Is, Was and Will Be

The Unknown Character of Christ and His Word

Essential Reading

• Start Here First
• Revelation
• Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth
• After the Counsel of His Own Will
• Will God's Strong Delusion Deceive You?
• The Law of Moses versus The Law of the Spirit

Announcements

NEW! Bible Study conference in Salisbury, NC will be held Sept. 26-27, 2008. Click on 'Announcements' for details.

Site Info

• Email the webservants

The Law Of Moses Versus The Law Of The Spirit

How The New Covenant Differs from the Old

[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, in Matt. 5:17-19, Christ says think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets, I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. 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. 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... (II Pet. 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" (II Cor. 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" (II Cor. 3:7).

While the "law of commandments contained in ordinances" (Eph. 2:15) is a "ministration of death" (II Cor 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, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed (Gal. 3:22, 23).

It will be demonstrated "after faith is revealed" in each generation of believers, that the righteousness of God without the law is manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets (Rom. 3:21) thereby "establishing the law".

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... (I Tim. 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 Matt. 5 is to Ex. 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" (Acts 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:

So we have an abundance of scriptures that tell us that 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" Matt. 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 Deut. 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. Luke 6:46; And why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say. Matt. 19:17; ...if thou will 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]" (Titus 2:11-12) "through faith" [of Christ] (Gal. 2:20); by "these sayings of mine" not Moses (Matt. 7:24 and 26); by "the word that I have spoken" (John 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. Verse 13, ...Deliver the men of Gibeah [where the crime had taken place] 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 brothers... 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. Romans 14:23 states ...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

I John 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 Luke 1:72, Acts 3:25; Acts 7:8; Rom. 9:4 and 11:27], not of the letter but of the Spirit: for the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life (II Cor. 3:6).

Paul is referring to the two covenants mentioned in Jer. 31:31-33: 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: (vs. 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. (Vs. 33) But this shall be the covenant that I shall 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" (II Cor. 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 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".

Deut. 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. and Deut. 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" (II Cor. 3:3) are "the ministration of death" (II Cor. 3:7) and "the ministration of condemnation" (II Cor. 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..." (II Cor. 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" (Luke 3:38) "...that was not first which is spiritual [the law of love - Matt. 5], but that which is natural: [carnal old covenant law of Moses, Ten commandments - Heb. 7:16 and Deut. 4:13] and AFTERWARD that which is spiritual" (I Cor. 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" (I Tim. 1:9).

There have always been those who will turn the grace of God into lasciviousness (Jude 4), but we must not let this keep us from using a "form [Greek: pattern as in I Tim. 1:16] of sound words" (II Tim. 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 (Deut. 4:2, 12:32; Jer. 26:2; Rev. 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.

"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." (Deut. 4:2)

"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; 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 that are written in this book" (Rev. 22:18-19).

With this stern warning in mind, we think it best to agree with the Lord, the prophet (Jer. 31:31-33) and the apostle (II Cor. 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" (II Cor. 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

II Cor. 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 (II Cor. 3:3)?

The phrase "tables of stone" appears twelve times in the Hebrew. Every time it appears, it refers to the ten commandments (Ex. 24:12, 31:18, 34:1, 34:4; Deut. 4:13, 5:22, 9:9, 9:10, 9:11, 10:1, 10:3; I Kings 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 (Deut. 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... (Deut.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 (Deut. 9:11)
4. The Lord delivered unto me the two tables of stone written with the finger of God... (Deut. 9:10).

In the New Testament

The tables of stone are mentioned only two times in the New Testament. (II Cor. 3:3; Heb. 9:4)

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 (II Cor. 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 (Deut. 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. (Matt. 26.28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; Rom. 11:27; I Cor. 11:25; II Cor. 3:6, 14; Gal. 3:15, 17; Gal. 4:24; Eph. 2:12; Heb. 7:22; Heb. 8:6,8,9,10; Heb. 9:15,16,17,20; 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 (Deut. 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" (I Tim. 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" (II Cor. 3:7) and "the ministration of condemnation" (II Cor. 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.

