by Mike Vinson

The Bible is without question the most well known book in the history of this world. It is the most revered book on earth. It has for decades consistently outsold every other book in the world. Bible sales top 100 million every year. It always heads the best seller list.

While it is no doubt the most quoted and most popular book in the world, it is at the same time paradoxically the least read and even less understood book of all time.

Why is a book so universally acknowledged as the Word of God, or at the very least the greatest piece of literature in existence, so completely misunderstood or ignored?

God gives us His answer to this paradox. Within this answer we are given a key to unlocking the scriptures. Notice this statement directly from the mind of God via the pen of the apostle Paul: …the natural man receives not the things of the spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned… (1Co 2:14).

Notice: …the things of the Spirit of God…are spiritually discerned. They are “foolishness” to the natural mind. The natural mind may want to receive them but …neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned.

So no amount of writing, explaining or educating can give one an ability to receive…the things of the Spirit of God…because they are spiritually discerned.

Education is not the gift of the Spirit of God. Take note what the educated leaders of the church said of Christ,…How knoweth this man letters having never learned? Christ was not illiterate, and the Pharisees acknowledged this fact. But they could not understand where his “knowledge of letters” came from “having never learned” within their educational system. Christ was not as the learned pharisee, the apostle Paul,brought up at the feet of Gamaliel. Yet at the age of twelve, he was asking questions of the teachers in the temple at Jerusalem. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. (Luk 2:46-47)

So how did He come by this knowledge? We are given the answer in a response from Christ to a statement made by Peter …You are the Christ the son of the living God. (Mat 16:16) Christ’s response wasBlessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (Mat 16:17)

Apparently no amount of education gives one “spiritual discernment”, only those to whom “the Father reveals it.” It is to just such people that this discussion is addressed; to those who know through “Christ in them” (Gal 2:20) that the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek is the revealed Word of God to man.

Now the apostle Paul made a statement to just such a man that has given rise to much discussion and disputation over the years. Timothy was a young man whom the apostle Paul thought so much of that he called him hisdearly beloved son (2Ti 1:2). As such, he admonished Timothy to study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2Ti 2:15)

Could there possibly be a connection between this “rightly dividing” and the “spiritually discerned” of 1Co 2:14? Surely the answer to this question and the godly understanding of both of these scriptures is demonstrated for us in the scriptures themselves; in the examples set for us by Christ and His apostles. Can anyone deny that the understanding Christ had of scriptures should be our understanding? Would the apostle Paul “rightly divide” scripture in one manner and expect us to “rightly divide” it some other way? Surely not!

So now let us without any “idols of our hearts” (Eze 14) examine how Christ, the writers of the gospels and the apostle Paul “rightly divided the word of truth.” Let us with an open mind search for the examples given us of discerning “the things of the Spirit of God.”

The best treatment ever given this subject, to the knowledge of this writer, is within the pages of a 150 year old out-of-print book by one Andrew Jukes. The name of the book is The Mystery of the Kingdom. Mr. Jukes takes note that Christ is called “the Word of God” (Joh 1:1). As such, whatever applied to Christ in the flesh, will also apply to the written Word. Contrary to the modern concept of Christ as having a halo around His head, nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is Christ was so common looking that He could, and did, lose Himself in a crowd of Jews of His time (Luk 4:28-30). Seeing Christ in the flesh alone no one would ever have known He was the son of God. As we have related, this was only revealed to a few at that time, not by flesh and blood, but by “my Father which is in heaven” (Mat16:17). Christ was in every visible way as common as any human who ever lived.

But there was much more to this Jesus, the “son of Joseph” than met the eyes. Casually seeing Christ, one could never have discerned the boundless love within Him. One could never simply by meeting and shaking hands with Him have been aware of the complete and total oneness He was with the written Word. No one without a revelation from God would even have known that this man was the supernaturally conceived and begotten Son of God.

No, outwardly, he was the perfect disguise for the creator of the universe. “He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not” (Joh 1:10). “He came to His own, and His own received Him not” (Joh 1:10-11). Anyone who did not ‘need’ Christ certainly did not recognize who He was. Anyone who came to Christ measuring Him against their preconceived idea that the Christ had to be a physically powerful man with the ability to throw off Roman rule was surely disappointed.

To the righteous of the day, He was a great disappointment, picking corn on the Sabbath, healing on the Sabbath and then telling a man to pick up his bed and carry it on the Sabbath. To such, Christ was a door shut tight, keeping God out of sight.

Now if this is all true of Christ, the Word in the “flesh” (Joh 1:1), then the same must be true of the written Word. Is it true of the written Word? Is there really more to it than meets the eye? Could it be that just as the Word in the flesh was hidden right out in the open, so the written Word too, is right there for anyone to see, yet none but those “to whom it is given” (Mat 13:11) see it? Could it possibly be so complex for the average person that simply reading the Words, considering the context and believing what was written was not enough to grasp the deepest meaning of what had been said?

How is one to handle the Word of God?

Surely some principle for “rightly dividing the Word” is revealed by observing the way the Word of the Old Testament was understood by the writers of the New. They cannot tell us to “rightly divide the Word” by simply considering the context and the words written, while they themselves apparently ignore the context and assign a different meaning to words other than their original primary meaning. Do they really do that?

Do the writers of the New Testament quote the Old Testament out of context? Let us with an open prayerful mind check and see. Consider the context of the very first Old Testament scripture quoted in the New Testament. Mary the mother of Jesus is pregnant, and the marriage has not yet been consummated. The situation demands an explanation, so Mary tells Joseph the truth. What is the truth? According to scripture, “thy Word is truth” (Joh 17:17). Is the truth easy for Joseph (or anyone) to accept? No! Neither Joseph nor you nor I would have believed Mary. The context demands that we not believe her. Only the most gullible, blinded-by-love man would have bought such a fantastic story. Yet it was the truth. As with Peter (Mat 16:17), so with Joseph, so with you and so with me, a supernatural revelation is required to convince one of the truth. “That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.” (Mat 1:20-21)

We come now to the first Old Testament scripture quoted in the New Testament. “Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is God with us” (vs 23). Was this scripture really written about Christ as Matthew says it was? Is that the context in which we find it?

Let us check the context. Today’s method of scriptural interpretation teaches that the examination of the context is the primary rule for understanding the Word of God. This verse (Mat 1:23) is quoted from Isa 7:14. It certainly does not follow today’s commonly accepted rules for scriptural interpretation. The context shows that this statement is addressed to king Ahaz, the king of Judah.

To the natural undiscerning eye, there is nothing here to connect this to the birth of Christ. Ahaz was concerned about the conspiracy by the northern kingdom of Israel under king Pekah with Rezin the king of Syria against Ahaz. What possible sign would the birth of the Messiah some 480 years later be to Ahaz? The need (the context) was an immediate urgent concern.

Yet Matthew, without explanation or apology, applies this verse to the virgin birth of Christ. The second chapter of Matthew also contains prophecies which appear to be taken completely out of context. It tells of the wise men coming from the east to Jerusalem searching for “the king of the Jews” (Mat 2:2). Herod, after inquiring of the chief priests and scribes, tells the wise men that the prophets say the messiah is to be born in Bethlehem. “And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when you have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also” (Mat 2:8).

The wise men find Christ, worship him, present him with presents “and being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way” (Mat 2:12). After the wise men depart, “the angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream saying, Arise, take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt and be you there until I bring you word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him” (vs 13).

Now we come to our next out-of-context prophecy; notice: “And when he arose he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying,

Out of Egypt have I called my son” (vs. 14 and 15). This was a quote from Hos 11:1 which reads: “When Israel was a small child, then I loved him and called my son out of Egypt.”

In context, Hosea is simply saying that as Israel was being called out of Egypt, they were in the process of departing from God: “they sacrificed unto Baalim and burned incense to graven images” (vs 2). Still Matthew once again, without explanation, applies this verse to Christ’s return from Egypt. Surely we would wonder WHY DOES MATTHEW NOT EXPLAIN HIMSELF?

Let us continue with this “totally out of context” and “you can go anywhere with that” application of scripture. An even greater violence to the rules of exegesis is contained in the very next verses: “Then Herod, when he saw he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time that he had diligently enquired of the wise men” (vs 16). Notice what Matthew says next: “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet saying, In Ramah was there a voice heard, lamentation and weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and would not be comforted, because they are not” (vs 17 and 18).

Now Ramah, as Matthew very well knew, is nowhere near Bethlehem. It is not even in Judah, but is in Ephraim. Bethlehem is south and west of Jerusalem, and Ramah is many miles away, north and east of Jerusalem.

Furthermore, Judah was not born of Rachel but of Leah. All of this is very well known by Matthew, yet he once again WITHOUT EXPLANATION quotes this scripture from Jer 31:15 and applies it to the event in and around Bethlehem in the time of Christ.

Mark takes this same rule of scriptural exegesis in the first three verses of his gospel (Mar 1:1-3). Quoting Mal 3:1: “As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face which shall prepare the way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight.”

This statement made by Mark concerning John the Baptist is actually two separate prophets who prophesied years apart. Verse 2 is taken from Mal 3:1. Mark only quotes half of verse 1. Checking the context, let us pick up where Mark left off: “and the Lord WHOM YE SEEK, shall suddenly come to His temple, even the messenger of the covenant, WHOM YE DELIGHT IN: behold he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts” (last part of verse 1). Verses 2 and 3 say He will purify the sons of Levi when He comes; “…whom you seek…”, “…in whom ye delight…”, “…and He shall purify the sons of Levi; and purge them as gold and silver…”

Line upon Line

None of this would appear to the natural mind to apply to Christ’s coming in the flesh when the “sons of Levi”, the priests, had Him crucified. Yet we are told by the Holy Spirit that the first half of verse 1 refers to John the Baptist. Is this just a whim on God’s part? Notice once again Mark doesn’t bother to explain himself. He, like Matthew, applies scriptures to Christ which we would say are taken out of context.

Read the second part of Mark’s statement. Mark, along with all the New Testament writers, apparently practiced what today is criticized as “proof texting”, taking only the part that makes his point but ignoring the context.

Let’s see how Mar 1:3 appears when read in context. This is a quote from Isa 40:3. But read it with the verse before and a couple of verses afterward, and ask yourself if you would, with today’s “context, context, context” rules of biblical interpretation have ever guessed this was a prophecy about John the Baptist. Verse 2 says “Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.” Verse 3 and 4 continues; “The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:” and verse 5: “and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it” (Isa 40:2-5).

Was the “glory of the Lord” revealed? Did “all flesh…see it together”? Yet we are once again informed without explanation that this is a reference to John the Baptist.

Luke quotes the same scripture and draws the same conclusion once again; without explanation or apology as if there were some commonly understood principle being applied of which we today are apparently woefully ignorant.

Does the apostle John take this same approach to scripture? Yes, he does (Joh 1:23). All four gospels quote the same scripture and draw the conclusion with the same “you see what I mean” attitude. (Mat 3:3, Mar 1:3, Luk 3:4, Joh 1:23)

Hermeneutics – Explaining the Scriptures

The word ‘hermeneutics’ is commonly used in seminaries and among bible students, but many people are unfamiliar with its meaning. The dictionary explains the word as “the science and methodology of interpretation; especially of scriptural text.”

Before we examine the apostle Paul’s hermeneutics, let’s examine one more scripture which John applies to Christ. It is a quote from Psa 69.

Christ had just driven the animals and money changers from the temple. “And (He) said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. And his disciples remembered that it was written; the zeal of your house has eaten me up” (Joh 2:16-17).

Remember the headings in the Psalms are inspired along with the Psalms themselves. The heading says this is a psalm of David. In verse 5, David confesses “O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee.” This is obviously not talking about our sinless Savior. David goes on in verse 6 and 7: “Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord God of hosts, be ashamed for my sake; let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel. Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face.” Verse 8 – “I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.” Verse 9 – “For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproach thee are fallen upon me.”

Applying today’s context hermeneutics, it would appear that John has taken this statement by David about himself, completely out of context and applied it to Christ.

What about Paul?

Let us examine the apostle Paul. Did he ever apply this “spiritualizing” principle? Indeed he did. To quote him out of context, he did it “more abundantly than they all” (1Co 15:10). It is commonly taught in Christian churches and seminaries that God’s chosen people today are the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. Gen 12:1-3 is the first mention of God’s covenant with Abraham, whose name at this time is still Abram. Verse one states “Now the Lord had said unto Abram, “Get you out of your country and from your kindred, and from your father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee.” (vs. 2) – “And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing.” (vs. 3) – “And I will bless them that bless thee and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.”

Notice the “had said” in verse one. This is a reference back to the time when God had first spoken to Abram while Abram was still in “Ur of the Chaldees”. Chapter 15 says “…I am the Lord that brought you (not his father, Terah) out of Ur of the Chaldees…to give to you this land to inherit it.”

The deal (covenant) God had with Abram at the very first, while still in Ur, was very general and rather vague, at least so far as what Abram was to receive was concerned. What he was to do was specific enough:

• Get out of your country.
• Get away from your kindred and from your father’s house.
• Go to a land that I will show you.

Exactly what was he promised?

• I will make you a great nation.
• I will bless you and make your name great.
• You shall be a blessing.

In line with, and as a result of these three promises to Abram, God says (vs. 3) “And I will bless them that bless thee and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.”

Verse 4 tells us Abram was still in Haran and departed from Haran when he was 75 years old. Verse 5 says he took his wife Sarai and Lot, his nephew, and “they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.” Verse 6 says he passed through the land of Canaan “…and the Canaanite was then in the land.” Hence, the name “land of Canaan”. Now the Lord adds more detail to His promise to Abram. Notice verse 7 – “And the Lord appeared to Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land:…”, the land of Canaan.

The next mention of this covenant with Abram is in chapter 13:14 – “And the Lord said unto Abram…Lift up now your eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward and southward and eastward and westward: (vs. 15) for all the land which you seest, to you will I give it, and to your seed forever. (vs. 16) And I will make your seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then can your seed also be numbered. (vs. 17) Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.”

The promise now is somewhat altered:

• Instead of simply promising to make Abram “a great nation”, he is told “I will make your seed as the dust of the earth…”
• Instead of “to a land that I will show you”, he is told “for all the land which you seest, to you will I give it and to your seed forever.”

But the most specific description of the land given to Abram, is in chapter 15:18: “In the same day, the Lord made a covenant with Abram saying, unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river Euphrates.”

In chapter 17:4, he is told: “As for me, behold my covenant is with you and you shall be a father of many nations.” This is where his name is changed from Abram to Abraham, which means “a father of many nations.” (vs. 6)

The last mention of the promises given Abraham is in Gen 22 – “And Abraham stretched forth his hand and took the knife to slay his son.” Abraham had demonstrated to God that nothing would become an idol to come between him and his God, not even his own son. (vs. 10-13).

Therefore the Lord says to Abraham “…because you have done this thing, and have not withheld thy son, thine only son; (vs. 17) that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; (vs. 18) and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because you have obeyed my voice.”

So here we have the promises in their final form:

• Abraham is to inherit the land of Canaan from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates.
• His seed is to be “as the dust of the earth”, “as the sand of the sea” and “as the stars of heaven.”
• “Thy seed shall possess the gates of his enemies.”
• “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.”

“Thy seed” meant, of course, that these promises were passed on to Isaac and from Isaac to Jacob. These are the “promises made unto the fathers” referred to by the apostle Paul in Rom 15:8 and Gal.3:29.

What do these promises mean to Paul? Do they mean, as we are told today, “Abraham’s seed according to physical descendants are to possess modern Israel, and we will be blessed if we support them and cursed if we do not?

No, the message we are commonly taught today concerning Israel is nothing like the true message of Paul. Paul, like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and James seemed to have a principle of scriptural interpretation Christians, as a whole, do not grasp.

What did the promise “in thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” mean to Paul? He tells us in Gal 3:8: “And the scriptures foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, In thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed (vs. 9) so then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.”

To Paul, the promise “in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Gen 22:18) had nothing to do with physical descent. Paul took this as a statement concerning a spiritual principle, the principle of faith in the word of God. To Paul the “thy seed” of Gen 22:18 are those in Christ. “And if you be Christ’s, then are you Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promises” (same chapter vs. 29).

“Heirs according to the promises”? Is Paul saying that the Gentiles who accept Christ are to inhabit Canaan “from the river of Egypt, to the great river, the river Euphrates”? Does Paul also spiritualize the promised land? Well, yes, he does! Turn to Rom 4:13: “For the promise that he (Abraham) should be heir of the world, was…through the righteousness of faith. “Heir of the world”? Where did he get that? What happened to “From the river of Egypt to the river Euphrates”?

To Paul all the promises were primarily and ultimately spiritual statements having nothing to do with the physical realm. They certainly had nothing to do with Abraham’s physical seed and descendants. Rom 9:6 “…For they are not all Israel which are of Israel: (vs 7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but in Isaac shall thy seed be called.” What does “in Isaac” mean? Does it mean physically descended from Abraham and therefore entitled to the promises?

If it does, you are saying that the promises don’t pertain to you, the adoption (maturing to the point of carrying on the Father’s business) doesn’t apply to you. Instead, you are saying the adoption and the promises apply to those who today, by the letter, are called “God’s chosen people”, but who Paul calls the “son of the bondwoman” who he says “shall not be heir with the son of the free woman” (Gal 4:30).

If we believe that “Israel according to the flesh” is still “God’s chosen people”, we, like Esau, are selling our birthright and believing that the son of the bondwoman (Jerusalem that now is and is in bondage with her children) will be made heir with the son of the free woman. It is Hagar, the bondwoman, who answers to Jerusalem that now is and is in bondage with her children (Gal 4:25). Paul is not saying that the other Jewish apostles or any believing Jew who happened to be in Jerusalem was in bondage. He is saying that being “of Israel” or “of Abraham” physically, has nothing to do with being “the seed of Abraham” or “an heir according to the promise”.

So who does God “count for the seed”; who are the “heirs according to the promise?” Let’s go right back to where we left off in Rom 9:7 “…In Isaac shall thy seed be called” (vs 8) That is, they which are the children of the flesh, THESE ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF GOD: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”

Who then are the “heirs”, these “children of the promise”? “If you be Christ’s, then are you Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal 3:29)

This agrees with Christ’s statement in Joh 8:37 – “I know you are Abraham’s seed: but…” (Skip one verse and read verse 39)…”If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham…” (vs 44) “You are of your father the devil…” Christ says they are Abraham’s children in verse 37 and says they aren’t in verse 39. As Paul said in Rom 9:6, “They are not all Israel who are of Israel.”

See how far Paul carries this spiritual approach to the scriptures in Rom 9:2: “…I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. (vs 3) For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” Does this not sound just like Abraham when told that his son “according to the flesh” was not to be counted for the seed. His immediate response was like Paul and many of us today. “Oh, that Ishmael (Jerusalem that now is) might live before thee” (Gen 17:18 and Gal 4:25-30).

Continuing now in Rom 9:4: “Who (natural Jews) are Israelites to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God and the promises.”

So the adoption and the promises “pertain to Israel” and yet Israel “according to the flesh” is “the son of the bondwoman” (Gal 4:30) and cannot be heir with the son of the freewoman. So to whom now does the adoption pertain? Rom 8:14 – “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God (the seed of Abraham) (vs 15) for ye (you Roman Gentiles) have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father”. (Gal 4:5) – “…that we (Gentile Galatians) might receive the adoption of sons”. And Eph 1:5 “Having predestinated us (Gentile Ephesians) unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ…”

Who then is Paul calling “Israelites to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God and the promises?”

Since Gal 4 seems so hard for many to grasp, let’s consider Eph 2:11: “Wherefore remember, that you being in time past (not at present) Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh made by hands. (vs 12) That at that time (in the past) ye were without Christ, being (in the past) aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. (vs 13) But now in Christ Jesus you who sometimes (in the past) were far off are made near by the blood of Christ.” Just how near is near? (vs 19) “Now therefore ye are not more strangers and foreigners, but FELLOW CITIZENS (OF ISRAEL) with the saints, and of the household of God.”

Paul has just revealed that so far as God is concerned, Israel in the flesh has been replaced by Israel according to the Spirit. He goes on in chapter 3 verse 2: “…Ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: (vs 3) How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery…”

Is this some extra-scriptural revelation of which Paul is speaking? Hardly! Standing before Agrippa in Act 26:22, he states clearly that he spoke “none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come. (vs 23) That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people and UNTO THE GENTILES.”

Two chapters later speaking to the Jews in Rome after “he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses and out of the prophets, from morning until evening” (Act 28:23). Of course, they rejected it, and Paul makes this statement to them: (vs 28) “Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God (the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants and the giving of the law, and the service of God and the promises) is sent unto the Gentiles, and they will hear it.”

Continuing now with Eph 3:3 – “How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery…(vs 5) which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles (Paul here and in Act 15:25-27 says the apostles agreed with Paul) and prophets by the Spirit.” What is this mystery (secret) revealed to Paul and the apostles? (vs 6) “That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs AND OF THE SAME BODY and partakers of the promise (not separate promises) in Christ by the gospel.”

Notice: no Jew vs. Gentile; no body vs. bride; no heaven vs. earth inheritance, but rather “fellow heirs”. (vs 9) “And to make ALL MEN see what is the FELLOWSHIP OF THE MYSTERY which from the beginning of the world has been hid in God who created all things by Jesus Christ.”

Any doubt about the oneness of the body of Christ should be shattered by these plain statements by Paul as to who constitutes an Israelite. There are still those, though, who contend that there is a “body” made up primarily of Gentile believers and a “bride” made up of Jewish believers. “You can’t be both a body and a bride” they say.

This is the equivalent of saying you can’t be both a tree (which we are – Rom 11:24) and a temple (which we are – 1Co 6:19). Paul does call us, the Gentile Christians, both a body and a bride. In Rom 12:5 – “…we being many are one body in Christ.” In 2Co 11:2 – “…I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” Can one be a “chaste virgin” presented to a husband and a “son”? Gal. 4:6 – “…because you are sons…”

Yes, God can and does give us, His children, many different, sometimes apparently contradictory descriptions. We are sons and virgins. We are trees and temples. We are stones and lights. We are soldiers and sheep, etc.

Paul concludes Galations with this summary statement. Gal 6:15 - For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision (being a natural Israelite) availeth anything, nor uncircumcision (being born a Gentile) but a new creature. (vs 16) And as many as walk according to this rule (of vs 15) peace be on them and mercy and upon the Israel of God.

Who is a Jew Today?

It is a strange phenomenon how so many see the words “Israel of God” in verse 16 and immediately forget “this rule” laid down in verse 15. They revert right back to the flesh and the letter, forgetting the truth of God revealed in Rom 2:27. “And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge you who BY THE LETTER and CIRCUMCISION (those who still count modern Jews as God’s chosen people and the seed of Abraham) do transgress the law. (vs 28) For HE IS NOT A JEW WHICH IS ONE OUTWARDLY: neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: (vs 29) but he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit and NOT IN THE LETTER: whose praise is not of men, but of God.”

So what is the scriptural circumcision? Php 3:3 – “For we (Gentile Philippians) are the circumcision which worship God in spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.” So we Gentiles who are in Christ “are the circumcision”. We are God’s chosen people. There cannot be two chosen people. There is no such thing as “chosen” versus “elect”, or “elect” versus “very elect”. Few people realize it, but the words “chosen” and “elect” are the same in the original Greek. The Greek word is eklektos; #1588 in Strong’s concordance.

An oft quoted scripture is Mat 24:24 – “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” It is believed by many that the “very elect” mentioned here are somehow separated from those who are called merely “elect”, and this group is somehow separated from those who are merely “chosen”.

Since we are the “Israel of God”, and we are both the bride and the body, will we reign in both heaven and earth? As a matter of scriptural fact, that is exactly what the apostle Paul says in 1Co 6:2. “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world…(vs. 3) know ye not that we shall judge angels…?”

Paul says even that God (2Co 3:6) “hath made us able ministers of the new testament; (which is) not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.” Paul specifically points out that the new covenant (#1242 – same as testament) is NOT OF THE LETTER, but of the spirit. Yet some still say this is not the new covenant referred to in Jer 31:31-34, where the new covenant is first mentioned. “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 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 broke, although I was a husband unto them saith the Lord: (vs 33) but this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward (spiritual) parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

Apparently some still think this is not the same “new covenant” referred to by Paul in 2Co 3:6. They apparently don’t notice that the Ephesian Gentiles are “no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens…” (Eph 2:19); that the Gentile Ephesians are no longer “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel”; no longer “strangers from the covenants of promise” (vs 12).

If this is a “new covenant” that pertains to the Gentile Corinthians and Ephesians, but is not connected to the “new covenant” mentioned in Jer 31:31-33 quoted above, then we must conclude that God had an old covenant with these Gentiles. This obviously is not what Paul had in mind. Paul is referring to the only new covenant mentioned in scriptures (Jer 31:31).

Going back to 2Co 3:6, the very next verse, after mentioning the “new covenant”, refers to the old covenant, calling it (vs 7) “the ministration of death (the letter kills – vs 6) written and engraven in stone was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: (vs 8) How shall not the ministration of the spirit (“the new covenant not of the letter, but of the spirit” – vs 6) be rather glorious.”

There are many other scriptures in Paul’s writings we could mention to demonstrate his “out of context” spiritualizing use of scriptures. But let us go on now to James to see if he does the same thing.

James and the “Tabernacle of David”

Act 15 is known as the Jerusalem conference chapter. Certain believers from the area of Judea had taken it upon themselves to teach the Gentile disciples in Pisidian Antioch that they could not be saved except they practice the outward sign of “circumcision and keep the law of Moses” (Act 15:5). There was obvious freedom of thought and expression because verse 7 says there was “much disputing”.

Finally Peter stands up and makes a profound statement; a statement he later had to live up to (Gal 2:11). In Act 15:8, “God… (vs 9) put NO DIFFERENCE between us (Jews) and them (Gentiles), purifying their hearts by faith (like us). (vs 10) Now, therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers NOR WE were able to bear? (vs 11) But WE (the apostles) believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even AS THEY.”

Now we come to James, the so-called “circumcision apostle”. Does he agree that there is “no difference” between how a Gentile and a Jew are saved?

Act 15:13 – “…James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:…(vs 15) to this AGREE the words of the prophets; as it is written, (vs 16) After this I will return and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: (vs 17) That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who does all these things.”

Why would the Gentiles need the tabernacle of David rebuilt to “seek after the Lord”? James somehow equates “building again the ruins thereof” with the calling of the Gentiles.

This is a quote from Amo 9. Let’s check the context of Amo 9:9 – “For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth. (vs. 10) All sinners of my people shall die by the sword, which say, the evil shall not overtake nor prevent us. (vs 11) In that day (the day of verse 10) will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old. (vs 12) That they (they of the house [tabernacle] of David) may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen which are called by my name, saith the Lord that does this.”

Reading this passage in Amos, it simply seems to be saying that David’s throne will be restored “as in the days of old” (vs 11). The throne of David is no older than David and Solomon when all twelve tribes were still under the “tabernacle of David” (vs 12) “That they (those of David’s house or tabernacle) might possess…the heathen, which are called by my name.”

Does this sound like a prophecy of the calling of the Gentiles at the time in Act 15? Had David’s throne or tabernacle been restored? Yet, once again, as if everyone present understood exactly what was meant (not what was said), James, like all the other apostles, doesn’t bother to apologize for or explain what he’s ‘getting at’.

Does anyone doubt that the “tabernacle of David” to which the Gentiles seek is Christ who even now has inherited the throne or tabernacle of David?

If, as some tell us, physical Israelites are to be returned to their former prominence, this scripture might have been better placed, had it been quoted on the day of Pentecost when all present were Israelites by physical birth. But even then there was no restored tabernacle of David. The Holy Spirit has seen fit instead to place it here in Act 15 in connection with the calling of the Gentiles, “that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.” James agrees with Peter (vs 15) that circumcision and the law of Moses was “a yoke upon the neck of the (Gentile) disciples, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear.” (vs 10)

They walked not uprightly according to the gospel

This must have been hard for the twelve original apostles to receive and fully accept. Peter’s trials with this part of God’s mind are enumerated for us in Act 10 where Cornelius is called, and again in Gal 2 where both Peter and Barnabas are seen struggling to accept this part of God’s workings. Gal 2:12 – “For before that certain came from James, he (Peter) did eat with the Gentiles: (as he had done at the house of Cornelius); but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them of the circumcision. (vs 13) And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. (vs 14) But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If you being a Jew, live after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest you the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”

This situation deserves our scrutiny. Why did Paul confront Peter? Was it really because ‘Peter made the mistake of attempting to mix administrations’? If that were his sin, Paul missed a good chance of clarifying this. Instead, he waits until “certain came from James” to point out this supposed sin of ‘administration mixing’.

Such a suggestion is of course absurd. Peter’s sin was not ‘administration mixing’ but “dissimulating”. Dissimulation is the Greek word ‘hupokrisis‘ (Strong’s #5272). This word is from hupo-krinomai (Strong’s #5271) which is translated “feign” in Luk 20:20 where the chief priest and scribes “watched him (Christ) and sent forth spies which should feign themselves just men…”

The reason Paul waited till “certain came from James” to reprove Peter was because Peter needed no reproof till then. Strong’s definition for dissemble is “to act hypocritically in concert with”. This is what Paul meant by “they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel”. Peter was not “endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace”. (Eph 4:3) He had forgotten that (vs 4) “There is one body, one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling. (vs 5) One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

Circumcision versus Uncircumcision

Hadn’t Paul agreed with Peter that Peter would go to the circumcision, and Paul would go to the Gentiles? Indeed he had. So what did that mean?

Did it mean that Paul had one gospel, a “gospel of the umcircumcision”, while Peter had another gospel, the “gospel of the circumcision”? It is right here in this chapter where Paul is reproving Peter for “not walking uprightly according to the gospel”. In the concordant version of the New Testament, the ‘the’ in “the evangel” is in dark print, indicating that Paul is aware of only one gospel, a gospel which did not allow one part of the body of Christ to separate itself from, or set itself above, the rest of the body. (Eph 2:16) – “That he might reconcile both unto God in ONE BODY by the cross…” The word “both” is a reference back to the “circumcision” and the “uncircumcision” of verse 11: “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh made by hands.” The circumcision and the uncircumcision are “one body” and both have only “THE (one) gospel”.

1Co 12 is the chapter that mentions “differences of administrations but the same Lord.” What is not pointed out, is that the subject of this chapter is “concerning spiritual gifts” (vs 1), and the conclusion Paul draws is (vs 13) “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into ONE BODY whether we be Jews or Gentiles…” So any “differences of administrations” concerning spiritual gifts are within ONE BODY. Verse 28 says that the apostles, all of them, are part of “the body”. Had this not been the case, Peter would have been justified in separating himself, and for that matter, should never have eaten with Gentiles in the first place.

“Things…ye cannot bear…now”

Peter had stood up to the chief priest and the Sanhedrin saying (Act 5:29) “We ought to obey God rather than men.” He had been willing to risk his life to preach the gospel, had been thrown into and supernaturally delivered from prison. Yet here was a part of “the gospel” which he and Barnabas had trouble fully taking to their bosom. Php 3:3 – “We (Gentile Philippians) are the circumcision which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh.” Rom 2:28 – “…he is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh. (vs 29) But he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is of God and not of men.” Gal 6:15 – “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. As many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them and on the Israel of God.” Why were Peter and Barnabas along with apparently all “the other Jews” having such a hard time accepting believing Gentiles as “the Israel of God” and counting their own physical descent as “dung” (Php 3:8)? The reason is given in Joh 16:12 – “I have MANY THINGS to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now.”

