His law. As Paul states it in Rom 7:7, ...I had not known sin, but by the law...

Sin
Definition #3

In our definition of righteousness, we pointed out that Gen 15:6 and Gal 3:6 both say that Abraham's faith was counted (the equivalent) of righteousness. The flip side of that statement is our third scriptural definition of sin.

Rom 14:23 ...what soever is not of faith [the faith of Christ in us - Gal 2:20] is sin.

Even obedience to the laws of God, when credited to ourselves instead of Christ's faith working in us, is sin. Rom 2:27 says You... by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law. And Gal 2:20 tells us ...The life that I now live, I live by the faith of the son of God...

The failure to recognize the sovereignty of God in our lives turns our righteousness into sin. All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags (Isa 64:6) and Whatsoever is not of faith [the faith of Christ in us Eph 2:8 and Gal 2:20] is sin (Rom 14:23).

Sin
Definition #4

1Jn 3:4 - ...Sin is the transgression of the law. Though this might better be translated "sin is lawlessness", law is still unavoidable if we are to define sin or righteousness. The inescapable truth of any definition of sin is: ...By the law is the knowledge of sin... (Rom 3:20)

In Summary of the Definitions

To sum it up: whether we're discussing sin or righteousness, the law of God is central to both. Righteousness is heads, sin (unrighteousness) is tails on the coin of God's law.

Two Covenants

Having scriptural definitions of sin and righteousness, we are now in a position to evaluate the inspired teachings of the apostle Paul on this subject of the law.

Central to this discussion is remembering that there are two covenants mentioned in scripture. God ...hath made us able ministers of the new testament, [the Greek word is diatheke, Strong's #1242, the same word translated covenant in Luk 1:72, Act 3:25; Act 7:8; Rom 9:4 and Rom 11:27], not of the letter but of the Spirit: for the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life (2Co 3:6).

Paul is referring to the two covenants mentioned in

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts [in the spirit, not in the letter], and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Did you catch verse 32: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers...? There is something different about this covenant. It is not according to the "letter but of the spirit" (2Co 3:6).

Verse 33 of Jer 31 tells us that both covenants concern God's law, but the difference is that in the new covenant, nothing is physically written. The only writing involved in the new covenant is I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts... The "inward man" is the "mind and heart" (Heb 10:16) separate from the carnal mind (Rom 7:22 and Rom 8:7) and separate from the carnal commandment (Heb 7:6). The inward spiritual law isn't abolished; it is actually "established" and fulfilled through Christ in us (Rom 3:31). The "letter" of the law, while being "abolished" for those "in Christ," is established as the "schoolmaster" to bring us all to Christ.

What Does The Old Covenant Include?

Now we need to ask, exactly what is the Old Covenant that has been replaced by the new covenant? Does the Old Covenant include the ten commandments? Yes, it does! It is only the ten commandments that are called the "tables of the covenant".

Deu 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, [even] ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

Deu 9:11 And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, [that] the LORD gave me the two tables of stone, [even] the tables of the covenant.

It seems today that many in the body of Christ are so afraid that they will be accused of turning grace into lasciviousness, that they cannot agree with Paul that the "tables of stone" (2Co 3:3) are "the ministration of death" (2Co 3:7) and "the ministration of condemnation" (2Co 3:9).

It was the ten commandments written on two "tables of stone" that Moses had in his hands when he came down from the mount. It was the ten commandments of which Paul says "if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones was glorious..." (2Co 3:7). What was glorious is "that which was written and engraven in stones".

The "glory of Moses' countenance" was simply a reflection of the glory of that which was "written and engraven in stones." (vs. 7) But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious [this is the source of the glory], so that the children of Israel could not behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which... was to be done away. The King James bible has ...which glory was to be done away, but the word "glory" is in italics meaning it does not appear in the original Greek. Now verse eleven agrees with verse seven: For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. "Glorious" is an adjective describing "that which is done away." The ministration of death written and engraven in stones was glorious and is done away. Until we see and agree with this statement by Paul, we will never fully see the "glory of that which remaineth."

The "law of Moses" is the law of God only in the same sense that the first Adam is called the "son of God" (Luk 3:38) "...that was not first which is spiritual [the law of love - Mat 5], but that which is natural: [carnal old covenant law of Moses, Ten commandments - Heb 7:16 and Deu 4:13] and AFTERWARD that which is spiritual" (1Co 15:46). Speaking of the law, the first covenant, we are told "...He taketh away the first that he might establish the second" (Heb 10:9). "The law [of Moses] is not made for a righteous man but for the lawless and disobedient" (1Ti 1:9).

There have always been those who will turn the grace of God into lasciviousness (Jud 4), but we must not let this keep us from using a "form [Greek: pattern as in 1Ti 1:16] of sound words" (2Ti 1:13).

Modern Arguments About The Law

Many today, perhaps afraid of appearing too liberal in their theology, do not believe that the ten commandments should ever be considered a part of the old covenant. "Surely", they reason, "Paul is not saying that the Ten commandments are done away."

The argument goes something like this:

"The only thing 'abolished', 'done away', 'vanishing away', 'disannulled' or 'blotted out' are the ceremonial laws regarding the sacrificial system. Christ has died for us so we no longer need those laws because Christ is the fulfillment of all those typical sacrifices. But the death of Christ did not abolish or fulfill the laws regarding the Sabbaths or the laws regarding clean and unclean meats or any of the laws of restitution or tithing, etc., etc. Oh, yes, Paul specifically states that circumcision is now of the heart in the spirit and not in the letter (flesh). But if Paul does not specifically mention that a particular part of the old covenant has been fulfilled, we cannot take it upon ourselves to decide what has and what has not been 'fulfilled' and 'done away' or 'abolished', etc."

It is this more or less orthodox (not scriptural) mind set that has bequeathed us our present fractured Christian world.

Arguing that "we can't just decide for ourselves what part of the old covenant is 'fulfilled', 'disannulled', etc.," much of Christendom has done just that. For example, some believe we should observe the seventh day Sabbath. For these folks, if you don't do that, you are disobeying the fourth commandment. Others have replaced the seventh day with the first day of the week. To these folks, if you aren't in church on Sunday, you probably won't go to heaven. And if you're still keeping the seventh day Sabbath, then you are 'still under the law'. The "Sunday keepers" feel they are not "under the law" because they keep the first day of the week.

Both schools of thought seem to agree that you still need to tithe. Some are more dogmatic about that than others.

Many, but not all, of the Sabbath keepers maintain that the Sabbath and the holy days and the laws of clean and unclean meats were given to Adam and kept by Noah, Job and Abraham; and therefore are eternal and are not typical so are not fulfilled, or at least not yet fulfilled in Christ. Volumes could be written on the differences in doctrines concerning the law. Many if not all, denominations have been established based on slightly different or sometimes big differences of opinions concerning the law. Is there any truth to any of their arguments?

We Cannot Pick And Choose For Ourselves

There is one truth in these arguments to which we should all agree, and that is that we cannot pick for ourselves what is and what is not "fulfilled" or "done away" in Christ (Deu 4:2, 12:32; Jer 26:2; Rev 22:18-19). These scriptures make it clear that God does not take lightly our adding to or taking away from His Word. This is about the only truth I can see in any of these arguments.

Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

With this stern warning in mind, we think it best to agree with the Lord, the prophet (Jer 31:31-33) and the apostle (2Co 3:3-11) that the old covenant with all its glory has been replaced by the new covenant (Jer 31:31-33 and Heb 8:8-10); that the new covenant is "not according to" the old (Heb 8:9); that that which is done away was glorious... and was "written and engraven in stones" (2Co 3:11 and 7); that the new is a "better covenant" (Heb 8:6); that the old "is ready to vanish away" (Heb 8:13) and "he taketh away the first, that He may establish the second" (Heb 10:9). He doesn't parse (break apart) the covenant. It is all "done away" or "abolished" (Greek - katargeo) for those "in Christ."

Exactly What Was "Written... In Tables Of Stone"?

In the Old Testament

2Co 3:11 says: "that which is done away was glorious." Verse 7 tells us: "the administration of death written and engraven in stones was glorious..." The only question then becomes exactly what was "written... in tables of stone (2Co 3:3)?

The phrase "tables of stone" appears twelve times in the Hebrew. Every time it appears, it refers to the ten commandments (Exo 24:12, Exo 31:18, Exo 34:1, Exo 34:4; Deu 4:13, Deu 5:22, Deu 9:9-11, Deu 10:1, 3; 1Ki 8:9).

Let's quote just four of these scriptures which refer to the ten commandments as tables of stone.

  1. And He [God] declared unto you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, even the ten commandments; and He wrote them upon two tables of stone (Deu 4:13).
  2. When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone even the tables of the covenant which the Lord made with you... (Deu 9:9)
  3. And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights that the Lord gave me the two tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant (Deu 9:11)
  4. The Lord delivered unto me the two tables of stone written with the finger of God... (De. 9:10).

In the New Testament

The tables of stone are mentioned only two times in the New Testament.

  1. Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart (2Co 3:3)
  2. Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant. (Heb 9:4)

The "tables of the covenant" were the 10 commandments written on stone (Deu 4:13 and 9:11).

The Greek word for testament and covenant are the same - diatheke (Strong's #1242). It is used 24 times in the new testament in direct reference to the new covenant. (Mat 26.28; Mar 14:24; Luk 22:20; Rom 11:27; 1Co 11:25; 2Co 3:6, 14; Gal 3:15, 17; Gal 4:24; Eph 2:12; Heb 7:22; Heb 8:6, 8-10; Heb 9:15-17, 20; Heb 10:16, 29; Heb 12:24; Heb 13:20; Rev 11:19).

The ten commandments are the heart and soul of the old covenant. All of the other statutes and judgments are based upon and rest upon them. Without the ten commandments there would be no old covenant.

If we want to be careful not to add to or take away from the word of God, we need to simply believe "In that he saith, a new covenant, he has made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away" (Heb 8:13). The ten commandments are the tables of stone of the (first) covenant (Deu 4:13).

A Schoolmaster Is Needed In Every Generation

You may be comfortable retaining some part of that old covenant. That's fine. It was always intended to be our "schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. But after that faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster" (Gal 3:24, 25). "But before faith comes, we are kept [Greek: sunago - to be garrisoned as by military force] under the law, shut up [Greek katakleio - to lock up or imprison] unto the faith that will afterward be revealed" (Gal 3:23). Because "the scripture hath concluded [is also katakleio - to lock up or imprison] all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe" (Gal 3:22).

For Whom Are The Ten Commandments Intended?

Those 'locked up' or 'imprisoned' [katakleio] "under the law" are those to whom the law is addressed. "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God" (Rom 3:19). "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers" (1Ti 1:9). The Law is not for a righteous man!

So who are those who are "under the law"? As far as God is concerned it is "all the world" and they are "all... guilty before God" because the law (the ten commandments) is a "ministration of death" (2Co 3:7) and "the ministration of condemnation" (2Co 3:9). Why is that? Because the ten commandments were not designed for those who have God's law of love written on their hearts.

Animal sacrifices were typical of the sacrifice of Christ (Heb 10:10-11). Physical circumcision was typical of spiritual circumcision (Rom 2:29), and the ten commandments are typical of the spiritual laws first revealed by Christ to his disciples in Matthew 5 in His sermon on the mount.

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

It is the words of Christ (not the law of Moses) that will judge us.

Joh 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Luk 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

None of these verses is referring to the law of Moses. If they were, the sermon on the mount would never have needed to be delivered.

The Purpose For Types And Shadows

Shadows cannot perfect, and the first covenant is a shadow of the second. "For the law having a shadow of good things to come..." (Heb 10:1). Notice again, no parsing (taking apart and analyzing) of "the law".

In Matthew 5, Christ is showing what the 10 commandments foreshadowed. Six times he says "You have heard it said of old time", then he quotes either the ten commandments or the law of Moses. It was all the same to Christ.

The first two "you have heard that it was said by them of old time" concerned the sixth and seventh commandments. The last four concerned statutes and judgments. All had already "waxed old and were ready to vanish away" (Heb 8:13).

In Romans 2, Paul is calling the Jewish believers to task for judging the Gentile believers who "have not the law, but do by nature [the "divine nature" of 2Pe 1:4] the things contained in the law" (Rom 2:14). Paul is not talking about the old covenant law because that law required circumcision. Circumcision, among many other laws, is NOT by nature. The Jews thought that because they had the law of Moses, they had the truth.

Rom 2:17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, Rom 2:18 And knowest [his] will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; Rom 2:19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, Rom 2:20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.

The old covenant, which includes the ten commandments (Deu 4:13), was a "form of knowledge and... truth".

The Greek word for form is morphosis (Strong's #3446) and is used only twice in the New Testament. The only other appearance is in 2Ti 3:5. In verse one, Paul is telling us what it will be like "in the last days" (vs. 2). "For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy...". Then in verse 5, he says "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." Paul informs us "if ye be circumcised Christ will profit you nothing" (Gal 5:2).

Now Paul was circumcised and goes on to tell the Corinthians that "circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God [is everything] (1Co 7:19). Don't let anyone tell you Paul did not believe in commandment keeping. But neither should you be deceived into believing that "commandments of God" here in 1Co 7:19 are the ten commandments of the old covenant (Deu 4:13; Exo 20). "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole law" (Gal 5:3). "Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them" (Gal 3:10).

Circumcision is as much a part of the Old Covenant as the ten commandments. And the ten commandments are the old covenant (Deu 4:13). THERE IS NO SCRIPTURE SEPARATING or PARSING OF THE LAW. IT IS "THE BOOK OF THE LAW" (Gal 3:10), AND IT IS "A DEBTOR TO DO THE WHOLE LAW" (Gal 5:3).

But the "whole law" and "the book of the law" is a mere "form of the knowledge and of the truth". It is "a yoke...which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear" (Act 15:10).

What Paul is saying is that if we mistake the outward ritual of circumcision for the spiritual reality that "Christ will profit you nothing." The same is true for Sabbath and holy day observance.

The weekly Sabbath and all the holy days are mere forms of Christ, just as surely as animal sacrifices were mere forms, shadows and types.

Surely no Christian would sacrifice animals and expect animal blood to cover and hide their sins. Why? Because "Christ is our Passover". Paul did not physically keep the feast once a year with physical bread. Paul put sin out of his life every day all year. He kept the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth (1Co 5:8).