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: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [casting the shadow] is of Christ (Col. 2:16-17). It is the words of Christ (not the law of Moses) that will judge us. 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 (John 12:48). Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say (Luke 6:46). Not every one that sayeth unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father (Matt. 7:21). 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 II Pet. 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. Behold thou art a Jew and restest in the law and makest your boast of God and knowest his will and approvest the things that are more excellent being instructed out of the law; and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. (Rom. 2:17-20) The old covenant, which includes the ten commandments (Deut. 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 II Tim. 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] (I Cor. 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 I Cor. 7:19 are the ten commandments of the old covenant (Deut. 4:13; Ex. 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 (Deut. 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" (Acts 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 (I Cor. 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...

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.

Matt. 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 (Acts 15:1), to observe the holy days (Col. 2:15) and to keep the law of Moses (Acts 15:5). It was not given to them to see (Matt. 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. (Deut. 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" (Matt. 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 Matt. 5] and he wrote them upon two tables of stone" (Deut. 4:13). These are the tables and the stones referred to in II Cor. 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. Matt. 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 (Luke 5:39). That statement was made to "the disciples of John and of the Pharisees" (Mark 2:18, Luke 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 (Acts 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" (Luke 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]" (Phil. 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 (II Cor. 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... (I Tim. 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 (I Cor. 15:46). But once it is fulfilled, it waxeth old [and] is ready to vanish away (Heb. 8:13).

"He is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh... he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, [as is Sabbath and holy day keeping, clean and unclean meats, tithing, etc.] IN THE SPIRIT, AND NOT IN THE LETTER; whose praise is not of men, but of God" (Rom. 2:28, 29).

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" (I Cor. 9:20). When Paul says, "...I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem..." (Acts 18:21), it wasn't that he esteemed it necessary for salvation, but rather "and this I do for the gospels sake..." (I Cor. 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 are "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? "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. (Vs. 14) But if your brother be grieved with your meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with your meat, for who Christ died. (vs. 15) Let not then, your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink: but righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit" (vs. 16 and 17).

So exactly how do we decide how to conduct ourselves among other brothers whose spiritual development differs from ours? "For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men" (vs. 18). And how do we serve Christ? "...Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me" (Matt. 25:40).

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" (Mark 10:44). We must not allow our liberty to "become a stumbling block" to our brothers (I Cor. 8:9). Understanding the liberties inherent in the new covenant is good so long as we do not become puffed up with our "superior knowledge". "Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth" [builds up our brother]" (I Cor. 8:1).

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" (I Cor. 9:22).

"...Take heed lest this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak" (in faith) (I Cor. 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 (Matt. 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" (Luke 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" (Luke 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; Ex.16:5; 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" (Luke 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 (Deut. 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 Matt. 5). "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Matt. 5:27) is letter law; "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matt. 5:28) is spiritual law. "All these have I kept from my youth up" (Matt. 19:20) and "...touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless" (Phil. 3:6) are statements made by the rich young ruler and Apostle Paul respectively. Yet Christ says they were 'lacking' while keeping these laws (Luke 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 John 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 chapter 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 Romans 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. 2:29-29). "He is NOT a Jew which is one outwardly."

Here in Romans 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 and 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 he 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 Romans 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 Romans 9:3-4 is opposed to the "Israel of God" of Galatians 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... (I Cor. 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 I Cor. 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" (I Cor. 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 and 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 covenant would be abolished, and the new covenant 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. I Cor. 13:10; II Cor. 3:7, 11
3. ...that which is abolished. II Cor. 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

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 - Deut. 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 Matt. 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 (Matt. 5:43) taken from God's command to Israel in Deut. 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 (Matt. 5:17).

"...One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt. 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 Joshua 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 Jude 4 - "...certain ungodly men turning (metatithemi) the grace of God into lasciviousness." The change (metatithemi) here in Jude 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 Jude 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 Matt. 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 Matt. 5:17. The next appearance of this word is in Matt. 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" (Matt. 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" (II Cor. 3:6).