This was as hard for the original twelve apostles of Christ to receive as for Christians today to be told “as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1Co 15:22)

Even today, many in the body of Christ reject God’s decree; “the son of the bondwoman (Jerusalem which now is – Gal 4:25) shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” Gal 4:31 – “…WE BRETHREN, ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE FREE (WOMAN).”

Breaking off Israel…according to the flesh (Rom 11:19; 9:3)

In Act 2:29, Peter, speaking to the Jews from “every nation under heaven” (vs 5), on the day of Pentecost, is showing them the scriptures foretelling the coming of Christ. He quotes from Psalms saying: “David…(vs 30) being a prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.” When God says “according to the flesh”, He means “according to the flesh”. So Christ came “of the fruit of his (David’s) loins according to the flesh”.

Likewise, when it says “we are able ministers of the New Testament (covenant) NOT OF THE LETTER (FLESH) BUT OF THE SPIRIT, it means of the spirit (Rom 2:29). “Inward Jews” are Jews [that's spirit]; the covenant with Abraham was confirmed (Rom 3:17) of God IN CHRIST [that's spirit]. Rom 3:29 – “And if ye be Christ’s, then are YOU Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promises”; [that's spirit]. Paul interprets “from the river of Egypt to the river Euphrates” to mean the whole “world”, (Rom 4:13) [that's spirit also]. He explains to the Gentile Corinthians that they are to “judge the world” (1Co 6:2). This is because they are, in Christ, counted as “Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29). It is all “of the spirit” (2Co 3:6 and Rom 2:29).

“…The natural man (the man ‘of the letter’ or ‘context, context, context’), receives not the things of the Spirit of God (the Bible – Joh 6:63): for they are foolishness unto him: neither can (it’s not that he doesn’t want to; he can’t) receive them, because they are spiritually discerned…” (1Co 2:14).

And so all Israel (according to the flesh) shall be saved (Rom 11:26)

In 1Co 15:22, Paul says: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive… (vs 23) But every man in his own order… So in what ‘order’ are we to expect “Israel according to the flesh” to be saved?

Paul explains in Rom 11:25: For I would not brethren that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (vs 26) And so all Israel shall be saved: (spiritual as well as physical) as it is written, there shall come out of Sion the Deliverer and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: (vs 27) For this is my covenant unto them when I shall take away their sins. WHEN WILL HE “TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS?”

The Valley of Dry Bones

Those whose ‘affection’ [the Greek is mind] (Col 3:1,2) is on the earth, say this time period is during the millennium. They quote Eze 37, the chapter of scripture which refers to “the valley which was full of bones.”

Chapter 36 sets the stage for chapter 37. It is addressed to (vs 1) “the mountains of Israel”. In the first twenty verses, he describes their punishment and why they were punished. In verse 21, he says: “But I had pity for my holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the heathen, whither they went. (vs 22) Therefore say unto the house of Israel, thus saith the Lord God; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine Holy name’s sake, which you have profaned among the heathen whither ye went.” Verse 25 says: “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean. (vs 26) A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.”

When flesh is not flesh

We must at this juncture determine what is meant here by replacing a heart of stone with a heart of flesh. Do Jews have “hearts of stone”? How could anyone have a “heart of stone”? A heart of stone is to the spiritually minded person a “carnal (fleshly) mind” (Rom 8:7). “…the carnal mind is enmity against God: [it profanes His name among the heathen]; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.”

Now Ezekiel says this ‘heart of stone’ is to be replaced by a heart of flesh. If a ‘heart of stone is figurative, and it obviously is, what is the meaning of a ‘heart of flesh’ in this verse?

The answer is to be found in 1Co 15, the resurrection chapter. Verse 35 says: “But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?” Paul seems somewhat exasperated with such a question; (vs 36) “Thou fool, that which you sow (the way you live your life – Gal 6:7) is not quickened [given life] except it die.” We must die ‘to the flesh’ before we die ‘in the flesh’, or we will not be in the first resurrection (Joh 12:24-25). Paul has both deaths in view here. (1Co 15:37) “…thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat or of some other grain” (there are many types of grain). (vs 38) “But God giveth it a body as it (that person, that body) hath pleased Him, and to every seed his own body” [what we sow is what we reap - Gal 6:7].

Before we read verse 39 of 1Co 15, let us jump ahead to verse 44, and remember this is all in answer to the rhetorical question “with what body do they come in the resurrection?”

Here in verse 44, Paul makes a statement we must accept and apply if we hope to grasp what is meant by a ‘heart of flesh’ in Eze 36:26. “It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. (vs 45 of 1Co 15) “And so it is written the first Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. (vs 46) Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual but that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual.”

Now we know that this chapter concerns the resurrection of the dead and that in the resurrection “it is raised a spiritual body”. Return now to verse 39; as “all flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes and another of birds…(vs 42) So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption. (vs 43) It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: (vs 44) It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.”

So the resurrected body is “incorruptible”, “glorious”, “powerful” and “spiritual”. But these “invisible things of God” are “understood by the things that are made” (Rom 1:20). God’s only way of communicating with us is in terms we can grasp; in physical terms. So still speaking of resurrected, spiritual, invisible bodies, we are told in 1Co 15:40 “There are (physical) bodies celestial and (physical) bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. (vs 41) There is one glory of the sun and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.”

In the resurrection of spiritual bodies, even though they are “incorruptible”, “glorious”, “powerful” and “spiritual”, there are still degrees that “differ one from another” in every one of these spiritual qualities.

Going back to Eze 36 and 37, we can now see that the “heart of flesh” of 36:26 and the “sinews, flesh, and skin” of 37:8 are all physical descriptions of a spiritual resurrection. 1Co 15:44 – “It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.” If this is a resurrection, then the bodies are spiritual.

There is an important scripture that is completely neglected by those without spiritual eyes. It has to be overlooked because it denies a second physical death which the physically minded demand.

In Heb 9:25, Paul explains that Christ did not have to “offer himself often; as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with the blood of others.” In verse 26, he says “…but now ONCE in the end of the world (age)…(vs 27) As it is appointed unto men ONCE to die, but after this the judgment.” Christ entered once; man dies once.

This all explains the time and the place of the resurrection of Eze 36 and 37. There are two resurrections, the first and the second, but no one is in both. We die once and are resurrected once. “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body…” is the truth of God’s word.

The fact that Christ appeared to be a physical body immediately following his resurrection, does not mean His or our resurrected bodies are physical. His purpose at that time was to prove to His skeptical disciples that He had indeed risen from the dead. He even appeared in a locked room with the wounds He received at His crucifixion, just to prove to doubting Thomas that what Thomas had heard about Christ being alive was true.

Indeed a spiritual body is much more alive than a natural body, but Christ needed no holes in His body when He appeared to John in Rev 1:14 – “…His eyes were as a flame of fire; (vs 15) And His feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and His voice as the sound of many waters.” It appears that spirit can appear in many forms. Heb 11:3 – “…things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” That’s a plain clear statement. If you can see anything, it is composed from something invisible (God’s spirit).

Continuing that thought, Christ speaking to Nicodemus said in Joh 3:6 -”That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit is spirit.” Now remember, Paul has revealed to us that in the resurrection, “it is raised a spiritual body” (1Co 15:44).

Now read Joh 3:8 – “The wind bloweth where it listeth and you hear the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, an whither it goeth: so is everyone that is born of the Spirit.”

Everyone born of the Spirit is invisible like the wind? That’s what Christ told Nicodemus. So when Christ appeared in the flesh after His resurrection, this was for the benefit of those in the flesh. It would have been totally unnecessary otherwise. Physical sight is essential for those who are still in the flesh. Rom 8:9 – “But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you…”

If you must see with your physical eyes, and if you, like doubting Thomas and Nicodemus, cannot yet bear to hear of spiritual things, to you the “Israel of God” will be the “Israel according to the flesh”, and you, like Esau, will be forfeiting your birthright to the “son of the bondwoman”.

Dan 12:2 says – “…Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some (“flesh of beasts”…and “glory of the terrestrial”) to shame and everlasting contempt.” This coincides with Eze 36:27: “I will put my spirit within you, and cause you [through a fiery experience - 1Co 3:13] and chastening judgment (1Co 11:32) to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them” and “Then shall ye remember your own evil ways…and loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations.”

There you have it: incorruptible “glorious”, “powerful” “spiritual” bodies who “remember (their) own evil ways” who “loathe themselves” and are raised to “shame and everlasting (olam) contempt.”

Exactly when is physical Israel to be resurrected?

Israel “in the flesh” is neither better or nor worse than the Gentiles “in the flesh”. ‘Circumcision avails nothing and uncircumcision avails nothing’ (Gal 6:15). It follows then that the resurrection and reward of both would be the same. And sure enough, it is! The assertions, and that’s all they are, of the Jews, Catholics or Protestants to the contrary, the word of God will not fail. This same prophet who gives us the “whole house of Israel” “without hope” and “cut off” from God in a “valley of dry bones”, gives us the timing of this event.

Speaking to Jerusalem (Eze 16:3) God tells ‘her’ (Eze 16:55) “When they 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.” This is what Paul meant when he said “and so all Israel shall be saved.” This is that of which Paul spoke in Rom11:15 when he asked: “For if the casting away of them (Israel) be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead?” (The second resurrection which is for all mankind).

This is what Paul meant when he said “so then brethren, we are not the children of the bondwoman, but of the free.” Unlike Esau, let us hold fast our birthright, because “they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise (that’s us!) are counted for the seed.” So Israel is no longer Israel according to the flesh, but what Paul in his summary of Galatians calls “the Israel of God”. Israel has become a spiritual nation, the “Israel of God” (Gal 6:16). And since “as in Adam (did you choose to be ‘in Adam’?) all die; so in Christ (it is God who ‘draws us” in our “own order) will all be made alive” (1Co 15:22). Then Abraham’s seed will indeed be “as the dust of the earth” and “as the stars of heaven for number”.

Then opened He their understanding

In the last chapter of Luke, chapter 24, we are given an account of some of the events surrounding the day of the resurrection of Christ. In verse 13, we are told: “And behold two of them went the same day to a village called Emmaus which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs (7.5 miles). (vs 14) And they talked together about all these things that had happened. (vs 15) And it came to pass, that while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. (vs 16) But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.” Christ joins their conversation and in verse 27 we are told: “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.”

Here is Christ himself “rightly dividing the scriptures”, “concerning himself”. What were these “things concerning himself”? They were the things He had revealed to James, Peter, John and Paul, etc. and they were in most cases what today’s Bible expositors would say were “taken out of context”, prooftexted”, “spiritualized”. Words concerning David, Israel, etc. he explains to these men on the road to Emmaus are actually “things concerning himself”. He ends up at least starting to eat a meal with these two disciples (vs 31) “and their eyes were opened, and they knew him: and he vanished out of their sight.” As soon as they received spiritual vision, Christ departed. In biblical typology, it is significant that they received their “opened eyes” while “breaking bread” (Joh 6:48). This whole scene is repeated within mere hours. Luk 24:33 – “And they (the two men on the road to Emmaus) rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together and they that were with them, (vs 35) And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them IN THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD.” (vs 36) And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.” (vs 41) “And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, have ye here any meat?” So while once again “breaking bread” we are told (vs 45) “Then opened He their understanding that they might understand the scriptures.”

The ‘food’ or ‘breaking bread’ to those with “eyes to see and ears to hear” (Mat 13:13) is understanding the “spirit” (2Co 3:6) of the covenant.

How Peter understood the scriptures

What was given the disciples “…that they might understand the scriptures”, as demonstrated time and again in this paper, was a principle of scriptural understanding that defies the context oriented reasoning of virtually every Christian denomination or seminary in the world, whether Catholic or Protestant. Before we attempt to give a verbal expression to this principle, let us demonstrate its application by the one apostle we haven’t yet quoted.

In Acts 1, the disciples are gathered in the upper room awaiting the gift of the Holy Spirit. (vs 15) “In those days, Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said…(vs 16) Men and brethren this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.” Peter says the scriptures from Psalms he is about to quote were “by the Holy Ghost” speaking of Judas. (vs 20) “For it is written in the book of Psalms, let his habitation be desolate, and his bishopric let another take.”

Now this verse, Act 1:20, is nowhere to be found in Psalms as quoted here. It is actually a conjunction of two separate Psalms with many Psalms in between. The first part is from Psa 69:25. David in this psalm is simply asking God for protection from his enemies. (vs 1) “Save me, O God: for waters are come into my soul. (vs 13)…my prayer is unto thee, O Lord…(vs 14) Deliver me out of the mire and let me not sink: let me be delivered from them that hate me, and out of deep waters. (vs 18)…deliver me because of mine enemies. (vs 19)…mine adversaries are all before thee.” In context, this is all about David’s enemies. But Christ had “opened (Peter’s) understanding, that (he) might understand the scriptures” (Luk 24:45). Peter now understands about whom this is actually speaking. Now in the verse of which Peter quotes only half in Act 1:20, which is Psa 69:25, “Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents”, he left off the “and let none dwell in their tents.”

The last half of Act 1:20 is quoted from Psa 109. The inspired heading declares this “a psalm of David…” In verse 2, he says “…The mouth of the wicked…are opened against me.” From verses 2 to 19, David calls down curses on HIS enemies. Verse 20 says “Let this be the reward of MINE adversaries.” But Christ only days before had opened Peter’s understanding (Luk 24:45) “…that they might understand the scriptures.”

Armed with this new “understanding”, Peter borrows only verse 9 out of this chapter of Psalms, throws it together with the first half of Psalms 69:25 and concludes that all these experiences of David are actually referring to Christ.

Where did the apostles then get the “understanding” that allows such “out of context”, “prooftexting”, “you can go anywhere with that” approach to scriptures?

They got it from Christ. Luk 24:45 – “Then opened He (Christ) their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.” What was it they understood at that point that they hadn’t understood before?

In Luk 24:44, Christ laid down this principle; the one which is rejected by those who, generally speaking, consider themselves today to be “the body of Christ”. “These are the words I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me.”

Christ had been explaining it to them for years. In Luk 24:44-45, Christ simply opened their spiritual minds (previously blinded and veiled) to understand and remember what He had been showing them all along. The principle is “…as he is so are we in this world” (1Jn 4:17). Christ was rejected by the church. His doctrine was more than they could receive. If all of the “out of context” verses we have quoted, from virtually every writer of the New Testament, is any indication of what Christ had been teaching them, it is clear (Mat 10:24) “The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord…(vs 40) “He that receiveth you, receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth Him that sent me.”

Mat 25:40 and 45 sum it up thusly: “Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

In other words, Christ had taught his apostles over and over that anything that applied to any of the Old Testament patriarchs or prophets or Israel or any particular Israelite (“one of the least of these my brethren”) will, and does apply to Christ. Also, anything that applies to Christ as the head of His body, will apply to any part of His body, or to any part of spiritual Israel.

If the head must suffer, the body must suffer with it. (Rom 8:17 and 2Ti 2:12.) “As He is, so are we in this world” (1Jn 4:17).

If Christ were hated, we will be hated also. (Mat 10:22-25)

What applies to David or any Old Testament patriarch or prophet or Israelite, will apply to Christ and through Christ to us, His body.

This is the principle upon which the apostles had been discipled for so long and so repeatedly that it needed no apology or explanation, because it was so universally understood at that time, but it is lost today.

How can we relate our sins to a perfect Christ?

Someone will say “but David and Daniel and others, including all of us have confessed to sin. How can this be applied to our perfect and sinless savior? 2Co 5:21 – “For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin…”

If David says (Psa 51:9) “Hide your face from my sins and blot out all mine iniquities,” Christ says the same thing to the Father for David, the patriarchs, Israel, any Israelite and any part of His body.

Out of context?

We can see the spiritual application isn’t out of context at all! The literal fleshly application is the error. (2Co 3:6) “Who (God) also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter (the fleshly, physical, literal, context oriented) kills, but the spirit (as you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren…) gives life.” According to Rom 7:6, “But now we are delivered from the (letter of the) law that being dead (“the letter kills”) wherein we were held, that we should serve (the law of God – Rom 7:22 and 25) in newness of Spirit and not in oldness of letter.”

Prooftexting?

It was Peter who was chosen to reveal to us in 2Pe 1:20 that “no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (vs 21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

The word ‘private’ in verse 20 is Strong’s #2398, idios in the Greek. It appears 109 times in the New Testament and is generally interpreted as ‘apart’ or ‘his own’. So “no scripture of prophecy” is to be taken ‘apart’ from other scripture or used on ‘its own’. Why not? (vs 21) “For (because) the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

It all has the same author, the Holy Spirit, so it will never contradict itself if taken as a whole.

Psa 119:160 says in the King James version: “Thy word is truth…” but the Concordant version and many others recognize the proper translation of the Hebrew here is “the sum of thy word is truth…” Psa 139:17 – “How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! How great is the sum of them.”

No prophecy of the scripture is of its own interpretation, but is to be taken in the context of the rest of scripture. The principle referred to by Paul in 2Co 13:1 – “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” is especially true when using the Word of God. If you have only one scripture with which to establish doctrine, there is no scriptural basis to the doctrine. One isolated scripture is not enough.

Yet the average person cannot accept this principle of understanding the Word of God: (Isa 28:13) “But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line; here a little and there a little; (prooftexting) that they might go, and fall backward and be broken, and snared and taken.” God’s method of understanding His word is also His method of keeping it hidden from those to whom it “is not given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.” Just as at the Red Sea, the same cloud that gave God’s Israel (in the flesh) light by night, was deep darkness to the uncalled Egyptians.

“You can go anywhere with that”

The above subhead is a direct quote from ministers who cling to the literal “context oriented only” modern understanding of the Word of God. The same ministers admit that the “Lamb of God” is not to be taken literally. They will admit that the Lion of the tribe of Judah is not to be taken literally, that we are not literal temples, nor are we to literally eat Christ’s flesh or drink His blood. This is the vast majority of the shepherds of the flock, at least as far as Protestant churches are concerned.

There are those who are willing to go so far as to agree that the word “fire” in scripture is generally figurative and that the lake of fire might even be figurative. The one thing most of them refuse to recognize as figurative or a “type” is the one thing Paul went to such great lengths to clarify; that is who is the true “circumcision”, who is the “seed of Abraham”, who are the “children of the freewoman” and who is the true “Israel of God”. On these points, most Christians do not want to give up the flesh for the spirit.

While there are many who do not recognize the “Israel of God” as being those who are in Christ, they do at least recognize the fallacy of denying the cross, the disciplining grace, the “if we suffer with Him, we will reign with Him” part of the gospel. On the other hand, many of those who say “you can go anywhere with the spiritual approach to scripture”, are the same people who teach that we are saved by “grace alone”; that the statement “we are not under the law, but under grace” means that God’s law does not apply to Christians. It is this literal, fleshly, letter-oriented thinking that “can take you anywhere”.

The truly spiritual take on scripture will lead you no where but where Christ and the apostles went with it; and that was straight to God through Christ.

So is anything to be taken literally or naturally?

Having spent so many pages pointing out (1Co 2:14) “…the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit”, we cannot close this discussion without making the point that it is in the same book of 1Co 15:46, that we are told “Howbeit that was not first which was spiritual, but that which is natural; and AFTERWARD that which is spiritual.” A second witness to this principle is Rom 1:20 – “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.”

The spiritual is understood by the natural, and the spiritual is never first, but the natural is first.

Consistent with this truth, every detail of the first coming of Christ was fulfilled in a literal way, Christ was: “born of a virgin”, “called out of Egypt”, “Rachel weeping for her children”, “forsaken of his friends”, “his visage was marred” but “not a bone was broken”, “they parted his garments”, etc.

Not one detail failed to have a “natural first” fulfillment. While the natural must come first, it is not the natural that saves us, but the spiritual. “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled by the death of His Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life” (Rom 5:10).

John 6:63 – “It is the spirit that giveth life…” and finally 2Co 2:15 – “And that He died for all that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves but unto Him which died for them and rose again. (vs 16) Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more” (after the flesh).

Hardly anyone recognized the signs of the first coming of Christ: the shepherds, the wise men, Simeon and Anna in the temple and family members Mary, Joseph, Elizabeth and her husband, Zecharias were all given supernatural revelations concerning the birth of Christ. No doubt this whole scenario will be repeated with the signs of His second coming. Everyone was expecting the messiah, but no one recognized Him when He came. Everyone is looking for Christ to come again. No doubt every detail of the signs of His second coming will also be fulfilled, but nothing has changed. Christ as much as told us that our religious leaders can discern the face of the sky (the outward, literal physical temple in Jerusalem) but cannot discern the signs of the times. Who knows how many seals of the book of Revelation have been opened and no one is aware of it. How many trumpets have already sounded and God’s people still do not hear the call to battle? Do those who think ‘God’s Israel’ are those who slew Christ expect seven literal seals to open and seven literal trumpets to sound?

The world has its eyes on the Middle East, while Christ is urging us to watch and keep our garments (Rev 16:15) “Behold I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watches and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.”

Let us pray with Paul (Rom 12:2) “..be not conformed to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, (our understanding, our way of thinking) that you may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.”

If you approach God’s written Word to prove yourself right, with any of your own preconceived ideas; what Eze 14 calls “idols of the heart”, you will see exactly what you want to see. But the written Word, the truth, just as Christ in the flesh, will be a door shut tight, hiding the true light within.

On the other hand, come to the written Word with an open heart seeking only to know the mind of God, willing to give up every preconceived idea, every false church doctrine, every ounce of pride, with the heartfelt attitude of “not my will, but thine be done”, and the written Word becomes a wide open double (as in two witnesses) door, shining a light brighter than the sun on endless truths never seen before though they were there; and you had been stumbling all over them for years. “How could I possible have been so blind for so long?” you’ll wonder.

And so it was with Christ in the flesh. Who was it that was able to receive Christ? It was the tax collectors everyone hated. It was the prostitutes everyone despised, and who probably despised themselves. It was the poor who had nothing to lose. It was the sick who had no other hope. These were those with whom the Spirit of God could work to give them the love, the healing and the hope they had never had before. Had they not needed Him, they would never have known Him.

So it also is with the Lord as the written Word. As we need it and can receive it, God will reveal it to us. (Mat 11:27)

The degree of understanding given by God seems to correlate with the degree of need and hunger in the individual. “My strength is made perfect in weakness.” (2Co 12:9)

Mike Vinson

Questions concerning the God-head have been around within God’s church since the death of the apostles, and they will no doubt continue until Christ’s return.

Belief in a Trinity God-head has been declared by some to be one of the required beliefs to which one must confess to avoid the label “cult” these days, or in post-Nicean days, “heretic”. Having read many essays on this subject over the years, one thing has become clear; proponents of the Trinity are forced to go outside scripture, outside the family and outside reality to explain how three equals one. So, having no illusions of settling this question once and for all, let us simply consider what scripture says on this subject.

The pivotal trinity scriptures, of course, are the last three verses of the Gospel of Matthew: And Jesus came and spake to them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Mat 28 18-20 KJV). There it is …in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost… Isn’t that three in one? Does the use of the words “Holy Ghost” here (Strong’s Concordance #40 hagios=holy, #4151 pneuma=spirit, ghost) somehow exclude the Father from being “hagios” or “pneuma?” Of course not! Christ calls His Father hagios, holy (John 17:11). Also, we are told God is a spirit (pneuma) (Joh 4:24).

Now we know from the scriptures that the Father is “hagios” and “pneuma” spirit. So is there any scriptural reason to believe that the “hagios pneuma” is the spirit of the Father? As a matter of fact, the scripture says exactly that!

But first, let’s consider a few other scriptures on this subject. Notice Mat 1:18 - Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost (hagios pneuma). Now look at Luk 1:35 - …The Holy Ghost shall come upon you and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Matthew says simply …she was found to be with child of the Holy Ghost. But Luk 1:35 mentions “the Holy Ghost”, “the Highest” and “God.”

Who is the Father of Christ?

So who fathered Christ? Well, since Christ spent His whole earthly ministry talking about “your Father” (Mat 5:16), “my Father” (Mat 7:21), and “My Father and your Father” (John 20:17), it should be obvious that we are all “fathered” by the same Father.

Then in Mat 12:31, Christ says …the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.Why did Christ say this? Because He had just been accused by the Pharisees of casting out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of demons (note vs. 24). So how does Christ respond to this accusation? Notice verse 28:But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God , then the kingdom of God is come unto you. He then goes on to warn them against blasphemies against the “hagios pneuma”, Holy Spirit, translated Holy Ghost in the KJV.

Obviously Christ had cast out the demons by the Holy Ghost, or as He puts it in verse 28, “by the Spirit of God…” This same account in Luk 11:19 calls the hagios pneuma “the finger of God” again indicating the Holy Spirit is the essence through which God operates. What then is Christ’s relationship to the Holy Spirit? To answer this question, as always, we must consider all sides of the question and all the scriptures on the subject. A couple of very revealing scriptures are Joh 14:28 and Luk 11:11-13.

Notice first Joh 14:28 - …My father is greater than I. Remember now both Matthew and Luke, as shown above, say Christ was fathered of Mary by the hagios pneuma, Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost. Maybe that explains why in all His earthly ministry Christ speaks often of His relationship with His Father (Joh 14:10-11; 15:1; 11:41-42), but never once mentions His relationship with this other person supposedly equal to Himself and the Father.

What is the purpose of the Holy Spirit?

A careful reading of John chapters 14-16 makes it clear what the hagios pneuma, Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost is and what function it serves.

First we will look at Luk 11:11-13 - If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? Let’s notice here Christ is telling us the Father has (owns) something He wants to give to us. Something of His that He considers will nourish and strengthen us. What is this nourishment the Father has for us? Notice verse 13: If you then being evil know how to give good gifts unto your children; how much more shall your Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him? Notice here that even the King James translators render the Greek words “hagios pneuma” as Holy Spirit. So the Holy Spirit is a gift God the Father has for us if we will only ask Him.

But we still need to understand what Christ has to do with the Holy Spirit. So let’s go back to John 14 where the “Comforter which is the Holy Ghost” (vs 26) is first mentioned in scripture. As a matter of fact, the only mention of the Comforter in all of the King James Bible is in the 14 ^th , 15^th and 16^th chapters of the gospel of John. Notice I said “in the King James Bible.” I did not say “in the Bible.” I’ll explain the reason for this shortly.

First let’s see what scriptures reveal about this “Comforter which is the Holy Ghost” (Joh 14:26). The context of this chapter is established in the previous chapter 13. In Joh 13:33, Christ says Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You shall seek me: And as I said unto the Jews, whither I go, you cannot come; so now say I to you. Now, notice verses 4-6 of chapter 14: And whither I go you know and the way you know. Thomas saith unto Him, Lord we know not whither you go and how can we know the way? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth and the life: no man comes unto the Father but by Me. Going on to verse 10: Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwells in me, He does the works. Where is the Holy Spirit in all this? Christ says I am in the Father and the Father in me…

Notice the wording of verses 16-20; the first mention in all scripture of “The Comforter.” And I will pray the Father and He will send you another Comforter (Greek – parakleetos, Strongs #3875), that he may abide with you forever; even the Spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive, because it sees Him not, neither knows Him; for He dwells WITH YOU (Christ) and SHALL be in you. I will not leave you comfortless. I will come to you. Now look at verse 20: At that day (when the Comforter “dwells with you”) you shall know that I am in my Father and you are in Me and I in you.

As clearly as it can be stated, our Savior has here said I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you.If we can see as Christ told Phillip that…I am in the Father and the Father in me (vs 10), then we will understand who the Holy Ghost is and what its function is. So why then would Christ use the word “another” Comforter? Was the Christ who “dwells with you” (vs 17) somehow different from the Christ who “shall be in you”? Oh, how true this is!

The apostles knew Christ outwardly in the flesh for 3½ years without even being converted. (Luk 22:32). They had baptized more disciples than John (Joh 4:2), cast out demons (Luk 10:17) and healed the sick (Luk 10:9), yet Christ tells Peter in Luk 22:32 that he has never even been converted.

We all experience Christ in the flesh (baptism, demons cast out, healings) blessings indeed, but all experienced in the passing flesh long, long before He begins to live His life in us. So Joh 14:17, …He dwells with you and shall be in you is as true today as the day the apostle John wrote those words. As good as Christ of the flesh is, “another comforter” is better. The apostle Paul puts it this way: …henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more.Another, a better Comforter has come. He is not just WITH us. He is IN US!

Let’s go back now to John 14. Christ continues to expound upon the coming of “another Comforter.” (vs 23)If a man love Me, he will keep My words: and My Father will love him and (the coming of the Holy Ghost) WE will come unto him and make OUR abode with him. And now verses 25 and 26: These things have I spoken unto you being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, (Remember verse 18 - I will not leave you comfortless. I will come to you.) he shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. These words sound very similar to the verses mentioned earlier when we posed the question “Is there any scriptural reason to believe that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Father?” The first scripture is Luk 12:11 and 12: And when they bring you unto the synagogues and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing you shall answer, or what you shall say: for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you ought to say. Luke here is inspired of God to say …the Holy Ghost shall teach you…

But notice now how Matthew is inspired to relate this same event. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; and you shall be brought before governors and kings for My sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what you shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what you shall speak. For it is not you that speak, but the SPIRIT OF YOUR FATHER which speaketh in you.

There it is, made plain by the scriptures. The Holy Ghost is the spirit of the Father. A gift the Father gives to those who ask Him (Luk 11:13). Christ is in the Father and we are in Christ and Christ is in us (Joh 14:20). Teaching us all things (Joh 14:26) the “comforter…even the Spirit of Truth…” (Joh 14:16 and 17). AND WHO DOES CHRIST SAY THIS “COMFORTER…EVEN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH” IS??

Notice Joh 16:13-15 Howbeit when He the Spirit of truth is come, He will guide you into all truth: (remember Joh 14:6 where Christ says …I am the …truth…) for He shall not speak of Himself; (sound familiar? – Joh 12:49, Joh 14:10) but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will shew you things to come. NOW PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO VERSE 14. He shall glorify Me: for He shall receive of MINE and shall shew it unto you. All things (including the Holy Spirit) that the Father has are MINE: therefore said I, that He shall take of Mine and shew it unto you.

The Holy Ghost, the gift God has to give to those who ask him (Luk 11:13) is also Christ’s spirit so that …Therefore said I, that He (the Father) shall take of Mine (the Holy Ghost) and shall shew it unto you. A little while and you shall not see me: (in the flesh) and again a little while and you shall see me, because I go to the Father.

Now Joh 16:7 makes sense. Nevertheless I tell you the truth: It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter (Greek – parakleetos, Strongs #3875) will not come unto you; but if I depart(that is if Christ in the flesh departs), I will send Him unto you (remember verse 15 of this same chapter -He shall take of MINE, and shall shew it unto you.). Ever wonder why the Holy Ghost couldn’t come while Christ was here?

We can clearly understand that pivotal Trinity scripture, All power is given unto Me (including the power to give the Spirit) in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost: (which belongs to both the Father and the Son)teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS even unto the end of the world.

Is Christ The Comforter?