Let us get away from 'forms'. Let us "keep the feast" not literally once a year, but daily with "the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."

Let's forsake the form of a Sabbath of one in seven and remain in our sabbatismos 24 hours a day seven days a week, for we which have believed do enter into rest...

Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God [did] from his.

For he that hath entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works every day. Remember, forms "deny the power thereof" because they are all just 'forms' of Christ. Let's trade in the old passing, powerless form for the permanent, powerful reality of Christ through whom we can do all things and conquer sin all the time.

Mat 5 reveals to us that the 10 commandments are a morphosis, a form of godliness, not the spirit or power of godliness that Christ is revealing here for the first time. If this is not so, then there would have been no need for the "sermon on the mount".

The believing Jews who were attempting to judahize Paul's Gentile converts, were concerned with the letter of the law and an outward visible show of righteousness and obedience. They wanted the Gentiles to be circumcised (Act 15:1), to observe the holy days (Col 2:15) and to keep the law of Moses (Act 15:5). It was not given to them to see (Mat 13:13) that circumcision must be of the heart (Lev 26:41). They may have realized that the Messiah was to be rejected (Isa 53:3), but they did not see that he was to be a reformer like Moses. (Deu 18:15, Heb 9:10)

Yet it was all there in the "law and the prophets" for those who were given "eyes to see and ears to hear" (Mat 13:13). The purpose all the types and shadows serve, being part of the law, is as a "schoolmaster to bring us to Christ" (Gal 3:24).

What Are "Good Things To Come"?

For the law, (notice it simply says "the law", not any particular part of it; the whole law) having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered, make the comers thereunto perfect (Heb 10:1).

As with Heb 7:12, which some say refers only to the laws pertaining to the priesthood, so here also many will argue that this refers only to the laws concerning the animal sacrifices.

But, it is not any particular part of the old covenant that is being replaced; it is all of the... old" covenant that is "ready to vanish away" (Heb 8:13). So if "the law" is simply "a shadow [a form] of good things to come, and not the very image of the things", then what is "the very image that makes the comers thereunto perfect" (Heb 10:1)?

When our eyes are opened, and we are given ears that hear, the Bible becomes amazingly simple and pleasantly redundant in its simplicity: "let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: [all part and parcel of the old "vanishing" covenant] which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [casting that shadow] is of Christ." Once again, they all pointed to Christ who is the center of all scripture (Col 1:19).

Again we ask, what is the "old covenant"? The answer is the same: "And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; [the ones superceded by Christ in Mat 5] and he wrote them upon two tables of stone" (Deu 4:13). These are the tables and the stones referred to in 2Co 3:3, 7 and 11). The ten commandments are the foundation of the law of Moses.

Mixing The Old Covenant With The New Covenant

We cannot dissect the old covenant and use or discard its parts at random. It is all or none at all. We dare not mix the old with the new. Mat 9:16, 17, "No man putteth a piece of new cloth into an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse. Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved." I think we all realize that Jesus is not speaking of literal cloths and wine bottles.

It is hard to give up the flesh (the letter of the law). It seems so right, so good to us. Old wine will always taste more mellow to the carnal mind. Christ predicted that this "time of reformation," this "new covenant," would not be well received. That is as true today as it has ever been. Here is Christ telling us that the new covenant will be rejected by His people for the old: No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better (Luk 5:39). That statement was made to "the disciples of John and of the Pharisees" (Mar 2:18, Luk 5:33), because to this day, it is their disciples who want to go back to the law of Moses.

Keeping the old covenant laws and the ten commandments may seem like the right thing to do (Act 15:5 - But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.), however, unless we repent of breaking these new commandments of our Lord, just like the men on whom the tower of Siloam fell, "...ye shall all likewise PERISH" (Luk 13:4-5). Mixing the new with the old does not work. It makes things worse. In fact, Jesus said, "they PERISH"! So notice what Paul tells us regarding circumcision, I testify to every man that is circumcised [or keeps the holy days, or the clean and unclean food laws, or tithing, etc. etc.] that he is a debtor to do the whole law (Gal 5:3).

Upon what scripture therefore, have some decided that, yes, circumcision is no longer needed, but the holy days, tithing, clean and unclean food laws, etc. etc. are to be observed? It is the "whole law" that must either be kept or it is all "things written in the book of the law" that are "done away" and "disannulled" but only after the law brings us to Christ (Heb 7:18). Circumcision is a type and shadow of putting off the flesh and being given a new heart: "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ [Christ living his life in us] (Gal 2:22, Col 2:11). The type, physical circumcision, has been rejected for the reality, Christ in us.

Who Is 'The Circumcision?'

"For we [those in Christ] are the circumcision, which worship God in spirit, and rejoice in Christ and have no confidence in the flesh [such as being a physical descendant of Abraham]" (Php 3:3).

This is what Paul means when he says ...though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more (2Co 5:16). Paul is not saying that we are no longer to acknowledge Christ's teaching given while He was in the flesh. To the contrary, he says if any man...consent not to...the words of our Lord Jesus Christ...he is proud, knowing nothing... (1Ti 6:3). What Paul is saying is that the type, being born of David after the flesh, being Abraham's seed after the flesh, the natural is always first (1Co 15:46). But once it is fulfilled, it waxeth old [and] is ready to vanish away (Heb 8:13).

Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

The Proper Use Of New Covenant Liberties

On what scriptural grounds do we tend to think that, yes, part of the law (circumcision) is fulfilled in Christ, but that the rest of the law is not? Paul had no such doctrine. Yes, he did "become a Jew to the Jew, and under the law to them that are under the law", but not because those types and shadows were necessary, but simply "that I might gain the Jew" and that "I might gain them that are under the law" (1Co 9:20). When Paul says, "...I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem..." (Act 18:21), it wasn't that he esteemed it necessary for salvation, but rather "and this I do for the gospels sake..." (1Co 9:23).

We should all follow Paul's example and tolerate those who are "weak in the faith" (Rom 14:1). One Christian may eat things not eaten by another (vs. 2 and 3). Another Christian may observe holy days, while another doesn't (yes, holy days were "esteemed" above other days). What is Paul's advice? "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" (Rom 14:5). "To his own master (God) he standeth or falleth" (vs. 4).

But how did Paul really feel about clean and unclean meat laws?

Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean.
Rom 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with [thy] meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
Rom 14:16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.

So exactly how do we decide how to conduct ourselves among other brothers whose spiritual development differs from ours?

Rom 14:18 For he that in these things serveth Christ [is] acceptable to God, and approved of men.
And how do we serve Christ?
Mat 25:40 ...Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me.

Therefore the way to "serve Christ" is to become a "servant" to your brother: "And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all" (Mar 10:44). We must not allow our liberty to "become a stumbling block" to our brothers (1Co 8:9). Understanding the liberties inherent in the new covenant is good as long as we do not become puffed up with our "superior knowledge".

1Co 8:1 ...Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

Keep holy days with those who keep holy days, eat meat with those who eat meat, herbs with those who eat herbs. Become "all things to all men that you might by all means save some" (1Co 9:22).

"...Take heed lest this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak" (in faith) (1Co 8:9).

"...Everyone of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: [Gen 9:3 "...everything that moves is food for you..."], but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean" (Rom 14:12-14).

"For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost" (Rom 14:17).

The kingdom of God…is righteousness... sends many folks, oblivious to the whole point of Matthew 5, right back to the commandments of God for carnal Israel. All your commandments are righteousness (Psa 119:172) they quote, blithely unaware that the same God who commanded carnal Israel to take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth changed that command to But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite you on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also (Mat 5:38 and 39).

Yes, "all thy commandments are righteousness", but Christ did not say "Why call ye me Lord, Lord and do not the things in the law or the Torah". What he did say was "Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say" (Luk 6:46).

Christ did not say "Whosoever cometh to me, and keepeth the Torah or the laws I gave to Moses..." What he did say was "Whosoever cometh to me and heareth MY saying and DOETH them…is like a man which built an house…upon a rock" (Luk 6:47).

Anyone who thinks that "love your enemy" is obeying the law of Moses doesn't know the law of Moses. Anyone who thinks "except for fornication" is in the law of Moses, hasn't read the law of Moses. Anyone who thinks "don't look on a woman to lust after her" is in Torah doesn't know Torah. And anyone who thinks that gathering corn to eat on the Sabbath and telling a man to take up his bed on the Sabbath are not breaking the Sabbath, simply hasn't read the old covenant laws (Num 15:33-35; Exo16:5; Jer 17:21-22).

Christ did not do these things because they were permitted in the "spirit of the law which had been lost in the traditions of the elder." He did them to demonstrate "that he was Lord also of the Sabbath" (Luk 6:5).

Christ, like Moses, was a reformer and a law-giver. The Lord your God will raise up unto you a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren like unto me; unto Him ye shall hearken (Deu 18:15). Which [tabernacle of Moses] stood only in meats and drinks and…carnal ordinances, imposed on them UNTIL [but only until] the time of REFORMATION…Christ being come (Heb 9:10 and 11).

Jesus Christ for the first time in history brought a spiritual (not a letter) law (Rom 7:6, 14 and Mat 5). "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Mat 5:27) is letter law; "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Mat 5:28) is spiritual law. "All these have I kept from my youth up" (Mat 19:20) and "...touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless" (Php 3:6) are statements made by the rich young ruler and Apostle Paul respectively. Yet Christ says they were 'lacking' while keeping these laws (Luk 18:22). It is the "newness of spirit" primarily (Rom 7:6), that the carnal mind "cannot be subject to" (Rom 8:7). One can keep the ten commandments from his youth up and be blameless in "the law", yet violate the "newness of spirit" (Rom 7:6), "the law of God" which is "inward" (Rom 7:22).

You can refrain from murder, adultery and love your neighbor, and still be carnal. But you cannot refrain from hate and lust and love your enemies and still be carnal. It is the spiritual law, not the ten commandments, not the letter of the law, that troubles the carnal mind.

Types And Shadows

Four times in scripture we are told that, in the eyes of God, things are not as they appear to us. Scripturally speaking the spiritual is REAL; the flesh is only the TYPE.

  1. "Abraham's (physical) seed" is not "Abraham's (real) children". In Joh 8:38, Christ says "I know you are Abraham's seed...", yet two verses later He denies that they are really his seed by saying: "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham" (vs. 39).
  2. Jews are not Jews: "He is not a Jew which is one outwardly…but he is a Jew which is one inwardly..." (Rom 2:28 and 29).
  3. Circumcision isn't really circumcision: "...Neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter..." (Rom 2:28 and 29).
  4. Israel is not 'Israel'. "That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children [Israel] of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed" (Rom 9:4).

The first chapter of the book of Romans tells us to whom the book is addressed and what is its subject. The book of Romans is written to the Gentiles, "both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians …both wise and unwise" (Rom 1:14-15). The subject concerns the "ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [back-see your Bible margin] the truth in unrighteousness" (vs. 18). These are men who "knew God, (but) they glorified him not as God … but...changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image... like corruptible man... who changed the truth of God into a lie ...who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death (yet they) not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" (Rom 1:18-32).

Will anyone deny that those who were "holding (back) the truth" who "knew God but glorified Him not as God", "who [know] the judgment of God" yet "have pleasure in them that" disobey; will anyone argue with Paul as to who these men are? "Behold you are called a Jew, and rest in the law, and make your boast of God, and knowest His will, and [are] ...instructed out of the law..." (Rom 2:17-18). The rest of chapter two is a verbal reprimand to the Jews (who were God's people) for their hypocrisy. It concludes with a new revelation: Being Jewish and being circumcised is no longer a matter of the flesh as it had been. It is now, as a result of the arrival, death and resurrection of the Messiah, a spiritual matter, a matter of a spiritual change, a change of heart, a change of mind and spirit (vs. 28 and 29).

While it is overly brief, it is not one bit inaccurate to say that the rest of the entire book of Romans deals with this change revealed in chapter two: "He is NOT a Jew which is one outwardly... He IS a Jew which is one inwardly..."

"...NEITHER is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh... circumcision IS that of the heart, in the Spirit... There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit... the spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we [Gentiles, not physical Jews] are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" (Rom 8:1, 16, 17).

In Rom 9, Paul lets us know that while he has acknowledged the wisdom and sovereignty of God, just like Abraham with Ishmael, he is grieved for "my kinsmen according to the flesh" (Rom 9:3).

In Gen 16, Abram and Sarai conspire to help God accomplish His promise to Abram to make of him a great nation.

In Gen 17, God reveals to Abraham that the seed that would be the heir was not Ishmael. Abraham's response was identical to that of Paul upon learning that his "kinsmen according to the flesh" had been "broken off" and replaced by the "children of promise" (Gal 4:28). We are not called the sons of Isaac because we are told that we, as Isaac, are "the children of the promise". Why would someone who IS as Isaac be called his son? We are sons of Abraham as was Isaac, and therefore, heirs of the promise as was Isaac. "O, that Ishmael might live before thee" (vs. 18), was Abraham's response. In chapter 21, Sarah bears Isaac, "...and she (Sarah) said unto Abraham, cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with... Isaac" (vs. 10). "And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son" (Ishmael). Ishmael was Abraham's son, his "kinsman according to the flesh". "And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son."

This is exactly what Paul is experiencing in Rom 9: "I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart... for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh" (vs. 2 and 3). This is what we experience as we see our fellow Christians succumbing to falsehoods and deceits.

Why is Paul grieved for "my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites..." (Rom 9:3-4)? Because he has just told us of the change that took place upon the arrival of Christ. Being a Jew and being circumcised now is a matter of promise, of faith, "of the spirit" (Rom. 2:28-29). "He is NOT a Jew which is one outwardly."

Here in Rom 9 speaking of his "kinsmen according to the flesh" that are the physical descendants of Isaac, Paul again says: "They are not all Israel which are of Israel" (vs. 6). "...that is, they which are the children of the flesh (my kinsmen according to the flesh - vs. 3) THESE ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF GOD;... that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth" (Rom 9:8, 11).

In chapter 10, we are told: "For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him, for whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved" (vs. 12, 13).

But aren't the Jews, modern Israel, still God's chosen people? Aren't "the gifts and calling of God without repentance' (Rom 11:29)? Won't the Jews be converted after the rapture and rule with us here on the earth?