Romans 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" (II Cor. 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" (II Cor. 3:3). It is this changed law; walking after the spirit; that Christ demonstrates for us in Matthew 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 (Matt. 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" (Phil. 3:8) and "filthy rags" (Isa. 64:6) and "yet lacking" (Luke 18:22).

Phil. 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 Matt. 5:21: You 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 Ex. 20. Notice now how Christ "changes" this law.

Verse. 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 Racca (vain fellow) 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" (Ex. 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" (I Tim. 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 and 25).

Change #2 - Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery

The next "you have heard it said by them of old time" is the seventh commandment. Matt. 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" (I Cor. 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 Matt. 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" (II Cor. 3:10).

Matt. 5:27: "You have heard that it hath been 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 (II Cor. 3:3) "not of the letter but of the spirit" (II Cor. 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

"The grace of God... chastens us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world" (Titus 2:11-12).

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..." (I Cor. 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 and 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..." (Titus 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" (John 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 Mark 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..." Matt. 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" (II Cor. 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" (Matt. 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 Matt. 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 Matt. 5:32. It does appear in Matt 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..." (Deut. 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" (Deut. 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" (Deut. 24:2).

Now let's go to Matt. 19 and see how the KJV translators correct themselves regarding this Greek word apoluo - which is the same word translated 'divorce' in Matt. 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 (John 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 (Deut. 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" (Phil. 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" (Matt. 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" (Deut. 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..." (Deut. 22:21). Neither was it adultery. The penalty for adultery was also death (Deut. 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 Deut. 23:14, we are given the meaning of this word to be applied here in Deut. 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" (Deut. 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 (Deut. 22:21 and 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..." (Deut. 21:11-14)

The reason given here to "let her go" (shalach #7971, the same word translated "send her out"-Deut. 24:1) is simply "you have no delight in her" or as the Pharisees put it "for every cause" (Matt. 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 Matt. 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" (II Tim. 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 (Luke 2:22; Luke 24:44; John 1:45; John 7:19; John 7:23; Acts 13:39; Acts 15:5; Acts 28:23; Rom. 10:5; I Cor. 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 II Cor. 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 Matt. 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" (II Cor. 3:3) and "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life" (II Cor. 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" (Deut. 4:13). It was definitely "...not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and isobedient..." (I Tim. 1:9).

Yes, Psalms 37:31 and 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 II Cor. 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"? (Matt. 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 (Deut. 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..." (Deut. 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?" (Matt. 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" (Deut. 24:1; Deut. 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" (Matt. 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" (Matt. 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" (Matt. 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 Matt.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... (II Cor. 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 (II Cor. 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 and16), 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" (I Cor. 9:6 and 11; Rom. 7:22).

Truly, Christ does not change, for He is of the spirit (John 3:34), but anything, especially the law which is not of faith, must be changed. (John 3:6 and 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 (Matt. 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..." (I Tim. 1:9), those with hardened hearts.

We must understand this if we are to understand the place and function of the law of Moses (I Tim. 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" (Matt. 5:32) or "except it be for fornication" (Matt. 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 Malachi 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 (Matt. 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, (Luke 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: Matt. 5:32, 19:9; Mark 7:21; John 8:41; Acts 15:20, 15:29, 21:25; Rom. 1:29; I Cor. 5:1, 6:13,18, 7:2; II Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; I Thess. 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: I Cor. 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 I Cor. 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" (Ex. 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" (II Cor. 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 (II Cor. 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, (II Cor. 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..." (II Tim. 3:1 and 13).

What Christ then is saying in Matt. 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" (I Cor. 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" (Deut. 24:1) and "if you have no delight in her" (Deut. 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 (Deut. 22:19) or if he himself were guilty of premarital sex with his wife (Deut. 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" (Deut. 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. (John 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 (I Cor. 7). "I have yet many things to reveal unto you, but you cannot bear them now" (John 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 (II Cor. 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 - Ex. 31:18 and Deut. 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" (II Cor. 3:3 and 7).

Now there is something else Christ had to reveal that could not have been bourn at that time (John 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" (I Cor. 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" (I Cor. 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" (John 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" (I Cor. 3:1-3). Former "fornicators..., thieves... and drunkards" (I Cor. 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' II Cor.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,