If the Holy Ghost, the hagios pneuma, which is the Comforter, the parakleetos, is really Christ in us, then there should be a scripture that calls Christ the parakleetos. It so happens that there is just such a scripture. But you would never know it by simply reading your King James Bible or for that matter, using your Strong’s concordance which is keyed to our King James English. If one uses Strong’s, one will see the four places whereparakleetos appears in John 14, 15 and 16. These scriptures certainly reveal Christ as the parakleetos as we have shown. You would need to use an Englishman’s Greek Concordance (Wigram’s) or America’s Online Bible to find the only other appearance of this Greek word in all of the scriptures. It’s not translated Comforter there. Remember as you read this that, according to Joh 14:26, The Comforter (parakleetos )…is the Holy Ghost… The scripture before us is the First Epistle of John, chapter two verse one. My little children, these things I write unto you that you sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate (parakleetos – not even capitalized here in the KJV) with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous: There it is once again stated straight out. Jesus Christ is the parakleetos, the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost. But in what way is He the Comforter? He is the Comforter because “all the Father has He has given to Me” and Christ now gives the Holy Spirit “to whom He will.”

One God The Father

So what is the conclusion and sum of this discussion? There are several scriptures that come to mind. The first is Luk 10:22: All things are delivered to Me of My Father: and no man knows who the Son is but the Father, and who the Father is but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him.

Another scripture along these lines is 1Co 15:27-28, For He (the Father) has put all things under His (Christ’s) feet. But when He (the Father) saith all things are put under Him (Christ) it is manifest that He (the Father) is excepted which did put all things under Him (Christ). And when all things shall be subdued unto Him (Christ) then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him (the Father) that put all things under Him (Christ) that God (the Father) may be all in all. Eph 1:10 says this is ‘all things in heaven and on earth.’ The Holy Ghost, of course, is not mentioned.

The Godhead Is Understood By The Things That Are Made

1Co 11:3 says But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God (the Father). Paul is applying in this verse the principle he lays down in Rom 1:20 - For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and God head; so that they are without excuse:

Paul’s point in 1Co 11 is that the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. Notice now verse 12. For as the woman is of the man even so is the man by the woman: but ALL THINGS OF GOD. Every man ever born excepting Adam, came through a woman. In a sense Adam came “by the woman”. Applying the Rom 1:10 principle, we could say that in the beginning, God (the Father has no beginning) the Father created Christ and through Christ created the rest of creation. And how does this fit with scripture? Very well indeed. Notice Col 1:15-17 - Who (Christ) is the image (not God, but the image) of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for by Him (Christ) were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth; visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities or powers: all things were created by Him and for Him: And He is before all things and by Him all things consist. This, of course, agrees with the gospel of Joh 1:1-3 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made.

The Word Was God

Does it not say “the Word WAS God?” Yes, it does. And He certainly is. Notice Joh 10:32-36 - …Many good works have I shewed you from My Father; for which of those works do you stone me? The Jews answered Him saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because thou, being a man, make thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are Gods? (Psa 82:6) If He called them gods unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of Him whom the Father has sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Obviously so far as Christ was concerned, being a god is quite different from being THE Father.

Who Can Be Worshipped?

Certainly Christ can be worshipped (Mat 8:2; 9:18; 14:33 and 15:25). Does being worshipped make one “Father of whom are all things?” Apparently not. Notice Rev 3:9 - …I will make them of the synagogue of Satan…to come and worship before your feet… Worship is apparently something reserved for gods, but only for those gods who can say with Christ …my Father is greater than I am (Joh 14:28).

Now let’s allow the risen Christ Himself to reveal to us His relationship to His Father. After all, it is He, not John, who is the revelator. Notice Rev 3:14 - And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF GOD:

There it is! Christ Himself is calling Himself “the beginning of the creation of God.”

Did Any Of The Apostles Teach Anything About A Trinitarian Godhead?

In conclusion, the overwhelming weight of scriptural evidence is that they did NOT teach any such doctrine. How then did they address this question? Apparently there was no question in the minds of the apostles. Here’s the most succinct statement in scripture and one to which we should all be able to give a resounding AMEN! 1Co 8:6 - But to us there is but ONE GOD (and who is that one God?) THE FATHER, OF WHOM ARE ALL THINGS and we in Him…

Here is one of those straightforward, simple scriptural statements. It is in agreement with all scripture. We would do well to simply believe it.

But let’s finish the verse. There is something else God the Father (of whom are all things) wants us to understand about the way He operates, because He is a very consistent and faithful God and Father.

Remember now the Rom 1:20 [invisible Godhead is understood by the things that are made] principle? Also, remember the 1Co 11:12 [the woman was taken out of the man but the man is by the woman but ALL THINGS ARE OF GOD] principle?

Well, here those principles are again: And one Lord Jesus Christ, BY WHOM ARE ALL THINGS, and we by Him.

Let us all rejoice that before God the Father ever created the first physical prototype, that the last Adam was provided to redeem all those who were in the first Adam (1Co 15:45). According as He has chosen us in Him (Christ) BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD…Having made known to us the mystery (Greek=secret) of His will, according to His good pleasure which He has purposed in Himself: [Now here's the secret!] That in the dispensation of the fullness of times He might gather together in one all things IN CHRIST, both which are in heaven and which are on earth; even in Him: (Eph 1:4,9,10)

But How About 1Jn 5:7?

The answer to this question is certainly ancient history to any student of the scriptures who has progressed beyond the “If the King James Bible was good enough for the apostles, then it’s good enough for me!” attitude.

Here is what Jameson, Fawsset and Brown Commentary has to say on this verse: The only Greek manuscripts IN ANY FORM which supports the words, in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness in earth are the Monfortianus of Dublin, copied evidently from the MODERN Latin Vulgate; the Revianue, copied from the COMLUTENSIAN POLYGLOT; a manuscript at Naples, with the words added in the margin by a recent hand; OTTOBONIANUS, 298, of the fifteenth century, the GREEK of which is a mere translation of the accompanying Latin. ALL the old versions omit the words. The oldest manuscripts of the VULGATE omit them: the earliest VULGATE manuscript which has them, WIZANBURGENSIS, 99, is of the eighth century. (Emphasis is the author’s.)

One should know that the three men who wrote the JFB commentary believe in the Trinity, and go on to attempt to justify what they admit are words added in the margin by a recent hand.

Let us by God’s grace seek only the truth of God’s word as it was given to us by holy men of old as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2Pe 1:21) Also, That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that you also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father and His son Jesus Christ. And these things we write unto you that your joy may be full. (1Jn 1:3-4)

Christ is our parakleetos, but not of Himself. (Joh 5:30) I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

If you have any questions or comments, please direct them to Mike Vinson.

by Mike Vinson

http://www.iswasandwillbe.com/freefromlaw.php

Introduction

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

For example, Christ says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Understanding the law is just that important!

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

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

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

Two Opposing Theologies

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

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

Both of these views are untrue and unscriptural.

The New Covenant Is Not A Modification Of The Old Covenant

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

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

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

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

Defining Righteousness And Sin

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

Righteousness
Definition #1

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

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

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

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

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

Righteousness
Definition #2

The first time this word is defined is…:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sin
Definition #1

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

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

Sin
Definition #2

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

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

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

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

Sin
Definition #3

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

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

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

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

Sin
Definition #4

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

In Summary of the Definitions

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

Two Covenants

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

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

Paul is referring to the two covenants mentioned in

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

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

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

What Does The Old Covenant Include?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modern Arguments About The Law

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

The argument goes something like this:

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

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

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

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

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

We Cannot Pick And Choose For Ourselves

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

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

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

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

Exactly What Was “Written… In Tables Of Stone”?

In the Old Testament

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

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

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

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

In the New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Schoolmaster Is Needed In Every Generation

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

For Whom Are The Ten Commandments Intended?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Purpose For Types And Shadows

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Are “Good Things To Come”?

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

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

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

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

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

Mixing The Old Covenant With The New Covenant

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

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

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

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

Who Is ‘The Circumcision?’

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

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

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

The Proper Use Of New Covenant Liberties

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

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

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

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

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

Rom 14:18 For he that in these things serveth Christ [is] acceptable to God, and approved of men.

And how do we serve Christ?

Mat 25:40 …Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Types And Shadows

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Example” and “ensample” are the same Greek word tupos (Strong’s #5179).

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

There Is A Change

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

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

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

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

Defining Phrases

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

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

Phrase #1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Righteousness of the Law

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

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

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

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

Obedience to the Ten Commandments Insufficient for Salvation

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

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

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

Change #1 – Thou Shalt Not Kill

The first example of this “change… of the law” is found in…:

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

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

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

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

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

Change #2 – Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Scriptural Definition And Function Of Grace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change #3 – Divorce and Remarriage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modern Theology Versus Paul

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hardness Of Your Heart

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

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

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

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

God Hates Putting Away

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

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

The Meaning Of Fornication

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Mat 21:2: “…Go into the village… and… ye shall find an ass tied and a colt with her: loose (luo) them and bring them unto me.”
• Mar 1:7: “…the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose (luo).”
• Luk 13:15: “…doeth not each one of you on the Sabbath loose (luo) his ox or his ass from the stall and lead him away to watering?”
• Joh 11:44: “And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: …Jesus saith unto them, loose (luo) him, and let him go.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Believing Couples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change #4 – SWEAR NOT AT ALL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change #5 – “An eye for an eye…”

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

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

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

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

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

“Well, I certainly do”, I replied.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change #6 – Love Your Neighbor: Hate your Enemy

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

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

Why Abolish The Old Covenant?

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

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

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

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

• We wouldn’t see that ‘thou shalt not kill” has been replaced with “don’t be angry with your brother” (Mat 5:21-22)
• We wouldn’t see that “thou shalt not commit adultery” has been changed to “don’t look on a woman to lust after her” (Mat 5:27-29)
• We won’t see that “write her a bill of divorcement” has been changed to “except for fornication” (Mat 5:31-32; 19:3-9)
• “Perform your oath” has been changed to “swear not at all” (Mat 5:33 and 37) “An eye for an eye” has been changed to “resist not evil, but turn the other cheek” (Mat 5:38-42)
• “Love your neighbor, but hate your enemy” has been changed to “love your enemy” (Mat 5:43-48)
• Outward circumcision is replaced with spiritual circumcision (Rom 2:27)
• We won’t see that the “letter” really “transgresses the law” (Rom 2:27
• A Jew who is an outward Jew only “is not a Jew”. (Who do you know who actually believes this verse of scripture? Rom 2:28)
• We won’t see that Gentiles can be Jews – “he is a Jew which is one inwardly” (Rom 2:29). We won’t see that circumcision is “not in the letter”, “which is outward in the flesh” (Rom 2:29 and 28)
• We won’t see that “circumcision is that of the heart in the spirit” (Rom 2:29)
• We won’t see that being Abraham’s children has nothing to do with physical descent, but has everything to do with knowing and being in Christ (Gal 3:29) and simply “doing the works of Abraham” (Joh 8:37 and 39)
• We won’t see that “in thee shall all nations be blessed” (Gal 3:8 and Gen 18:18) has only to do with Abraham’s “one seed… which is Christ and not his “many” other seeds (Gal 3:16)
• We won’t see that the law brings us to Christ and then (and not until then) “We are no longer under a schoolmaster” (Gal 3:23-25)
• We will think that adoption pertains to physical Israel only (Rom 9:3-4) and fail to see that adoption is now only a matter of being in Christ (Gal 4:5). “For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the spirit of adoption…” (Rom 8:15)
• We won’t see that the “promises” (Rom 9:4) are only for those in Christ (Gal 3:29)
• We won’t see that “the glory” (Rom 9:4) is only for those “in Christ” (Rom 5:2 and 3; Rom 6:4; 8:18) “that he might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which he hath afore prepared unto glory” (Rom 9:23; 1Co 2:7; etc.)
• If we cling to the letter, we will not see that “the covenants” (Rom 9:4) pertain to us: “Who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament [covenant]; not of the letter but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life” (2Co 3:6; Heb 8:8; 8:13; 12:24)
• We will wrongly think that “the giving of the law” pertains to physical Israel (Rom 9:4) when in reality, “the law is spiritual” (Rom 7:14). “I delight in the law of God AFTER THE INWARD MAN” (Rom 7:22) “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what [the letter of] the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh: God sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law ["of God after the inward man" Rom 7:22] might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh [the letter of the law which 'killeth' 2Co 3:6] but AFTER THE SPIRIT” (Rom 8:2-4)
• We will erroneously think that “the divine services of God” pertain to Israel according to the flesh when in reality, only those in Christ can serve God: “I beseech ye therefore brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God which is your reasonable [divine] service” (Rom 12:1). The “divine service…” of the “worldly sanctuary” were only “a figure for the time then present… imposed on them until the time of REFORMATION” (Christ, like Moses, was a reformer – Heb 9:1, 10).
• We won’t see that “the promises” (Rom 9:4) are ours! “For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God BY US!” [Not by those who reject Christ!] (2Co 1:20). “Having therefore these promises [Preceding three verses, quoted from promises made to "Israel" in Lev 26:12, Isa 52:11 and Isa 43:6], dearly beloved, let us [the Corinthian Gentiles]cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2Co 7:1).
• We won’t see that the old letter of the law has not only been “annulled”, “abolished” and “nailed to the cross”, but that it has been replaced by a better spiritual law. (Rom 7:6)
• We may not have even noticed that the TEN commandments have now been replaced by SEVEN (the number of perfection) SPIRITUAL LAWS. When believers now speak of the “Law of God” we don’t mean the ten commandments, but God’s seven spiritual laws recorded in the New Testament:
  1. The Law of God… Heb 10:16
  2. The Law of Christ… Gal 6:2
  3. The Law of the Spirit… Rom 8:2
  4. The Law of Righteousness… Rom 9:30-31
  5. The Law of Faith… Rom 3:27
  6. The Law of Liberty… Jas 1:25 and
  7. The Law of Life… Gal 3:11, 6:8.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bible Expositors Versus Scripture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Letter Breaks The Law!

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

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

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

• Why did his very first “sermon” nearly cost him his life? (Luk 4:16-30)
• What was he doing talking to a strange Samaritan woman? (Joh 4:7-22)
• Why did he repeatedly break the Sabbath? (Mat 12:1-8, Joh 5:5-18)
• Why was he “giving the children’s bread to the dogs”? (Mat 15:22-28)
• Why does Christ contradict the law of Moses in Mat 5?

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

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

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

Two Views Of The Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Example #1

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

Statutes Concerning the Sabbath Under the Old Covenant

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

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

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

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

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

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

Example #2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The True Meaning Of The Sabbath

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

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

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

Shabath Means “Cease”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“There is the absurd notion among many of the mainstream organizations of Christianity that the law of God has been abolished… There are many scriptures that confirm that the law is good and is to be obeyed… When Christ returns all of the bizarre arguments against the law will come to an end.” (Eschatology Journal; Vol. 3, No. 2 pg. 2)

This same author, in a front page article of this same issue regarding the war on drugs, makes this statement:

“Making possession of a consumable item into a crime is questionable lawmaking at best and legal malpractice at worst. When will we learn that the prohibition on drugs cannot work any more than the old prohibition on alcohol?”

We might make the same observations about murder and adultery as Christ did in Matthew 5. And we might ask the same question about the entire old covenant (all ten commandments Deu 4:13).

“Thou shalt have no other gods before me”
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image”
“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain”
“Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy”
“Honor thy father and mother”
“Thou shalt not kill”
“Thou shalt not commit adultery”
“Thou shalt not steal”
“Thou shalt not bear false witness” and
“Thou shalt not covet”

Were the sixth and seventh commands the only ones Christ changed in Mat 5? They were the only ones mentioned there, “Ye have heard it said… thou shalt not kill… but I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother… shall be in danger of the judgment” (Mat 5:21, 22). And “ye have heard it said by them of old time, thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery already in his heart” (Mat 5:27, 28).

Since these are the only two commandments mentioned, are we to assume that these are the only two commandments in the old law that have been annulled and replaced by the new law of the spirit?

Can we for example proclaim outwardly:

• We have no other gods before thee, while in truth we worship our families, careers, money or whatever?
• We have no graven images outwardly, but inwardly we are slaves to “idols of the heart”, (false, unscriptural doctrines with which the “prophets deceive”-Eze 16:1-11).
• We don’t take the name of the Lord our God in vain outwardly, we even use Yahweh for God and Yashua for Jesus and yet “through breaking the law……the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you…” thee, who by the letter…dost transgress the law” (Rom 2:23-27).
• We remember to keep the seventh day Sabbath outwardly, but inwardly it is an idol of the heart, that refuses to acknowledge that while Christ “did that which was unlawful to do on the Sabbath”, for the specific reason of taking our minds off outward, letter, obedience, yet he like “the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are blameless” (Mat 5:6). We refuse to believe “as he is, so are we in this world” (1Jn 4:17). So we argue that he didn’t really profane the outward Sabbath, even though he says he did. Not seeing that “as he is, so are we in this world, we can’t see that this makes us the true temple of God (1Co 3:16, 17; 1Co 6:19; 2Co 6:16), and like Christ, infinitely greater, in the eyes of God, than the outward temple (Mat 12:6), and we, through Christ have become “Lord even of the Sabbath day” (Mat 12:8).

We, because of the spiritual blindness imparted to us by our stubborn refusal to relinquish our ties to the outward letter of the law, cannot see that the reason Christ or we could “profane the Sabbath: and yet be “blameless” is because Christ is our the spiritual Sabbath: “There remaineth therefore a rest [Greek - sabbatismos - Strong's #4520] to the people of God” (Heb 4:9). Christ replaces outward circumcision; Christ has replaced outward animal sacrifices for He is our sacrifice; Christ has just as surely fulfilled and replaced outward resting, outward ceasing from our works and outward Sabbath keeping: “For we which have believed do enter into rest…he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from His” (Heb 4:3 and 10). This is now seven days in seven, not one day in seven.

And how do we enter into this rest? “For we which have believed [not we which keep the outward Sabbath] do enter into rest…(Heb 8:3). Yet we cling instead to the type, the shadow, the symbol, the forerunner, the escort, the physical and thereby never truly enter into Christ’s rest by ceasing from our own works.

Moses, the representative of the letter law, could not lead Israel into the promised land. “For the 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 year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect” (Heb 10:1). “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it” (Luk 16:16). John represents the end of the law. “The law (Moses through John the Baptist) was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Gal 3:24) (the faith of the son of God – Gal 2:20).

This faith is “not of ourselves” (Eph 2:8). “But after that faith is come (Christ is come), we are no longer under a schoolmaster (the law)” (Gal 3:25). The “schoolmaster” is not the civil laws, the statutes, the judgments or the animal sacrifices or circumcision, or any particular part of the law. It is “the law”, the whole law.

Do you doubt this statement? “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, cursed is everyone that continueth not in ALL things which are written in the book of the law to do them” (Gal 3:10). “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law” (Gal 5:3).

Paul says “I testify again…” This is referring back to his quote in Gal 3:10, which is from Deu 27:26 and Jer 11:3 “Cursed is everyone that continueth not in ALL the things that are written in the book of the law to do them.” Circumcision is only one of 613 laws (“all the things that are written”).

Jeremiah puts it like this: “…Cursed be the man that obeyeth not the words of this covenant” (Jer 11:3).

What is the purpose of the weekly seventh day Sabbath, the new moon Sabbath, the annual holy day Sabbaths, the land sabbaths, etc? Their purpose, as with circumcision and all the words of “this law” is to point us to their ultimate fulfillment, to Christ, our Sabbath, our Passover, our Days of Unleavened Bread, our Pentecost, our Day of Trumpets, our Day of Atonement, our Feast of Tabernacles and our Last Great Day. Christ is our Jubilee, He is the Tree of Life, the river of Life, the cherubim on the vail of the temple, and every offering (yes, even the leper’s dove and the scapegoat) in the Old Testament. “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for by Him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things He might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell” (Col 1:15-19). “IN HIM SHOULD ALL FULLNESS DWELL!” Christ is the center of all scripture.

It does no violence to scripture at all to say that in him all is fulfilled. It was He Himself who said with His dying breath “It is finished” (Joh 19:30). It is His blood (Rom 5:9), His faith (Eph 2:8), that saves us. It is Him living His life in us through His faith in us (Gal 2:20) which empowers us to walk as He walked. “…One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, til all be fulfilled” (Mat 5:18). There are many jots and tittles in the law, and in Christ, they have all, like circumcision, the Passover, the animal sacrifices, and “all things written in the book of the law…” (Gal 3:10), been fulfilled: “For Christ, not Torah, is the end [Greek - telos, Strong's #5056-goal, conclusion, end product] of the law, for righteousness to everyone that believeth” (Rom 10:4). Torah is “for the lawless and disobedient” (1Ti 1:8-9).

“…ENTER INTO REST…”

I’ve spent so much time on this fourth commandment because, for those Christians who are or have been involved in outward holy day observance, it is one of the most difficult parts of the letter of the law to understand as being fulfilled in Christ. Yet this is one of the clearest statements in scripture: “For we which have believed do enter into rest…” (Heb 4:3). What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that we which have believed, observe the seventh day Sabbath? Not if Christ is our example, and not if Hebrews is to be considered as worth our consideration. His is our circumcision (Rom 2:27-29). Do we therefore continue to circumcise? He is our sacrifice. Do we therefore continue to sacrifice?

Righteousness is not a Synonym for Salvation

What it does mean is “he that entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from His” (Heb 4:10). “His own works” does not mean disobedience to the old covenant. It actually meant obedience to the old covenant, without acknowledging Christ. “Our righteousnesses are as filthy rags…” (Isa 64:6). It does not say “our unrighteousnesses are as filthy rags”. With this new view of ceasing “from his own works” in mind, Paul’s statement “What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith [once again we reiterate, this is the faith of Christ - Gal 2:20]. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness [Israel had not "ceased from his own works"], hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law…” (Rom 9:30-32). “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: [what curse?] For it is written, cursed is everyone that continueth not in ALL things which are written in the book of the law to do them” (Gal 3:10). Why is it a curse to be “of the works of the law”? Why did Israel not attain to the law of righteousness? “…For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, behold I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed” (Rom 9:32-33). “Because they sought it not by faith” is a reference to “the faith of Christ” (Gal 2:20). If you are an outward Sabbath keeper, or if you think that your own personal faith saves you, you must be keeping the other 612 laws in Torah or this curse is pronounced on you. And if you think you can keep all the law by adding Christ’s faith to your faith, then you are putting new wine into old bottles and both will perish.

Alas, as Peter admitted, it is “a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” (Act 15:10). We have always thought that Peter was referring to circumcision alone, but the truth is, as Peter knew, “cursed is every one that continueth not in All things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, the just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, the man that doeth them shall live in them” (Gal 3:10-12). One cannot “live in them” and in the law of faith laid down in Matthew 5, because it is impossible to love your enemy and hate him at the same time; because one cannot harmonize “except for fornication” and “if she find no delight in your eyes” One cannot keep the changes made by Christ in Matthew 5 and keep the law of Moses at the same time. One cannot keep the spirit and the letter at the same time. In Col 2: 16-17 we read that Christ is the spirit and the reality of the law which was but the shadow. Now that we have the reality, it is sheer foolishness to try and spiritualize and pay homage to the shadow.

5. Getting back to the rest of the ten commandments, we come to the fifth: Honor your father and your mother. What is the primary purpose for this command? Is it primarily to teach us respect for our physical, letter, fleshly parents? Is it not obvious that all the physical, fleshly, letter experiences we have in life are primarily to teach us (there’s that schoolmaster again!) To honor our heavenly Father? Obviously, it is.

6. Thou shalt not kill and…

7. …Thou shalt not commit adultery, we have already covered extensively in our discussion of the specific changes in the law mentioned in the “sermon on the Mount” in Matthew 5.

8. Thou shalt not steal. “I’m no thief!” we would all, as Christians, proclaim. Yet this is possibly the most commonly broken of God’s spiritual law. Taking that which is not ours is almost universal in the body of Christ. While loudly proclaiming God’s sovereignty, we steal from Him that for which He claims the credit, the responsibility, and for which He will receive the glory. “By grace are you saved through faith, and that [faith] not of yourselves; it [the faith] is the gift of God” (Eph 2:8).

We, through our stubborn adherence to the “idol of the heart” (Eze 14:7), known by the unscriptural phrase “free moral agency”, rob God of His true role in the affairs of men. Certainly we make choices based on our will, but there is nothing free about it: “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you…” (Joh 15:16). “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him…” (Joh 6:44). “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy…Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will, he hardeneth” (Rom 9:16, 18).

There is but one ‘free’ will in the universe, and that is God’s. All others are either shown mercy and drawn to Christ or “whom He wills He hardeneth.”

This is a subject for a paper of its own, but we will do well to give God ALL the credit for our salvation (and our blessings) and dispense with the false doctrine of free moral agency: “Man’s goings[good or evil] are of the Lord, how can a man then understand his own way?” (Pro 20:24). “O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer 10:23). Let’s stop robbing God of His sovereignty in the affairs of men.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. What primary spiritual purpose is it toward which this letter of the law points us? Is it not true that every false doctrine, every “idol of the heart” (Eze 14:7) besetting the body of Christ bears false witness against our Lord and our Father? The most grievous lie of all, no doubt, is the false tenet of eternal hell fire for those “whom he hardeneth” (Rom 9:18).

While God claims to be love (1Jn 4:8 and Eph 2:4), and while we loudly proclaim outwardly to agree with Him, inwardly we make Him a liar, capable of spiteful vengeance, of which even we, our own wicked selves, are not capable. Who among us could justify eternal, everlasting, unending torment in literal fire for all eternity for our children? The enormity of this false witness against the character of the Father who truly is a Father of love, is blasphemous! Indeed He “chasteneth every son he receiveth…” (Heb 12:6, 7), but He is nevertheless “the Savior of ALL men, specially [NOT ONLY] those who believe” (1Ti 4:10). “As in Adam all die, SO IN CHRIST will ALL be made alive” (1Co 15:22). “Who will have all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1Ti 2:4).

“The Lord is not slack concerning his promises, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2Pe 3:9). Did you choose to be “in Adam”? No, your fabled ‘free moral agency’ had nothing to do with the fact that you are “in Adam”. While you will choose to be “in Christ”, your ‘free will’ will have nothing to do with it. You will be drawn to that decision. It is only God who is sovereign.

Let us rid ourselves of all “bearing false witness” against the word of God and the character of a truly loving heavenly Father who will “draw all men” to Himself through Christ (Joh 12:32).

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.

This is the last commandment of the ten. At this point, you might be asking yourself, did the Spirit really change all ten commandments?: “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new [covenant]creature: old things are passed away [the old covenant ten commandments - Deu 4:13]; behold all things are become new” (2Co 5:17).

Does “old things have passed away; behold all things are become new”, really exclude the ten commandments? Are the ten commandments God’s immutable still-in-force, moral law or were they not already “waxing old” when Christ revealed the reality of what was previously just a shadow? “In that he saith a new covenant he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away” (Heb 8:13). This, of course, is a direct reference to the old covenant, and the old covenant is the ten commandments and the rest of the “book of the law” (Deu 4:13). And this “vanishing away” was already taking place nearly 2000 years ago and continues to take place generation by generation as the law brings us to Christ!

So “all things” have become new to those “who are in Christ Jesus”. “Thou shalt not covet…anything that is thy neighbor’s” has been replaced just as much as “thou shalt not commit adultery” was replaced by Christ in Matthew 5. Note: Each individual commandment is not changed or modified. There was a “change in the law”. When we have a change of the guards, we have a new and different guard. When we change our clothing, we do not modify our old or dirty clothing. We discard our old clothing and replace it with new white robes.

Definition Of “The Law”

Adultery is often the end product of lust and Paul says: “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet” (Rom 7:7).

The phrase “the law” is used three times in this verse concluding with a quote of the tenth of the ten commandments. There should be no doubt what is meant by “the law”.

Since the Old Covenant is clearly defined as “…His covenant… ten commandments [written] upon two tables of stone” (Deu 4:13), then EVERY part of that Old Covenant, the glory of which made the face of Moses to shine (2Co 3:7-10), now has “no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away is glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious” (2Co 3:10-11).

What Replaces “The Law?”

What is “that which remaineth” that so excels the ten commandments that they are said to have “no glory” by comparison? “That which remaineth” tells us that we are not talking about a vacuum. There is something “which remaineth”: “Therefore by the deeds [doing] of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20). Does the “knowledge of sin” have anything in common with the knowledge of evil? Yes, it does!

The knowledge of evil, like sin, produces death. It also produces, of necessity, a knowledge of good. Good and evil are from the same tree – “out of the ground made the Lord to grow…the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen 2:9). This knowledge of good is obtained through directly transgressing God’s command ‘don’t eat of it.’ “…Working death in me by that which is good…” (Rom 13:7). This is the ‘good’, the ‘righteousness’ that Job knew before his conversation with God in the whirlwind: Job “disannulled [God's] judgment [and] condemned [God] that [he, Job] mayest be righteous” (Job 40:8). We are told in the first verse of Job one that Job “was perfect [good] and upright and one that feared God and eschewed [hated] evil.” How can one “fear God” and at the same time “condemn” God?

The answer is that Job had the same “knowledge of good and evil” that Adam and Eve had. Adam feared God for we are told that he said “I heard your voice in the garden, and I was afraid…” (Gen 3:10). But like Job, Adam “disannulled [God's] judgment [and] condemned [God]” when he believed the serpent’s lies. Both Job and Adam were ‘good men who feared God and eschewed evil’, but neither had a spiritual understanding of God’s sovereignty, and therefore acted in rebellion to God. Even our good, when not recognized as Christ in us, produced death. Such is the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Eating of this tree produced death.

How, then, do we attain life? Life is not to be found on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Life is only to be found on a totally separate tree; a tree without evil, the tree of life, Jesus Christ.

“So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (Heb 9:28).

Christ “bore the sins of many” “…He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2Co 5:21), but when he returns, it is “unto them that look for him” and this time it is “without sin unto salvation”. Christ was spotless. He never sinned, but God made Him to be a sin offering for us.

The Law Is The Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good And Evil

The law is simply a “tree of knowledge”. It is a knowledge independent of and separate from God: “knowledge [independent of Christ] puffeth up…” (1Co 8:1). “Thou…restest in the law…thou…makest thy boast of the law…[yet] through breaking the law dishonorest thou God” (Rom 2:17 and 23).

And how were they breaking the law? Do we break the law simply by disobeying its precepts? You do “be the letter and circumcision transgress the law” (vs 27). Circumcision was as lawful a precept of the law as Sabbath keeping. But they are both fulfilled in Christ. To continue the practice of things that Christ has fulfilled is to “by the letter…transgress the law.”

The law is not sin, but it is the knowledge of sin: “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law…(Rom 7:7).

So life is not to be found in the tree Christ became when He was offered up at the end of his first coming. How do I dare say that Christ on the cross became the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin…” (2Co 5:21). “…God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law…” (Gal 4:4). This is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. “Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more” [after the flesh] (2Co 5:16). Life is to be found in another totally separate tree “unto those that look for him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (Heb 9:28). Of course, Christ was not sinful and was not really a tree of knowledge of good and evil, but God considered him such “that we might (through his sacrifice) be made the righteousness of God in him” (2Co 5:21).