The answer is yes "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance" and yes, "all Israel (my kinsmen according to the flesh) shall be saved", but "they are not... Israel which are of Israel (physically)... neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children... that is they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of promise are counted for the seed" (Rom 9:6-8). ANYONE WHO REJECTS CHRIST IS "NOT A JEW".

No, Israel "according to the flesh" will not be reigning on the earth with the saints during the millennium.

How can we know that physical Israel will not reign with the saints? Because Paul tells us that "Hagar (not Sarah) answers to Jerusalem that now is and is in bondage with her children" (Gal 4:25). Hagar and Ishmael are "of the flesh" and "flesh...cannot inherit the kingdom of God". "Now we brethren (Gentile Galatians) as Isaac was are the children of promise, but as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the spirit, even so it is now" (vs. 29). Did you catch that? The Gentile Galatians are "as Isaac was... the children of promise." They are the same "children of the promise... counted for the seed" of Romans 9:8. And Romans 9:8 also says "They which are the children of the flesh (physical descendants of Isaac) ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF GOD..."

Notice how Gal 4 harmonized with Rom 9: "nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son (Jews and Israelites who are not in Christ): for the son of the bondwoman (Jerusalem that now is in bondage - vs. 25) shall not be heir with the son of the free woman" (Gal 4:30).

So, who is the true spiritual Israel counted for the seed of Abraham? "So then brethren, we [Gentile Galatians] are NOT the children of the bondwoman, but [WE are the children] of the free" (vs. 31). "...If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promises" (Gal 3:29). "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but [what does avail much is] a new creature. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Rom 9:6). "And as many as walk according to this rule [that physical parentage and fleshly circumcision avail nothing, but being in Christ makes us the spiritual circumcision and spiritual Israelites], peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God" (Gal 6:16).

The Israel "according to the flesh" of Rom 9:3-4 is opposed to the "Israel of God" of Gal 6:16.

The "son" of the Israel "according to the flesh" will not be made heir with the son of the Israel of God. "Israel [according to the flesh] hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it." "The election [the Israel of God] has obtained that which Israel [according to the flesh] had sought (Rom 11:7).

That's why Paul says of the "Israel of God", those who are in Christ, "Do ye not know the saints shall judge the world... know ye not that we shall judge angels... (1Co 6:2-3)?

So those in Christ will judge angels AND the world; and will "not be heir" with the son of the bondwoman.

Didn't we agree that the gifts and calling of God are without repentance? What about the valley of dry bones "the whole house of Israel" who say "our hope is lost, we are cut off" (Eze 37:25)?

It will be when "the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel (the whole house of Israel - Eze 37:25) shall be saved..." (Rom 11:25 and 26). The "fulness of the Gentiles" is all those who will be in the second resurrection.

Exactly when will the fulness of the Gentiles be come in so the whole house of Israel can be saved? "When thy sisters Sodom and her daughters shall return to their former estate, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former estate, THEN thou and thy daughters shall return to your former estate" (Eze 16:55).

Is there a scholar anywhere who doesn't agree that the perverted Sodomites will be raised in the second resurrection, also known as the Great White Throne judgment, where all the dead are judged and those whose names are not in the book of life will be cast into the "lake of fire" (Rev 20:12-15). This is where and when the "whole house" of physical Israel will be "restored to (her) former estate."

Until this present time, physical, Christ-rejecting Israel, with "the law of Moses" has served as "a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things..."(Heb 10:1). In 1Co 10, Paul gives us a brief synopsis of Israel's history of rebellion against God while wandering in the wilderness. In verse 6, he says: "Now these things were our examples..." Again in verse 11: "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples"

"Example" and "ensample" are the same Greek word tupos (Strong's #5179).

The point is that the entire history of "Israel after the flesh" (1Co 10:18), including the giving of the law, is a tupos or type of the "Israel of God" (Gal 6:16). "The law (had) a shadow of good things to come" (Heb 10:1). The "good things to come" are all those things possessed by those who are "in Christ."

There Is A Change

But now that the body casting those types and shadows has come (Col 2:16, 17), "there is of necessity a change... of the law" which "the people received under the levitical priesthood" (Heb 7:11).

Let's put this "change of the law" in modern terms. If I had a contract (covenant) with you last year, and I broke the terms of that contract, you would have every legal right to cancel that contract and draw up a new one. In the new contract, you could change or retain any part of the old contract that you want, but the old contract would be abolished, and the new contract would be established. (Heb 7:11)

In Heb 7, Paul tells us that this is exactly what has taken place. Under the old contract, only the sons of Aaron could be priests. In the new contract, the Aaronic priesthood has been replaced by the Melchizedek priesthood, the priesthood that existed before the Levitical Aaronic priesthood; a priesthood that had everything to do with God's calling and had nothing to do with one's pedigree or physical lineage (Gal 3:28-29).

Verse 12 is a pivotal scripture: "For the priesthood being changed there is of necessity a change also of the law". This "change" is not just in the law requiring that priests be descended from Aaron. It is a change of "the law"... "received"..."under" the Levitical priesthood: "For under it (the Levitical priesthood) the people received the law [of Moses]" (vs. 11).

Defining Phrases

Speaking of this change in his various letters, Paul uses eight phrases that are misused, abused and misunderstood by many in the body of Christ today. Those eight phrases are:

  1. ...a change also of the law. Heb 7:12
  2. ...that which is done away. 1Co 13:10; 2Co 3:7, 11
  3. ...that which is abolished. 2Co 3:13 - abolishing the law of commandments contained in ordinances Eph 2:15
  4. ...blotting out the handwriting of ordinances Col 2:14
  5. ...a carnal commandment... [has been] ...disannulled. Heb 7:16-18
  6. ...ready to vanish away. Heb 8:13
  7. ...under the law. Rom 3:19; Rom 6:14,15; Gal 3:23; Gal 4:4,5, Gal 4:21; Gal 5:18
  8. He taketh away the first that he may establish the second (Heb 10:9)

Phrase #1

What does "a change also of the law..." mean? Heb 7:12

In this 7th chapter of Hebrews, Paul informs us that the Aaronic Levitical priesthood has been replaced with a priesthood after the order of Melchisedek. In verse 11, he says "the people received the law" under the Levitical priesthood.

But in verse 12, he makes a statement which bears heavily on the answer to all these statements, concerning the law and its present form and function. "For there being a change in the priesthood, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." (The law which the people received under the Levitical priesthood.)

Many contend that the only law under consideration here in verse 12 is the law concerning the priesthood only. Let us assume for the moment that this is true. Verse 11 then would really be saying this; "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood [laws], (for under it the people received the [Levitical priesthood] law)..."

This is obviously absurd. It is the law given by God to Moses, which the Levitical priesthood administered, and taught to the people, that is under discussion here in verse eleven. This is the law which the scribes and Pharisees mistakenly assumed would perfect them. (Vs. 11) This is the law referred back to in verse twelve where we read: "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." (The law just mentioned in verse 11 which was assumed to perfect the people.) Laws regarding the priesthood were never assumed to perfect the people. Laws administered by the Levitical priesthood were assumed to perfect the people.

But Christ demonstrates in Matthew 5 that the law of Moses (the 10 commandments and the statutes and judgments - the Old Covenant - Deu 4:13) are all types and shadows "of the law of the spirit of life" (Rom 8:2).

Notice I did not say that Christ demonstrates the "spirit of the law" in Mat 5. The phrase "the spirit of the law" is not to be found in scripture. "...In newness of spirit" is a scriptural phrase and is always used in opposition to "the oldness of the letter" (Rom 7:6).

"...The letter..." is not a phrase for rabbinical or Pharisaical "traditions of the elders" which had robbed the law of its original spiritual intent. The letter always opposes the spirit. "The letter" is "the law of Moses." There is no spirit to "hate your enemy" or "an eye for an eye."

Hate your enemy (Mat 5:43) taken from God's command to Israel in Deu 23:3-6 is not to be spiritually construed to mean "love your enemy."

"Love your enemy" is opposed to "hate your enemy." If you try to somehow make the old agree with the new, you will end up "making the tear worse;" "breaking the bottles" and "spilling the wine" and the result would be to "perish"!

Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I came not to destroy, but to fulfil (Mat 5:17).

"...One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Mat 5:18). Christ is not saying that Torah, the law, would be in effect till some time after the millennium. If that were the meaning, then circumcision would be necessary for salvation, because it is one of the most oft repeated, obvious requirements of, and the original token of God's relationship with his people (Gen 17:10 and Jos 5:3-7).

"As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things [physical circumcision?] which are written in the book of the law to do them" (Gal 3:10).

If "till all be fulfilled" (Greek - pleroo) means keeping every "jot and tittle" of "all things written in the book of the law to do them, then why does Christ in this same chapter urge his disciples to break the law and love their enemies?

Obviously pleroo "fulfilled" has more to do with bringing the law to a spiritual consummation in "Christ [who] is the end [end product, goal - love] of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth" (Rom 10:4), than it has to do with keeping every jot and tittle in Torah. What Christ is saying is that when all is pleroo, the law will pass away.

Has heaven or earth passed away? Why then are we not circumcising?

If "the man which doeth those things [contained in the law] shall live by them" (Lev 18:5) is a positive statement encouraging us to keep the law, why then is Paul contrasting "the righteousness which is of the law" with the righteousness which is of faith (Rom 10:4-6)? "Thou shalt not kill" has become "don't even hate your brother" and "thou shalt not commit adultery" has become "don't even look at a woman to lust after her." So there really is a "change also of the law" (Heb 7:12).

The Greek word translated change, is Strong's Concordance #3346, metatithemi. This word is used in Jud 4 - "...certain ungodly men turning (metatithemi) the grace of God into lasciviousness." The change (metatithemi) here in Jud 4 is a drastic change. So is the change in Heb 7:12. But the "change also of the law" is in the opposite direction from this "change" or "turning" in Jud 4. Let us allow Christ himself to demonstrate what is involved in this "change also of the law," in this "new covenant... not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers..."

In Mat 5:17, He tells us: "think not that I am come to destroy [kataluo #2647] the law or the prophets. I came not to destroy, but to fulfil [pleroo #4137]."

The word kataluo, "destroy," appears sixteen times in the New Testament. The first time it is used is here in Mat 5:17. The next appearance of this word is in Mat 24:2; "...Jesus said... there shall not be left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down" (kataluo). Of the sixteen entries of this word kataluo, the translation "destroy" and "thrown down" are by far the most common. Christ did not come to "destroy" or "throw down" the law, but to fulfil (pleroo) the law.

This word, pleroo (#4137), appears 90 times in the New Testament, generally in reference to various Old Testament prophecies about Christ being pleroo or fulfilled.

But this is also the word used in Rom 8:4. In verse three, Paul says that God sent Christ to accomplish in us what the law could not accomplish because of the "weakness of the flesh". So "Christ in us" (Gal 2:20) accomplishes something the law could not do. Christ strengthens us "that the righteousness of the law might be-pleroo-fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh [the letter] but after the spirit." This is the "law of love" (Mat 22:37-40) that faith establishes (Rom 3:31-"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law"). Establishing the "law of love" necessitates the "disannulling of the commandment" (Heb 7:18) as Christ demonstrates in Matt. 5. "The law" is itself a prophecy and type of the kingdom of God. It is through the "fulfilling and vanishing away" of the old testament law that the kingdom of God is "established" in the person and body of Jesus Christ.

The Righteousness of the Law

In Paul's writings, the phrase "after the flesh" and "after the letter" are used interchangeably (Rom 2:29, 8:1); contrasted to "after the spirit" (2Co 3:6).

Rom 8:4 is often quoted by those who want to retain the ten commandments of the law of Moses: "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit."

If we are walking after the spirit, we are not walking after the letter, "For the letter kills but the spirit gives life" (2Co 3:6). Simply not killing your brother and not committing adultery will not land you in the first resurrection. It will take a "change of the law" to accomplish that because a "change of the law" is also a change "of the heart" "not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart" (2Co 3:3). It is this changed law; walking after the spirit; that Christ demonstrates for us in Mat 5. In verse 17, he tells us he came not to destroy, but to fulfil the law. Keeping the "newness of spirit" may or may not fulfill the law of Moses (the ten commandments), but the law of Moses (the ten commandments) does not fulfill the "newness of spirit", the law of love (Rom 13:10). The rest of the chapter demonstrates what he meant by this, and we will see that it involves a drastic "change also of the law."

Six times in this same chapter, demonstrating what he meant by the word pleroo (fulfill), Christ quotes out of the law of Moses preceding each quote with "You have heard that it was said by them of old time...", then Christ 'changes' what he quotes.

Obedience to the Ten Commandments Insufficient for Salvation

Christ precedes the changes He has made in the law with this statement, "...I say unto you that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." There are many hypocritical Pharisees (Mat 23:2-3 and Rom 2:23-24) although there were others, perhaps Nicodemas, the rich young ruler and Joseph of Aramathea who, like the Pharisee Saul of Tarsus, were "touching the righteousness which is in the law blameless" (Phil. 3:6). But even the righteousness of a "blameless" keeper of the ten commandments was still to be "counted as dung" (Php 3:8) and "filthy rags" (Isa 64:6) and "yet lacking" (Luk 18:22).

Php 3:9 is the sum of it, "And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, [this is the ten commandments and though blameless, we must exceed that.] But that which is through the faith of Jesus Christ, [the spirit, not letter, the changes in Matt. 5, etc.] The righteousness which is of God [not of self, Gal 2:20] by faith [of Christ]" (Gal 2:20).

Let us now examine the changes Christ made in the law.

Change #1 - Thou Shalt Not Kill

The first example of this "change... of the law" is found in...:

Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

This, of course, is a reference to what we call the sixth commandment in the order given in Exo 20. Notice now how Christ "changes" this law.

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

That is quite a "change... of the law". It certainly wasn't metatithemi "changed" or "turned" into "lasciviousness". Instead the person who "hates his brother without a cause is now as guilty before God as a murderer!

That, I submit, is a demonstration of "a change also of the law" under this new priesthood after the order of Melchisedek; this "new covenant" "not of the letter but of the spirit". This change is so drastic that it has, for those who walk in the spirit, "done away" with the need for "thou shalt not kill" (Exo 20:13). Parents, schools and courtrooms are still in desperate need of some of the laws of Moses. It is "for the lawless and disobedient" (1Ti 1:9). "...The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ... BUT AFTER THAT FAITH IS COME, WE ARE NO LONGER UNDER A SCHOOLMASTER". But if we live in the spirit, a much higher law has been written on the heart (Gal 3:24, 25).

Change #2 - Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery

The next "you have heard it said by them of old time" is the seventh commandment. Mat 5:27 - "Thou shalt not commit adultery:"

Once again Christ is going to demonstrate for us a "change also of the law", "not of the letter but of the spirit"; a "new covenant". He will be writing his new covenant law "not on tables of stone, but on fleshy tables of the heart". The new covenant is not a "version" of the OLD. It is an entirely NEW Covenant. Christ will show us what is meant by "when that which is perfect is come that which is in part shall be done away" (1Co 13:10). This "change of the law" concerning the seventh commandment will "abolish... the law of commandments contained in ordinances" (Eph 2:15). It will "blot out the handwriting of ordinances" (Col 2:14). "A carnal commandment will be disannulled." (Heb 7:16-18). This "new covenant" "...hath made the first old. Now that which is old is ready to vanish away" (Heb 8:13). All of these statements of the Apostle Paul are demonstrated in the changes in the law made by Christ here in Mat 5. He does not kataluo (destroy) the law, but he does katargeo (abolish) the "law of commandments contained in ordinances [Eph 2:15] by reason of the glory that excelleth" (2Co 3:10).

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

Now notice how the "law of the spirit of life" contrasts with the letter; verse 28, "But I say unto you that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

Under the old covenant, your mind could be filthy as long as you didn't physically commit the act of adultery. Not so in this new covenant. If our obedience does not come from the deepest part of our being; from the heart (2Co 3:3) "not of the letter but of the spirit" (2Co 3:6), it will not even be counted as obedience or righteousness. You "have committed adultery with her already in your heart". You "by the letter..transgress the law" (Rom 2:27).

Paul agrees with Christ. 'Letter only' obedience amounts to disobedience, and is no more acceptable to our heavenly father than it is to us. Any decent parent who tells a child to close the door and is obeyed with a slammed door, will immediately administer the much deserved discipline for what really amounts to disobedience.

The Scriptural Definition And Function Of Grace

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Tit 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

Yes, the King James Version has "teaching" where I have "chastens" but while it is true that teaching can involve discipline, "teaching" is not the best word to convey the seriousness with which God deals with "ungodliness and worldly lusts" Chastening is the scriptural function of Grace.

The Greek word for teaching is paideuo (Strong's #3811). It is the same word translated "chasteneth" in Heb 12:6: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth (paideuo) and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. "When we are judged, we are CHASTENED of the Lord..." (1Co 11:32).

This is how "where sin abounds grace [in the form of corrective chastening] does much more abound" (Rom 5:20 and Rom 6:1, 2). Anyone who believes that they can come and stay 'just as I am' doesn't know the meaning of the word 'Father', nor the scriptural definition of grace. "Grace... chastens us [to] deny ungodliness and worldly lusts..." (Tit 2:11, 12).

We may certainly come 'just as I am', but we had better "go and sin no more lest a worse thing (discipline from a loving Father) come unto thee" (Joh 5:14).

This is surely a 'wet blanket' to those who want only to hear about the salvation of all. There is no way around Mar 9:45 and Heb 12:6. It is "EVERY SACRIFICE" and "EVERY SON". There are NO EXCEPTIONS! The doctrine of universal reconciliation through a false definition of grace is just as nourishing to the Adversary as the false doctrines of eternal death or eternal torment. What do we think the word 'dragged' means? Chastening IS certainly a 'dragging'. No child goes willingly and cheerfully to be disciplined.

We are "justified freely by his grace" (Rom 3:24). There is no charge and there is nothing we can do to earn the chastening and scourging [of] "EVERY son whom He receiveth" (Heb 12:6). It is given freely.

Change #3 - Divorce and Remarriage

We now come to the third "you have heard that it was said..." Mat 5:31: "It hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement."

The previous two "changes of the law" (Heb 7:12) have been dramatic. Will this change be any less so? Not likely. Before we examine this change, let's ask the question: what did the two previous changes have in common?

In the first change, being "angry with your brother without a cause" is elevated to the offense of murder.

In the second change, "looking on a woman to lust after her" has been elevated to the offense of adultery.

What they have in common is that they have both been dramatically changed from a "letter" law to a "spiritual" law. "Who hath made us able ministers of the new testament [covenant] NOT OF THE LETTER BUT OF THE SPIRIT, FOR THE LETTER KILLETH, BUT THE SPIRIT [The new covenant] GIVETH LIFE" (2Co 3:6).

Before we continue, let us take note that this change has nothing to do with the ten commandments, but only the statutes and judgments. There was no difference to Christ; it was all "the law of Moses."

Continuing on; "It hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him write her a bill of divorcement. But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife saving for the cause of fornication; causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, commits adultery" (Mat 5:31-32). So what "change also of the law" (Heb 7:12) has been made here? Did Christ really say that "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery"?

No he did not!! The changes made here are as monumental as the changes in the sixth and seventh commandments. This change is in fact simply expanding upon the changes made in the "thou shalt not commit adultery" commandment.

Christ is not banning divorce here, and he did not say "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced comitteth adultery."

The Greek word translated 'divorced' here in Mat 5:32 is apaluo (Strong's #630). This is the same word which is properly translated 'put away' in the preceding verse.

The translators' mistake here has contributed to mountains of unnecessary misery over the past 400 plus years.

While it is true that a Christian couple would never seek to dissolve "that which God hath joined together", it is not true that Christ said "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." What He did say was whosoever shall marry her that is put away (apoluo) committeth adultery.

There is a Greek word for divorce. It is apostasion (Strong's #647). It does not appear in Mat 5:32. It does appear in Mat 5:31: "...let him give her a writing of divorcement (apostasion)." Under the law of Moses, a man was never to apoluo (#630) or 'put away' his wife without giving her apostasion; a bill of divorcement.

But men have never kept the law of Moses. Men were 'putting away' or apoluo their wives without a bill of divorcement or apostasion. Christ was stating the obvious when he pointed out that legally this "causes" the woman and the man she marries to commit adultery because she is not legally apostasion or divorced.

Why would Christ mention this? He certainly was not suggesting that this somehow complicated things for the Father to decide what was to be held accountable for whatever. He is not in any way excusing sinful actions on the part of either partner in the marriage. This was simply a legal statement. It is helpful to realize that before Sinai and the giving of the "law of Moses" the world was governed by the law of Hammurabi.

Under both laws the husband was the decision maker and wives were owned by their husbands.

Under both laws the husband could divorce his wife for many reasons besides fornication. "...if you have no delight in her, then you shall let her go..." (Deu 21:14).

But there was one major distinguishing feature between the law of Moses and the law of Hammurabi regarding the subject of divorce. The law of Hammurabi says simply "if a man wishes to separate from his wife... he shall give her the amount of her purchase money... and let her go" (Law 138). "...if her husband offer her release, she may go on her way..." (Law 141). "She shall take her dowry and go back to her father's house" (Law 142).

Under the law of Hammurabi women had very few legal rights or protections. Nowhere did Hammurabi require a husband to give his ex-wife a bill of divorcement. The door was wide open for a self-centered, jealous and spiteful ex-husband to deny the fact that he had divorced his wife.

The law of Moses on the other hand required the husband to give the wife a written and signed bill of divorcement. So while divorcing one's wife was a simple matter under the law of Moses [simply "if you have no delight in her" (Deu 21:14)], the ex-wife at least had the added legal protection of being in possession of a document which proved she was legally free to "go and be another man's wife" (Deu 24:2).

Now let's go to Mat 19 and see how the KJV translators correct themselves regarding this Greek word apoluo - which is the same word translated 'divorce' in Mat 5:32 - the Pharisees... came to him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? (vs. 3).

Why would the Pharisees ask Christ this question "to tempt him"? Perhaps this was some time after the humiliation the Pharisees suffered when they brought an adulterous woman to Christ. Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act (Joh 8:4). The law says, If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die (Deu 22:22).

The emphasis is on the man. The Pharisees had already admitted they had caught her "in the very act". If they were serious abut keeping the law, where was the man? Of course they weren't sincere about obeying God; they only wanted to rid themselves of their nemesis who was constantly revealing them for the hypocrites they were. A new tack had to be taken.

So in this case, with the allowances for divorce plainly and explicitly given in the law, the Pharisees, like so many so-called Christians today without the faith of or the spirit of Christ in them, were simply looking for a way around the spiritual new law. This spiritual law had never been given before -- certainly not by Moses. The Pharisees knew this and weren't about to miss a chance to point that out. This is not a new application of the law, this is not some fabled 'spirit of the law'; this is new law disannulling the old law (Heb 7:18).

Our wise, all knowing Savior knew exactly what was taking place here. He knew that the Pharisees preferred their "own righteousness which is of the law" (Php 3:9) to the spiritual law which He was revealing.

So what do these statutes and judgments of "the Lord your God" have to say about divorce? What are the scriptures the Pharisees had on their side? Do these scriptures (yes, these are scriptures) actually say that a man can put away his wife for any reason or "every cause" (Mat 19:3).

Well, as a matter of fact, they do: "When a man hath taken a wife and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness [ervah #6172] in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement [kerithuth #3748] and give it in her hand, and send her out [shalach #7971] of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife" (Deu 24:1,2).

The "some uncleanness" is certainly not speaking of sexual fraud. The penalty for that was death. "...they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die..." (Deu 22:21). Neither was it adultery. The penalty for adultery was also death (Deu 22:22).

The Hebrew word translated "uncleanness" is ervah (Strong's #6172). It appears 40 times in the Old Testament. 37 times it is translated "nakedness". Its first appearance is typical of its use: "And Ham the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father..." (Gen 9:22). Of the remaining 3 verses, it is translated shame. In Isa 20:4: "So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners... even with their buttocks uncovered to the shame [or nakedness - ervah #6172] of Egypt."

In Deu 23:14, we are given the meaning of this word to be applied here in Deu 24:1. "For the Lord thy God walketh in the midst of the camp, to deliver thee and to give up thine enemies before thee: therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing [or nakedness - ervah #6172] in thee, and turn away from thee" (Deu 23:14).

The church of Laodicea is told that she thinks she is rich and has need of nothing, but in reality, she is "poor and blind and naked. I counsel you to buy of me... white raiment that you may be clothed and that the shame of your nakedness do not appear" (Rev 3:17-18). Nakedness in scripture is a type of sin; not any particular sin but any sin. The white raiment is defined as "the righteousness of the saints" (Rev 19:8). This is "Christ in us" (Gal 2:20) covering any sin.

Clearly the Pharisees were right. Adultery and sexual fraud were punishable by death (Deu 22:21, 22) not "a bill of divorcement" and "she may go and be another man's wife". "Some uncleanness" really was all that the law of Moses required for divorcing one's wife.

But in case there is any doubt that the Pharisees were right in their understanding and that Christ wasn't really "changing the law", let's look at one more scripture. If you "seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to your wife; then thou shall bring her home to thine house; ...and be her husband and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money..." (Deu 21:11-14)

The reason given here to "let her go" (shalach #7971, the same word translated "send her out" - Deu 24:1) is simply "you have no delight in her" or as the Pharisees put it "for every cause" (Mat 19:3).

Modern Theology Versus Paul

Sounds like the Pharisees knew the letter of the law pretty well. Better apparently than some bible teachers of our day who say that in Mat 5, Christ's words here are "not to be construed to mean that Jesus is putting away all these divine laws, or that he is replacing each of them with something different or better. It is not the law of God he is discrediting; it is the Pharisaical interpretation of the law and a legalistic spirit that he is disagreeing with... The purpose of the 'sermon on the mount' was to improve upon the law's interpretation and application. The true spirit of the law had been lost through the traditions of the elders" (Divorce and Remarriage is NOT Adultery by S. Jones, pg. 10).

This statement pretty well summarizes the orthodox teaching on "the law" of what is called our "Judeo-Christian culture". But this doctrine does not follow a "pattern of sound words" (2Ti 1:13). It is not in accord with scripture.

To begin with, nowhere in the bible is the "law of Moses" called 'divine law'. It is called "the law of Moses" eleven times in the New Testament (Luk 2:22; Luk 24:44; Joh 1:45; Joh 7:19; Joh 7:23; Act 13:39; Act 15:5; Act 28:23; Rom 10:5; 1Co 9:9; Heb 9:19). Secondly, according to Jer 31:32 the new covenant is "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers..." So it is "different". According to Heb. 8:6, it is "a better covenant". What makes it better according to Heb. 8:10 is that God's laws, only since Christ, are "put into their minds and written in their hearts." This is called "of the spirit and not of the letter" in 2Co 3:6. To say "the true spirit of the law had been lost through the traditions of the elders" is to say that in reality there was no difference between the old and new covenant. To say that 'Christ was simply restoring what had "been lost"' is not the teaching of Mat 5 or the Apostle Paul.

This "new covenant" is "not according to" the old; it is "different" and it is "better", because it, not the old one, is of the spirit. If we insist on believing that "the true spirit of the law had been lost through the traditions of the elders" (ibid.), we are denying that there is any difference to begin with. "Not according to" the old means that the old NEVER was intended to be written on their hearts and minds" (Heb 8:10). It was designed as a "carnal commandment" (Heb 8:16). It did not carry with it the promise of eternal life. That is what is meant by "not in tables of stone" (2Co 3:3) and "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life" (2Co 3:6). The old covenant is the ten commandments written on two tables of stone "his covenant which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone" (Deu 4:13). It was definitely "...not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and isobedient" (1Ti 1:9).

Yes, Psa 37:31 and Psa 40:8 say "the law of... God is in his (the righteous man's) heart." Having God's law of Moses "within" one's heart is obviously quite different, so far as God is concerned, from having it "written on our hearts and minds" (Jer 31:31; Rom 8:2; Heb 8:10 and 2Co 3:3).

If this is not true, then in reality there is no "change also of the law", and all of Paul's statements concerning the "letter" of the law are in error.

Now that we have established that the law of Moses concerning divorce was indeed changed, let us consider the direction of this change. The first two changes amounted to requiring the impossible of the flesh. What human being without God's spirit could live without hate, or what man can live without looking on a woman to lust after her; especially in a time so similar to the "days of Noah" and in a country so similar to Sodom?