Christ, The Word, Is The Tree Of Life

Christ is now the tree of life to all who believe: “To him that over cometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God” (Rev 2:7). “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit and they are life [the tree of life]” (Joh 6:63).

“The flesh profits nothing”. Flesh is doomed, even the flesh of Christ. “…Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more” (2Co 5:16). Our flesh is our worst enemy. It sets itself up in the temple of God proclaiming itself to be God, demanding our total subservience. Our flesh is a beast” (Ecc 3:18) lying to us telling us we cannot make war with the beast. And indeed WE CANNOT, but “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me” (Php 4:13).

Let’s go back now to Romans 3: “Therefore by the deeds of the law [the tree of the knowledge of good and evil] there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin[and good]. But now the righteousness of God [Christ] without law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets: even the righteousness of God which is by faith OF Jesus Christ unto ALL and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference” (Rom 3:20-22).

Life comes “without law” because life is an entirely different tree from the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”. “Good” isn’t good enough. It is the words of Christ, which most assuredly are not the words of Torah, that “give spirit” and that “give life” (Joh 6:63).

“The righteousness which is by faith OF Jesus Christ” (Rom 3:22) is the same as “the words that I speak unto you” that “are spirit and…are life” of Joh 6:63. They are even called “the word of faith which we preach” (Rom 10:8).

The Function of The Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil

While life is not in “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen 2:9); not in the law which reveals what sin is (Rom 7:7); not in the flesh which would dethrone Christ in us (Ecc 3:18; Mat 24:15; Rev 13:16), yet it is through death that life comes: “…We were reconciled to God by the death of his son [the result of eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil], much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his [resurrected] life” (the tree of life) (Rom 5:10).

The translators have done mankind a great disservice by translating ekthanatos as “from death”. “Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong cryings and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;” (Heb 5:7). Christ was not saved “from death”. He died, but he was saved, as we will be, through death. All saints are saved through the death of the flesh. Even those who are alive at the return of Christ must exchange their fleshly bodies for spiritual bodies.

It is THROUGH the flesh (Gen 1:27), THROUGH sin (Gen 3:7), THROUGH evil (Isa 45:7), THROUGH the law (Rom 7:7 and Gal 3:23-24), THROUGH “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” and THROUGH death (Heb. 5:7) that we must first pass before we can come to the “tree of life”, to Christ. It was all “predestinated” (Eph 1:11). That’s why we were called in Christ before the world began (2Ti 1:9); that’s why Christ was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8).

When we do come to the tree of life, we find it is guarded by “cherubim, and a flaming sword which turneth every way to keep the way of the tree of life” (Gen 3:24).

These mere letter-words take on great revealing spiritual significance as the light of the spirit is shined upon them.

Before we examine the message revealed in God’s word concerning the “cherubim and fiery sword” guarding the “way of the tree of life”, we will complete our examination of the eight phrases used by Paul to drive home the need to “be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage”, the old covenant. (Gal 5:1).

The better part of this paper has been a demonstration of the depth of the first phrase:

Phrase 1) “A change also of the law” (Heb 7:12)

We have demonstrated how Matthew 5 conflicts with the 6th and 7th commandments as well as four of the statutes and judgments. These, of course, are simply examples given by Christ to show that the entire old covenant was being fulfilled in Christ. Christ could not very well cover the 613 laws of the old covenant in one lesson. “Fulfilling” includes superceding, or else the Sermon on the Mount is a self-contradictory message. We have quoted the scriptures showing that the new covenant is spirit, is NOT in “the letter” (2Co 3:6). Phrase 2) “That which is done away…” (2Co 3:11)

This phrase (done away – used once as ‘put away’) is used five times by Paul in relation to the old covenant:

• 1Co 13:10 – “When that which is perfect is come [the law of love] then that which is in part [the ten commandments and the old covenant] shall be done away.”
• “When I was a child I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child…” (Hate your enemies as opposed to love your enemies; don’t kill as opposed to don’t hate; don’t commit adultery as opposed to don’t look on a woman to lust after her, etc.) but when I became a man, I put away [Greek-katargeo) childish things" (1Co 13:11). ("...the heir as long as he is a child…[is] under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father…to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons, Gal 4:1-5). The Greek for ‘child’ in verse one is #3516 - nepios - an infant or toddler, NOT #5207 - huios used in verse 5 which signifies an adult son. Huios in the King James is translated son, sonship and adoption. It has nothing to do with our present concept of adoption, but means a mature adult son about to take over his father’s trade. Paul says “the heir as long as he is a child [nepios] differs nothing from a servant” [a bond servant, a slave] (Gal 4:1).
• “But if the ministration of death [the old covenant, Deu 4:13], written and engraven in stones was glorious so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory [ministration of death] was to be done away…” (2Co 3:7).
• “For if that which is done away was glorious [the ministration of death written and engraven in stones, vs. 7], much more that which remaineth [the law of love, that which is perfect - 1Co 13:10] is glorious” (2Co 3:11). Paul is saying that Moses’ face with its temporal glory is a type of the temporal old covenant “ministration of death and condemnation.” As we so often do, we’ve taken the type, “Moses’ face”, and made it the antitype, the reality. Moses had his face before the two “tables of stone” were placed into his hands. When those two tables with the ten commandments written on them were placed in Moses’ hands, his face began to shine. But that shining did not last very long. God is telling us that that covenant was a temporary covenant with a fading temporal glory. It was the covenant that made Moses’ face glorious. Moses’ face did not give glory to the covenant.
• “But their minds were blinded for until this day remaineth the same [blinding] vail not taken away in the reading of the old covenant which [old covenant blinding] vail is done away in Christ[the new covenant]” (2Co 3:14).

Summary of “Done Away”

Five times we are told that:

1. The ‘in part’ is replaced by the ‘perfect’ and the ‘in part’ was “done away”.
2. We are to “put away” childish things when “that which is perfect is come”.
3. The ministration of death written and engraven in stones was glorious and “which glory was to be done away”.
4. (If) The “ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory”.
5. The veil that was put over Moses’ face to hide the glory of the old covenant remains and serves as a veil that covers the glory of the new covenant, and in so doing, hides Christ. “In Christ”, however, that veil is “done away”.

That ‘vail’ typically is adhering to the old covenant. After making all these statements concerning the old covenant, Paul says: “…we have…not handled the word of God deceitfully…but if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost” (2Co 4:13).

The Greek word for ‘done away’ or ‘put away’ in all these verses is katargeo (Strong’s concordance #2673). It appears 26 times in the New Testament:

Luk 13:7; Rom 3:3; Rom 3:31; Rom 4:14; Rom 6:6; Rom 7:2; Rom 7:6; 1Co 1:28; 1Co 2:6; 1Co 6:13; 1Co 13:8; 1Co 13:10; 1Co 15:24; 1Co 15:26; 2Co 3:7; 2Co 3:11; 2Co 3:13; 2Co 3:14; 2Co 15:26; Gal 3:17; Gal 5:4; Gal 5:11; Eph 2:15; 2Th 2:8; 2Ti 1:10, Heb 2:14

This Greek word, katargeo, has been assigned thirteen different translations in the Kings James Version.

The most common translations are ‘destroy’ and ‘done away’ with five entries each. “Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him [Christ], that the body of sin might be destroyed [katargeo], that henceforth we should not serve sin” (Rom 6:6). This verse is typical of the five ‘destroy’ entries. ‘Without effect’ or ‘none effect’ is the third most common with four entries. “When I was a child[under the schoolmaster], I spake as a child, I understood as a child [in letter, ten commandments only], I thought as a child: but when I became a man [understood the law of God, the law of love revealed here in this love chapter and in Matthew 5] I put away [katargeo] childish things” (1Co 13:11).

“But when that which is perfect [the law of love] is come, then that which is in part [the old covenant ten commandments] shall be done away [katargeo] (1Co 13:10).

“For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect” [katargeo] (Rom 3:3)? This verse is typical of the four verses translated ‘without effect’ or ‘none effect’.

The next most common translation of the word katargeo brings us to our third phrase:

Phrase 3) “…That which is abolished”

This Greek word, katargeo, is the exact same word translated ‘abolished’ three times in the New Testament:

“And not as Moses which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished” (katargeo - 2Co 3:13).

“Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments [the ten old covenant commandments] contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace” (Eph 2:15).

“But now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2Ti 1:10).

While this last verse is not directly concerned with the law, it does demonstrate the meaning of the word katargeo in relation to the law. That which happens to death is that which happens to the law. Being “in Christ” in no way denies death; yea it establishes “the law of sin and death” of the flesh and in so doing, brings in “the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:2).

Without the destruction of the weak and beggarly elements, the law of Moses, the “law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus”, the law of love, could not be established. Why is that? Simply because “that [only] through death he might destroy him that hath the power over death” (Heb. 2:14). It is the law of Moses, the old covenant, on “two tables of stone”, that is according to the word of God, the “ministration of death” (2Co 3:7).

It is this law, which carries with it the fleshly inclination of thinking one’s own righteousness can save oneself that makes “all the world guilty before God” (Rom 3:19).

What is Meant by “Nature”?

The Gentiles absolutely do not “naturally” love their neighbor by the nature inherited from Adam. The most apparent part of the personality of the purest infant ever born will be his complete and total self-centeredness from the beginning. “…Both Jews and Gentiles…are all under sin” (Rom 3:9).

When Paul speaks of “the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law” (Rom 2:14), he is not referring to the Adamic nature nor the law of Moses: “…we all…in time past [lived] in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of our flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others” (Eph 2:3).

The Greek word for nature is the same in both verses. It is Strong’s #5449 - phusis.

Circumcision, tithing, and Sabbath keeping are not natural to the Gentiles, and it is not the law of Moses to which Paul refers. It is the “law of the spirit of life”, the law of love, and it is kept only by “being partakers of the divine nature having escaped [through this divine nature] the corruption that is in the world through lust (2Pe 1:4).

Phrase #4 – Blotting Out the Handwriting of Ordinances

“Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” (Col 2:14). The Greek word here is exaleifo - Strong’s #1813. This is the only place it appears in Paul’s writings. This Greek word does appear four more times in the New Testament, however:

• Act 3:19 – “Repent…that your sins may be blotted out.”
• Rev 3:5 – “He that overcometh…I will not blot out his name out of the book of life.”
• Rev 7:17 – “…And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.”
• Rev 21:4 – “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.”

It is translated “blotted out” three times and “wipe away” twice. Once again the “handwriting of ordinances” has the same fate as sin. Sin is destroyed (katargeo - Rom 6:6) and here the “handwriting of ordinances” is exaleifo - blotted out.

So we really need to know what the “handwriting of ordinances” is. The Greek word for “handwriting” is cheirographon - Strong’s #5498. It is a compound of #5495 cheir, the Greek word for hand and #1125 grapho, to grave or write. This just happens to be the exact description given the two tables of the old covenant: “And he declared unto you His covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote [Heb. kathab - to (en)grave] them upon two tables of stone” (Deu 4:13).

How were they graven? “And he [God] gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon Mount Sinai, two tables of stone written [kathab - graven] with the finger of God.”

How about the word “ordinances”? The Greek here is dogma, Strong’s #1378. Strong defines it as “a law (civil; ceremonial or ecclesiastical) a decree, ordinance.”

The most prominent handwritten “dogma” in the history of mankind is the old covenant, ten commandments, written with the “finger of God.” “Thou shalt” and “thou shalt not” are about as dogmatic as you can get.

We have demonstrated that the carnal mind can be subject to the law of Moses. After hearing Christ quote the ten commandments, the rich young ruler answers “all these have I kept from my youth up” (Mat 19:20). “…touching the righteousness which is in the law [I was] blameless” declares Paul of himself before his conversion (Php 3:6). But Christ teaches us that righteousness which is in the law is yet “lacking”. Outward obedience to the ten commandments does nothing to cleanse the inner man, any more than outward circumcision would give one a circumcised heart. “Cleanse first that which is within…” (Mat 23:26). This admonition can never be performed by obeying the ten commandments and the law of Moses.

How can we say this? Because they are carnal commandments for carnal men: “The law is not made for a righteous man but for the lawless and the disobedient…” (1Ti 1:9).

This is clearly stated in Hebrews 7. In verse 11, Paul points out that the people “received the law” under the Levitical priesthood. He maintains that the priesthood now, under Christ, has reverted back to the priestly system in place before Levi or Aaron, a priesthood “after the order of Melichisedec”.

“The priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law” (received under that priesthood) (Heb 7:12). Why change the law? “For by the law is the knowledge of sin…”

We are told clearly “for the law made nothing perfect…” (Heb 7:19). “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: FOR BY THE LAW IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN” (Rom 3:20). This is the reason given for changing the law. This statement brings us to our fifth phrase. Phrase #5-A “Carnal Commandment Has Been Disannulled” – Heb 8:13 “Who[Christ] is made [a priest] not after the law of a CARNAL commandment, but after the power of an endless life” (vs 16). “For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for theWEAKNESS AND UNPROFITABLENESS thereof” (Heb 7:18)

This verse doesn’t say the law “was weak through the flesh”. “The weakness and unprofitableness thereof” is a verbal description of the subject preceding it; ” the commandment”. Which commandment?

Matthew 5 only mentions two – murder and adultery. How did Christ demonstrate their weakness? By showing us that outward obedience to any law does nothing for the inner man. What has a man gained if he abstains from murder and yet hates his brother? What spiritual profit is it to abstain from adultery while lusting after a woman in our hearts?

This law is so weak that it tells you to hate your enemy. It favored the concept of an eye for an eye.

Paul says “the law is good, if a man use it lawfully” (1Ti 1:8). How does one use the law lawfully? By “knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient…” (vs 9).

Many a sermon has been preached quoting “All thy commandments are righteousness” (Psa 119:172) and “sin is the transgression of the law” (1Jn 3:4) as if Christ had never said ‘love your enemy’ contrary to the law of Moses; as if he never told a man to pick up his bed on the Sabbath, contrary to the law; as if his teachings on divorce and remarriage were not contrary to the law of Moses.

Christ is our spotless and blameless Savior not because he kept the law of Moses. If he had done so, he would not be spotless. You do “…by the letter…transgress the law.” How can that be? How can one keep the letter and break the law? If you can’t answer that question, then Matthew 5 means nothing to you. The letter is the problem. It is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; “I had not known sin but by the law” (Rom 7:7). “…The law is NOT made for a righteous man but for the lawless and disobedient” (1Ti 1:9). “The letter killeth” (2Co 3:6). It was “the letter” that killed Christ, and by breaking the letter Christ kept the law of love.

Let us at this point give a couple of examples of how one “by the letter…dost transgress the law” (Rom 2:27). These examples will also demonstrate the “weakness and unprofitableness thereof” (Heb 7:18).

We will examine the two most distinguishing parts of the old covenant in the days of Christ and Paul; Sabbath keeping and circumcision.

One could be a Gentile in those days and honor parents, abstain from murder, adultery, lying, stealing, etc. and still not be distinguished as a keeper of the law. IF one kept the Sabbaths and practiced circumcision, in those days, one was definitely recognized as a “son of the covenant”.

Outward Sabbath Keeping

How did Christ feel about the Sabbath? As demonstrated above, He broke the Sabbath regulations repeatedly, admitted it and defended it: “David…did….[that] which was not lawful…” and “the priests…profane the Sabbath…” (Mat 12:4-5). That sounds like a confession to me.

Yet Christ called himself “the guiltless” “If you had known what this meaneth I will have mercy [on those breaking the outward Sabbath] and not sacrifice; ye would not have condemned the guiltless” (Mat 12;7). What was Christ’s purpose in doing what he admits was “unlawful” and “profane”? His purpose was to “enter into [the real] rest” (Heb 4:3). The real rest (Sabbath or ceasing) has no more to do with outward physical rest than the lamb slaughtered on the alter of the temple was the real sacrifice for sin. The real Sabbath has everything to do with ceasing from our works, not one day in seven, but twenty-four hours a day seven days a week! “Not my will, but thine be done” (Luk 22:42). “My Father WORKS hitherto, and I WORK.”

According to Strong ‘hitherto’ (#2193 - heos) is “a conjunction, preposition and adverb of continuance.” In other words, “My Father is on the job seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day and so am I.”

As mentioned earlier in this paper, creation had not tired our Creator. He simply ceased from his work because he had finished it. The fact God hallowed the seventh day and made it holy, makes it no more permanently holy than the holy ground in Arabia where Moses was told to take off his shoes. The seventh day Sabbath was given to ancient Israel as a type and shadow of Christ: “For we which have believed do enter into [Christ, our] rest…there remaineth therefore a Sabbath [Christ in us] to the people of God. [Because] he that is entered into his rest hath ceased from his own works, as God did from His” (Heb 4:3, 9-10). This “ceasing from our own works” is the Sabbath that “remaineth”, and it isn’t a one-in-seven Sabbath.

One can ask how does observance of the weakly (no, I didn’t misspell it) Sabbath break the law of the new covenant?? By clinging to a “carnal ordinance” (outwardly entering into rest) imposed on them only until “the time of reformation” (Heb 9:10), we admit that we are reserving six days of the week for our own works just as surely as the scribes and Pharisees were bearing witness against themselves by “garnishing the sepulchers of the righteous”.

“Woe to you scribes and Pharisees…because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous. And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore you bear witness to yourselves that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets” (Mat 23:29-31).

Had Christ kept the seventh day Sabbath, He would have been bearing witness against Himself that six days in seven He was doing His work, not the work of His Father.

The Law – All or None at All

He would also have been required to keep the whole law: “…cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them” (Gal 3:10).

“For I testify again [Paul had been here before] to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law” (Gal 5:3).

James agrees with Paul. After encouraging us to “fulfill the royal law [not torah] according to the scripture”, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”, he then makes the same point about the law that Paul makes. “For whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all…So speak ye and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. [Because] he shall have judgment without mercy that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment” (Jas 2:8, 10-13). This is the same “liberty” Paul speaks of in Gal. 5:1 and which Paul also calls “the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2).

Modern Theology

Those who think that the law of Moses is to be kept by those in Christ will tell you “the only thing nailed to the cross (besides an innocent man) was the animal sacrifices and the blood offering and the rituals surrounding them. All the other laws of God are still in effect today…” [Was Jesus a Racist? by Glen Myers]

While most professing Christians are not willing to go so far as Mr. Myers, “all the other laws are still in effect”, they do agree with him in varying degrees. Most professing Christians think more in line with Mr. Frank Brown quoted earlier. The common reasoning is that the ten commandments are not part of “the law of commandments contained in ordinances” “abolished” in Eph 2:15 and “blotted out and nailed to his cross” in Col 2:14.

That the phrase “the law”, when standing alone, always is intended by Paul to include the ten commandments is demonstrated above by the scriptures quoted in the previous segment The Law – All or None at All: “for I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law” (Gal 5:1). This means the whole law, not just the ten commandments. In other words, if one believes that Torah (the law) will help to save him then he is required by Torah to keep it all: “Cursed is everyone that continueth not in ALL THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW to do them” (Gal 3:10 which quotes from Deu 27:26 and Jer 11:3). The words “written and graven in stone” (2Co 3:7), the ten commandments, are in the “book of the law” in Exo 20 and Deu 5. That the law includes the ten commandments is unquestionable: “…I had not known lust, except the law had said, thou shalt not covet” (Rom 7:7).

“The law” is a single package. Any attempt to dissect it so as to preserve some part of it will bring the curse of these verses down on those who do so.

Circumcision

Why then does Paul mention circumcision so often? If the whole law is meant by the phrase ‘the old covenant’, why does he make it so clear that circumcision is no longer required? Why, for example, did he not say “I testify again to every man that keeps the Sabbath that he is a debtor to keep the whole law”?

The answer is that the Sabbath, important as it was to the old covenant, was only a sign, a token (Hebrew - owth; Strong’s #226) of the covenant. “Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep for a sign between me and you throughout your generations” (Exo 31:3).

Circumcision on the other hand, is called “the covenant of circumcision”. “And he [God] gave him [Abraham] the covenant of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed to them also” (Rom 4:11).

Circumcision is the original sign of the old covenant and is used by Paul as a single word to express the thought of being a physical Israelite and considering that physical pedigree to be of some consequence to God: “And they of the circumcision which believe were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Act 10:45).

It’s obvious from this scripture that even Jews who believed in Christ at the time of Peter’s visit to Cornelius’s house still had a degree of “confidence in the flesh” (Php 3:3 and 4).

Paul’s use of the phrase “of the circumcision” encompassed both the “confidence in the flesh” and the confidence in “works of the law”; circumcision being “the sign” of the old covenant.

God’s “Tabernacle” And “Rest” Are The Same In Scripture

With this in mind, let’s continue the thought in Heb 9: “Carnal ordinance[s] [were] imposed on them [only] until the TIME OF REFORMATION. But Christ being come an high priest of GOOD THINGS TO COME by a GREATER AND MORE PERFECT TABERNACLE, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this [stone and mortar] building” (Heb 9:10 and 11). And what is that “greater and more perfect tabernacle? It just happens to be the same as his real rest: “For the Lord hath chosen Zion: he hath desired it for his habitation [his tabernacle]. THIS IS MY REST forever; here will I dwell; for I have desired it” (Psa 132:13 and 14). “…The tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them…” (Rev 21:3). It is those who are “in Christ” who are the Zion of Psa 132:13 and 14 and the “…a bride adorned for her husband” the “holy city New Jerusalem” of Rev 21:2.

Christ is our rest, and we in Christ are God’s: “On that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you” (Joh 14:20). If we are in Christ, he is in us and we are all in God through Christ.

If we insist on observing the seventh day Sabbath and all the holy days, why are we not still offering sacrifices? If we don’t offer sacrifices because the type is fulfilled in Christ, why are we still observing all the other types Christ has fulfilled? His own words are “it is finished” (Joh 19:30). “For we which have believed do enter into rest…” (Heb 4:3). Christ is our Sabbath every day. Is he not also our Passover every day, living his life in us, is he not also our days of unleavened bread every day? Is he not the Spirit coming to us, our Pentecost, every day? In Christ we are not those “that put far away the evil day and cause the seat of violence to come near” (Amo 6:3).

In Christ we “lift up our voice like a trumpet and show God’s people their transgressions” (Isa 58:1). Therefore Christ is our festival of trumpets every day.

Being “seated with him in heavenly places” (Eph 2:6) are we not at one with God? Is he not our day of Atonement?

Knowing that “as in Adam all die SO in Christ shall ALL be made alive” (1Co 15:22), is he not our festival of tabernacles and last great day?

YES HE IS! “All my Sabbaths” were festivals because they were all a celebration of Christ and his accomplishments.

Good Things To Come

In Colossians we are told “Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect [Strong's #3313 - meros - the particulars] of an holy day, or [the particulars] of the new moon or [the particulars] of the Sabbath days WHICH ARE A SHADOW OF THINGS TO COME; but the body [casting that shadow] is of Christ” (Col 2:16, 17).

There it is; holy days and Sabbaths are all “shadows” of Christ, as were the millions of animals sacrificed for the sins of Israel. Jesus is now “a minister of the true tabernacle…[that's us]…if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests [the temple was still standing] that offer gifts [sacrifices] according to the law. Who [both the priests and the gifts or sacrifices] serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things…[they all foreshadow Christ]” (Heb 8:2-5). Paul goes on to say that this is true of the law as a whole: “For the 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 year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect” (Heb 10:1).

So who is our priest foreshadowed by the Aaronic priesthood? Who is our sacrifice, foreshadowed by millions of dead lambs and bulls and goats? Who is our Sabbath and holy days? Who can make the comers thereunto perfect?

I never before realized how anything so repetitive and so redundant could be so exciting. Yes, it is ALL Christ!

“According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall you make it” (Exo 25:9).

“And look that you make them after their pattern, which was shewed you in the mount” (Exo 25:40). Christ is that ‘pattern’ and we, too, must be careful to follow the pattern.

“For Christ is the end (#5056 - telos) of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth” (Rom 10:4).

That word, telos, is the same in 1Pe 1:9; “Receiving the end (telos) of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.”

“For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Gal 5:14)

“These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses and the prophets and in the psalms concerning me” (Luk 24:44).

This is what Christ was talking about when he said “think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. …I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Mat 5:17 and 18).

Christ knew who he was. He knew he was the “till all be fulfilled”.

One Of These Least Commandments

“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” (Mat 5:19).

Is this a comment concerning the ten commandments and/or law of Moses? If it is, then Christ himself will have to “be called least in the kingdom of heaven”. Why do I say that?

I say it simply because the entire remainder of chapter 5 of Matthew consists of Christ teaching his disciples to break the law of Moses:

Four of these six teachings are in direct opposition to the law of Moses. The other two are certainly not “one of these least commandments” but are two of the ten, and have been changed beyond recognition

It should be clear that “one of these least commandments” refers to the column on the right, the commandments of Christ; not those given by Christ to Moses. Carnal commandments are for a carnal people.

The Meaning of “Made Under The Law”

But all the commandments of Christ, all these “But I say unto you…” in direct contradiction to the law of Moses, are apparently hidden from the orthodox Protestant and Catholic churches and from the “command them to keep the law of Moses” groups in the Christian world. Here is the lie that is believed by all three schools of religious thought. The following quotation is from The Two Covenants and the First Resurrection by Brian Convery:

“Now let’s cut to the chase. In 1Jn 2:3-6, we read a very sobering measuring stick as to the degree we are led by the spirit of God.

:3 – Now by this we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. [The implication here is very clear. If we don't keep His commandments, all of them, we don't know him. The professing Christian world says they know Him but preaches His commandments were nailed to the cross, done away. If that's the case, the Bible is lying to us. There is no gray area. It is one or the other.]

:4 – He who says, I know Him, and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. [Very simple, isn't it? No compromise, no second-guessing, no ifs, and or buts about it. Many denominations of Christianity today say they keep His commandments but fail to observe the Sabbath the seventh day, the same one that has been in place since creation week. They instead take their lead from Rome and keep the day of the pagan deities, Sunday.]

:5 – But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in him.

:6 – He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked. Jesus Christ observed the Sabbath and the annual Holy Days. He kept them holy, all of them. Over seventy times in the gospels, He tells us to follow Him. Following Him has just been clearly defined here in I John. If we are following Him, we are going to do what He did. Do not lose sight of who Jesus was in the O.T. scriptures. He was the Word, that Being who created everything. He was the one who authored all the commandments, etc., of the O.T. scriptures. That’s why we read in Hebrews that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. He is not changing it. If you do not follow Him as He has just described in I John, then you are not led by the spirit of God.” The Two Covenants and The First Resurrection by Brian Convery, Part 3, page 1.

I have no doubt Mr. Convery is as sincere a man as I am, but he has failed to notice that Christ brought “a NEW commandment …That ye love one another as I have loved you…(Joh 13:34). Christ did not love his disciples according to Exodus 20. He loved them according to Matthew 5. He has failed to notice the outright contradictions between the “NEW commandment” of Christ and the “abolished”, “disannulled”, “nailed to the cross”, “handwriting of ordinances” that are “old covenant” “law of Moses”. This very John who Mr. Convery is quoting, never calls the holy days ‘God’s feast of Passover’ or ‘God’s feast of Tabernacles’.

John demonstrates his understanding of their fulfillment in Christ; their passing, fading nature. John always refers to “the Jews feast of Passover” and “the Jews feast of tabernacles, etc.” John sets us all a good example. Christ fulfills ALL. Those who refuse John’s example are not following Christ. They are following “the outward Jews” (Rom 2:27). Christ did not keep the seventh day Sabbath holy. He broke it repeatedly as you can read in Matthew 12. You are right, Mr. Convery, “If we are following him, we are going to do as he did.”

“Do not lose sight of who Christ was in the Old Testament scriptures. He was the Word; that being who created everything. He was the one who authored all the commandments, etc. of the Old Testament scriptures…” [Ibid]

Yes, we would do well to never “lose sight of who Christ was in the O.T. scriptures”, but if we have never known him to begin with, how then can we “lose sight” of something we never saw.

To demonstrate what I mean, here are a few things concerning the O.T. scriptures which very few have ever “had sight of” to begin with:

• Cursed be he that confirmeth not ALL the words of this law to do them (Deu 27:26; Jer 11:3)
• 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 which are written in the book of the law to do them (Gal 3:10).

These verses do not say “the ten commandments, all of them.” It says ALL THINGS which are written IN THE BOOK…” This would include the very things Christ taught against in Matthew 5. Yes, Christ is the author of the ten commandments. It is the ten commandments that are called the “covenant” (Deu 4:13).

• Christ is also the author of you shall fear the Lord your God…and shall swear by his name (Deu 6:13 and Deu 10:20) What agreement does that have with the commandment of Christ but I say unto you, swear not at all (Mat 5:34 and 37)?
• Christ was the author of an eye for an eye (Exo 21:24 and Deu 19:21). What agreement does that have with but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil (Mat 5:38-42)?

I could go on and on with the changes in the law which Christ made, but we have already covered this subject in this paper.

Mr. Convery, along with most of Christendom, thinks the “his commandments” of 1Jn 2:3 are the same as the ten commandments of Exodus 20. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The ten commandments are “for the lawless and disobedient” (1Ti 1:8-9). The “but I say unto you” of Matthew 5 are the “his commandments” spoken of in 1Jn 2:3, and the “one of these least commandments” of Mat 5:19).

The obvious truth is that the only time Christ was made “under the law” (Gal 4:4) was when he was “made to be sin for us” (2Co 5:21). [Updated 6/18/2007 - For a complete study of the question of Christ being made sin, please read the article He Hath Made Him to be Sin by Coy Brock elsewhere on the web site.]

“The professing Christian world…preaches his commandments were “nailed to the cross, done away”…”[Ibid.]

Those are Paul’s words, Mr. Convery (Eph 2:15 and Col 2:14). Your argument is not with the professing Christian world as they agree with you on everything but the fourth commandment. Your argument is with Paul and the Holy Spirit. The professing Christian world, like you, Mr. Convery, picks and chooses which parts of “all things written in the book of the law” they want to keep. They pick nine commandments and holidays. You pick all ten commandments and holy days.

A Synopsis Of Galatians

It is actually holy days, not holidays, to which Paul refers in Gal 4:10: “Ye observe days, months, times and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain” (Gal 4:10-11). Paul is reprimanding these Galatians (and Christians today) for observing the days and festivals of Moses!

Is Paul worried that the Galatian converts are slipping back into their old pagan holidays observance? No doubt pagans had holidays they observed just as the Jews had days which they also esteemed above other days. But paganism is not the concern or subject of the book of Galatians.

Galatians One

What is the point of this book? Gal 1:6-7: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from them that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another, but there be some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ”. THAT is the subject of this book! Paul spells it out right up front. The Galatians are being influenced by someone preaching “another gospel which is not another but…pervert(s) the gospel of Christ” and “removed” (them) from him “that called you into the grace of Christ”.

What is this “gospel which is not another but pervert(s) the gospel of Christ”? It is obvious that what is troubling Paul is “the Jews religion” (Gal 1:14). The entire book of Galatians is concerned with this problem, NOT with the influences of pagans: “…I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus” (Gal 1:17).

If pagan influences have anything to do with this book, why would Paul place distance between himself and “them which were apostles before me” in Jerusalem?

Galatians Two

What is the subject of Chapter 2: “For before that certain [men] came from James. [Peter] did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself fearing them which were of the circumcision” (Gal 2:12).