What was Christ's answer to these religious leaders asking the baited question; can a man "put away his wife for every cause"? (Mat 19:3) "And he answered and said unto them, Have you not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female. And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Had Christ not been "changing... the law", he would not have allowed himself to be drawn into a discussion with the Pharisees about the law of Moses. Christ was oblivious to the law of Moses. Instead, he changes the source of authority from what was given by God to the physical nation of Israel through Moses (Deu 5:31) to that which comes directly from the mind of God and was never written on "tables of stone". In other words, once again, Christ introduces the new spiritual law, never before known to man, and certainly not in the words he had given Moses "if thou have no delight in her, then you shall let her go..." (Deu 21:14).

While the "spiritual law" asks what is commendable and ideal, the letter asks what is permissible? What can I get by with? The Pharisees, in their divinely appointed role as a type of the flesh and letter of the law, could not receive this changed spiritual answer.

"Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement and to put her away?" (Mat 19:7)

The way the Pharisees phrased this question you might think we were commanded to seek some little reason to put our wives away. Nevertheless, it is a legitimate question; why did God through Moses, make provision for divorce? Why did God, through Moses, allow men to divorce their wives? Simply because "[you] found some uncleanness in her" or "if you have no delight in her" (Deu 24:1; Deu 21:14).

"...Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. Now for the third time Jesus emphasizes his new spiritual law: "And I say unto you whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (Mat 19:8-9).

This was such a profound change from what the disciples had been brought up with (the law of Moses) that it elicited this response: "His disciples say unto him, if the case of the man be so with his wife, it is good not to marry" (Mat 19:10). Clearly Christ is not talking about simply remembering to write that "bill of divorcement" before you send her out of your house. The disciples would have had no problem with that, but this was more than they could receive. "But He (Christ) said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given" (Mat 19:11). Christ's answer to "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every (any) cause? did not appeal to the law of Moses, but rather to the spirit of God, whose representative he was, for its authority. Once again Christ ignores the law of Moses, is oblivious to it. His answer is: "What... God hath joined together let not man put asunder." Show me that anywhere in the Old Testament. Truly, Christ, like Moses, was a great reformer (Heb 9:10). Do you realize this answer by Christ is the equivalent of saying the law of Moses is men putting a marriage asunder?

Christ himself has not changed (Heb 8:13. He has always been the Christ of Mat 5, 6 and 7, but the law he gave through Moses was for Israel "according to the flesh" (Rom 9:3-4) not the "children of the promise" (Rom. 9:6-8) who are now called "the Israel of God" (Gal 6:15,16), and "able ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the spirit... (2Co 3:6). That letter law brings us to Christ and then for the chosen person is "abolished" (Eph 2:15).

The new seed of Abraham ("now if you be Christ's, then are you Abraham's seed" Gal 3:29) has the new covenant with a new spiritual law (2Co 3:6) written on their hearts (Heb 8:10) and nowhere else.

Some people who do see the differences between the old and new covenant conclude that Christ is not the God of the old covenant. In truth, He is the same God. He was merely using the entire history of "Israel according to the flesh" (Rom 9:3) along with the law given to govern that carnal nation, as simply a type and shadow of the "Israel of God" (Gal 6:15, 16), and as such, "Israel according to the flesh" and the "Law of Moses" were both temporary types and shadows of the "Israel of God" and "the law of God after the inward man" (1Co 9:6 and 11; Rom 7:22).

Truly, Christ does not change, for He is of the spirit (Joh 3:34), but anything, especially the law which is not of faith, must be changed. (Joh 3:6, 7 and Heb 8:13).

Christ appealed to the spirit in his "thou shalt not kill" change, and he appealed to the spirit in his "thou shalt not commit adultery" change. If we do not glean the spirit of this "but I say unto you", we will not be able to "receive this saying" concerning divorce and remarriage.

Now let's take what Christ has said here and analyze it with spiritual eyes and ears (Mat 13:13).

Hardness Of Your Heart

First, what does "hardness of your hearts" mean? Are these laws on divorce and remarriage the only laws written "because of the hardness of your hearts"? Absolutely not! Any and every law ever written is written "because of the hardness of your hearts" (Rom 2:5). Hardness of heart is a form of self-centered rebellion and self-will.

"The law [of Moses] is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient..." (1Ti 1:9), those with hardened hearts.

We must understand this if we are to understand the place and function of the law of Moses (1Ti 1:9-10 - the law is not made for a righteous man but for the... disobedient) as opposed (yes, opposed) to "the law of God after the inward [spiritual] man" (Rom 7:22) which is for the righteous man because it (not the ten commandments) is ..."newness of spirit not oldness of letter" (Rom 7:6).

We are now able to ask, what does "saving for the cause of fornication" (Mat 5:32) or "except it be for fornication" (Mat 19:9) mean? This is, without a doubt, one of the most hotly contested biblical questions of all time. So as with all our definitions of words or phrases, we need to allow God's word to be our dictionary and lexicon.

God Hates Putting Away

The first scripture that should always be quoted before this discussion begins is Mal 2:16 - "For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that He hateth putting away..." That fact is foremost in the mind of everyone who has the spirit of God dwelling in them.

Marriage is the most sacred institution God has bequeathed to man. It is by its very nature the most intimate, maturing, loving and nurturing relationship one can experience in this physical life. It is a reflection of our relationship to God (Isa 54:6). Christ is the bridegroom of the bride (Mat 9:15) and He tells us plainly that He hates "putting away". So whatever "except it be for fornication" means, it certainly is not an easy way to dissolve a marriage. No one with the mind of God is looking for a way to dissolve "what God hath joined together". Every God-fearing Christian is seeking to nurture and strengthen the marriage bond. Looking for another mate is certainly not even a consideration for anyone who can truthfully say "I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me..." (Gal 2:20).

The Meaning Of Fornication

So with the "Not my will but thine be done" attitude of Christ, (Luk 22:42), let us consider the meaning of this word "fornication". The Greek here for fornication is porneia (Strong's #4202). The word appears 25 times in the New Testament: Mat 5:32, 19:9; Mar 7:21; Joh 8:41; Act 15:20, 15:29, 21:25; Rom 1:29; 1Co 5:1, 6:13,18, 7:2; 2Co 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1Th 4:3; Rev 2:21, 9:21, 14:8, 17:4, 18:3 and 19:2. These 25 words are all in the present tense.

The past tense of this noun is porneuo (Strong's #4203), and it appears in seven verses in the New Testament: 1Co 6:18, 10:8; Rev 2:14, 2:20, 17:2, 18:3 and 18:9.

Now Christ was a Jew living with the Old Testament only. To know for certain what Christ meant by porneia, we must find a scripture in the New Testament that refers to a specific act of porneia in the Old Testament. Of the 32 verses listed above where this word appears, the only verse that refers to a specific act of porneia in the Old Testament is 1Co 10:8: "Neither let us commit fornication (porneuo #4203), as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand."

This is a reference to the seduction of Israel by the daughters of Moab on the advice of the prophet Baalam (Num 31:16). Apparently twenty-four thousand died altogether, but twenty-three thousand died the first day of the plague.

Now notice the spiritual affect of this physical sin. "And Israel abode in Shittim and the people began to commit whoredom (Hebrew word zanah, fornication-Strong's #2181) with the daughters of Moab. And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods. And Israel joined himself to Baalpeor: and the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel" (Num 25:1-3).

Physical fornication (porneuo or porneia) led Israel to spiritual fornication or idolatry.

The Hebrew word for fornication is zanah (Strong's #2181). It appears 82 times in the Old Testament. It is translated variously harlot, whore, whoring and fornication. The first time this word for fornication, zanah appears is in Gen 34:31: "...should he deal with our sister as with an harlot (zanah)?"

This physical application represents 25 of the 82 entries of this word fornication in the Old Testament Hebrew. The remaining 57 entries are spiritual in their application: "Lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring (zanah - fornication) after their gods and do sacrifice unto their gods and one call you and you eat of his sacrifice" (Exo 34:15).

This scripture is typical of well over 2/3 of the entries for a spiritual application of this word zanah: "He [Jehoram, king of Judah] made high places [for idol worship] in the mountains of Judah, and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication [Hebrew: zanah], and compelled Judah thereto."

Clearly "the invisible things..." [spiritual fornication among them] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made [like physical fornication]" (Rom 1:20). The primary sin "not after the letter, but after the Spirit" (2Co 3:6) in the New Covenant, is unfaithfulness to God, or spiritual fornication.

It is before God that we take an oath to be faithful to our mates. Physical marriage is simply a type of our relationship with our God. Our faithfulness to our mate is a reflection of how faithful we are to God, our Father, and Christ, our husband (2Co 11:2). "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church" (Eph 5:31-32).

But spiritual idolatry or fornication can be and is more than just physical fornication: "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness which is idolatry" (Col 3:5). In the strictest sense, any sin that comes between us and our husband, Jesus Christ, (2Co 11:2) becomes unfaithfulness, spiritual idolatry or fornication. Idolatry, spiritual fornication, is not a thing of the past. It is more prevalent in society and in the church of this materialistic age than it has ever been in history. Also, idolatry and spiritual fornication are increasing every day. "...In the last days... evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse..." (2Ti 3:1 and 13).

What Christ then is saying in Mat 5:32: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery...", is that anyone putting away his mate for purely a selfish motive is the one responsible for any adultery committed.

What would be an unselfish motive? Let's let the Apostle Paul answer that question: "If the unbelieving depart, let him [or her] depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage [to the marriage vows] in such cases" (1Co 7:15). Now, Israel was still in the land, still claiming to be God's wife while she was in effect, slapping her husband in the face and committing "adultery" with anyone and everyone including "stones and stocks" (Jer 3:9). If a man or woman beats and abuses a mate or children, he or she is as guilty of leaving that union as Israel was of leaving God. And He wrote Israel a "bill of divorcement" (Jer 3:8).

"And whosoever shall marry her that is put away (not divorced) committeth adultery:" There is no respect of persons with God (Rom 2:11). There is neither male nor female in Christ (Gal 3:28). So this verse could just as scripturally read "Whosoever shall put away her husband saving for the cause of fornication", and "whosoever shall marry him that is put away committeth adultery".

There are those who say, in effect, that the exception clause is no exception. They quote Rom 7:2: "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law (of Moses) to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband."

Those who quote this verse in support of 'no exception' must be simply ignorant of the law of Moses. As demonstrated above, there were many reasons in the law of Moses for a man to put away his wife, including "she find no favor in his eyes" (Deu 24:1) and "if you have no delight in her" (Deu 21:14).

The only conditions given in the law under which a man could never put away his wife, was if he had falsely accused her of premarital sex (Deu 22:19) or if he himself were guilty of premarital sex with his wife (Deu 22:29).

There are certainly no provisions in the law of Moses for a woman to put away her husband "if he find no favor in her eyes" or "if she have no delight in him". Instead, "the woman which hath an husband was bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth..." (Rom 7:2) so long as "she findeth favor in his eyes" (Deu 24:1).

Christ, of course, once again acts oblivious to the law of Moses. He changes the law as He sees fit, for He sees things as the Father sees them. (Joh 5:30).

There is no respect of persons under this new law. The accountable party or parties are held responsible for their own deeds. (Rom 2:6 and Gal 6:7). We must consider the atmosphere in which Christ lived. Under Moses' law, a man could put away his wife for almost any reason. Christ was, as always, placing the ideal before us as our goal.

Later however, in the gospels, He simply tells us how we are to deal with that which is less than ideal (1Co 7). "I have yet many things to reveal unto you, but you cannot bear them now" (Joh 16:2). Some of these "many things" were the fact that Christ fulfilled circumcision (Rom 2:29); that accepting Christ turned a Gentile into a Jew (Rom 2:28-29 - this was and is especially hard for many to bear!); that the entire law of Moses, including the ten commandments (2Co 3:6-7) was to be replaced by a new covenant written on fleshy tables of the heart (which was and is perhaps the hardest truth of all for both physical and spiritual Jews to accept). Tables of stone have no glory of themselves.

What was written on those tables of stone was what made Moses' face shine. "That which was made glorious (the ten commandments written and engraven in stones - Exo 31:18 and Deu 9:10) "HAVE NO GLORY in this respect, by the reason of the glory that excelleth (the New Covenant)..."the epistle of Christ... written... in fleshy tables of the heart" (2Co 3:3 and 7).

Now there is something else Christ had to reveal that could not have been bourn at that time (Joh 16:12). Once again, His instrument for this revelation is the apostle Paul "...to avoid fornication let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband" (1Co 7:1). "Defraud ye not one another, [don't withhold sexual relations from each other] except it be by consent for a time that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and come together again, that Satan tempt ye not for your incontinency" (1Co 7:5). "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner [celibacy], and another after that (vs. 7). What Paul is saying is that God has not gifted some men to live without a wife. Such men need a wife "to avoid fornication", and being "tempted of Satan".

This is certainly not the tone of the "sermon on the mount":, the revelation of the new covenant in Matthew 5. In that chapter, our Savior is setting forth the ideals of the new covenant. This was not the time or place for the revelation of the "abolishing of the law of commandments contained in ordinances" (Eph 2:15). The sermon on the mount was not the time to reveal that "Israel according to the flesh" (Rom 9:3 and Eph 2:11,19) was to be "broken off" (Rom 11:11,19) and replaced by the true "Israel of God" which has nothing to do with physical descent (Gal 6:15,16; Rom 9:6-8, Gal 3:28,29). Indeed there were "many things they could not bear then" (Joh 16:12). That God would call the Gentiles at all was more than the disciples could bear at the time of Matthew 5.

But Paul's Corinthian epistle is addressed to Gentiles. Not only that, but these Gentiles were "carnal babes in Christ" (1Co 3:1-3). Former "fornicators..., thieves... and drunkards" (1Co 6:9-11). They, as we all do, were even then struggling against the flesh (Gal 5:17).

So this is the time and place to reveal even more of the differences between the two covenants, the old (of the letter, law of Moses) and the new (written only in 'fleshy tables of the heart' 2Co 3:3).

Our Maker knows better than we, that maturity is a process. "If you CONTINUE in my word, then are you my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (Joh 8:31,21). There are far more "disciples" than there are "disciples indeed". The Corinthians were, being "carnal babes", merely "disciples". But the inspired word of God is for us all regardless of our degree of maturity in Christ.