Here again is the subject of this letter to the Galatians. To say Gal 4:10 has to do with pagan holidays, is to miss the point of this entire epistle.

“We who are Jews by nature…know…that a man is not justified by the deeds of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ…and not by works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified…” (Gal 2:15-16).

Does this sound like something you would say to people who were being seduced by pagan holidays and traditions? What does the next chapter concern?

Galatians Three

“Oh, foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth…This only would I learn of you, received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit are ye now made perfect by the flesh” (Gal 3:1-3)?

This seems to be the same subject of chapters one and two, “removed from…the grace of Christ unto another gospel” (Gal 1:6) and “certain (men) from James” (Gal 2:12), and now here in chapter 3; “received ye the spirit by the works of the law…?”

Paul, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, continues in chapter three attempting to take the eyes of these Galatian converts off the things pertaining to the law: “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for the just shall live by faith…” (Gal 3:10-11).

The rest of this chapter is devoted to Paul’s attempt to get the Galatians to see that the promises made to Abraham are actually “to thy seed which is Christ” (Gal 3:16).

“For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise” (Gal 3:18).

The subject still hasn’t changed. The “another gospel, which is not another…but pervert(s) the gospel of Christ” is a gospel which promotes the “law of Moses” which Christ (in Matt. 5) and Paul, here and in all his epistles, say is incompatible with the “law of Jesus Christ” (Gal 6:2).

“Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made…” (Gal 3:19).

What was “the law” of Moses added to? It was a temporary addendum to the “law of the spirit of life” (Rom 8:2), also called the “law of Christ” (Gal 6:2) the NEW commandment of Matthew 5, the law of love of Rom 13:10. God is not a ‘new’ God. “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today and forever” (Heb 13:8). What is ‘new’ about the new covenant, is that it was never before revealed to mankind. Christ came to reveal the Father, because the Father had never before been revealed (L 10:22). The only ‘eternal’ immutable law of God ever revealed in scripture, is the law of Christ revealed in Matt. 5-7, also called the law of love in I Cor.13: “Love never fails…” (1Co 13:8). God always has been and always will be – LOVE.

This ‘new commandment’ (Joh 13:34) is a NEW COMMANDMENT.It is not the “spirit of the letter lost in the traditions of the elders”. Letter obedience is only to rule over us “till the seed should come to whom the promise was made”.

Then what? “But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed” (Gal 3:23).

Here is Paul’s concern for the Galatians. Here is the “another gospel”. The law keeps us “shut up” and “under the law”, until “faith comes”. Paul says the same thing, with even more force in Rom 6:14: “…sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law but under grace”. Sin dominates those “under the law”, because they are not yet brought to Christ (Gal 3:22 and 23).

The true character (law) of God was never revealed until Christ came “to reveal the Father” (Mat 11:27 and Luk 10:22). While it had not been revealed, the law of Love (God) was still being transgressed, and this is what necessitated the “addition” of the law of Moses “because of transgressions” of the unrevealed, yet present (law of God) law of Love (Gal 3:19). The law [of Moses]entered that “the offence might abound…” (Rom 6:20), not to reveal the Father. Reading the law without accepting Christ “vails” the Father (2Co 3:15).

Paul is obviously desirous that the Romans and Galatians not be “under the law” “after faith comes”.

“Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Gal 3:24).

And then…? “But after that faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster” (Gal 3:25).

Why are we no long under a schoolmaster? “For ye are all the children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:28 and 29).

Now, the formula laid down by the Holy Spirit through the pen of the Apostle Paul is:

• a. The law is good if used lawfully; meaning you understand that it is for the lawless and disobedient (1Ti 1:8,9).
• b. After faith is come, we are no longer under the schoolmaster (the law) because we are not disobedient and lawless as defined by the “new commandment”, “the law of Jesus Christ”, as revealed for the first time in Matthew 5.

Yes, this was the first time. While God’s law is as old as He is, it was not revealed till Christ came:

“Neither knoweth any man the Father, save the son, and he to whomsoever the son will reveal him” (Mat 11:27).

If the law of Moses had revealed the Father, as all Christendom seems to believe, Matthew 5 would have been unnecessary. Christ Himself would have been unnecessary and salvation could have been by the law. But the law of Moses, the old covenant, the ten commandments (Deu 4:13) are for the lawless and disobedient and the “law of Christ”, the “law of love” is not revealed until Christ comes. Until then we are “kept under the law” (the letter).

Galatians Four

We now come to Gal 4. Does the concern suddenly switch from the Galatians being seduced by Judahizers to pagan philosophers?

No, paganism is not even under consideration in this chapter. Paul is still concerned that the Galatians are allowing themselves to be influenced by those who want to keep them under the schoolmaster. He has just informed them that in Christ “we are no longer under the schoolmaster, for ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:25 and 26).

The whole weight of Paul’s point is lost by translators who fail to make clear the huge difference between the “children” (Greek - huios, Strong’s #5207) of Gal 3:26 and the “child” (Greek - nepios, Strong’s #3516) of Gal 4:1.

Paul’s entire point is that in Christ we are huios, mature sons, able to carry on with our Father’s profession.

This is contrasted with being “under the schoolmaster” and still “under the law”. Chapter four concerns this same subject “now…the heir, as long as he is a nepios, (a minor) differeth nothing from a servant (Greek - doulos, Strong’s #1401, a slave) though he be lord of all, but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father” (Gal 4:1).

Being “under the law” is to be a minor, “an immature Christian” according to Strong; according to Paul “differing nothing from a slave”.

Being under “tutors and governors” and “differing nothing from a slave” while under these “schoolmasters” is to be “nepios (immature)…in bondage to the elements of the world” (Gal 4:3). The subject of this chapter is: “…God sent forth his son…to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons” (Greek - huiothesia, Strong’s #5206, Gal 4:4 and 5).

This “adoption” is to take on the father’s business and has nothing in common with our modern meaning for the word adoption.

Paul’s concern for the Galatians is that “another gospel” is seducing them to remain immature (nepios) Christians, robbing them of their true standing in Christ as mature sons (huios) and “heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29).

“Thou art no more a servant [slave] but a son [mature Christian]; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ” (Gal 4:7). Paul says being an immature Christian and remaining under the law even after Christ has fulfilled it, is to do “service to them which by nature are no gods” (Gal 4:8). These are the “zealously-affect-you” crowd of vs 17.

How was this desire to remain an immature Christian, “under the law”, “no more than a slave”, “doing service to them which are no gods”, “believing another gospel”, manifesting itself in these Galatian converts?

It was manifesting itself in three ways:

1. “Ye observe days, months, times and years” (Gal 4:10)
2. They were desiring to be under the law (vs 21)
3. They were submitting themselves to physical circumcision (Gal 5:2 and 3). They were doing this to avoid being “excluded” from the fellowship of what really amounted to “enemies of the cross of Christ” (Php 3:18).

Nothing has changed. This spirit is here today. If you do not submit to the law of Moses, you will still be excluded from their fellowship. Let us not be as the Galatians who were “bewitched” by “the works of the law” (Gal 3:1-5).

Of course, those who are “bewitched” by the “works of the law” of Moses will tell you that since it was God who gave Moses the law, therefore this must be the same as the “law of God”.

Yes, Mr. Convery, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever”, but if you truly believe “he is not changing it” (the law of Moses), then I can only conclude that your eyes are blinded to the virtual “reformation” (Heb 9:10) revealed by Christ in Matthew 5.

Matthew 5 is a new wine in a new bottle, a new garment made of new cloth. It is not compatible with the old covenant and attempting to make it so will only “break the bottles…spill the wine” and “make the rent worse”.

You are right, “there is no other way”, but that way is Matthew 5, not Exodus 20, or any other part of the “things written in the book of the law”.

You are right, “If you do not follow Him as He just described in I John, then you are not led by the Spirit of God.” What he just described in I John, however, has nothing to do with the ten commandments or the old covenant “letter” which are one and the same (Deu 4:13), and which are the “ministration of death” (2Co 3:7). The commandments referred to in I John are revealed in the gospels, Matthew 5-7 in particular. They are certainly not in the law of Moses, the old covenant.

As mentioned earlier, it was this same Apostle John who calls the holy days “feasts of the Jews”:

“After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem” (Joh 5:1).

“And the Passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh” (Joh 6:4).

“Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand” (Joh 7:2).

Apparently John did not have the Sabbath and holy days in mind in I John. In all my years in a certain church, I never once heard a single minister, student or church member use John’s terminology for these days. These were “God’s Holy Days” and we took pride in the fact that we did not keep pagan holidays. Colossians tells us holy days were “a shadow of things to come” (Col 2:16 and 17).

Heb. 10 tells us the entire law was a shadow “for the law having a shadow of good things to come…” (Heb 10:1).

Yes, indeed, “If you do not follow Him as just described in I John, then you are not led by the Spirit”.

What is “the Spirit”? Does it have anything to do with the things “which you have heard said by them of old time”? Perhaps there is some agreement, but if so, it is incidental:

“THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU, THEY ARE SPIRIT and they are life” (Joh 6:63). These words were penned by the same apostle who wrote I John. It is the words of Christ that give life and which will judge us (Joh 12:48).

You are right; “in 1Jn 2:3-6, we read a very sobering measuring stick as to the degree we are led by the Spirit of God.” However, it is the words of Christ, not the law of Moses, which are the “commandments” of 1Jn 2:3-6. Christ’s words are our “measuring stick” of spiritual maturity, not the law which is “not for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient” (1Ti 1:9).

“The words that I have spoken” are not the words of the old covenant. Those who persist in being under that law, “shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman” (Gal 4:30).

Phrase #6 – Ready to Vanish Away – Heb 8:13

“In that he saith a new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away” (Heb 8:13).

To Paul, as it should be to us, God’s word is reality. So far as Paul was concerned, the old covenant had been “vanishing away” from the time of Jeremiah. “…Your burnt offerings are not acceptable nor your sacrifices sweet unto me” (Jer 6:20).

“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: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers…” (Jer 31:31-32).

As Christ pointed out, we don’t put new wine in old bottles (Mat 9:17). In the revelation of the new covenant, we are told that the new does not “accord” with the old. “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” (Mat 9:16).

There have always been, and still are today, plenty of ‘worn out’ garments around. If we attempt to repair our carnal old fleshly bodies with the ten commandments, we will only make sin appear sinful. Our righteousness must “exceed” that of Job, the rich young ruler and Paul before his conversion (Mat 5:20).

“But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts…’ (Jer 31:33).

But the “old is ready to vanish away”. The Greek here is not katargeo for once. It is aphanismos, Strong’s #854. This is the only place this form of this word is used in scripture. However, it is taken from aphanizo, Strong’s #853 which appears five times: Mat 6:16, Mat 6:19, Mat 6:20, Act 13:41 and Jas 4:14.

“Behold you despisers, and wonder, and perish…” (aphanizo #853 – Act 13:41).

“…What is your life? It is even as a vapour that appeareth for a little time, and vanisheth away” (aphanizo #853 – Jas 4:14).

“Aphanismos” may not be “katargeo“, but they do seem to have a lot in common.

Phrase #7 – “Under the Law”

The phrase ‘under the law’ appears in seven separate areas of scripture. When two connected verses contain the phrase we consider it as a single section of scripture, even though the phrase appears as many as three times in a single verse.

We will demonstrate with these seven sections that in God’s eyes obedience to the law of Moses is the spiritual equivalent of being “under sin”. The reason given is “because by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20). In other words, “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Paul is telling us that the law is equivalent to the tree placed by God in the middle of the garden of Eden, which man must eat of before he can partake of the source of life.

Yes, it was God who had told them not to eat of this tree, but the goal and purpose in creating Adam and Eve was to: “bring many sons unto glory” (Heb 2:10). Since Christ was “slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev 13:8), Adam had to sin in order to need a Savior. “I had not known sin but by the law” (Rom 7:7). “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that THROUGH DEATH he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb 2:14). Now “the tree of life” is not “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”. The fruit of one is life and the fruit of the other is death. “For this cause he is the mediator of the new testament [covenant] that BY MEANS OF DEATH, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance”.

There it is: “…transgressions…were under the first covenant”. Sin no longer dominates us because we “are not under the law, but under grace” (Rom 6:14).

A. “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). Again it’s the ten commandments that make “all the world…guilty before God”. But what does Paul mean by this next verse? “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20).

What he means, as we have said before, is that life can no more come through the law (the knowledge of sin and therefore of righteousness also – Rom 7:7) than it can come through the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Bringing life is not the function of this tree (the law, the ten commandments). Its function is to bring man to the point that he sees his need for a Savior. It accomplishes this by revealing our sinful dying condition (earthy, naked) that we have from creation. Christ was slain “from the foundation of the world”, before Adam and Eve even sinned. Man was created flesh and blood, naked. He would have died if he had never eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: “Now this I say brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth CORRUPTION inherit incorruption” (1Co 15:50). Adam simply needed to come to see his sad corruptible composition and condition.

B. Now notice this next verse carefully: “For sin shall not have dominion over you: (and why not?) For ye are not under the law, but under grace” (Rom 6:14). If there is a scripture anywhere in God’s word which demonstrates that there are two laws in view whenever Paul talks about “the law”, this is that scripture.

Our carnal minded reasoning is: “if we keep the law, then we are not dominated by sin, sin has no dominion over us.” But Paul says “…sin shall not have dominion over you for [because] you are NOT under the law.” If you are under the law, you are a sinner.

There are those who will tell you that ‘under the law’ simply means ‘under the curse of the law’ which they interpret to mean the curse of death.

Those who follow this doctrine completely miss Paul’s point that the law of Moses is itself, along with the ten commandments, the curse of death, “the ministration of death written and engraven in stones” causing Moses’ face to shine (2Co 3:7).

I am well aware that one cannot force a blind man to see. But if you have been given “eyes to see” and you have read Matt. 5, then you will see that the ten commandments once and all have lost their glory by reason of that which excels. You will further see that to cling to them and the entire Torah is to be embracing death itself: “Therefore by the deeds [Greek - ergon Strong's #2041; doing, works] of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”

The knowledge of sin saves no one, and the law, the ten commandments, are the knowledge of sin (Rom 7:7).

Those who cling to Torah and the ten commandments will quote Gal 3:12; “…The man that doeth them shall live in them.” This seems to be the only part of this verse they see. They jump on the word “live” and give it a positive connotation and deride detractors for being against life. God has simply not given them eyes to see the first part of this verse: “The law is NOT of faith…”

With that reasoning, one could take “…she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth”, (1Ti 5:6) and give the word “liveth” a positive connotation and completely miss the point. Paul’s point is that “the law is not of faith”. To live by the law, “the deeds of the law” (Heb 11:6) will have the same effect as “living in pleasure”. You will be “dead while you live” because “the law is not of faith”. Now the most casual student of the scripture is aware that “without faith it is impossible to please [God]” (Heb 11:6).

Paul’s point which it seems the whole of Christendom has missed is that Torah, the law, yes including the ten commandments IS itself the curse. It gives us the knowledge of sin (Rom 7:7) and of righteousness (Psa 119:172).

Our ‘idol of the heart’ (Eze 14:3-7) tells us “God’s commandments could not possibly produce death; after all they are of God and God would never give us anything that would bring forth death.” The laws God gave Moses seem “pleasant to the sight and good for food” and they are placed right there in the midst of the garden of God’s word, put there by God himself who would never put anything poison to our spiritual well being right in front of us and make it appear so good and good for us. God would never do that. “And out of the ground made the Lord to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food…the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen 2:9).

Life Comes Through Death

Is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil good for food? That seems to be what Gen 2:9 says.

Doesn’t it produce death though? Of course, it does: “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse [of death]: for it is written, cursed is every one that continueth not in ALL things that are written in the book of the law [Torah] to do them” (Gal 3:10). This verse precedes the one quoted above and used in defense of keeping the law: “the man that doeth them shall live in them” (vs 12). Peter says concerning the law it is “a yoke…which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” (Act 15:10).

“Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; THAT THROUGH DEATH he might destroy him that hath the power of death, that is the devil” (Heb 2:15).

“In the body of his flesh THROUGH DEATH, to present you holy, and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight” (Col 1:22).

“Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from [out of or through] DEATH…” (Heb 5:7).

There are three scriptures explaining why the tree of the knowledge of good and evil serves as food in the middle of the garden of Eden and why the ten commandments, “the ministration of death written and engraven in stones” (2Co 3:7) are placed right in the middle of God’s word.

1. “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption” (1Co 15:50).
2. “For ye are dead and your life is hid with Christ in God” (Col 3:3). If flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, then it stands to reason that life comes only THROUGH DEATH; the death of the flesh: “For ye are dead and your life is hid with Christ in God.”
3. “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit” (Joh 12:24).

While this last scripture concerns dying to the flesh, it serves to demonstrate the creator’s modus operandi: “As it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ once was offered to bear the sins of many…” (Heb 9:27,28).

These two scriptures, Joh 12:24 and Heb 9:27,28, reveal much of the mind of God on the subject of death. Being under the law and therefore being subject to death, are all an integral part of God’s plan. Before God ever created Adam, He had a plan of salvation for Adam and all his children.

Appearance and Composition of Sin and Death

Adam’s need for a Savior is revealed from the beginning in the description of his appearance and his composition. He was composed of dust, the very thing we are told furnishes nourishment for the Adversary who is represented here by the serpent (Gen 3:14). Another clue to Adam’s predestinated fate is that he was CREATED naked. Adam came into this world just as every person ever descended from him…NAKED. As surely as dust represents flesh, nakedness depicts the sinful nature inherent in being made of dust: “The first man [Adam in each of us] is of the earth, earthy: the second man [in each of us] is the Lord from heaven” (1Co 15:47).

All by Nature the Children of Wrath

“And so it is written the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit” (1Co 15:45). Those who teach that the statement “the man that doeth them (the works of the law) shall live in them”(Gal 3:12) is a positive statement, will miss the fact that the “living soul” here is contrasted with the quickening (life giving) spirit. Any “living soul” is also a dying soul: “the soul that sinneth it shall die” (Eze 18:4,20). Also, anyone living in the “deeds of the law” is “not of faith” (Gal 3:12). Being “not of faith” is not a positive position to be in with God.

Adam was “not of faith” because he followed his wife who believed the serpent rather than God. Having believed the serpent, Eve, typifying the deceived church of God, ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, just as some churches today teach that the ten commandments are the same as the sermon on the mount. “And Adam was not deceived” (1Ti 2:14) but was so attached to his wife [his church] instead of his maker that he followed her instead of God.

How many sons of God see the contradictions between scripture and church doctrines but cannot face the thought of possibly losing all their friends and their family to remain true to the command of God “thou shalt not eat” of “the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil”?

As God had predestinated, both Adam (the “son of God” Luk 3:38) and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They could not be given life having eaten of this tree because “By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by THE LAW is the KNOWLEDGE of sin” (Rom 3:20).

Adam was not deceived. He did not want to disobey God, but he was persuaded by his wife. Any student of scripture knows that women typify the church whether faithful or “fallen”. The moment they both ate of this tree, they became aware of a truth that had been the truth before they became aware of it. “They were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed” (Gen 2:25). This is virtually the same condition describing the “lukewarm” Laodicean church in the book of Revelation: “Because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue you out of my mouth. Because you sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods and have need of nothing; AND KNOW NOT THAT THOU ART wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and NAKED” (Rev 3:16,17).

So it was with Adam and Eve. They had the whole world to themselves. They were communing with God and he had given them this beautiful garden, his word. Not being aware that they are inherently sinful by their earthy composition and their naked condition, like all their descendants they partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and “all the world” henceforth becomes guilty before God” (Rom 3:19): “And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat” (Gen 3:6).

The word of God does not say Eve ‘thought’ the tree was good for food; it says “the tree was good for food… pleasant to the eyes…to be desired to make one wise.”

The law, in fulfilling its function as a schoolmaster, nourishes us much as the umbilical cord nourishes an unborn infant until the time of its birth. At that point the umbilical binding must be cut, and the infant must receive a more mature nourishment. If that cord of the law of Moses is not cut and the infant does not begin partaking of the more developed nourishment of the “milk of the words” of Christ, he will die. “As newborn babes desire the sincere milk of the word, that you may grow thereby” (1Pe 2:2). At the Jerusalem conference in Acts 15, it was Peter who called the law a “yoke… which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” (Act 15:10). He obviously is not referring to Torah or the law of Moses when he mentions the “sincere milk of the word”. He is rather speaking of “the words that I have spoken”: “He that rejecteth me and receiveth not my words [as opposed to Torah] hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:48). “The sincere milk” is for “newborn babes” IN CHRIST. That ‘milk’ is “Christ and Him crucified” 1Co 2:2; 3:1 and 2). While milk is the best food for ‘babes in Christ’, it is NOT the best food for a more spiritually mature person. “Howbeit we speak wisdom [not just 'Christ and Him crucified'] among them that are perfect [mature]” (1Co 2:6).

On the other hand, the law, Torah, is “a tree to be desired to make one wise” (Gen 3:6). What does that mean? How does the law which “had no glory” (2Co 3:10) make one wise? “Before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should AFTERWARDS be revealed” (Gal 3:23).

So Paul tells Timothy: “…From a child thou hast known the holy scriptures [Torah, the old covenant] which are able to make thee wise unto salvation ["the law…brings us unto Christ - Gal 3:24]through [the new covenant] faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2Ti 3:15).

The law of Moses is the law of God only in the sense that Adam in “the son of God” (Luk 3:38). The law of Moses testifies of and typifies the true law of God just as Adam “in the image of God” testifies of and typifies the true “image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature” (Col 1:15). The true “express image of His person” (Heb 1:3) is someone the first Adam must ‘put on’. “Put on the NEW man, which is renewed in knowledge [a new man with a new covenant] AFTER THE IMAGE OF HIM [Christ] who created him [the first Adam]” (Col 3:10).

We were born the typical image. We must “put on” the true image.

Did Adam Fall?

What is the function of the Old Testament scriptures. They make us aware of our inherent nakedness: “Behold, I was shapen [of the dust of the ground] in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psa 51:5). The purpose of being “shapen in iniquity” (being made under the law) is to justify the judgment of God. Adam did not “fall”; he simply became aware of how low he already was – “of the earth, earthy”, “of the dust of the ground”, “naked”. This was no accident, but was by Divine design. Adam eating of the tree was “of the Lord [because] He sought an occasion against [the flesh - Adam] for at that time, [the flesh] had dominion over [Adam] (Jdg 14:4). When the flesh dominates, God “seeks an occasion against [it]. “The Lamb [was] slain from the foundation of the world” in preparation and anticipation of Adam’s sin (Rev 13:8).

We have no reason to suppose that David, who was the youngest of his brothers, was born of an adulterous mother. We are told specifically he was the son of Jesse. David is in no way slandering his mother when he says “I was shapen in iniquity”. He is rather acknowledging the earthy composition and naked condition of ALL who are born in Adam. We are all born in need of the law, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to make sin (our nakedness) appear sinful to us. The tree itself is not evil; it is “good for food”. But its fruit is the KNOWLEDGE of …evil”. “By the law is the knowledge of sin.” “Was that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might appear exceeding sinful” (Rom 7:13): “And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew they were naked;” (Gen 3:7).

David explains in the preceding verse why we are “shapen in iniquity and born in sin.” See what he reveals to us in Psa 51:3,4: “I acknowledge my transgression: and my sin is ever before me…that thou (God) mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear [of unrighteousness] when thou judgest.” David understood God’s purpose in creating evil; “that thou [God] mightest… be clear [of evil] when thou judgest.” David knew what judgment was all about. He knew that the day of judgment is the day when the Almighty and All Powerful God would chasten and discipline and save even the most wicked person in the universe. The “condemnation of the world” is but another less desirable “judgment” or “chastening”. “When we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the world” (1Co 11:32). Once again, JUDGMENT IS CHASTENING.

“What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey; his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness” (Rom 6:16)?

This verse drives home the point Paul is making that sin is no longer defined by the inadequate idea of the law that so long as you make a good outward show of righteousness, you are therefore righteous. Simply not killing your brother is no longer sufficient; simply restraining oneself from adultery is no longer tolerable to please God; simply not stealing is not acceptable behavior.

In reality, all these “cleavings” to the ten commandments and all the works of the law, were never sufficient to please God to begin with. The law is not of faith, and without faith it is impossible to please God. Keeping the old law is the equivalent of Adam obeying God’s command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He would no doubt have thought something like this: ‘I am rich and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that [I am] wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked’ (Rev 3:17).

Adam, as are all his descendants, was so spiritually blind that he did not realize that he was created naked and in need of clothing. That clothing was provided by God in the form of a sacrifice; Christ is the clothing for our sins, our nakedness, that we are born with.

Are we encouraging disobedience to God? Are we saying “let us sin that grace may abound”? Should we sin because we are not under the law, but under grace? “God forbid”. We are pointing out that Adam’s earthy composition and naked condition from the hand of the creator signifies a work in progress: “The first Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam a quickening [life giving] spirit. Howbeit that was not first which was spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven…As we[ALL MEN] have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood [Adam's composition even before he ate of the tree]cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption” (1Co 15:45-50).

“The Time Of Reformation”

C. “And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law. To them that are without law, as without law, (being NOT WITHOUT LAW to God, but UNDER THE LAW TO CHRIST) that I might gain them that are without law” (1Co 9:20, 21).

Paul says he is “not without law to God but under the law to Christ. Paul was certainly not under the law of Moses, or he would have encouraged circumcision, and he would have kept “all things written in the book of the law”. So what law was he “under…to Christ?” He was under the “new commandment” (Joh 13:34); he was under “the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2).

Here is the scripture that explains why the apostles seemed to carry on so many Jewish, Mosaic, Old Covenant traditions even after the death and resurrection of Christ. The “law of Christ” through love, permits, and in many instances necessitates, that we submit ourselves to the “weak and beggarly elements of the world”, the law of Moses (Gal 4:1-9). But for what reason? Because Sabbath and holy day keeping was necessary? No, but “That I might by all means save some” (1Co 9:22).

Despite the fact that many people do not believe it, there was of necessity a period of transition called “the time of reformation” (Heb 9:10). Christ made it clear to us that there were “many things” even his closest associates could not “bear…now”.

“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now” (Joh 16:12). This is a principle that applies to each believer individually. How much more time is involved in reforming whole bodies of people?! “Peter…and the other Jews dissembled (and) Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation” (Gal 2:11-13) simply because in that “time of reformation”, that time of transition from the old to the new covenant, they were “not able to bear” some of the truths of the new covenant even at this late date. Paul saying “I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem” (Act 18:21) is more of a statement of where he wanted to be at that time than expressing his determination to retain and practice the Jewish tradition of esteeming one day above another, of “observing days, months, times and years” enumerated in Lev 23 and 25 and in Num 28 and 29. Immediately after chastising the Galatians for observing days, months times and years, Paul says “tell me you that desire to be under the law…” (Gal 4:21). Obviously the days, months, times and years were the Sabbaths, holy days, new moons and land rest and jubilee years cited by Moses in the scriptures in Leviticus and Numbers given above. There are no days, months, times or years to be observed under the new “law of faith” (Rom 3:27).

D. “But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed” (Gal 3:23)

Let’s examine the context of this scripture and see if we can grasp what Paul means by this oft used phrase “under the law”. This chapter begins with Paul rebuking the Galatians: “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you; received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” (Gal 3:1,2). Maybe you didn’t catch that. Paul considers the keeping of the law equivalent to “not obeying the truth”. Could it be that if one believes he must keep the law that he believes a lie? He reminds them that he is the one who introduced them to Christ and he had not instructed them to perform the “works of the law”. Paul’s teaching is based on higher laws which are given seven different names:

• the Law of God (Rom 7:22,25)
• the Law of Christ (Gal 6:2)
• the Law of the Spirit (Rom 8:2)
• the Law of Faith (Rom 3:27)
• the Law of Liberty (Jas 1:25)
• the Law of Righteousness (Rom 9:30-31)
• and the Law of Life (Gal 3:11, 6:8).

He never refers to the law of Moses, the old covenant, as anything more than a schoolmaster, a tutor, a governor to be abandoned upon coming to Christ. While Paul is emphatic about not being under ‘the law’, his readers knew what this meant: “I myself serve the law of God” with “the flesh”.

“Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit are ye now made perfect in the flesh?” (vs 3) “With the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin” (Rom 7:25). Paul equates the keeping of the law with “the flesh”. In verse 7, he says that those of faith “are the children of Abraham. Verse 8 says the promise, that “in thee [Abraham] shall all nations be blessed” was actually an allusion to the calling of the Gentiles. “So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham” (Gal 3:9). “For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse: for it is written, cursed is everyone that continueth not in ALL THINGS which are written in the book of the law to do them” (vs 10) “…no man is justified by the law, (for) the just shall live by faith” (vs 11); and the law is not “of faith” (vs 12). “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law” (vs 13). So far as Paul is concerned, the law has made us all “guilty before God”, both Jew and Gentile. The promises to Abraham are only through his singular seed, Christ (vs 16). The physical promises; land, good health, wealth, etc, don’t even enter into the equation: “For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise” (vs 18).

So, why the law? It was added to demonstrate how evil WE are, to give us the knowledge of sin. For those in Christ though, it is only “til the seed should come to whom the promise was made” (vs 19). The law itself is not against the promises of God. Prophecies of the promises are within the law, but: “righteousness is not by the law” (vs 21). “But (since righteous-ness is not by the law) the scripture hath concluded all (Jew and Gentile) under sin (“by the law is the knowledge of sin” – Rom 7:7) (so) that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe” (vs 22).

Where are we all before we come to know Christ? “But before faith came we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith that should AFTERWARDS be revealed” (vs 23). That’s pretty clear language. All are in sin (vs. 22), under the law until faith comes and delivers us from the law (vs 23). So the law serves as the means to show us our sin and thereby bring us to recognize our need for Christ. Is there anyone who doesn’t know Christ? They will be brought to comprehend their necessity for him by being “under the law”.

Once we come to know Christ, we become aware of Matt. 5 and the new law, “the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2) and we no longer need the schoolmaster who brings us to Christ. No one associated with the teachings of Matthew 5 has any need for the law of the old covenant.

The laws of the old covenant become as obsolete and redundant as the sacrifices, holy days, clean and unclean meat laws and all the statutes and judgments.

They are all types and shadows of spiritual realities we obtain in and through Christ. There are no exceptions. Christ (love) has fulfilled the law for those who are in Christ.

Those who do not yet know Him NEED the law as surely as a fetus (nepios) needs an umbilical cord. This is what Paul means when he says “the law…is good…when used lawfully”; meaning that one must “know first that the law is NOT for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient…” (1Ti 1:8,9). In Christ, we are not “lawless”.

We are simply under a changed law, a higher law: as high as Matthew 5 is above Exodus 20. Those in Christ, on the other hand, just as surely must cut that umbilical cord and begin taking in a more mature form of nourishment. Until they do, they will still be “under tutors and governors” and will never be more than a “slave”.

“The adoption of sons” will make him “lord of all” only when he comes out from under the “schoolmaster, governor and tutors” (Gal 4:1,2).

The law, the “schoolmaster,” will always serve as a tutor and governor to “bring us to Christ”. Each generation of the “predestinated”, “the children of promise”, will be brought to see that they need a Savior through their own “road to Damascus” experience. We are all, as only God knows how to accomplish, struck down and made to see our sins. It has never been and never will be anything less than a “fiery trial”. So “think it not strange” when the trials come (1Pe 4:12).

Once again here in Gal 4:4, being “under the law” is equated with being under sin: “But after that faith [Christ] is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster” (Gal 3:25).

Elements Of The World

E. “When the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His son, made of a woman, made under the law” (Gal 4:4).

We have just stated that “under the law” is the same as being under sin. Chapter four simply continues on with the concept of being under a schoolmaster: “Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child [Greek - nepios] differs nothing from a servant, though he be Lord of all” (Gal 4:1).

Those are Paul’s words of warning to all those who observe the days, months, times and years of the law. He asserts that you are denying yourself your inheritance. One “differ[s] nothing from a servant [slave]“. “But (you) are under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the Father (vs 2). Even so we [Paul himself when he was under the law] when we were children [under the "schoolmaster"] were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons” (Gal 4:3,4).

Christ Became Sin And Death

In case you didn’t grasp that, Paul said that those who were under the law and were redeemed by Christ had been “under bondage to the elements of the world”. Just another scripture telling us that clinging to the law is like clinging to sin; not because the law is sin, but because “by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom 7:7). It is through sin that we die. “The wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23). It is through death also that we receive life: “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that THROUGH DEATH he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb 2:14). So life comes through death, death comes through sin and sin comes through the law. Are we saying, then that Christ as stated in this verse, was “made under the law”, was made sin??? That’s right, Christ was sin: “For he [God] hath made him [Christ] to be a flawless sin offering for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God IN HIM” (2Co 5:21).

That’s why all of ancient Israel’s sacrifices had to be “spotless” and “without blemish”. Ancient Israel typifies the world without Christ, and their sacrifices typify our “spotless”, “blameless”, “without blemish”, sacrifice – Jesus Christ, the son of God.

F) “Tell me ye that desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?” (Gal 4:21).

The obvious answer to this question is, no, or the Galatians would not be submitting themselves to the law. The rest of this chapter reveals the hazards of placing oneself under the law. Let it be noted that what the apostle warned would happen to those who place themselves under the law is exactly what has happened to the church which to this day continues to situate itself “under the law” while at the same time proclaiming its freedom from it:

In verse 22, Paul tells us that Abraham’s two wives typify those in the church who place themselves under the old covenant on the one hand, and those who are under the new covenant on the other hand.

The two wives were Sarah, Abraham’s only true love and his real wife all along. The other wife was given to him by Sarah!

In this allegory, Abraham, the father of the faithful, represents Christ and the wives represent two facets of the church;

1. Those under the law, fallen from grace, those who receive bad advice (doctrines) from Sarah…
2. and those in Christ who know what grace is and what it does.

If we are IN CHRIST, we are “Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise” and “the children of the freewoman” (Gal 3:29). If we are Abraham’s seed “we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise”; “the adoption” (Gal 4:25); “the glory” (Rom 2:7 and 10; Rom 8:18; 2Co 3:8); “the new covenant” (2Co 3:6); the giving of the new spiritual law “after the inward man” (Rom 7:6 and 22); “the service” (Rom 12:1) and the promises (Gal 3:16 and 29).

Take careful note of who this true wife of Abraham becomes as Paul draws this allegory. Only those with spiritual eyes seem capable of following the mind of God as clearly expressed in this chapter.

As God sees it, those under the law (those who believe that “through the deeds of the law some flesh can be saved”, are the bondwoman. “JERUSALEM that now is and is in bondage with her children…is Agar (Hagar)”. Hagar was the mother if Ismael, the rejected son of Abraham who is called “the father of the faithful”. Abraham’s physical, fleshly descendants are “the bondwoman and her son” who were cast out (Gal 4:25-31).

“For this Agar [Hagar] is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and ANSWERETH TO JERUSALEM WHICH NOW IS AND IS IN BONDAGE WITH HER CHILDREN” (Gal 4:25).

Paul’s teaching here is diametrically opposed to the teachings of Christendom. Much of Christendom teaches that since “the gifts and calling of God are without repentance” (Heb 11:28), therefore Christ must remarry his divorced wife as soon as he returns. That is tantamount to teaching that the first Adam in the flesh can inherit the kingdom of God. Christ is already married to another. He is married to those who “are become dead to the law” (Rom 7:4). If Christ returns and remarries physical Israel, he would be an adulterer: “I have espoused you to an husband that I may present you a chaste virgin to Christ” (2Co 11:2).

Insisting that Christ remarry physical Israel not only makes Him an adulterer, but it also flies in the face of the spiritual types of the old covenant: “Her former husband which sent her [physical Israel under the Old Covenant Law] away, may not take her again to be his wife…for that is abomination before the Lord…” (Deu 24:4). It negates dozens of old covenant statements concerning Israel of which the following is typical: “The end is come upon my people of [physical] Israel; I will not again pass by them any more” (Amo 8:2). “The end is come upon my people” means what it says – the end of the ages; the “Great White Throne Judgment” and “the Lake of fire”, when there will be “no more death” (Rev 20:14-21:4). Any doubt about the timing of the salvation of Israel should be removed by simply reading and believing Eze 16:55: “When your sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate…THEN you [Jerusalem that now is] and your daughters shall return to your former estate”. “The gifts and calling of God are without repentance”, but their fulfillment will not be according to our time-table. The “fulness of the Gentiles” will not happen until Sodom and Samaria are “returned to their former estate”. Then physical Israel and her daughters will return to their former estate.

Paul was well aware of this scripture in Ezekiel, and it grieved him greatly. Nevertheless, he reiterates the scripture “…cast out the bondwoman and her son [Jerusalem]: for the son of the bondwoman[physical Israel] shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman” (Gal 4:30).

So much for any doctrine which teaches that anyone (Jew or Gentile) can be saved by the works of the law. Those under the law are the bondwoman and her son. “By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight…” And why is that? Again, we point out how Paul links the law to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; the tree which can in no way lead to life: “…for by the law is the KNOWLEDGE of sin” (Rom 3:20). That is all in one verse, and that is why there can be no such thing as a gospel which is a “mixture of law and grace”. “No flesh” means not even any Jewish flesh.

To paraphrase Eph 2:11-19: We are no longer “Gentiles in the flesh.” Christ has broken down the middle wall of partition between [Jews and Gentiles]…now in Christ Jesus [we] who were sometimes afar off [from "the commonwealth of Israel] are made nigh by the blood of Christ…for to make in himself of two ONE NEW MAN so making peace…Now therefore ye are no more[Gentiles] strangers and foreigners [from the commonwealth of Israel] but are fellow citizens [in the commonwealth of Israel] with the saints and of the household of God” (Eph 2:11-19).

There is no room in scripture for the two to remain two. There is only one “truth of the (singular) gospel” that Paul appeals to when confronting Peter. He tells Peter “We…Jews…know that a man is not justified by the works of the law…”

So while some may be confused as to the function of law and grace “we…Jews… [Peter, Barnabas and Paul] know that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by the faith of Jesus Christ…for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Gal 2:14-16).

If Peter, Paul and Barnabas, who were all “Jews by nature” (vs 15) knew this bit of truth, who are we to say the Jews are justified by works?

Don’t stop with verse 16. Follow on with Paul’s thought: “If while (we) seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid” (Gal 2:17).

This is consistent with Paul’s teachings in Rom 6: “Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness” (vs 18). Again in verse 22: “But now being made free from sin, and become servants of God, Ye have your fruit unto holiness…”

Paul doesn’t say “but now that you have no sin”, but rather “but now being made free from sin…” Being free from sin is not to be understood as having no sin, rather “sin shall not have dominion over you.”

“For sin shall not have dominion over you”…” Why doesn’t sin dominate us now? “Because we are not under the law, but under grace.” (vs 14)

How clear it is that anyone who is yet governed by sin is yet under the law!

A Harmony of James and Paul

Let’s continue Paul’s thought in Gal 2: “For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.” “If I build again the things which I destroyed” is a reference to the law. “For I through the law am dead to the law”, is the very next verse. If we “build again” the “old man” of sin which we had destroyed, we make ourselves transgressors. Christ is not “the minister of sin” even if “I make myself a transgressor” (vs 18).

This is consistent with Rom 3:5-7, where Paul poses the same question: “If our unrighteousness [rebuilding the "old man" whom we had destroyed] commend the righteousness of God [which of course it doesn't, any more than our sins make Christ 'the minister of sin'], what shall we say; is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? I speak as a man. God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?” (vs 7).

Paul is asking if our calling does not make us “free from sin”; if we are to simply continue in sin, why would we be considered sinners at all? “And not rather as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say, let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just” (vs 8). This “our righteousness commending the righteousness of God” and “the truth of God abounding through our lie” were both “slanderous reports” of Paul’s teachings.

What Paul did teach was the same thing James taught. While James says “faith without works [the working of Christ in us] is dead” (Jas 2:26), Paul puts the SAME TEACHING in other words: “know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God” (1Co 6:9). Again Paul instructs: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap” (Gal 6:7).

That sounds pretty close to ‘faith without works is dead’; certainly much closer than the slanderous reports being circulated that Paul taught that our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God, or the truth of God abounds through our lie. Paul says of those who say he teaches such things “their damnation is just.”

We come now to a crucial scripture in Paul’s discourse on the law in Galatians 2: “For I THROUGH THE LAW am dead to the law, that I might live unto God” (Gal 2:19).

If this was true for Paul, it is just as true for us today. It is through the law that “all the world may become guilty before God” (Rom 3:19). It is also through the law that we today “become dead to the law.” Every child ever born must be taught right from wrong, “that all the world might become guilty before God”. So while we are not under the law after faith comes, we certainly are before it comes. The law is not against the promises of God, but rather leads us to them (Gal 3:21-23) because life comes “through death” and death comes through sin and the “strength of sin is the law.” It becomes apparent that if God had not intended for Adam to sin, He would not have made him of the dust of the ground, and naked. Since He did, He also had to make the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the law, to reveal to Adam his intolerable condition and justify God’s judgment.

God chose Isaac over Ishmael to tell us today that being physically descended from Abraham as Ishmael was, is to be counted as dung. Paul said he himself was “of the stock of Israel…an Hebrew of Hebrews…but…I count all things but loss. And do count them but dung, that I may win Christ” (Php 3:5-8). If it had been possible to remain a law keeping physical Jew, and still “win Christ”, Paul certainly would have. He didn’t say “I count them all but dung that I might become the apostle to the Gentiles” Paul knew better than that. There was only one way to “win Christ” and that was through the one and only gospel. The one Peter temporarily forsook when he “compelled Gentiles to live as do the Jews” (Gal 2:14). Living under the law robs even the Jews of their salvation. “We who are Jews by nature…know…that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ” (Gal 2:15-16). That’s what Paul told Peter and Barnabas when they separated themselves from the Gentiles at Antioch.

Ishmael was Abraham’s first born, but he was the son of the bondwoman and therefore had no claim to the promises or the inheritance: “He who was of the bondwoman was after the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise” (Gal 4:23). “We, brethen, as Isaac was are the children of promise” (Gal 4:28). “So then brethren we are not the children of the bondwoman, but of the free” (vs 31). Those who are the children of the bondwoman have no claim at any time to the promises. As Paul explained to Peter and Barnabas in chapter two when they separated themselves from the Gentiles, “we who are Jews by nature… know that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ” (Gal 2:15-16). Some things bear repetition!

Paul has just been explaining in the last half of chapter 3 and in the first half of this chapter 4 that Israel “according to the flesh” (Rom 9:3), the people of God physically descended from Abraham, are under bondage: “…the heir as long as he is a child [under the escort of the law] differs nothing from a slave…” “Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage…”; all of us “before faith comes”.

There will be no mixing of law with grace, ever. “…By the deeds of the law there shall… NO FLESH BE JUSTIFIED in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:30). We’ve covered this point before, but it is worth repeating: “for by the law is the knowledge of sin” is the same as saying “for the law is the tree of the knowledge of evil,” and the tree of the knowledge of… evil is not the tree of life. The tree of life is separated from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil by death. “The strength of sin (and death) is the law” (1Co 15:56). The strength of life is “the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2), “Christ liveth in me” (Gal 2:20). These are not dispensational statements; they are eternal principles. Life does not spring from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Life does not come through the law, not even for a physical Jew.

Why Christ Never Kept The Old Testament Law

2Co 5:21 says Christ “knew no sin” and the following scriptures demonstrate that righteousness is not of the law. It follows that the righteousness of Christ, “the righteousness of one” [Christ] (Rom 5:18) had nothing to do with the law of Moses. “…If righteousness come by the law, Christ is dead in vain” (Gal 2:21), “for Christ is the end of the law FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS to everyone that believeth” (Rom 10:4). The righteousness of God… WITHOUT THE LAW is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets, even the righteousness of God” [Matt. 5 as opposed to Exo 20] which is by the faith of Jesus Christ…” (Rom 3:21,22).

A good portion of this paper has demonstrated that the sermon on the Mount was a systematic refutation of the law of Moses. It was delivered to Christ’s disciples. “He went up into a mountain and when he was set, his disciples came unto him” (Mat 5:1). After demonstrating the inadequacies of the righteousness of the law, Christ makes this statement in the sermon on the Mount: “But seek ye first the kingdom of God and HIS righteousness” (Mat 6:33). His righteousness is throughout the New Testament contrasted with the law of Moses: “we who are Jews by nature know that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ” (Gal 2:15-16). “For by the works of the law, shall NO flesh be justified” (vs 16). Peter was reminded of this fact by Paul, but he first learned it from Christ himself.

“Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin, but now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested [in Christ]being witnessed by the law and the prophets” (Rom 3:20-21).

What Is “The Faith Of Jesus Christ?”

Eph 2:8 tells us “By grace are ye saved through faith and that (faith) not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.”

Does this mean that since we are saved by grace through faith that therefore there is nothing for us to do, nor anything with which to concern ourselves? HARDLY!! Paul’s epistles are full of his concern for the spiritual well-being of both himself and those under his charge.

Paul considered it a real possibility that he himself could “fall from grace”. This is not to say he feared for his salvation at the end. His anxiety was that he and those to whom he preached might not attain to the “mark for the prize of the high calling…” It is the “high calling” for which we are encouraged to strive: “But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway” (1Co 9:27). “Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them [of the people of God] which fell severity; but toward thee goodness, IF YOU CONTINUE IN HIS GOODNESS: OTHERWISE YOU ALSO SHALL BE CUT OFF” (Rom 11:22)

Not “continuing in his goodness” was a real and present danger to Paul; one to be avoided by all means. What then is to keep us from “falling from grace”, from “continuing not in his goodness”, from becoming a “castaway”?

The answer is always the same; grace through faith. Both are active, vigorous, very much alive and hard at work. As has already been pointed out, Tit 2:11 and 12 tell us that grace “teaches” us to “deny ungodliness and worldly lusts”. The Greek word for ‘teaches’ is paideuo (Strong’s #3811) the same word translated ‘chasten’ in Heb 12:6: “Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth”. This is the reason the “lake of fire” is called a lake of fire. It is through the mercy of God that all receive the grace [chastening] to be saved (Rom 11:30 and Heb 4:16). “Even so have these (unbelieving) also now not believed, that through your mercy (the mercy we have received) they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief that he might have mercy on all” (Rom 11:31 and 32).

Who administers this chastening grace to “all in unbelief”? “[Those] who… dwell with the devouring [lake of] fire, [those] who… shall dwell with everlasting burnings. He that walketh righteously and speaketh uprightly, he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from the holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood and turneth his eyes from seeing evil” (Isa 33:14 and 15).

Grace, then, is active and hard at work and will be so right through the lake of fire which is the second death. So how about faith?: “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life that I now live in the flesh I live BY THE FAITH OF THE SON OF GOD, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Gal 2:20). “In Christ” we live by the “faith of Christ” actively living his life in our flesh.

“Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Php 1:6). None of this, of course, has anything to do with the physical descent of anyone. If physical lineage counts for anything more than dung, and if there is an “administration” in which these things play any part, “…faith is made void and the promise [to the fathers]made of none effect” (Rom 4:14). Justification is by and through “faith without the deeds of the law” for both Jews and Gentiles (Rom 3:28-30). “Therefore we conclude that a man [any man] is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also”(vs 28-29).

Where in all scripture is there even a hint of salvation by works for anyone, Jew or Gentile? If this were possible, then life would have been through the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and there would have been no need for a second tree, the tree of life. Salvation would have been by the law and not by grace through faith.

G. “But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law” (Gal 5:18). This scripture is preceded by the statement: “This I say then, walk in the spirit and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that YE CANNOT do the things that ye would” (Gal 5:16,17).

Paul is not saying that the law makes anyone sin any more than guns make people kill people. What he is explaining is that keeping the law cannot be mixed with grace. Teaching that works save anyone (even Jews) is to say that the sacrifice of Christ wasn’t really necessary.

When Paul says “for all the law is fulfilled in one word, even this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Rom 5:14), he is not saying that this sustains the law of Moses. When Christ fulfilled the sacrifices, which were typical of Him, they were not continued – they were ended! Yet the law in which they were found was established in that it had been proven true. THIS is what Paul means when he asks “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid. Yea, we establish the law” (Rom 3:31). Christ was speaking to Jews in Matt. 5 when he told them the sixth and seventh commandments were insufficient for life in the kingdom of God. Any scripture contrary to Matthew 5 is contrary to the “law of Christ” (Gal 6:2). This includes any and all of the Old Testament scriptures that happen to contradict the new covenant revealed in Matthew 5.

Law keeping with salvation in mind is as offensive to God as offering a sacrifice after the ultimate sacrifice has been made. It amounts to rejecting the sacrifice of Christ as insufficient for our sins; so is our obedience to the old covenant. In placing ourselves under it, we are saying ‘we don’t really need the “sermon on the mount, and there isn’t any real need for a new covenant. All we need is to keep the “spirit of the old covenant”‘.

Such thinking and teaching is a bastardization of the new covenant and of the sacrifice of Christ;… “by the deeds of the law there shall NO flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20). “…A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ…” (Gal 2:16).

What is the New Jerusalem?

What then do we do with all the old covenant scriptures declaring that yet future offerings will be sacrificed, holy days will be observed, and the nations will bring their wealth into Jerusalem? We now understand, in Christ, that the only offerings God now recognizes are our “bodies as a living sacrifice” (Rom 121). We understand that we now “keep the feast with [spiritual] unleavened bread of sincerity and truth (1Co 5:8). We now understand that Christ is our Sabbath (Heb 4:3 and 10). Since all the feast days are sabbaths, (Lev 23), Christ has fulfilled them all.

It is interesting to note that the only holy day specifically mentioned as being required to be observed by “Egypt, and… all nations” (Zep 14:16-19) is the festival of Tabernacles.

Tabernacles and the Last Great Day, of course, are the latter harvest, the last of the ‘Jewish feasts’ as the Apostle John would word it (Joh 5:1; 6:4; 7:2).

Prophetically and eschatalogically Tabernacles typifies the final harvest of souls and as such is closely associated with the Great White Throne judgment. Rest assured “Egypt… and… all nations” will come up to Jerusalem to this final harvest of the souls of all men “for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1Co 15:22).

This prophecy in Zec 14:16-19 is simply old covenant language and typology of the fulfillment of 1Co 15:22.

Even Abraham was actually “looking for a city… whose builder and maker is God.” Physical Jerusalem doesn’t fit that bill.

The New Jerusalem is the “Jerusalem which is… free [from the bondage of the law] which is the mother of us all” (Gal 4:26). It is “the bride the lamb’s wife” (Rev 21:9).

It is widely believed that because New Jerusalem is mentioned after the revelation of the Great White Throne Judgment, that Christ therefore does not marry his bride until after “the thousand years are expired” (Rev 20:7).

Paul tells us in 2Co 11:2 that we are ‘espoused to one husband’. In Rom 7:4, he tells us “ye… are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be MARRIED to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead…”

The question now arises; are we married to Christ or are we to “be priests of God and of Christ, and… reign with Him a thousand years” (Rev 20:6) as brides-in-waiting? In Eph 5, he tells us what it takes to make a marriage work. He concludes: “This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (vs 32). Indeed we ARE “married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead” (Rom 7:4).

No doubt our relationship will be even more glorious after the thousand years, but it is also true that “the time is AT HAND” (Rev 1:3). New Jerusalem is Christ’s “new name”; “He that overcometh…I will write upon him…New Jerusalem…my new name” (Rev 3:12).

Being “in Christ”, New Jerusalem will automatically become our new name also because “as he is so are we in this world” (1Jn 4:17): “I will make them… which say they are Jews, and are not… to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee” (Rev 3:9).

It is generally understood that the “woman” of Rev 12 is the true church. It is the true church which brings forth “the man child” (Rev 5:12). This explains why Paul says “Jerusalem… above is free, which is the mother of us all” (Gal 4:26). The “woman” who brings forth the man child is the church. In biblical language, the church that brings forth the man child is also the “body” of the man child.

The “Body” and the “Bride” are the Same

The inability to see double truth is one tool used to blind the Jews till this day: “…But some said, shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was” (Joh 7:41,42).

Christ was, of course, of both Bethlehem and Galilee, but the religious men of that day did not know this double truth and so they were blinded.

There is also a double truth concerning the body of Christ. While “we know that when He shall appear we shall be like him…” (1Jn 3:2), it is also true that “now are we the sons of God” (same verse). While we are indeed still “crucifying the flesh”, we are “now… the sons of God” (1Jn 3:2). God “hath raised us up together and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Eph 2:6).

“The heavenly things themselves… (being purified) with better sacrifices than (the blood of bulls and goats)” (Heb 9:23) speaks of us. We are the heavenly things that have to be cleansed by a better sacrifice than the blood of animals. We wear Christ’s new name (Rev. 3:12); we are the “espoused virgin” (2Co 11:2); we are “as Isaac” (Gal 4:28); we are “the children of promise” (Gal 4:28); we are “the adoption” (Eph 1:5; Gal 4:5; Rom 8:15, 23); and we are “the circumcision” (Rom 2:27-29 and Php 3:3). We are married to Christ (Rom 7:4) and as such we are NOW the “bride, the Lamb’s wife” (Rev 21:9).

The ‘Body’ and the ‘Israel’ of God are the Same

Yes, we are also “the Israel of God” who “walk according to this rule” that “in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumsion but a new creature” (Gal 6:15, 16). As that “new creature” we were “in times past Gentiles… at that time aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise… but now, in Christ Jesus… he hath made both ONE… for to make in himself of twain [Israel and Gentiles] ONE new man… that he might reconcile BOTH unto God in ONE BODY by the cross… now… ye are no more strangers and foreigners [from the common-wealth of Israel] but fellow citizens [in the commonwealth of Israel]” (Eph 2:11-19).

We don’t want to belabor this scripture, but Paul is NOT saying: ‘If you choose to subscribe to my gospel, I would appreciate that, and besides you can avoid all those do’s and don’ts of the law of Moses. On the other hand, Peter and all the other apostles have an alternative gospel with alternative promises and blessings which I personally consider to be inferior to the blessings of my gospel which are heavenly blessings. The blessings of the other apostles with their gospel of the circumcision, are mere physical blessings. So there it is, you choose and Christ’s grace is sufficient to save you whichever you choose.’

That is NOT the point Paul is making. His point is “by the deeds of the law, there shall no flesh [not even circumcised flesh] be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20). “Therefore we conclude a man (any man and every man) is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (Rom 3:28). Deeds of the law are not part of the equation for salvation. Our “free will” had nothing to do with our being “in Adam” and while we will choose to be “in Christ”, it will be because “the Father drags us”, not because of our “free will”.

Those “in Christ” are the “Israel of God” and are also the “bride of the lamb”, “the New Jerusalem”. “…Him that overcometh… I will write upon him… the name of the city of my God, which is New Jerusalem” (Rev 3:12). “The seed of his servants shall inherit it: and they that love his name shall dwell therein” (Psa 69:36).

The Rewards of the Gospel of the Circumcision

On the other hand, anyone who chooses the gospel of the circumcision is said to be returning to “bondage under the weak and beggarly elements of this world” (Gal 4:3, 9). They are the “children of the bondwoman” and instead of being given a choice as to which road to salvation they prefer, they are “cast out” and “not to be heir with the son of the freewoman” (Gal 4:30). These people “suffer loss” even though they themselves will be saved. This is not a guarantee of being in the first resurrection. Our salvation is secure apart from works, but not so our reward: we “run to receive the prize” (1Co 9:24) and we will receive “every man according to his deeds” (Rom 2:6).

This business of being “under the law” is far more serious than a simple matter of preference. Returning back to keeping the law is equated by Paul with “bearing thorns and briars and is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned” (Heb 6:8). What is at stake is “the mark for the prize of the high calling in Christ Jesus” (Php 3:14). What is at stake is the “blessed and holy” prize of being in the first resurrection and avoiding the “burning” of the lake of fire (Rev 20:6).

Phrase #8

We now come to the final phrase used in Hebrews in relation to this matter of the law and the covenants.

“…He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second” (Heb 10:9). The first part of this verse is “Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.” It is followed by “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (vs 10).

Here once again scripture declares we are sanctified by the will of God and not our own will, but our focus here is “he taketh away the first that he may establish the second.”

What exactly is taken away? The answer is universally understood to be the old covenant which is “taken away” and replaced by the new covenant.

The depth and scope of the differences in these covenants is not universally understood. On the contrary, it seems that few indeed are willing to believe the plain and straight forward scriptures detailing the meaning of this phrase “he taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.”

The many other examples which are listed under the heading “The New Covenant is not a Modification of the Old Covenant” demonstrate the truth of Paul’s statement “…we are the circumcision, which worship God in spirit… and have no confidence in the flesh” (Php 3:3).

The flesh has been taken completely out of the equation for salvation. In reality, it has never been anything more than a necessary evil to bring us to Christ in the spirit. “…though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more” (2Co 5:16).

In Rom 3:31, Paul asks the question, “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.” This whole paper has established that only for those in Christ the law of Moses is “made void”, “done away” and “abolished”; all forms in the King James translation of the same Greek word katargeo.

The law itself is established by this fact. The understanding of Rom 3:31 is to be found ten verses earlier in verse 21: “But now the righteousness of God without the law [of Moses, "for the lawless" - 1Ti 1:9] is manifested, being witnessed by the law [of Moses] and the prophets.”

Had the law, the old covenant, “the ministration of death written and engraven in stones” not been “done away” for those in Christ, the law would have proven itself a false prophet. Now, only for those in Christ, it is “abolished” (Eph 2:15) and replaced by a much higher, much more honorable and spiritual law. “The Lord is well pleased for HIS righteousness’ sake; he [Christ] will magnify the law and make it honorable” (Isa 42:21). If it were already honorable, he wouldn’t need to do that, would he? If, on the other hand, it were a carnal commandment (Heb 7:16) used “lawfully” only for “the lawless and disobedient” (1Ti 1:8-9), then a new law along the lines of Matthew 5 would be in order.

You do not “magnify” a house during construction and expect the contractor to eat the difference in cost. A new contract must be drawn up to deal with the changes. Neither do you move from the “carnal”, “lawless” and “disobedient” to the spiritual without a completely new covenant with a “change also of the law”.

Thus, the law is “established” and proven a true “witness”. So long as there is flesh on this earth, the law will be “established” for that “lawless and disobedient” flesh, to show the flesh its naked condition and make it aware of its decaying earthy composition. Generation by generation “the law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ” and generation by generation “after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster”. “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).

The law of Moses is equated by Paul to the elements of the world (Gal 4:3). Notice I said ‘equated’. Not all law is the law of Moses, but all law is equated with the law of Moses as far as scripture is concerned (Gal 3:22-23 – “But the scripture hath concluded all [all Jews and Gentiles] under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were [all] kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed”, Gal 4:1 – “Now I say, that the heir, as long as he is a child [Greek - nepios - infant-under the schoolmaster, tutors and governors, under the law #3516]), differeth nothing from a servant [slave to sin], though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.” The ministration of death is katargeo and we, in Christ only, are “free from the law of sin and death” (the ministration of death) (Rom 8:2).

It is hoped that this article will help someone, somewhere to take his eyes off the things of the flesh. Yes, Christ was born in the flesh and yes, he died on the cross for our sins, and yes, God “made him sin for us, who (Christ) knew no sin” (2Co 5:21). These were but necessary evils. “Yet now henceforth know we him no more in the flesh.” We have all been born in the flesh, and we will all die in the flesh, but it is far more edifying and encouraging to know that “NOW are we the sons of God and… we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (1Jn 3:2). As we see him we “are changed into the same image from glory to glory… by the spirit of the Lord” (2Co 3:18). So while we have demonstrated the inadequacies of the law in this essay, we conclude with this reminder for any who might attempt to turn God’s disciplinary, chastening grace into lasciviousness: If we truly see him as he is, every man purifieth himself even as he is pure” (1Jn 3:3).

Summary

What we have pointed out, in effect, is the sovereignty of God in all things. “That they may know… that there is none beside me. I am the Lord and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things” (Isa 45:6,7). Yes, it was God who created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It was God himself, who placed that tree right in the middle of the garden. While He had told Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, this was done only because “the Lord… sought an occasion against” Adam (Jdg 14:1-4). God had already determined that Adam would eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and would come to see his naked, decaying, earthy condition, and be brought by the law to see his need for a Savior. “All that dwell upon the earth shall worship… the lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev 13:8).

In God’s all knowing mind, Christ was slain as the sacrifice for the sins of the world before Adam was ever created. This gives the lie to the teaching that ‘God could know what choices you will make, but he chooses not to know.’ No, God chose to know all things because “all things are of God”. “To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things…” (1Co 8:6).

Has God chosen to know the number of the hairs of your head, but not to know what you are going to do with your life? Hardly. We are plainly informed that God reveals himself to some and deliberately blinds others. “…the election hath obtained it and the rest were blinded… God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear” (Rom 11:7, 8).

So what does understanding the total sovereignty of God have to do with a proper understanding of the function of the law? It has everything to do with it, because it is through the law, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that God has decreed that all the world becomes guilty before Him. “What things soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God” (Rom 3:19). “Wherefore then serveth the law?

It was added [to the law of God] because of transgressions [of the law of God], til the seed should come to whom the promise was made… the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we (all of us) were kept under the law… Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ… But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster” (Gal 3:19-25).

God does not change (Mal 3:6). Christ came to reveal the Father (Mat 11:27 and Luk 10:22). This He accomplished through His sacrificial life which revealed for the first time in the history of mankind the “new covenant”. The new covenant “show[s] the work of the law [of God, not Moses] written in their hearts” (Rom 2:15). Under this new covenant Christ reveals to us the Father: “I delight in the LAW of GOD after the inward man” (Rom 7:22). “…The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the LAW OF GOD neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom 8:7, 8). The LAW OF GOD the “least commandments” Christ revealed in Mat 5 to 7 are the “LAW OF THE SPIRIT” (Rom 8:2). This is the true unchangeable character of God: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but MY WORDS shall not pass away” (Mat 24:35).

The law of Moses, on the other hand, is only “good, if a man use it lawfully… [meaning that we know that this law of Moses, written and engraven in stones, this ministration of death] …is not made for a righteous man [the man who is not carnally minded and delights in the LAW OF GOD, the new covenant, after the inward man] but [the law of Moses is] for the lawless and disobedient” (1Ti 1:8, 9).