Paul did not say "To please God let every man have his own wife". He did not say "come together again because you love your mate". It was "come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency" and "to avoid fornication let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband".

Why did Paul put it this way? "For [because] I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner [the ability to live a celibate life], and another after that" (needing a mate "to avoid fornication" and "that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency" (1Co 7:5).

Continuing this thought: "I say therefore [with the understanding laid down in verse 7] to the unmarried (agamos #22) and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I" (1Co 7:8).

Paul did not say "I say therefore to virgins and widows..." He said "unmarried". Does unmarried mean virgin?

This word 'unmarried' appears in only four verses in the New Testament, and they are all right here in 1Co 7. The first is verse 8 which we've just quoted. The next is verse 11: (starting in verse 10) "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, let not the wife depart from her husband (Mar 10:12) - Christians do not seek an excuse to dissolve "that which God hath joined together"): (vs 11) but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried..." (agamos #22). This is obviously not talking about a virgin.

So what is Paul saying here? Does this verse forbid divorce and remarriage? In verse one, Paul says "Now concerning the things whereof you wrote unto me...". It is obvious from the context of this chapter, that "the things whereof ye wrote unto me" concerned relationships between married couples. Verses 1-11 appear to be addressed to believing couples while verses 12-15 are addressed to couples in which one spouse is not a believer. This being the case then, the answer to our question is yes, divorce and remarriage is not even a consideration for truly believing couples. Why would anyone truly attempting to please their Maker and their mate want a divorce? Of course, believers have problems, too, but the advice for true believers is not "a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases" but is instead "...if she (or he) depart, let her (or him) remain unmarried (agamos) or be reconciled to her husband (or his wife); and let not the husband (or wife) put away his wife (or her husband -1Co 7:11). Notice the change of subject in verse 12: "But to the rest", that is, those with unbelieving spouses.

Let's now go to the next verse containing this word "agamos", verse 32: "But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried (agamos #22) cares for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:" There is nothing in this verse that tells us whether the unmarried is a virgin or a divorcee.

The last verse we have to consider is verse 34: "There is a difference between a wife and virgin." [That statement clarifies verse 27: "are you loosed from a wife"] The unmarried woman [agamos #22, the 'virgin'] careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy in body and in spirit: but she that is married (the wife as opposed to the virgin) careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband."

What can we conclude from these four verses? Verses 10 and 11 do not make it clear whether "agamos" includes divorcees ("if the wife departs, let her remain agamos") and verse 34, while it only makes it clear that agamos includes virgins, yet it also makes the "are you loosed from a wife" of verse 27 appear to be clearly a divorced man who had married a woman instead of a man who never had a wife.

To be on the safe side though, let's consider this word 'loosed' in verse 27: "Art you bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed (lusis #3080 from 3089). Art you loosed (luo #3089) from a wife (not a virgin, not a prostitute) seek not a wife."

This first 'loosed' is lusis #3080. It appears only here in this verse. It is derived from the second 'loosed', luo which appears in 40 verses in the New Testament. The following four verses are typical. We'll take one quote from each Gospel to illustrate:

It is obvious that 'luo' means to 'unloose' that which had been joined together whether by a 'tie', a 'latchet', a 'stall' or 'graveclothes'.

The man in verse 27 had been "loosed" from a "wife"..."are you loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." A Christian does not seek to leave his mate, and because of "the present distress", Paul's advice is to forego marriage altogether. Now still speaking to the man who has been "loosed from a wife", notice verse 28: "BUT AND IF YOU MARRY, YOU HAVE NOT SINNED; and [besides the man who was loosed from a wife] if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned..." There would not be the contrasting 'and' if they were both virgins.

There is an 'exception clause'. There are scriptural grounds for divorce and remarriage. There are however, NO scriptural grounds for priests and ministers making decisions for fellow believers in the painful situations some believers find themselves. To their "own masters they stand or fall".

This "but and if you" [a "loosed from a wife" - a divorced person] marry you have not sinned" is an application of the "exception clause of Matthew 5 and Matthew 19? The fornication referred to by Christ in Matthew 5 is consistent with every other statement in the six different "you have heard it said by them of old time...", "but I say unto you" changes that Christ made here? ...Consistent in that every change was from the physical to the spiritual sphere. ...Consistent in that in the Old Testament, of the 82 entries for the Hebrew word for fornication, zanah #2181, 57 entries are spiritual in their application? That's over two to one condemning Israel for turning her back on God, turning to other gods and committing fornication (zanah) by putting another husband in place of her true husband.

It was the unbelieving that departed. God had not sought a divorce, but "for all the causes where by backsliding Israel committed adultery, I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce" (Jer 3:8). The law of Moses certainly allowed for God to remarry (Deu 24:1), but with no regard for the law of Moses, much less Rabbis of Mishnah, Christ (in Mat 5 and 19) and Paul also provided for the injured party to remarry. Whether some men want to acknowledge it or not, at least the word of God does: "For I would that all men were even as I myself [able to live a celibate life]. But every man [and woman] has his proper gift of God, one after this manner [celibacy] and another after that [someone who God has not equipped for such a life but on whom He has bestowed a different gift]."

Indeed God and anyone with the mind of Christ "hates putting away" but provision is made for a believer whose unbelieving mate decides to leave: "A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases" (1Co 7:15).

Believing Couples

As we have pointed out, verses one through eleven of this chapter are addressed to couples who both are believers: "And unto the [believing] married I command yet not I, but the Lord [only believing couples would care about a command from the Lord] let not the wife depart from her husband. But and if she depart, let her [a believing wife married to a believing husband] remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her [believing] husband: and let not the husband put away his wife."

"Yet not I but the Lord" shows that Paul was aware of what Christ had said in Mat 5:31, 32 and 19:4-12. Paul is not going to teach contrary to his teacher.

Paul obviously saw the spiritual change of "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not commit adultery". He also understood the spiritual application of "except it be for fornication" (Greek porneia, Hebrew- zanah).

As pointed out above, of 82 entries for this Hebrew word, over two thirds of the entries (57 to be exact) are used for the nation of Israel turning her back on God committing spiritual fornication (zanah). According to this apostle, a believer is not to put away his unbelieving mate so long as the mate "be pleased" to dwell with him" (1Co 7:12).

"But if the unbelieving depart, [notice it is always the unbeliever who departs] let him [or her] depart. A brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God has called us to peace" (1Co 7:15), not to beatinds, abuse and living in fear of our lives. It is the abuser who has 'left' the relationship, not the abused.

No doubt, there are situations in which both mates feel the other is the "unbelieving". God alone can be the judge of some of the situations found within the body of Christ. God's word simply gives to us all, what God's mind is in these matters.

Nowhere in scripture is there a single example of any minister or fellow Christian enforcing these words upon others. Quite to the contrary, Paul says; "Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand" (2Co 1:24).

Let us follow Paul's example, and never try to exercise dominion over the faith of a brother; "ye ought rather to forgive him and comfort him lest such an one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow" (2Co 2:7). This, it is believed, is referring to the fornicator who was living with "his father's wife" (1Co 5:1). We should indeed separate ourselves from such overt fornication and idolatry. But let us not make judgments on relationships of which we have no intimate knowledge.

Instead, let us love and pray for those who are involved in such painful struggles.

Change #4 - SWEAR NOT AT ALL

Let's go on now to our next "change of the law". "Again you have heard it said by them of old time [God through Moses - Lev 19:12], Thou shalt not forswear [Strong's #1964 epiorkeo - commit perjury] thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; ...but let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil" (Mat 5:34, 37).

Is anyone who knows the law of Moses ("For I speak to them that know the law" - Rom 7:1) going to argue that Christ is not really changing anything here; the law was really spiritual all along; men had simply been unaware of that or had lost the spirit of the law and all Christ came to do was to restore the law to its original glorious position it had lost through the traditions of the elders?

No, this is not the case. Christ is indeed "changing the law" (Heb 7:12) not just the "law of the priesthood" a phrase not found in scripture. Just what did the law say about swearing or making oaths? "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name" (Deu 6:13) "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name" (Deu 10:20).

Does that in any way agree with "swear not at all"? Of course not. Christ is demonstrating that He, like Moses before him, is making drastic changes in the law. Yet most refuse to believe that because the ten commandments are part (the heart) of the old covenant. They refuse to apply the words of Paul "abolished", "done away", "disannulled", "vanishing away", and "nailed to the cross" to the ten commandments.

Why should we not swear at all? Because swearing has no place with us in the kingdom of God. Most have at best a very foggy notion about what constitutes the kingdom of God. Jesus Christ came with the kingdom of God IN Him. The kingdom IS the gospel (Mat 4:23). This same kingdom must be IN us (Luk 17:21). Before the manifested sons of God can bring the kingdom to all creation (Rom 8:18-23), it must first be established WITHIN. We enter INTO the kingdom of God, just as God (and His kingdom) enters into us. But Jesus said that unless our "righteousness" should "exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees", we will NOT enter into the kingdom (Mat 5:20).

Many scribes and Pharisees kept the ten commandments but will not be in the kingdom of God. Saul (Paul) was a Pharisee who "...touching righteousness which is of the law, BLAMELESS" (Php 3:7), yet Saul was unfit for the kingdom. Likewise, the young rich man who came to Jesus seeking salvation into the kingdom was denied even though he kept all of the commandments from his youth. Why? What did he lack? He lacked "perfection".

Jesus said to him: "If you will be PERFECT... sell... give to the poor... follow me" (Mat 19:16-26). Keeping all the old covenant and ten commandments is not good enough to enter the kingdom of God. Our Lord's new teaching is that we must be "perfect" (Greek: teleios, complete, mature).

But here is the problem. The Mosaic law and law-keeping "perfected [matured] NOTHING" (Heb 7:19)! And the Levitical priests and all their sacrifices perfected nothing. Likewise, swearing by God's name or swearing an oath in the name of God did not make their word any more honest nor did it add one cubit of stature to their carnal character.

So we are not to swear at all anymore. Peter swore and cursed with an oath to his own dismal chagrin (Mat 26:69-75), for which he repented bitterly. Swearing by "our head" (our name and character) or "for heaven's sake" or "for land's sake" or "by h-o-l-y Jerusalem" or on "a Bible" or on a "stack of Bibles" will not add one cubit of truth to our statements. But should GOD swear an oath, it is eternally true. It is by an OATH that Jesus Christ is now our High Priest after the order of Melchisedec of a "BETTER covenant" (Heb 7:21-22), the IS "PERFECT" (vs 19), that will "NEVER CHANGE" (vs 24), that "SAVES to the uttermost" (vs 25), and all this is by an oath from the word of God (vs 21 and 28).

Now that Jesus has taught us this new truth regarding swearing oaths, it now "...is of EVIL" if we continue to keep the old letter of the law.

Change #5 - "An eye for an eye..."

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away" (Mat 5:38-42). This writer had an interesting experience involving Mat 5:42 which will serve to demonstrate what is meant by "not of the letter, but of the spirit" (2Co 3:6).

A minister in his late 70's was holding a Bible Conference with "Salvation by Grace Alone" as the theme of the conference. Having attended several similar conferences in the previous few years, it began to dawn on me that what these people meant by "grace alone" was that there was no place at all in the new covenant for "good works". The emphasis seemed to be more "revel in your liberty" than "showing yourself a pattern of good works" (Tit 2:7). I have yet to hear a sermon at these conferences with the title of "show yourself a pattern of good works".

This group would have more likely turned grace into lasciviousness than try to 'earn' their own salvation, both of which are distortions of biblical truth.

"I don't want to hear one word about works in this conference" were the opening words of our host. I had traveled many miles for the express purpose of discussing the place and function of works in the new covenant, so I simply waited til the first break and asked what the sermon on the mount was all about, if there was no place for works in the new covenant.

"So you think the words of Christ are for us?", I was asked.

"Well, I certainly do", I replied.

"Then give me all the money you have on you", he demanded. "Christ said 'give to him that asks of you', and I'm asking for all of your money. You say you think the words of Christ are for you, so give me all your money."

I must confess this caught me a bit off guard. "I'm also told to provide for my own household, and I have to get back home, so I can't do that."

"See, you don't really believe the words of Christ are for you or you would give me what I asked for," he said.

Having had time to reflect on this experience, the meaning of the phrase "of the spirit, not of the letter" has begun to sink more deeply into my heart and mind.

Here was an elderly minister, highly respected by his congregation and many of his fellow ministers, and yet with all of his years of ministry, he was taking the words of our Lord in the sermon on the mount, revealing for the first time a secret concerning the spiritual new covenant, and turning that very spiritual revelation into mere cold, written, legal words to be adhered to without one ounce of spiritual discernment.

Yes, even the New Covenant can, by the wiles of the Adversary, be perverted into mere letters which would have a person showing anything but love.

I was probably made to look foolish to those who were near, but fortunately for us all "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Rom 14:23). So a loving Father looked down on us all and judged us all as He saw fit, according to our faith and the integrity of our hearts.

For me to have given him my traveling expenses simply because Christ, in His revelation of a new spiritual covenant, had stated, "Give to him that asks of you" without consideration for the effect of doing so, would have been tantamount to breaking the spirit of the law of love.

Christ's main purpose for making that statement was to draw a contrast between the carnal law God gave Moses; "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" and the new spiritual law He was giving through Christ; "resist not evil..." Find that anywhere in the old covenant law of Moses! For that matter, find a Christian today who believes that NOT resisting evil is good advice. Whether or not most Christians ever see it, the truth is "the law [of Moses] is not for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient..." (1Ti 1:9).

Change #6 - Love Your Neighbor: Hate your Enemy

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you" (Mat 5:43, 44).

Once again, the law of the new covenant reverses the law of the old. Once again, while being liberated from tedious rituals, the burden of the spirit is impossible for flesh alone to receive. Who among us, without the empowering spirit of God, can love their enemy, do good to them that hate them and pray for them which despitefully use them and persecute them?

Why Abolish The Old Covenant?

Whenever we avoid scriptural terms like "abolished", "done away", "disannulled", "vanish away", "nailed to the cross", etc., we have taken the first step away from "a form of sound words which thou hast heard of me" (God through Paul - 2Ti 1:13). There is a reason why the adversary doesn't want God's people to see the truth of the abolishment (#2673 Greek-katargeo - 2Co 3:13) or the doing away (#2673 katargeo) of that which was made glorious (the ten commandments). The reason is "for if that which is done away (katargeo) was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious" (2Co 3:10 and 11).