Understanding that the law was added to the law of God because of transgressions of the law of God helps us to see that the “lawful use of the law truly is not for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient…” (1Ti 1:8,9).

This should help us to appreciate, yes, appreciate, the function of Mystery Babylon the mother of harlots and of abominations of the earth. Mystery Babylon is not the Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist religions. Mystery Babylon is “that great city… where also our Lord was crucified” (Rev 11:8). Mystery Babylon is Christendom still under the law, still under tutors and governors, still looking to men to tell them what God says just as Israel did at Mount Sinai. “And they said unto Moses, speak you with us and we will hear: but let not God speak with us lest we die” (Exo 20:19). Until we are willing to die, to be “crucified with Christ”, we will be under the law, “shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed” (Gal 3:23). That is the function of Mystery Babylon, to keep us under the law, no better than a slave to sin, under tutors and governors, under the elements of this world (Gal 4:1-3). Mystery Babylon claims to be Christian. She deals in “gold, and silver and precious stones… and souls of men” (Rev 18:12,13).

“Gold, silver and precious stones” which can under the right circumstances endure the fire (1Co 3:12,13), are good works and good doctrines. If we fail to see and acknowledge the sovereignty of God in “all things”, our righteousness (our “gold, silver and precious stones”) becomes as “filthy rags” in God’s sight (Isa 64:6). Mystery Babylon is full of “good works” and it is these “good works” that provide the “strong delusion” which “God shall send” to those who “received not the love of the truth… That they all might be damned who believe not the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2Th 2:10-12).

This “unrighteousness” is not blatant. It is so subtle, it is called “strong delusion”. It will all be accomplished through the law, “and when the woman [Mystery Babylon the mother of harlots] saw that the tree [the law] was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes [an outward display of righteousness] and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat” (Gen 3:6).

The woman giving the law, the ministration of death, to her husband is the slovenly tendency of most “sons of God” to allow the church, “princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown” (Num 16:2) to tell them what to do instead of having a personal relationship with God through personal knowledge of his word. These are those who have not come out of Babylon. Their obedience is not based on love, but on outward signs like Sabbath (or Sunday) observance. They “observe days and months and times and years” (Gal 4:10). Thus they testify against themselves that they have not yet entered into rest. “For we which have believed do enter into rest…” (Heb 4:3). These are those who call Israel according to the flesh God’s chosen people. God, of course, has said they are his “broken off people” (Rom 11:17-20) and “will not be heir with the son of the freewoman” (Gal 4:30). Thus, they testify against themselves that they are not the sons of the freewoman but are still “under the law” (Gal 4:21).

Thus Mystery Babylon the Great, the Mother of harlots is serving God’s purpose. She is raising up “false christs and false prophets and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, she shall deceive the very elect” (Mat 24:24). It will all be accomplished through “the law”, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

In so doing, Mystery Babylon will, in spite of herself, be used as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. She will keep us under tutors and governors; no more than a slave to sin, “until the time appointed of the Father” (Gal 4:1-2).

You “by the letter… doest transgress the law” (Rom 2:27). “The letter”, the law of Moses, is obviously not the law of the spirit of God, but is rather a type and shadow of God’s spiritual law. If we insist upon returning to the law, we “crucify the son of God afresh and put him to an open shame” (Heb 6:6). “…Strong meat belongeth to them that are full of age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Heb 5:14). Yes, God intended all along that we should become like Him to know good and evil. Remember it was “to those… which believed on Him” that he said “I know ye are Abraham’s seed, but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you” (Joh 8:31-37). It is indeed “strong meat” to come to understand that both the good and the evil are of God, and that it is through this tree, whose fruit is death, that we are brought to life, and sin and death are destroyed. “Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him through [NOT FROM] death, and was heard in that he feared” (Heb 5:6). “For of him and through him and to him are all things: to whom be glory for ever, Amen” (Rom 11:36).

Conclusion

How could anyone say or even suggest that we should not, as mature Christians, post the Ten Commandments in our churches and in our schools and in our public buildings and instruct all to live by this Biblical code of conduct? If everyone, everywhere, made a conscious effort to keep and live by the Ten Commandments, would not most of the problems of our land disappear as a result? Would God not then bless us as a nation and make us a blessing to all nations? Are the Ten Commandments the solution to all immorality and sin? The answer to all of these questions is “NO”! It’s been tried before, and it has failed every time.

Ancient Israel said and thought that they could live perfect lives by keeping God’s Ten Commandments. They failed miserably. The Pharisees thought that they could become righteous in the eyes of God by keeping the law and the Ten Commandments. Jesus said that they will NOT be in the Kingdom of God. Modern Ireland, divided by Protestantism and Catholicism, are slaughtering each other under this same system. Peter said it all when he called this law a YOKE “which neither our fathers NOR WE were able to bear” (Act 15:10). But there is something better.

In Heb 7:16 we are told that the commandment that established the Levitical priesthood and all that they represented and taught (including the ten commandments), was “carnal”. Even the most holy and solemn day of the entire year, when the high priest entered the holy place to sprinkle blood for all the sins of Israel, these ordinances are called “carnal”. And we are told in no uncertain terms by the apostle Paul that, “To be ‘carnally minded’ is DEATH…” (Rom 8:6). The laws were carnal; the priests were carnal; the people were carnal; and the result has always been, is now, and always will be, DEATH! “The law [of Moses] is NOT MADE FOR A RIGHTEOUS MAN, but for the lawless and disobedient” (1Ti 1:9). The law of Moses is not made for a righteous man!! There is something better.

Do not confuse the Ten Commandments of the Old Covenant with the Law of God of the New Covenant. When will we finally come to believe that there really is a NEW Covenant with NEW laws, and that it is NOT fashioned after the OLD Covenant? This “New” Covenant is “not in accord” (Heb 8:9) with the Old Covenant, and the Old Covenant WAS “…even TEN COMMANDMENTS” (Deu 4:13) written upon two tables of stone. But this “New Covenant” does have laws. Oh, yes it does! Heb 8:10 – “Imparting my LAWS… on their HEARTS…” The Ten Commandments were written on stones, not on hearts. The laws of the New Covenant are (1) NOT IN ACCORD with the laws of the Old Covenant, (2) Different from the old law from which we “died” and now are “exempted” (Rom 7:4 and 6), (3) Spiritual laws (Rom 7:14) and (4) they are written “ON THEIR [AND OUR] HEARTS” (Heb 8:10).

Let me give you just one (there are dozens) simple little scriptural truth to prove once and for all that the Spiritual laws of God are NOT the Ten Commandments. Anything spiritual or spirit is ETERNAL. God’s spiritual laws ARE eternal. The Ten Commandments are temporal, “taken away”, “done away”, not to continue. The fourth commandment: “six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work…” (Exo 20:9). Is anyone so ignorant as to suggest that we will work six days out of every seven for the rest of eternity?

We are told that along with the change in the priesthood, there was also a necessity for a change in the law. There is no such thing as spiritually keeping a carnal law. Jesus wears a NEW garment and a new priestly robe. NOT according to that of Levi, but according to that of Melchizedek. Under the New Covenant we have a NEW priesthood, a NEW High Priest and NEW laws. NONE of them are reworkings or modifications of the old – they are NEW. They are the true High Priest and the true spiritual laws of God, not just the shadow. The physical priesthood and carnal laws of Israel were but a far inferior type of the spiritual and the heavenly realities that we have in Christ Jesus. They are all NEW, they are all SPIRITUAL, and they are all far, far SUPERIOR – giving LIFE, and not death.

Those who are now being regenerated and recreated into the very SONS OF GOD, becoming a NEW CREATION, are fully aware of the need for laws – spiritual LAWS. And God has provided them for us: the Law of God, the Law of Christ, the Law of the Spirit, the Law of faith, the Law of righteousness, the Law of liberty and the Law of life. All these must be in our minds and in our hearts, or we are “none of His.” Thank God that we are free from works of the carnal law, but we are anything but free from the works of God’s spiritual laws. In fact, it is through “good works” that we are, “His achievement” (Eph 2:10).

Avoid the proverbial swing of the pendulum, and submit yourself to the perfect balance of God. We are not here to become righteous through works of the Old Testament Laws, thinking we have a free will that is able to do right if God will but give us a little encouragement. Not true. Neither are we here to sit back and do nothing, thinking there are no laws and that there is nothing we must do. God’s goal in process is to SAVE THE UNIVERSE. And what is so amazing is that He proposes to do it THROUGH US – the body of Christ. Now if any should think that the highest offices and the highest calling in the universe requires NO TRAINING, think again. Time and again Jesus has said, “TO HIM THAT OVERCOMETH…” Overcome what? The WORLD and OURSELVES! This is NEW Covenant teaching. No one under the Old Covenant had to overcome the world and overcome themselves. But then again, the only promises they could receive were physical, temporary, blessing of the land.

We must overcome “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life”. That’s all. That’s a lot! In fact, that’s “ALL that is in the world” (1Jn 2:16). But Jesus said, “In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I HAVE OVERCOME THE WORLD” (Joh 16:33). We must do likewise, “For whosoever is born of God OVERCOMETH THE WORLD…” (1Jn 5:4). And what is our reward for overcoming the world? Is it physical, temporary blessing of plenty of food, good health and protection from our enemies? Hardly.

Here are the ultimate goals and promises according to the New Covenant: “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life…” (Rev 2:7). “To him that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations” (vs 26). “To him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God” (Rev 3:12). “He that overcometh shall inherit ALL THINGS; and I will be HIS GOD, and he shall be MY SON” (Rev 21:7).

The Function of ‘The Woman’ In The Body of Christ

What Does It Mean to Prophesy?

Updated November 3, 2010
Updated February 21, 2011

A proper understanding of who is the Head of all things is so important to our Creator that He has made us all male and female for the purpose of telling us that there is an order both in the physical and in the spiritual realms:

1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

“Invisible things… clearly seen” appears to be a contradiction, but it is not. God very much wants us to be aware of who is the head of whom in the invisible spiritual realm.

Why would he have us to know this? Just how important is order to God the Father and to Christ? Here is just how important it is to our heavenly Father and to Christ that we know and understand God’s order in His service:

1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
1Co 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

“All these things happened… and are written?” What were “all these things?” They are a history of Israel’s rebellions against God’s order, His government and His hierarchy in ancient Israel. Here is just a brief summary of what Paul is alluding to when he says “all these things:”

1Co 10:5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
1Co 10:6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
1Co 10:7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
1Co 10:8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
1Co 10:9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
1Co 10:10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.

Israel’s entire history “happened to them and was written for our admonition. “What was Israel’s history? It is a history of one act of insubordination after the other. It is a history of a blessed people, given a close relationship with God, and yet it is a history of being totally dissatisfied with all those blessings. It is a history which reveals Israel’s rebellion against God’s orders. It is a history which reflects the “pride of life” which was behind those acts of insubordination. Israel’s history is nothing less than the fulfillment of the curse which God placed on ‘the woman’ when she neglected to let her ‘head’ take the lead and do the speaking as Christ lets His Father do all of His speaking:

John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, Ispeak these things.

Because Eve did not do as she had been taught, she was given this curse:

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

“Thy desire shall be to thy husband…” almost sounds like this verse is saying that Eve’s desire will be to please her husband. That was what I thought that verse meant when I first read it many years ago. But is that what we are being told? Absolutely not! What we are really being told is the exact opposite. But God has seen fit to keep this hidden from this world.

This phrase “thy desire shall be to…” is repeated in the very next chapter under very similar circumstances. God is talking to Cain about why Cain’s offering was not respected by God (Be sure to read Why Cain’s Offering Was Not Accepted). Look at how similar are God’s words to both Cain and Eve:

Gen 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his [sin's] desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Isn’t this exactly what God had told Eve? Here are both curses side by side:

Gen 3:16 Thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee”
Gen 4:7 Unto you shall be his [sin's] desire and you shall rule over him [sin].

Both end with the positive conclusion of promising both Eve and Cain that they will overcome sin and rebellion. This is nothing short of revealing the promise of ultimate salvation for all, right here at the beginning of the book of Genesis. Eve, and all in her, will eventually be ruled by “her husband,” who typifies Christ. For Eve the conclusion is, “He [Adam-the man-the Spirit] shall rule overyou… [The woman, the flesh, the soul].” And for Cain the conclusion is, “You [Cain- "the man"- the spirit] shall rule over him [sin-the soul- "the woman"].”

What is so very revealing about both of these verses is that the word ‘to’ in Genesis 3:16, where God is talking to Eve, and the word ‘unto’ in Genesis 4:7, where God is talking to Cain, are the exact same Hebrew word. That Hebrew word is ‘el el’ Strong’s number 413. This same word is used in the very next verse in Genesis 4:8. But just look at how it is translated in this verse:

Gen 4:7 If thou [Cain] doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
Gen 4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

In verse eight this Hebrew word ‘el el’ is translated ‘against.’ “Cain rose up against [el el] Abel.” It is translated ‘against’ 151 times. Here is one more example:

Exo 14:5 And it was told the king of Egypt that the people fled: and the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned against [Hebrew-el el] the people, and they said, Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving us?

When we change ‘to’ in Genesis 3:16 to ‘against’ here is what Eve’s curse becomes:

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be [against] thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Eve, “the woman”, is cursed with a natural desire to be ‘against‘ her husband. She is naturally going to oppose him and must fight that natural tendency all of her life. Eve is just naturally opposed to her husband’s headship just as Adam and Cain, ‘the man’, is naturally opposed to the headship of Christ in his life:

Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is [naturally] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Rom 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh [naturally] cannot please God.

So then, is this curse peculiar just to women? Of course, it is not. It is the exact same curse which was placed upon Cain, the rejected firstborn. Cain’s curse was just a rewording of what Adam was told when he received this curse for following His wife:

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it:cursed is the ground [Your own dying, carnal body of dust] for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 
Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles [the scriptural types of spiritual lies and false doctrines-see below] shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

The “altar” is where we “eat” with and commune with our God. Our ‘food’ we ‘eat’ on that table is our doctrines:

Heb 13:10 We have an altar, whereof they [who offer physical sacrifices] have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

Now look at what is on the “altars… of Israel:”

Hos 10:8 The high places also of Aven, the sin of Israel, shall be destroyed: the thorn and the thistle shall come up on their altars; and they shall say to the mountains, Cover us; and to the hills, Fall on us.

‘Thorns and thistles’ are lies and false doctrines. Adam was never allowed to get past eating the “herbs” of God’s word. But look now at how Genesis 4:7 reads when properly translated:

Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto [against - el el] thee shall be his [sin's] desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

The ‘Cain’ in us all just naturally sins against what we know to be the Truth of God’s Word. That is what is naturally [first] in the heart of all who are “in Adam.” Paul comes right out and tells us that this natural rebellion against God is in every one of us:

Rom 7:15 For that which I do [while walking after the flesh- verse 5] I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
Rom 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me ["lieth at the door"].
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not ["against you shall be sin's desire"].
Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Jer 17:9 The heart [in every man who has ever lived] is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Cain is not ‘that man over there.’ Cain is the man or woman in the mirror in all of mankind.

It is only with “Christ in us” that we can overcome sin and stop “walking according to the flesh.” Some few are actually “walking according to the Spirit” and those few are “subject to the law of God.” Here is a small part of that law which even now is true for those who “walk according to the Spirit:”

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

What are we to learn from the facts of the creation of woman? This is much more than a treatise only on married couples. This is a revelation of what is the very meaning of being made male and female:

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

What we need to learn is that we come out from Christ just as Christ came “out from God.” Being made male and female tells us that God made Christ submissive to His will.

Joh 16:27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

Was ‘the woman’ taken from her ‘husband’ or was she taken from ‘the man?’ The answer is that since there was no woman to begin with, Adam could not be called a ‘husband’ until after the woman was created. Consequently the point being made in telling us the details of how Christ brought mankind into existence, is to reveal to us Christ’s relationship to His Head. It reveals to us that Christ is “one” with His Father:

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 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?
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The story of the ‘rib’ teaches us union, not dis-union.

1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man [married or single] is Christ; and the head of the woman [married or single] is the man [Christ]; and the head of Christ is God.

The use of a ‘rib’ to create ‘the woman’ teaches us unity and oneness, which is supposed to be the case with all who have “Christ in them.” It is not a lesson of disunity and being separated. “Come out of Her my people” has nothing at all to do with the message of using a rib to make woman. God’s Word teaches us that the relationship of a man to a woman in marriage is actually the revelation of the relationship of Christ both in His relationship to His Father and to the church. As Christ is submissive to His Father, so should the church be to Christ.

Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Eph 5:32 This [a proper marriage relationship] is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

There is an example and shadow of Babylon the Great in the creation story, but it is not the rib of Adam. Babylon the Great is figured by “the seed of the serpent” which is right there beside “the seed of the woman” within “the mother of all living.” That “seed of the serpent” is shadowed by Cain who was cursed with “against thee shall his [sin's] desire be…” Cain was first born then Abel. Cain killed Abel, but Abel was replaced by Seth whose name means ‘instead of.’ All of these things witness to the spiritual principle that we all experience the natural rebellious nature first, and then the spiritual nature last.

1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural [Cain]; and afterward that which is spiritual [Abel-crucified by Cain yet replaced by those in Christ who also have Christ in them].
1Co 15:47 The first man [Adam or Cain in us all] is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

1 John 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he [Christ] is, so are we in this world.

So Babylon the Great comes first in us all. Then Abel comes to be crucified in us all.

Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

And what did Paul, under the inspiration of God’s Holy Spirit, instruct the church at Ephesus? Let’s go back to this fifth chapter of Ephesians and try to see what marriage is supposed to teach us about who and what is Christ. This chapter is known as ‘the marriage chapter.’ But it should be called ‘the function of Christ’ chapter. Look at how this chapter begins:

Eph 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Eph 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

“Whoremonger… unclean person, and a covetous man who is an idolater” all have both inward and outward applications. So Paul is speaking to the entire church at this point. And speaking to the entire church, Paul continues:

Eph 5:17 Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.
Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
Eph 5:19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
Eph 5:20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

“Understand what the will of the Lord is…be filled with the spirit…Give thanks always for all things unto God in the name of Christ…Submitting yourselves [you Ephesians] one to another in the fear of God.” The ‘yourselves‘ in verse 21 is the same ‘yourselves’ mentioned in verse 19. ‘Yourselves’ is the entire church at Ephesus unless otherwise qualified, as in verse 22. It is not, as some affirm, Paul telling the Ephesian men to submit to their wives. If it were telling men to submit to their wives, then it would neuter and neutralize his admonition in the very next verse:

Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

…Which would inevitably lead to neutralizing our need to look to Christ and His Word as our head. God alone knows our hearts. But if we believe that ‘submit yourselves one to another’ means that husbands are to submit to their wives then it will be no time at all before Christ’s Word becomes a limiting factor to our spiritual growth, and we will completely forget this spiritual Truth:

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Words we once considered to be words which will “never pass away” suddenly become words which are only for a certain time and under certain circumstances. We can fool others and even deceive ourselves, but God is not mocked or deceived. What we sow is what we will reap. The sad thing is that all who come to God’s word with idols of the heart are “deceived by God:”

Eze 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.
Eze 14:10 And they shall bear the punishment of their iniquity: the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him;

We cannot undo deceptions in ourselves when God has done the deceiving. Let us all beg God that our hearts be open to His reproofs and be seeking only to know His mind in all things; but now especially in this matter of what is the function of “the woman” in “the body of Christ.”

1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

God will not relinquish the “power of the throne.” All who believe that “All in all” in any way takes away the Father’s “power of the throne,” will be sadly disillusioned:

Joh 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him [the consummation of the aions], then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

It has been suggested that just as the LORD God had taken from man a rib and made a woman, so today God is taking a very small part of Christ’s body out of that body in order to make for Christ a bride to help Him with the work He has been given to do. The suggestion is that as long as you are part of ‘the body’ you are still carnal and unfit for the work which the bride of Christ is to perform. “Come out of her my people” is construed to mean ‘come out of and do not be a part of the body of Christ.’ What is wrong with this “fable” is that it completely removes from our minds what is the significance and purpose of God using a rib from Adam to create ‘the woman’ in the first place. What this “fable” accomplishes is to make of no significance whatever this verse of scripture:

1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
1Co 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
1Co 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

“The body” of Adam, from which ‘the rib’ was taken, contained within Adam, within that rib, “the mother of all living.” So where did “the mother of all living” originate? She had her origins “in Adam.” And who are the “all living” who come from their mother Eve? Who comes from the bone and the flesh of Adam?

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

So all theories to the contrary, the “mother of all living” is “in Adam” just as surely as “in Him [Christ] we live and move and have our being.”

Act 17:28 For in him we [even Pagan Athenians] live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

So Christ is the “God [who] created man” and all who live and die in this flesh are “in Adam.”

1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Who was the channel for this creation of Adam? The answer to this question is the purpose for “making them male and female.”

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Who is “the Word?” Who is “life?”

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Joh 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

It is all Christ. Christ is the source and channel “by whom all things were created; that are in heaven and that are in earth visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.” We may try to separate the beginning, the first Adam, from Christ, but He does no such thing. He rather proclaims the first Adam as essential to His plan and purpose:

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Before one can be “born again” he must first be born.

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born [first] of water [flesh-the first Adam] and [then] of the Spirit [the "last Adam"], he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

So Adam was taken out of Christ. What then does this teach us about Christ Himself? Was Christ created? Is Christ the supreme power in the universe? The answer is that Christ came “out from the Father” just as Adam came out of Christ. God created Christ. Christ is the very first thing created by God. Christ came out from God just as Adam came out from Christ and Eve came out from Adam. Here are the scriptures:

Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Here is Christ Himself calling Himself – “the beginning of the creation of God.” And just as Eve was created as the channel through which all further human life would come, so also we learn, was Christ the Father’s channel through which all life would come”

Col 1:3 We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,

If Christ is “coequal” with God, as all “historical orthodox Christianity” and the ‘fulness now-no hierarchy in the spirit realm’ doctrine wants us all to believe, why is God called Christ’s ‘Father’ here in Colossians, many years after Christ’s ascension?

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him [Christ] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

And what are we told about that ‘beginning?’

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

The Words of Col 1:15-18 are some of the most powerful statements in all of God’s Word. “Christ… the image of the invisible God… is the firstborn of every creature… All things were created by him, and for him… He is before all things… by Him all things consist… He is the head of the body… He is the beginning… He is the firstborn from the dead; that in all things He might have the preeminence.” God is very concerned that we know who is and who is not preeminent. It is for our good that He wants this.

But who is it who has so decreed all of this? Here now is the very purpose for “creating them male and female.” It is the very reason God’s word is a chronicle of man’s rebellion. It is the reason why Israel’s history is a chronicle of Israel’s inability to accept this fact:

Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

Male and female are a witness to the order and hierarchy within the very godhead:

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

The story of Joseph being made the king of Egypt gives us this same male and female witness:

Gen 41:40 Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou.

The ‘Bride,’ “The Church,” Is Christ’s Channel For The Salvation of All

So when we read that “Eve… is the mother of “all living” we must realize that just as all things were created “by and for Christ,” so too, are those who are in Christ to be the channel for bringing life to all of mankind:

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

Eph 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

And what is that “inheritance which we have obtained in Him?”

Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
Eph 1:18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
Eph 1:19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,

It is given to but very few to appreciate the magnitude of what is revealed in these three verses. “The eye of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, and what the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints. And what is the exceeding greatness of His power to usward who believe, according to the working of His mighty power.”

“The riches of the glory of Christ’s inheritance” is revealed to be “in the saints.” This should bring another verse of God’s Word to mind. But it will do so for very few because very few appreciate that verse:

1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
1Co 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
1Co 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

“But the woman is the glory of the man” is only true when she is of a meek and quiet spirit, “submitting to her husband in all things as unto Christ.” How wonderful and peaceful and loving is such a relationship! “The woman is the glory of the man.” And what then is Christ’s glory? We are not left to guess what is Christ’s Glory:

Eph 1:18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

“The exceeding greatness of his power [is] to us-ward who believe!

But what is it that we are to believe? Are we to believe that we are now in a realm which puts us on a par with our head? Are we to believe that since there is neither male nor female, that we are at this very moment in a spiritual realm which needs no hierarchy? Are wives no longer in need of husbands who are to be their heads? Are women now permitted to teach and to preach and to be bishops and leaders even of men? Is that what we are to learn and believe? Or is the Truth of God’s New Testament with mankind in direct opposition to those fables and suppositions of men?

Is it not the Truth that if we do not rigorously “acknowledge that the words that [Paul] writes are the commandments of the Lord,” then we are not acknowledging that it is through Christ, God’s glory is revealed? And if we cannot acknowledge these truths, then we will not be the channel through which Christ’s glory will be revealed?

Eph 1:20 Which he [the Father] wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly [places],
Eph 1:21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
Eph 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
Eph 1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Christ, through His submission to His father, is His Father’s fulness and glory and is “given to be the head over all things to the church, which is His body.” And “the church which is His body [is] the fulness of Him that fills all in all.” It is through the submission of Christ to His Father, through the submission of the church to Christ, through the submission of wives to their husbands as unto Christ, that the All in all is accomplished.

Col 2:9 For in him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

The ‘Fullness Now’ Heresy

In an effort to justify their rejection of Paul’s declaration that the things he writes are the commandments of the Lord, some assert that ‘since Christ is “the fulness of the Godhead bodily,” and since we are “in Christ,” that therefore we, too, are “the fulness of the Godhead bodily” and as such must now get beyond the written Words of God and into ‘the deeper things of the spirit.’ The ‘deeper things of the spirit’ of course means that Paul’s Words about women are now nothing but dead letters which were applicable only at that particular time and under those particular circumstances. This is the very doctrine which leads to denying that Paul’s word’s are “the commandments of the Lord.” It is the very spirit which denies that “The words that I speak unto you are spirit.” This spirit denies that “my words will never pass away.” This spirit denies that Christ is His Word and as such Is, Was and Will Be True. This is the very spirit which leads to the ordination just recently of a woman to be the head of the Episcopal church at th National Cathedral. It is the very same spirit which leads this very woman and many other ‘sons of the bondwoman’ Christians, to approve same-sex marriages. It is all the fruit of believing the words of Christ’s apostles are not as good or as loving as were His Words. It is the same spirit and the exact same doctrine which teaches that we are now enjoying the fulness of the Spirit and consequently can now receive revelations through the Holy Spirit which are in direct opposition to the scriptures. Here is a verse used to buttress this false doctrine of ‘the fulness now.’

Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

It is as if God has simply blinded their eyes to the word “till” at the very beginning of this verse. It is as if God has blinded them to the verses before this which precipitated the use of this word ’till.’ Here are the verses that precede the word ’till:’

Eph 4:10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

“For the perfecting of the saints… for the edifying of the body of Christ…” Is the body of Christ being edified by the offices and callings listed above? Of course it is. And it will continue to be so edified “till (until) we come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” That is, until we shed this vessel of clay and are resurrected in a spiritual body at the first resurrection or at the later resurrection. But “the resurrection is [not] past” and we are not yet ”unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.”

Here are a few verses Which demonstrate the fallacy of this ‘fulness now’ heresy:

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit ofpromise,
Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

We are “sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest [down payment] of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession.” When is our “redemption?” If we can determine when we receive our redemption then we will know whether we are capable of being redeemed beyond a ‘down payment’ form while yet in this corruptible flesh. So when is our redemption? Are we redeemed already or are we being redeemed? Are we saved already or are we being saved? What say the scriptures? What is “the sum of thy word?”

Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Rom 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit ["sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise" (Eph 1:14)], even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. 
Rom 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? 
Rom 8:25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

“Shall be delivered… groans and travails… until now… ourselves also which have the firstfruits of the ["Holy"] Spirit ["of promise"]…groan within ourselves WAITING for the uihothesia… the redemption of our bodies?” Does this sound like Paul thought that he was even then enjoying the fulness of Christ? No, Paul knew better than to listen to the heresies of Hymenaeus and Philetus.”

2Ti 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
2Ti 2:17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

False doctrines always “increase to more ungodliness,” because no lie can stand on its own. It must be buttressed by more and more lies.

Are we even now in possession of “the redemption of our body?” What say the scriptures?

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons [Greek- uihos - mature sons] of God.
Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption [uihothesia], whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 
Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children [teknon - children, offspring] of God:
Rom 8:17 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.

Are we ‘uihos?’ Are we now “sons of God?” In the sense that we “Have received the [seal of] the Holy Spirit of adoption [uihothesia], yes, we are even now “sons of God.” But it is “in earnest” and not “the possession” of our inheritance:

Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Verses 16 and 17 of Romans 8, are clarifying verses 22 and 23. They absolutely do not contradict verses 22 and 23. We have not yet received “the promised possession.” That is why we yet “hope for it.” That is why we yet “suffer with him.” That is why we are yet “heirs and joint heirs with Christ.” We are being saved. We are being redeemed.Here are those two verses side by side:

Rom 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, theredemption of our body.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit ofpromise,
Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

“The holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest, [the down payment] of our inheritance UNTIL the redemption…?”

“We ourselves groan within ourselves waiting for the uihothesia… the redemption of our body?” Are we redeemed? In the sense that we are the uihos of God, yes we are redeemed. Do we now possess the uihothesia? Absolutely not! We are both ‘uihos’ and ‘redeemed’ in “earnest” in ‘down payment‘

But wait a minute. What do we do with the scriptures in 1 John which say we do not sin if we are born of God? Do not these scriptures show that we can be in possession of the fulness of Christ even now while we are yet in this sinful flesh? Do these scriptures not prove that we do indeed enjoy the fulness of Christ even now? Here are those verses:

1Jn 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
1Jn 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 
1Jn 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
1Jn 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

That sure sounds like John is saying “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin;” And then there is also this verse:

1Jn 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

Again I ask, what is the sum of God’s Word on this subject? What do the scriptures here mean when they say “doth not commit sin [and] sinneth not?” Here is what Peter tells us this phrase means:

1Pe 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
1Pe 4:2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

“He that hath suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, that he should no longer live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.” That is what Peter says “ceased from sin… doth not commit sin [and] sinneth not” means.

What does Paul say these phrases “doth not commit sin [and] sinneth not [and] free from sin” mean?

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Rom 6:21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things [is] death.
Rom 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

Here is the apostle Paul saying essentially the exact same thing that the apostle John says. Four times in one chapter we are told that we are “dead to sin… freed from sin… free from sin… free from sin.”

Peter explains that “ceased from sin” means: ”that he should no longer live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.”

And Paul also explains what he means when he says “freed from sin.” Here is what Paul tells us he means by that phrase:

Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Paul is talking about “whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey.” Paul, like Peter and John, is simply saying that now that Christ is living His life in our bodies of sinful flesh that “sin shall not have dominion over you.” Not one of God’s apostles ever once claimed to be perfected while in this sinful flesh. Here instead is what they all taught:

1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
1Co 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

Here is what all of God’s Word says about what should be our attitude toward sin in our lives while yet in these “marred… vessels of clay:”

Phi 3:12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
Phi 3:13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
Phi 3:14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. 
Phi 3:15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect [Greek, 'being perfected'- verse 12], be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

That is my prayer for us all. “If in anything we be otherwise minded” and think that we can be perfected in the flesh and can go beyond “the commandments of the Lord,” I pray that “God shall reveal even this unto you,” and that you will be “thus minded and will realize that we are not “already perfect,” but that we are all in a life long process of being saved, being perfected, and being completed.