So long as the adversary can keep our eyes on the old covenant, we will never fully see the glory of the new: "Even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart" (2Co 3:15). How true this is of all those who want to retain parts, of their own choosing, of the old covenant.

Moses was a mere type of Christ (Deu 18:15). The law of Moses is but a shadow of the spiritual law of God (Heb 10:1). Types and shadows serve a necessary purpose, but are completely incapable of revealing the fullness of the body of Christ to whom we are to be conformed.

Of just what will clinging to the letter rob us? Let's list a few of those godly thoughts:

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds as of many [physical Israelites]; but as of ONE, and to thy seed WHICH IS CHRIST... If ye be in Christ, then [and only then] are ye... heirs according to the promise" (Gal 3:16 and 29).

As long as our eyes are on the old covenant, we will never see what true circumcision is, what a true Jew is (Rom 2:28, 29). We will, like Esau, fail to see our birthright as rulers and judges of "this world" (1Co 6:2). We will give this birthright, as most Christians do, to "Israel... according to the flesh..." (Rom 9:3 and 4) who are called "Agar... answering to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children" (Gal 4:25). So we have the seemingly impossible situation of those who claim to be Christ's representatives on earth, the leaders in Christendom, standing as the staunchest supporters of "the son of the bondwoman". ("Hagar... Jerusalem that now is" who rejects Christ.)

"Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we (those in Christ - Gal 3:29 - "heirs according to the promise") are not the children of the bondwoman (Jerusalem that now is - Gal 4:25), but of the free" (Gal 4:30-31). "The free" are the "Israel of God" of Gal 6:16 "And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God."

In Gal 5:1, Paul opens our eyes to the bondage of the old covenant as opposed to the liberty of the new. If you doubt that this is his point read verse 2: "Behold I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised [live by the old covenant, the letter of the law] Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law" (Gal 5:3).

Once again, yes indeed, Christ "magnified the law and made it honorable" (Isa 42:21), but we do not pick and choose for ourselves what part of the old covenant is to be retained because the "law of Moses" which is the law of God for carnal Israel (Heb 7:16), is "abolished" (katargeo #2673 - 2Co 3:13).

Not just circumcision, not just the laws on divorce and remarriage, not just the laws regarding oaths and vows, but "the law" has been abolished. "He is a debtor to do the whole law" (Gal 5:3).

To make the law "honorable" (Isa 41:21), required the giving of the spirit which could not be done until after Christ had died and been resurrected: "...I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you" (Joh 16:7) with "newness of spirit" (Rom 7:6). Receiving God's Spirit (see article on Trinity) has everything to do with understanding the "things of the spirit" which "the natural man receiveth not: (1Co 2:16). With the Spirit, we have the mind of Christ.

Yes, it is true, the words of the Holy Spirit are "turned... into lasciviousness" (Jud 4) every day, but that should never be used as an excuse to try to "help God to keep this from happening by avoiding certain words and phrases He has chosen to use to tell us that the old covenant, all of it, is "abolished" and has been replaced with an "honorable law" (Isa 42:21), a spiritual law (Rom 7:6).

The new "spiritual law" of Rom 7:14 is not the "carnal commandment" of Heb 7:16, but the "spirit" of Rom 7:6: "But now we are delivered from the law [of Moses given by God for carnal Israel], that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of letter" (as in Matthew 5 and all the epistles of Paul and the other apostles.

Bible Expositors Versus Scripture

Let's take the time here to contrast this statement of scripture (Rom 7:6) with some prevailing teachings concerning the Old Covenant law.

This writer is certainly casting no aspersions on the character or intentions of those whom he is quoting. It was only 'yesterday' that these were my own convictions. They do not conform to scripture, however, which is our only criteria for truth. Notice what one writer has to say regarding the old covenant:

"The fault with the old covenant was not the terms, [He means the law, the Torah] but the fault was that the people did not keep their promise of obedience to the terms, of keeping Yahweh's law, the ten commandments. To shore up this weakness in the people, Yahweh is going to establish a new covenant with them: 'This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says Yahweh: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their El, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach every one his fellow or every one his brother, saying, Know Yahweh, for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." (Heb 8:10-12 RSV)

Notice, instead of writing His laws on tablets of stone, He will put them in their minds and hearts. ...The terms on the part of the people haven't been changed, they still must obey His law, the ten commandments, but He, by putting them into their hearts and minds has made it possible to do so. ...Now we have the spirit of the law." [The Covenants, The Law and Grace by Henry Anderson, pp 9 and 11.]

Is this really why God wants to give us His spirit? So we can "by that spirit... keep the letter of the law"?

What does the above writer think Paul meant when he said "not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life" (2Co 3:6)?

If "the letter killeth" why would the spirit help us to keep it?

These are completely separate and incompatible covenants. We, in Christ, are in a "new covenant". Contrary to the prevalent teaching on this subject, we are not keeping the "spirit of the letter" or the "spirit of the old covenant which had been lost in the traditions of the elders". The 'spirit of the letter' is like saying the 'the spiritual carnal mind'. The new covenant is "not in oldness of the letter" (Rom 7:6) and the "oldness of the letter" had no spirit to lose. "The law [of Moses] is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient..." (1Ti 1:9).

If one is keeping the letter of the law, he is a "debtor to do the whole law" (Gal 5:3); not just the Sabbath and holy days, not just the clean and unclean meat laws, not just the "immutable moral law", but "the whole law". The "old covenant" is "waxing old" and is "decaying" and is "ready to vanish away" (Heb 8:13). Once again we ask, what is the old covenant? Once again, we answer "he declared unto you his covenant... even ten commandments; ...upon two tables of stone" (Deu 4:13).

"The spirit of the letter" is not a pattern of sound words because it is not in the scriptures. It will mislead you, and you will end up attempting to retain the letter to some degree. "Not of the letter, but of the spirit (2Co 3:6) "...in newness of spirit and NOT in oldness of the letter" (Rom 7:6) and "in the spirit, and NOT in the letter" (Rom 2:29). These verses are a pattern of sound words which if used and adhered to will deliver us from many erroneous teachings.

Apparently the above expositor believes '"Now since we have the spirit of the law living in us and by that spirit, we keep the letter". To him "not of the letter" doesn't really mean "NOT of the letter"; but rather 'one can't keep the letter without the spirit, and one can't keep the spirit without the letter.' This is scriptural nonsense.

Again I ask, is that really why we were given the spirit? So we could keep the letter? Were Christ and His disciples simply lacking the spirit when they deliberately broke the letter concerning the Sabbath (Joh 5:18)? Was Jesus lacking the spirit when He healed the impotent man and told him to take up his bed and walk, contrary to the letter of the law?

The scripture 2Co 5:17 doesn't say "...old things [the old covenant] have not passed away; behold nothing has become new" or "we can now keep the letter because we have the spirit"

Decades after Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, Paul said, "Who hath made us able ministers of the NEW COVENANT; NOT OF THE LETTER, but of the SPIRIT: For the letter [the old covenant of ten commandments, Deu 4:13] KILLETH, but the spirit giveth LIFE" (2Co 3:6)! Notice Mat 5:17: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the PROPHETS; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Why do we fail to call attention in this verse to the word "prophets"? Jesus came to "fulfill the prophets". All of the Old Testament prophesies concerning His humble, death-doomed first coming have been fulfilled. And just as surely, there are no more Old Testament covenant laws remaining to be fulfilled ("OLD things are PASSED AWAY" - 2Co 5:17).

We now have New Testament prophesies concerning His second coming in power and glory. And we have a New Testament law of the SPIRIT ("...behold, all things are become NEW" - 2Co 5:17). Never again will our Lord ride into an OLD Jerusalem on a donkey. Never again will men spit into His face. Never again will they mercilessly beat Him. Never again will they drive nails through His body or pierce Him in the side with a spear. Our Lord drank the last dregs for the last time. And just as surely as Jesus Christ "fulfilled' all the prophecies concerning Him, He ALSO "fulfilled" the LAW! He filled them FULL! Nothing of them remains to be fulfilled - "IT IS FINISHED" (Joh 19:30)!

2Co 3:6: "Who [Christ Jesus] also hath made us able ministers of the NEW testament [covenant]; NOT OF THE LETTER [engraved on tablets of stone], but of the SPIRIT; for the letter KILLETH, but the SPIRIT GIVETH LIFE." "...the words that I speak unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE" (John 6:63). "I am come that they might have LIFE..." (Joh 10:10). "I am the Way and the Truth and the LIFE" (Joh 14:6).

Heb 8:10: "...Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a NEW covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: NOT according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt... For THIS is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put MY LAWS into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people." Clearly it is NEW and NOT according to the old. Our Lord did NOT say: "...I will make a REVISED covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; somewhat MODIFIED to the covenant that I made with their fathers..." So why would anyone teach such an unscriptural theology?

"Who hath made us able ministers of the NEW testament [covenant]; not of the letter, but of the SPIRIT: for the letter killeth, but the SPIRIT GIVETH LIFE." This is a "GLORIOUS" covenant (vs 8), a "ministration of RIGHTEOUSNESS" (vs 9), "Now the Lord is that SPIRIT: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is LIBERTY" (vs 17). Notice our "glorious liberty, righteousness and life, in the SPIRIT"? Where do we find such things in the Ten Commandments? The Old was "DO in the letter or DIE"! The New is "BE in Christ and LIVE"!!

Oh yes, God does indeed have a law, but until we see the vast difference between the old and new covenants, we will be unaware of who we are in Christ, and unaware of the opposition (NOT the compatibility) of the letter to the spirit. "...That which was done away WAS [past tense] glorious..." but "...That which was made glorious had NO glory in this respect, by reason of that which excelleth". That which excels is "not of the letter", but "of the spirit" (2Co 3:6,10,11).

Mr. Anderson would do well to notice all the "changes of the terms" made in Matthew 5. He would also benefit greatly from realizing that "his law" for ancient Israel was not just the ten commandments, but that "...every man that is circumcised... is a debtor to do the whole law" (Gal 5:3).

"The terms on the part of the people HAVE changed; they must now obey "the law of God after the inward man" (Rom 7:22) also called the "law of the Spirit" (Rom 8:2). These were not even available at the time of Exo 20 and Deu 5). These changes are revealed in Matthew 5. They are not the letter of the ten commandments. What Christ introduced for the first time was a "magnified... honorable" (Isa 41:21) and "spiritual" (Rom 8:2) "new commandment" (Joh 13:34). When we refuse to see the point Christ made by deliberately breaking the letter of the law, we rob ourselves of spiritual vision and spiritual hearing. We are spiritually unaware of "that which remaineth". We think we know what "remaineth", yet we cannot cope with the teachings of Paul.

The Letter Breaks The Law!

Few Christians would agree with this heading. Yet, it is scriptural (Rom 2:27 and 29); the "letter... dost transgress the law" (vs 27). Our obedience is to be "in the spirit and NOT IN THE LETTER!" (vs 29)

Failure to follow Paul's words (words given by the Holy Spirit) on this issue will leave us confused when we read "having abolished in his flesh... the law of commandments contained in ordinances..." (Eph 2:15); "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" (Col 2:14).

Much of the confusion on the subject of the law stems from an egregious, deplorable error in the thinking of most Christians. This lie is perpetuated by most ministers, including the late Richard Cardinal Cushing. Cushing was an ardent ecumenical leader. In that role, he wrote an introduction to a book entitled To Understand Jews by Stewart E. Rosenberg. In this introduction, Cushing makes this statement: "It is a well-known fact of history that Jesus was an observant Jew." If Christ were an "observing Jew":

Six times he changes the law in this one chapter. He concludes his career telling his disciples "I have many [more] things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now" (Joh 16:12).

This was an "observant Jew"? The Jewish leaders of Christ's day certainly didn't think so. Undeniably they were hypocrites, and definitely Christ exposed that, but that was nothing in comparison to the reforms Christ introduces in Matthew 5. Here is what Christ truly believed that cost him his life. Here is what was despised by the religious leaders of that day as it is despised by the ecumenical leaders of today: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me" (Joh 14:6). "I am the door of the sheep" (Joh 10:7). "He that entereth not by the door but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber" (Joh 10:1).

Christ was no doubt reared observing all the Jewish laws and traditions. At the age of twelve, he submitted himself to his parents (Luk 2:51), but his ministry was anything BUT that of an "observant Jew". No, Christ was not an observing Jew! Christ was a Christian! His was a "new commandment" (Joh 13:34) in every sense of the word. The "love" spoken of here in Joh 13:34 is not the love of the ten commandments of Exo 20, but rather the love of the new commandment, the love expounded by Jesus in Mat 5.

Two Views Of The Law

As is so often the case, the Adversary allows us to choose between two evils:

  1. Turn grace into lasciviousness (Jud 4). This lie teaches that when Paul says "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity even the law of commandments contained in ordinances..." (Eph 2:15), that now we are free from the laws of God. Grace (defined simply as undeserved pardon) covers all our sins. This LIE teaches in effect that no matter how sinful we are, or become, grace will "more abound" to cover our lascivious conduct.
  2. On the other hand, we are told a less popular but perhaps more insidious lie: "It is needful to... command them to keep the law..." (Act 15:15). Circumcision is specified as unnecessary or you can bet these people would be insisting on it, and quoting the scripture: "he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations... and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant" (Gen 17:12 and 13).

The following is a fairly good summation of this school of thought:

"The civil laws were given to a particular people, at a particular time, and for a particular purpose. Many of them are still valid today, but changing circumstances have of necessity made a change in the application of some of those laws.

The idea extant today among religionists that Yahweh's immutable, eternal moral law has somehow been disabled, done away, repudiated as bad, or otherwise tampered with to negate it, is ridiculous at best and fatal at worst, unless repented of. Generally, those who teach that the law is "done away", claim that the Ten Commandments were "nailed to the cross". And then nine of the ten were brought back, they say, leaving out that old "legalistic" fourth commandment, about the 7th day Sabbath... the Ten commandments and the rest of the moral law are eternal and will never pass away. They are part and parcel with Yahweh's very nature and character. He would have to change in order for His law to change." (A Question About the Law, by Frank Brown, pp. 3 and 4)"

Let's ask Mr. Brown (as representing this school of thought) a few questions.

  1. Are not the Ten commandments the heart and soul of the old covenant (Deu 4:13)?
  2. "In that he saith, a new covenant (hath) he (not) made the first old? Now (is not) that which decayeth and waxeth old... ready to vanish away" (Heb 8:13)?
  3. Where are the scriptures that tell us the "civil laws" are changed, but the "ten commandments and the rest of the moral laws are eternal and will never pass away?
  4. 4) Did not Christ require something more than commandment keeping from a man who had "kept all the commandments from his youth up" (Mat 19:20, 21)?
  5. Has not Christ abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments [Greek word entole - Strong's #1785, same word as "commandments" in Mat 19:17] contained in ordinances (#1378 - dogma; five verses only Luk 2:1 - decree; Act 16:4 - decree; Act 17:7 - decrees; Col 2:14 - "handwriting of ordinances..." (Eph 2:15); "commandments contained in ordinances".
  6. Are the ten commandments not dogmas? Were they not decrees? Were they not written by the finger of God (Deu 9:10) in tables of stone (Deu 4:13)?
  7. Is not that which was "written and engraven in stones a ministration of death (2Co 3:7)?
  8. Did Moses have something in his hands besides the ten commandments (the civil law perhaps) that caused his face to shine (2Co 3:7)?
  9. Is the "ministration of the spirit" really the same as "the ministration of death written and engraven in stones (Deu 4:13)?
  10. Is there not a new "glory" which "excels" the old glory to the extent that the old glory "has no glory" (2Co 3:10)?
  11. If the old covenant ("And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone" Deu 4:13) is not done away then what, pray tell, is "that which remaineth which is more glorious" (2Co 3:11)?
  12. If there is not "verily a disannulling" (#115 - athetesis)) of the commandment" (Heb 7:18), does that mean that Christ has "put away (#115 - athetesis) sin by the sacrifice of himself (Heb 9:27)? Should this read 'verily a disannulling of the civil law commandment'?
  13. Is Matthew 5 not a change from Exodus 20?
  14. How can anyone choose to keep only certain portions of "All things written in the book of the law" and still avoid the following scriptural curse: "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written CURSED IS EVERYONE that continueth not in ALL things that are written in the book of the law to do them" (Gal 3:10)?

Obviously "the law" (not the civil law, not the "eternal" ten commandments, but "the law"; the WHOLE LAW) and "the old covenant" (not any particular part of the old covenant, the WHOLE OLD COVENANT) is "abolished", "done away", "disannulled", "waxing old", "vanishing away", "nailed to the cross", etc., etc. These are the words and phrases selected by the Holy Spirit to make a point completely missed by the "turning grace into lasciviousness (Jud 4) crowd and the "It is needful to command them to keep the law" (Act 15:15) crowd.

The point is that "a NEW [Yes, it is NEW] commandment I give unto you; that... as I have loved you, that you also love one another."

It has been said that "the first four commandments teach us to love God, and the last six commandments teach us to love our brother." Is that what Christ meant when he said "a new commandment I give unto you; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another" (Joh 13:34)?

If the ten commandments express the love of Christ, why does he call his saying "a new commandment"?

Matthew 5 demonstrates that the ten commandments and the law of Moses do not express the love of Christ. Matthew 5 truly is "a new commandment." It is a commandment that is "of the spirit and NOT of the letter." The ten commandments, on the other hand, are "for the lawless and disobedient" (1Ti 1:8-9). "Whosoever shall break one of THESE [Christ's] least commandments ...shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven... (Mat 5:19)

It is of utmost significance that Christ did not say "by this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you keep the ten commandments". Because according to scripture, they could have "done all these from their youth up" and still have been lacking that which will give us eternal life (Mat 19:20).

And what was it the rich young man lacked? It was the "new commandment", not the ten. It was the law of love, the "new covenant" that "fulfilled" and "excelled in glory" (Rom 13:9, 10; 2Co 3:10), it was "Christ in you the hope of glory" (Col 1:27). It was lacking these attributes that made him unwilling to "sell that he had... and follow" Christ (Mat 19:21).

We are given two unquestionable examples of the "doing away", the "abolishing" of "the law" given by God to Moses. We are also shown how it is replaced by the "newness of spirit" of Rom 7:6; the new spiritual law of love. When Paul says "the law is spiritual" in Rom 7:14, he is referring back to verse five where he reveals the "newness of spirit".

Example #1

"At that time, Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat" (Mat 12:1).

Statutes Concerning the Sabbath Under the Old Covenant

What Christ and the disciples were doing here was not in opposition to "added on traditions of the elders". These actions, gathering food on the Sabbath, were in direct opposition to the principle the Lord had laid down in Exo 16. In verse 4 "...the Lord [said] unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven... on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they bring in; and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily" (Exo 16:4 and 5). "See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day" (Exo 16:29).

They were told to prepare for the Sabbath by gathering twice as much manna on the sixth day. The same was true for gathering sticks for a fire "And they that found him gathering sticks [on the Sabbath] brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation... And the Lord said unto Moses, the man shall be surely put to death:... And all the congregation ...stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses" (Num 15:33, 35, 36).

Obviously, gathering food or sticks on the Sabbath was not to be tolerated under the Old Covenant.

When the Pharisee demanded an explanation of Christ for doing "that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath day..." (Mat 12:2), Christ agreed with them pointing to David who had also broken the law. "But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungered, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, WHICH WAS NOT LAWFUL for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests" (Mat 12:3,4).

Christ was not fleeing from Saul, yet he had not prepared for the Sabbath on the sixth day as was clearly commanded in Exo 16:4, 5 and Num 15:33-36.

Again Christ agreed with them, he and David had done that "which was not lawful for him...". Those who deny that Christ had broken the Sabbath both disagree with Christ who admits that like David he had done that "which was not lawful for him..." (Mat 12:4), and deny that the law required one to prepare for the Sabbath on the sixth day at peril of death. This, again, was clearly commanded in Num 5 and Exo 16.

Example #2

In Joh 5:5-9, it is revealed to us that Christ healed a certain man "which had an infirmity thirty and eight years" (vs 5). "Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed and walk" (vs 8). "And on the same day was the Sabbath" (vs 9). "The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the Sabbath day: it is not lawful for you to carry your bed" (Joh 5:10).

Is this true? Was it unlawful for this man to carry his bed on the Sabbath?

"Thus saith the Lord; take heed to yourselves, and bear no burden on the Sabbath, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem; neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath day, neither do ye any work, but hallow ye the Sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers" (Jer 17:21, 22). "...And some of my servants set I at the gates that there should no burden be brought in on the Sabbath day" (Neh 13:19). "...the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work..." (Exo 20:10).

Clearly, according to the law, the man should not have been carrying his bed on the Sabbath.

"...Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to kill him, because he had done these things on the Sabbath day" (Joh 5:16).

Christ does not deny working on the Sabbath, thereby breaking it. "But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I WORK. The Jews sought the more to kill him because he not only had BROKEN THE SABBATH, but said also that God was his Father..." (vs 18).

Here we have it plainly stated; he "had broken the Sabbath". This was not a matter of pointing out unscriptural "traditions of the elders that had been added to the law". Certainly that had been done, but once again that is not the case here with Christ. The apostle John under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, states clearly "he had broken the Sabbath". "Supposed" or Deliberate?

There are those who assert that what is actually meant here is "they supposed he had broken the Sabbath". These people say the same thing about Christ and his disciples deliberately failing to prepare for the Sabbath, and instead picking and eating corn on the Sabbath.

Should this really read "they supposed he had broken the Sabbath"? It is worth noting that in at least one case where some had made a false assumption about our Lord, the Holy Spirit was quick to point it out. "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph..." (Luk 3:23).

Christ, as we know, was born of Mary, but not of Joseph, and the Holy Spirit corrects this false assumption concerning Christ. But there is no such correction here in John 5. Instead, it is plainly stated that Christ broke the Sabbath and claimed to be God's son, both of which were true.

Christ could easily have healed this man on the Sabbath without instructing him to "take up his bed and walk". The only question is why did he eat corn from the field on the Sabbath, and why instruct a man to carry his bed, both in direct violation of clearly stated old covenant laws? Christ's answer: "My Father works hitherto and I work" (Joh 5:17). Christ's Father never tires although He sustains the universe twenty-four hours a day, SEVEN days a week.

Christ and his disciples were under no duress from the king. Christ was not a priest or even a Levite, yet He justified Himself and His disciples for working on the Sabbath.

In Mark's account of Christ and His disciples' flagrant violation of the laws commanding Israel to prepare for Sabbath meals on the sixth day, we read "And He [Christ] said unto them: the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath."

This is certainly not the message gleaned from reading God's rebuke of those who gathered manna on the Sabbath, or the stoning to death of the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath the equivalent of Christ and his disciples gathering corn. Christ's whole point in gathering corn on the Sabbath was "Therefore the son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath" (Mar 2:27 and 28).

Matthew's account of this same event concludes with these words from our Lord: "But if you had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the GUILTLESS. For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath day" (Mat 12:7, 8). Christ had just admitted that He, like David, had done that "which was not lawful for him" (Mat 12:4).

John states clearly that Christ "had broken the Sabbath: (Joh 5:18) yet Christ rightly claims to be "guiltless".

It is very instructive to note that in Mark's gospel, the narrative of Christ and his disciples' violation of the Sabbath preparation laws immediately follow this statement of Christ: "No man seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse, And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles" (Mar 2:21, 22).

The next verse (vs 23) begins Mark's account of Christ and his disciples flagrantly eating corn right out of the field on the Sabbath day.

Anyone who, in this context, cannot see that Sabbath keeping has now become a new piece of cloth completely incompatible with the old letter of the law of ritualistically refraining from physical work, still insisting on "preparing for the Sabbath", has no idea what "newness of spirit" means regarding the Sabbath. These people are attempting to put new wine (the new covenant) in old bottles (the old covenant) and as Christ so aptly put it, the result is they spill and waste the gospel of the new covenant (the new wine) and destroy the significance and lessons of the types and shadows of the law and the old covenant (the old bottles).

The True Meaning Of The Sabbath

How many seventh day Sabbath observers (who generally keep some or all of the holy days, which are also Sabbaths) know what the root meaning of the Hebrew word for Sabbath is? Many Christians following the lead of the Roman Catholic Church, observe the first day of the week as the Sabbath, and refuse to work on Sunday. How many of these people have any idea what this word means, or what the Sabbath and holy days, as given by Moses, foreshadow? Knowing this might help us keep the new wine in new bottles and old wine in old bottles.

The very first mention of the seventh day is Gen 2:2. "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made". The Hebrew word translated "rested" here is shabath (Strong's #7673). This word appears 67 times in the Old Testament, but it is used only three times in the book of Genesis. The first two are here in Gen 2, in verses two and three. In both verses, it is translated "rested", "...and he rested on the seventh day", "...in it he had rested from all his work".

But no one in his right mind thinks God was so winded by Friday afternoon that he needed a breather on Saturday. I have declared the former things from the beginning: and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass (Isa 48:3). For God, creation was simply a matter of "declaring... things" like "let there by light, dry land, fish, fowls, beasts, etc." and he did it "suddenly". So God certainly was not winded and in need of what we think of as "rest" from exertion and exhaustion

Shabath Means "Cease"

The very next appearance of this word gives us a clear view of its real meaning as God meant for it to be understood in Gen 2:2 and 3 and in virtually every other place it appears. "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease" (Gen 8:22).

The word "cease" is shabath, the same word translated "rest" in Gen 2:2 and 3.

Now, let us look at a verse which reveals the spiritual significance of the ritual of the weekly Sabbath and of all the Sabbaths. "Seven days shall you eat unleavened bread; even the first day you shall put away (Heb - shabath) leaven out of your houses..."(Exo 12:15). It doesn't take a seminary degree to know that leaven typifies sin.

As the writer of the book of Hebrews puts it: "There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his [Christ's] rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his."

Those in Christ have ceased from their works, not one day in seven, but seven in seven, "as God did [cease] from his".

Yet this very verse is used by those devoid of spiritual vision to promulgate a ritual, a shadow of a spiritual reality in Christ; a "vanishing", "old", "decaying" "covenant" (Heb 8:13) which Christ went to great lengths to demonstrate was not compatible with the new covenant. The mixing of the two destroys both (Mat 9:16, 17; Mar 2:21, 22 and "the new agrees not with the old" - Luk 5:36 and 37).

This statement was made to the disciples of John the Baptist and the disciples of the Pharisees (Mat 9:14 and Mar 2:16 and 18). The spirit of the Pharisees is to this day the champion of the old covenant (Mat 16:6 and 12) and John's ministry signaled the end of the old covenant (Mat 11:13 and Luk 16:16 and Joh 1:17). "...The new agreeth not with the old: (Luk 5:36). The old covenant is the letter of the ten commandments: "...His covenant... even ten commandments... upon two tables of stone" (Deu 3:14).

Some of the '"it is needful to... command them to keep the law" school' (Act 15:15), have noticed the truth in Christ's statement "...the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are blameless" (Mat 12:5). The Sabbath is, of course, the busiest day of the week for a minister. This is his best opportunity to "command them to keep the law". So, without one word of scriptural backing, they assume for their ministers the priesthood. Therefore, in their minds, now the 'fact' that the ministers are priests, justifies their working on the Sabbath. "...The priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless."

There is only one thing wrong with this bit of human reasoning. It has not one word of scriptural foundation.

To whom do the scriptures promise the priesthood? "Unto him that loved US (all of us in Christ) and washed us from our sins in his own blood. And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever" (Rev 1:5, 6). This same promise is repeated to the same group in Rev 5:10 and 20:6.

It is those "in Christ" to whom "...all the promises of God IN HIM are yea and IN HIM amen..." (2Co 1:10).

Are ministers the only ones "in Him"? Of course not, and the priesthood is not theirs alone, but for all of "us" because he "...loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood. And hath made us kings and priests..." (Rev 1:5, 6).

Here is another exposition revealing the way many today feel about the ten commandments and the law of Moses:

"There is the absurd notion among many of the mainstream organizations of Christianity that the law of God has been abolished... There are many scriptures that confirm that the law is good and is to be obeyed... When Christ returns all of the b