When we buy into that ‘fulness now’ heresy, we are turning “thy Word is Truth,” into ‘My word is truth.’ We are adrift in a raging sea of false doctrines with no rudder to guide us and no written Word against which to “try the spirits to see whether they be of God.” “The things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.”

Some man is telling us that God has called him to be our spiritual leader and that the written Words of the Bible are no longer sufficient to guide us. This is where the Adversary wants us all. We are then right where mother Eve was when she decided to go ‘extra-scriptural’ and believe that “Thou shalt surely die” was no longer true. What are our written instructions when we are faced with such men?:

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Rom 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

“Their own belly” does not mean that these men are gluttonous. What it does mean is that they “will eat their own bread and wear their own clothes,” and still call themselves ‘Christians,’ and claim to be sent by God.

Isa 4:1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

I have actually witnessed, back in my youth, this false spirit parading as God’s Holy Spirit. It had spoken through one minister telling him that another minister was to pastor a particular church. But somehow this same evil spirit had communicated to the other minister an entirely different message. Now who are we to believe? Both claim to be speaking under inspiration of God’s Holy Spirit. How are we to “try the spirits” when both men believe that revelation now comes to us above and beyond the written word.

The Truth, of course, is that both men were “historical orthodox Christians” who knew nothing of the Truth of God’s Word to begin with. Both had long ago been unable to “receive My Words.” Neither had a clue of the spiritual connection between Christ and His written, spiritual words. And neither of these ministers or their followers knew of the preeminence of Christ and His Words in all things. Neither of these men, nor any of their followers were willing to “acknowledge that things that [are written] are the commandments of the Lord” (1Co 14: 37).

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Christ and His recorded Word is preeminent over all of our experiences and over all of our revelations and over all of our idols of our hearts. If our experiences conflict with His recorded word, try that spirit, find it wanting and cast it out of your spiritual house. Do not find God’s Word obsolete or “dead letters of ink on paper.” Christ’s Words “are spirit and life.” They and He are preeminent:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Col 1:16 For by him [Christ-the Word] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
Eph 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

How will God display His grace in the coming ages? “In His kindness toward us.” And how will we display that grace? We will display that grace as God’s channel to “shew the exceeding riches of his grace.” As Christ’s elect the “blessed and holy” participants in the first resurrection will minister mercy and grace to all those in Adam who have been resurrected from the dead at the great white throne judgment:

Rom 11:30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
Rom 11:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
Rom 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

And “mercy upon all” means both this world and the world of angels:

1Co 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

1Co 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

It is those who “despise” authority, who cannot see a hierarchy in the spirit realm. The hierarchy in the spirit realm is the message of “He made them male and female” in the physical realm.

Christ commends those who are aware of the hierarchy in the spiritual realm:

Mat 8:5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
Mat 8:6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
Mat 8:7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
Mat 8:8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
Mat 8:9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
Mat 8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

2Pe 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
2Pe 2:10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
2Pe 2:11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
2Pe 2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

Jud 1:8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

The word ‘government’ in 2Pe 2:10 is the same Greek word ‘kuriotes’ translated ‘dominion’ in Jud 1:8. The ‘Eve’ and the ‘Cain’ in us all “despises government… dominion” and authority.

And yet as Christ’s submissive channel for life to all, His elect, those who “are counted worthy” to attain to that “blessed and holy first resurrection, because they have “humbled themselves under the mighty hand of God,” will not only judge this world, but they are also the channel through which “in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace… by the church” to the spirit realm, the world of angels. Yes, of course, it is all “Christ in you, the hope of glory,” doing and working it all.

Eph 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

1Pe 5:6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:

As Christ is the submissive right arm of the Father, the same is true for those who are at Christ’s right hand. And as God does all of His work through Christ, so too, Christ accomplishes all of His work “by the church.”

Consequently mother Eve, “the mother of all living,” includes “the seed of the woman.” But since she is “the mother of all living,” she also includes “the seed of the serpent.” Both are within “the woman… the Church which is in the wilderness.” Just as God is doing all His work in and through Christ, so too, is Christ doing all of His work in and through the church which is “His body.”

Col 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church.

Talking to pagan Athenians, Paul make this amazing statement:

Act 17:28 For in him [God, through Christ] we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

And Christ Himself acknowledges that it is “in Him” that there are many unfruitful branches on the Vine.

Joh 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

It is the house of God being spoken of when Paul makes this observation:

2Ti 2:20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.

Anyone who suggests that the bride must “come out of His body” is woefully misinformed as to what is “the body of Christ.” It is Babylon The Great of which we are warned: “Come out of her my people.” But is not Babylon the Great within the body of Christ? Are not Babylon the Great and “Jerusalem above” both ‘in Christ?’ Yes, they are indeed. “In Him we [all] live and move and have our being.”

Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

So, if Babylon the Great” is the woman who brings forth the manchild of Revelation 12, how can we possibly “come out of her my people” and still be part of “His body which is the church?”

Both Christ and Paul make it abundantly clear how this is possible. It has nothing at all to do with the rib taken out of Adam, except that the rib shows the oneness of both Adam and ‘the woman.’ As always it involves ‘rightly dividing the word. And as always ‘the natural man cannot understand the things of the spirit,’ because the things of the spirit seem to contradict the natural and are therefore “foolishness unto him. In reality they do not contradict. But Christ’s parables and God’s Word in general are written in such a way as to be easily misunderstood by those who seek to establish the idols of their hearts.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

So the answer to our dilemma is that both the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent are within the church. We come out of the seed of the serpent in the church to become the seed of the woman in the church. Both the fruitful and the unfruitful branches are “in Me.” We have our unfruitful branches taken away so that we can continue being purged so as to bring forth more fruit. Both are “in Me.” We come out of Israel according to the flesh before we can become “as Isaac… the children of promise.” We come out of the son of the bondwoman before we can become the son of the freewoman. And we must come out of Babylon the Great, before we can become “Jerusalem… above which is the mother of us all.”

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

It really is all a matter of progression. But we never ‘progress’ beyond written revelation. We never progress to the point that there is no need for the foundation of the written word of God against which to “try the spirits to see whether they be of God.”

1Jn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit [doctrine], but try the spirits [doctrines-teachings] whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

And how are we to know “whether they are of God?” There is but one way:

Act 17:11 These [Bereans] were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

The Bereans “believed not every spirit, but tried the spirits to see whether they were of God.” How did they do this? They “searched the scriptures daily.” What they did not do was to say, ‘You, Paul, are stuck in the letter and will never advance to the deeper things of the spirit.’ These Bereans knew that the very definition of ‘spirit’ is “the words that I speak… are spirit…:”

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Anyone who has “progressed in the spirit” beyond the “words that I have spoken” has progressed right out of God’s guiding light and into the darkness of heresy, just as we were warned would happen:

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

Teaching that Paul’s words are not Christ’s words, refusing to acknowledge that “the words that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord:”

1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Co 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1Co 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Saying that you are so spiritual that God’s written word is an obstacle to your spiritual growth is “giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;” All such people are unable to “try the spirits whether they be of God,” because as the book of Acts shows us, they have dispensed with the only thing with which to “try the spirits to see whether they be of God:”

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Jeremiah prophesied of such heretics:

Jer 14:14 Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.

In reality it is and always has been those who are called of God who withstand those who are chosen of God. For example: Cain vs. his own brother Abel; Ishmael vs. his own brother Isaac; Esau vs. his own brother Jacob (Israel); Leah vs. her own sister Rachel; Joseph vs. his own brothers; Moses vs. his own sister and brother, Miriam and Aaron; Moses and Aaron vs. their own fellow Levite, Korah; David vs. his own king, King Saul; David vs. his own son Absalom; David vs. his own trusted counsel, Ahithophel, etc. until we come to Christ Himself vs. His own disciples who want to kill Him. This is the history of Babylon the Great against whom we are charged to “come out of her My people.” This is the seed of the serpent of whom Christ said “Ye are of your Father the devil.”

In the eighth chapter of John we find Christ telling “those Jews which believed on Him” that it is none other than they themselves, who comprise what is known as “the church in the wilderness,” and “the son of the bondwoman,” and who Christ identifies as the “seed of the serpent,” or as He puts it “of your father the devil.” This is the “Babylon the Great” of Revelation 17-18. It is and always has been the religious establishment of the day. It is and always has been those who believe on Christ but “cannot receive His words;” it’s “historical orthodox Christianity” with its thousands of denominational daughters.

Here are the scriptures:

Joh 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye [All those who believe on Christ but "cannot receive my word"] are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

Joh 8:30 As he spake these words, many believed on him.
Joh 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

Those who “continue in My Word” are “the seed of the woman… the four living creatures… the four wheels within a wheel… my disciples indeed… the son of the freewoman… the manchild who will rule the nations with a rod of iron… the very elect… the overcomers… the four beasts and the four and twenty elders… the New Jerusalem and the bride” of Christ.

Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth [Christ and His Words], and the truth shall make you free.
Joh 8:33 They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
Joh 8:35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
Joh 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

To what ‘house’ is Christ referring when He states “the servant abides not in the house forever? Consider both what is the ‘house’ and who is ‘the servant?’

Gal 4:1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
Gal 4:2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
Gal 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Gal 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

There it is. There is the answer to this whole dilemma of how we can be in Babylon the Great, the church, come out of Babylon The Great and still be in “His body which is the church.”

Remember, Christ is addressing these Jews which believed on Him, and He is referring to the same “Great house” Paul speaks of is this verse:

2Ti 2:20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.

What Fills All In All? The Meaning And Purpose For Using A Rib From Adam

Paul is telling us the same thing Christ told “those Jews which believed on Him:” “I know you are Abraham’s seed.” But with the very same breath He also tells these very same “Jews which believed on Him … IF you were Abraham’s seed…” How can Christ say “I know you are Abraham’s seed” and also say “if you were Abraham’s seed?” Not understanding how this is possible is what so often leads to completely unfounded doctrines which say things like ‘the rib demonstrates separation from the body, before we can become Christ’s bride, we must separate ourselves from His body.’ What a total contradiction of the very purpose for using a rib to make the woman. The very purpose for forming Adam’s bride from a rib of Adam is to demonstrate that Adam’s bride is “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh… and they two shall be one flesh.” If this were all done to show us that Adam was complete before the rib was removed, why then was the rib removed? But Adam’s completeness is accomplished by the removing of the rib. Adam’s condition before Eve’s arrival on the scene is not the point being made in God forming the woman of Adam’s rib. The point being made is that just as Eve completed Adam, so too, is God completing His plan through Christ. And Christ is completing God’s plan through his sons, “the church which is His body.” That is the lesson in “making them male and female:

Eph 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
Eph 1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

In Scriptural terms “His body” and His “Bride” are one and the same. And it is through the church, through this male, female relationship, that “the fulness of Him that filleth all in all” is accomplished. It is not accomplished through its abolition. The fact that “they neither marry nor are given in marriage” has nothing at all to do with whether there is yet a hierarchy in the spirit realm. As I have pointed out already, when the aions have served their purpose and God is all in all, Christ will at that point “be subject unto” the Father.

But isn’t Babylon the Great the mother of harlots and of the abominations of the world” also the church? And when we are told “come out of her my people” are we not being told to come out of the church? And is not this also “His body?” And if Col 1:25, “the church which is His body” is true, then how can we come out of the church without coming out of His body? This dilemma has plagued many great theologians for many long years

The apostles themselves had been called out of this ‘great house,’ this ‘Babylon the Great.’ They were all, at the time when they were chosen by Christ to become His apostles, a part of what the scriptures refer to as “the church in the wilderness.” So Christ, speaking to “the church in the wilderness,” speaking to “those Jews which believed on Him”, continues:

Joh 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
Joh 8:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

Christ conceded that these Jews were indeed Abraham’s seed. And yet he says “Ye do that which ye have seen with your father” and “your father” is not a reference to Abraham.

One thing Christ had “seen with His Father” was that “his father was greater than He.”

Joh 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greaterthan I.

But Christ continues to demonstrate that “the church in the wilderness” was not the church which He had come to establish. It was rather the church He had come to destroy:

Joh 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
Joh 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
Joh 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

At this point Christ tells us why the “church in the wilderness” is not “the church which is His body.” It is “because you cannot hear my word.”

Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
Joh 8:44 Ye ["Jews which believe on Me;" you physical decendants of Abraham; you Christians who "cannot receive my words"] are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

There are some who, completely devoid of one single spiritual thought, speculate that Eve had physical sex with Satan to bring forth “the seed of the serpent.” But Christ tells us that the devil was the father of those “Jews which believed on Him,” of which same Jews He says, “Ye seek to kill me… You do the deeds of your father… Ye are of your father the devil.” So Eve did not have physical sex with Satan because Satan cannot have physical sex.

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

What Eve did was to commit spiritual fornication by eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and giving of that fruit to her husband who, with her, also committed spiritual fornication. How was Eve “of her father the Devil?” It was by “doing the deeds of her father.” Eve saw no need to go to Adam before she ate of the tree. After all had not she, too, heard from God. And had not God spoken through her as she repeated God’s words to the serpent? To Eve being a “help meet” did not necessitate having her husband actively involved in her decision making process. Why, how very humiliating, having to involve her husband!

And so it is today. To “acknowledge that [Paul's] writings are the commandments of the Lord” just doesn’t seem necessary to many Christians, male and female.

Was Adam any different. No, not in the least. Adam, too, was more than willing to follow Eve’s lead without actively involving his head, Christ and His words in his decision-making process. It was all a matter of the soul leading the spirit. It is never so to be. We are in all our ways to acknowledge the supremacy of the Words of God:

Pro 3:6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

With what does He “direct our paths?”

Psa 119:104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.
Psa 119:105 … Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

When our understanding comes from anything other than “Thy Word,” It is really coming from nothing less that “the serpent” himself. It is the serpent who empowers the beast in us all. And that beast, with his ten horns, his own spiritual understanding and power, despises the dominion of God’s Word over our lives. It can receive some parts the words of Christ. But there are some of “the commandments of the Lord” which the beast in us cannot receive.

Being the “seed of the serpent” is nothing more or less than following the pulls and passions of our flesh which gets “its seat and great authority from the great red dragon.”

Rev 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

When our “power and seat and great authority ” comes from the great red dragon, we are nothing more or less than “of our father the devil,” and “doing the works of…our father the devil.” This is not an experience reserved for the especially wicked of this earth. It is rather the experience which is common to all men.

That is why Eve was unwilling to talk to Adam before partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It was because she was “taken from the man,” and “the man” himself was “made of the dust of the ground… and they were both naked and were not ashamed.” Adam was not deceived, but Adam was still “corruptible flesh.” In other words, Adam, and all who come forth of him, are the corruptible and sinful “seed of the serpent…marred in the hand of the Potter”:

Jer 18:4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.

Pro 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

All of this is simply telling us that both Adam and Eve were created as sinful flesh, clay vessels which were “marred in the hand of the Potter.” The “day of evil” did not begin when Adam and Eve were finally given “the knowledge of good and evil.” The “day of evil was “in the beginning” while yet “in the Potter’s hand.” The “wicked man” was created in a “marred… corruptible… of the ground… naked…” and sinful form “in the Potter’s hand.”

We read about how wicked Cain killed righteous Abel and we think that this is a story about a wicked man versus a righteous man. Indeed it is. But our eyes are blinded to the fact that both of them are “in Adam” just as both are “In Him [Christ]. It is “all of God.”

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

As blasphemous at it appears to some with the inability to receive “the things of the spirit,” Adam prefigures Christ.

1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

What we are being told here in Jeremiah and in every word of God’s Word is that it first “pleased the Potter” to make a “marred vessel,” the “seed of the serpent,” out of which He would then bring forth “another vessel as seemed good to the Potter to make it.” Here is this story in the spiritual words of the New Testament:

Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

2Co 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Who, When and What Is “The Beginning?”

Christ told “the Jews which believed on Him” that they were “of your father the devil and the deeds of your father ye will do.” He told them that they were walking in darkness:

Joh 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

But this is true for us all? Were we all in darkness?

Eph 5:8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:

This is the revelation of Jesus Christ. The revelation of Jesus Christ includes “the beginning” where there was nothing but darkness:

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

It is the “Spirit of God…moving upon...the darkness...upon the face of the deep,” which brings “light out of darkness.” This is the “beginning” to which Christ refers when He informs us that He is “the beginning and the end.” Christ is the creator of both the light and the darkness:”

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

But which came first? In what order were these things accomplished? Contrary to the false ‘gap theory’ doctrine, God started out with darkness, and out of that darkness he called the light:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning [Hebrew-reysheith-firstfruit, Christ] God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

“The beginning” scripturally, was not some fabled ‘age before Adam. “The beginning” was the week of creation:

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

2Co 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Is ‘The Woman” Inferior To ‘The Man?’

Why is it so important to understand that God created darkness first? Because when we fail to recognize this truth, we are so easily led into the lies that Satan rebelled against God and became the Devil; the lie that we pre-existed as pure undefiled spirits which were somehow led astray; the lie that teaches that before Eve, Adam was pure and complete within himself; the lie which teaches that ‘before the fall, Adam and Eve were one and were equal.’ Such a statement belies the fact that the proponent of that doctrine feels that Eve was inferior to Adam. But ask your self, if Eve were taken out of and was made out of a part of Adam, how can she possibly be inferior to Adam? Another scriptural way of making this vitally important point is to ask

1Co 12:15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
1Co 12:16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
1Co 12:17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

Is the foot inferior to the hand? Is the ear inferior to the eye or the nose? Does the fact that the head directs the body somehow make the body inferior to the head? It would be a very diseased body indeed which was that dysfunctional.

And yet that is exactly what all who are too proud to accept their placement by God’s Spirit in Christ’s body are doing. All who argue against the scriptures are arguing against God’s Spirit. They are not satisfied with where they have been placed in the body of Christ. This dissatisfaction is so deep with many that they have taken “come out of her my people” to be a call to come out of the church completely and have nothing to do with the rest of the “body of Christ.” As we have shown above, come out of her my people” is instead a call to God’s elect “children of light… seed of the woman… vessels of honor… son of the freewoman…” people, to progress into the next step toward their inevitable goal of being “made a new vessel.” This is done by going on from being a servant to becoming a son. This is done by coming out of His ” vessel of clay, marred in the Potters hand; children of darkness… seed of the serpent… vessels of dishonor… son of the bondwoman…” people and growing into His new vessel , His children of light, His seed of the woman, His vessel of honor, and His son of the free woman .

Both are God’s people. It was God’s own people who killed Christ. It was not strangers:

Act 3:13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye [God's own people then and today] delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he [Pilate] was determined to let him go.

Let’s go back back now to Ephesians 5. Let’s notice what Paul means when he instructs the entire church “submit yourselves one to another in the fear of God.” Paul goes on to elaborate on that statement:

Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Words of the Holy Spirit. Not my words. This is how Paul elaborates on what he meant by telling the whole Ephesian church to “submit to one another in the fear of God.” Why would he do this? He did this because the church at Ephesus was not doing so, and so the admonition was given to the whole church. Paul did not first say ‘Husbands and wives submit to each other,’ and then turn around and contradict himself by telling the wives to submit to their husbands.

But it will be but a few of the whole church which will receive this admonition. The rest will feel no need for a head in the outward. After all, has not Adam already shown Himself unworthy as a leader? The Truth of God’s Word is that neither Adam nor Eve bothered to consult with Christ before making their decision to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God had indeed spoken by them. Were they not His anointed? Could they not therefore speak for him?

Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye [Adam and Eve] shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

How humiliating it would have been to Eve to have told the serpent that she preferred that her husband do the speaking. Eve was prophesying what she had been told. Eve was a good teacher. But Eve had no business teaching. Eve lusted after that beautiful tree and its fruit, even as she repeated God’s words. Just like the prophet Balaam many years later, Eve thought she could ignore God’s words, ignore her head, listen to the serpent, receive promotion from the serpent and still be God’s prophet.:

1Jo 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

For all who come to God’s Word with open minds, free from “idols of the heart” it is clear that Eve had “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life” before she ever touched, much less ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Eve was not satisfied with her station in life. This same spirit is found throughout the stories and history of God’s people. Notice how true this was for the prophet Balaam:

Num 22:37 And Balak said unto Balaam, Did I not earnestly send unto thee to call thee? wherefore camest thou not unto me? am I not able indeed to promote thee to honour?

Just like Eve with the serpent, Balaam was being offered a ‘promotion.’ But what does a man gain if he wins the world but loses his soul? Just like Eve, Balaam’s lust of the eyes, lust of the heart and his pride of life had him in a very unenviable spot. What would he now do?

Num 22:38 And Balaam said unto Balak, Lo, I am come unto thee: have I now any power at all to say anything? the word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak.

We all think we can associate with the enemy and yet not be taken in by the Adversary. This is what Eve thought. Like Eve, Balaam’s heart was not in his words. And in the end Balaam’s advice to Balak was to cause Israel to commit fornication with the daughters of Midian.

Num 31:8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; [namely], Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.

Num 31:16 Behold, these [the Midianite women] caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

How was this all done to Israel? It was accomplished through a prophet of God who, like Eve, was not satisfied with the station God had given him. He lusted after the promotion promised by King Balak. He was not content with where he had been placed in service to his God.

How Eve failed to defer to Adam reflected how she failed to defer to the word of God when the lie was offered to replace the Truth. How wives “submit to their husband in everything” is a direct reflection of how the church is “subject unto Christ.” Does the church submit to Christ? Of course it does not. The church utterly despises Christ’s headship and will have no part of it. All the church wants is His name so as to “take away their reproach.” But the church wants to wear its own self-righteous clothing and furnish it’s own false doctrine bread. They love to say ‘Lord, Lord” but they will not do what He says:

Luk 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
Isa 4:1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

“Seven women” is a prophecy of the completeness and thoroughness of the church’s apostasy from the doctrines of and the righteousness of Christ. The “our own bread and our own apparel” are our own doctrines and our own righteousnesses:

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Rev 19:8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

So, when we come to God’s Word, we are never to lean to our own understanding (“eat our own bread”) or rely on our own righteousnesses, (“wear our own apparel:”)

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Whence Christ? His Preeminence

God’s Word teaches us that the relationship between ‘the man and the woman’ and a man and a woman in a proper marriage relationship is a reflection of the relationship between Christ and His head:

1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

So a proper marriage relationship reveals Christ’s relationship with His Head. It reveals how in all things, Christ is subject to Him [Christ's Father] that did put all things under Him [Christ].”

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;so that they are without excuse:

“That which may be known of God is manifest to them… even his eternal [Greek-aidios-age abiding- see Jude 6- read letter entitled, "Who Are The Sinners and Hypocrites In Zion"http://iswasandwillbe.com/2006010802.php]” And what is it that has been made manifest to us about Christ’s divinity? What is made manifest is that just as Eve came out of Adam, so too, did Christ proceed “out from” the Father:

Joh 16:27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

Joh 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

Christ even tells us that He is the beginning of God’s creation:

Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

“The beginning of the creation of God” not ‘the beginner of the creation of God.’ And why did God create Christ first?

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Everything God does is done “by and for Him [Christ].”

What Does “As Also Saith The Law” Mean?

Does God intend for us to maintain an outward display of this spiritual Truth concerning Christ’s function in God’s order? Indeed God does intend that his people maintain this truth both inwardly and outwardly:

1Co 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

It is not that uncommon to see long hair on men today even in the church. What are these men saying about their view of these verses of God’s Word? No doubt they will say that these verses are mere letters. No doubt they reason in themselves that this was relevant for Paul’s day but is not relevant for today. But God’s Word is Truth, and Truth is not something that is relevant to the times. Truth is always Truth because Christ never changes.

It might help to point out that physical murder, adultery, and stealing are all condemned in the Old Testament.

Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Exo 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Exo 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.

Are these mere outward signs which can now be abandoned because we are now under the spirit of God’s Word? Of course they cannot be abandoned. When Paul uses the phrase “as also saith the law” he is referring to just such obvious Truths. Whenever there is a “change also of the law” which goes so far as to nullify earlier commandments of the law of Moses, there must be a witness to that. Here are a couple of examples:

God told Abraham that every male in his house must be circumcised on the eighth day as an everlasting (eonian) covenant.

Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting [olawm-eonian] covenant.

When did the aion of “my covenant… in your flesh” come to its consummation? It ended with Christ. How do we know this is true? We know this is true because the scriptures tell us so:

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

The law of Moses required that the whole congregation of Israel and all the implements of the temple be baptized so as to cleanse them before they could be used in the service of God. John the Baptist practiced this ritual and even baptized Christ in water:

Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Mat 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
Mat 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
Mat 3:16 (a) And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water…

Why do we no longer participate in this ritual? Because the scriptures tell of its inefficacy:

Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

So we are told that we are now baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire. We are told that we are not sent to water baptize, but that the washing of water is now “by the word.”

And so it is with all of the “changes also of the law” which Christ introduced in His New Covenant which He first taught in all of the gospels.

The law of Moses required Israel to swear in the name of God:

Deu 6:13 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.

Deu 10:20 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.

Christ made a change here and so He told us so:

Mat 5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
Mat 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:
Mat 5:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
Mat 5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
Mat 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

The law of Moses taught an eye for an eye:

Exo 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Exo 21:25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Again Christ changed this law, and again He tells us so:

Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mat 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
Mat 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Mat 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

The law of Moses taught that we were to hate our enemies and destroy anything that had breath of our enemies:

Deu 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

Christ made a big change here again, and again He tells us so:

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

“Resist not evil… Love thine enemies?” Neither of those commandments makes any sense to the natural man. And Paul knew that the same would be true for women who knew more that their husbands and were indeed more capable than their husbands. Nevertheless there was no “change also of the law” given to that one institution which is to be an outward display of our acceptance of the spiritual order of the very throne of God.

Men are not to dress in drag “as also saith the law;”

Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Why is it an abomination for a man to wear a woman’s garments? Is that not simply an outward matter which has nothing to do with what is inside of us? Absolutely not! What is inside of us should be reflected by how we comport ourselves outwardly.

Gal 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the [outward] lust of the flesh.
Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also [outwardly] walk in the Spirit.

The word ‘walk’ in scripture, refers to how we live outwardly in this society. And how we live outwardly should reflect what is within us. So if a man dresses in drag, he is proclaiming to the world that he is not happy with his station in life. And as Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 11, if a woman wears her hair short like a man, she too, is proclaiming to the world that she is simply not pleased with where Christ has placed her in His body. And Paul says she might as well have her head shaved as both are a shame to her.

“The woman” was taken out of “the man” to be his helper. We come forth of Christ for that same purpose. “The head of the man is Christ. So for “a man [to] put on a woman’s garment [is an] abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

So what of those who simply refuse to see this God ordained difference in the functions of the parts of the body of Christ? Here are Paul’s words for such people:

1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Now, just how important is it that we keep this spiritual order in mind? Is it of any great significance that just as Christ came out from the Father, so also Eve came out from Adam? Is there any real need for wives to “submit to their husbands as unto Christ?” Just how important is this subject of spiritual order to God and to Christ? Why does 1 Corinthians make such a fuss over who is the head of whom?

The scriptures are full of stories about how furious God is over our lack of appreciation of His explicit instructions concerning the maintenance of His order in all things. Let’s look at just a couple of examples of how God handles those who are not satisfied with their roles which He has given to them:

Num 12:1 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.
Num 12:2 And they said, Hath the LORD indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the LORD heard it.
Num 12:3 (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.)
Num 12:4 And the LORD spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation. And they three came out.
Num 12:5 And the LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth.
Num 12:6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.
Num 12:7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.
Num 12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speakagainst my servant Moses?
Num 12:9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed.
Num 12:10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous.
Num 12:11 And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned.
Num 12:12 Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother’s womb.
Num 12:13 And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying, Heal her now, O God, I beseech thee.
Num 12:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days? let her be shut out from the camp seven days, and after that let her be received in again.
Num 12:15 And Miriam was shut out from the camp seven days: and the people journeyed not till Miriam was brought in again.

Or as Paul would put it: “Put that wicked one out of your midst and turn him over to Satan for the destruction of her flesh…”

Look at what Miriam and Aaron said to justify their open expression of being very upset and ungrateful for the function they had been given in the camp of Israel:

Num 12:2 And they said, Hath the LORD indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the LORD heard it.

“Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses?” Moses was and is a name which is associated with and means ‘the law.’ In New Testament terms this is the equivalent of saying ‘Has God spoken only by His apostles? Are not we also capable of receiving revelation which takes us beyond the revelation given to Peter and Paul?

It is obvious to all that Peter and Paul were not aware that Israel would be destroyed as a nation only to be reestablished in 1948. In that sense, yes, we can know things which Peter and Paul did not know. But nothing we know that is Truth will contradict what was written by Peter and Paul. All Truth will confirm what God’s apostles have written. It must be so because “holy men of old spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2Pe 1:21-22). And the Holy Spirit is not schizophrenic.

So concerning the function of women in the body of Christ, what Paul and Peter wrote is “the commandments of the Lord.” Paul and Peter are not, as some affirm, mere stepping stones to the deep things of the spirit concerning women. We are now able to see deep spiritual things concerning the function of women in the church which Peter and Paul were yet unable to see. When we start teaching that what Peter and Paul gave us were mere types and shadows of what women were really intended to do in the body of Christ, we have, at that point, denied the fact that “the Words that I have spoken will never pass away;”

Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Had the Lord spoken by Miriam and Aaron? Yes, He had. Miriam had actually prophesied in Israel:

Exo 15:19 For the horse of Pharaoh went in with his chariots and with his horsemen into the sea, and the LORD brought again the waters of the sea upon them; but the children of Israel went on dry land in the midst of the sea.
Exo 15:20 And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.
Exo 15:21 And Miriam answered them, Sing ye to the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.

How very happy was Miriam when she was leading the women of Israel in singing and dancing in celebration of the blessing received at the hand of their God. How harmonious was the camp of Israel when ‘the woman’ was content with her position in the camp of Israel.

That is but one of many examples of how women can ‘prophesy’. God had indeed spoken by Miriam. But Miriam was not satisfied with being a leader of “all the women”. Miriam wanted to be where Moses was. Miriam wanted to function as a Moses. She wanted to lead ‘the man’.

Whenever we are not content with our station in life, our place in the body of Christ, we are struggling with a spirit of pride. This spirit of pride expresses itself in women by its resentment against the New Testament doctrine prohibiting women to teach. But this the same spirit which afflicts ‘the man’. How did it affect Aaron? Had not God spoken by Aaron?

Exo 4:14 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses [because Moses did not want to be the Lord's spokesman], and he said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart.
Exo 4:15 And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.
Exo 4:16 And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.

“Thou shalt be unto him instead of God.” What a belittling position for Aaron to be placed into by the Lord Himself. Another verse comes to mind as being similar in it’s content:

1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
1Co 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

“He is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man?” How humiliating to many women is that verse of God’s Word! Is not the woman also the image and glory of God? Only as she accepts her placement in the body of Christ. It is the same for Cain, and Aaron and Korah and Absalom and Judas, etc., etc. Just as many men to whom it is not given to be ministers, preachers or teachers, must accept whatever gift they have been given, so must ‘the woman’ accept her placement in the body of Christ. But Aaron was not happy with His place within the camp of Israel. Were there not many thousands of others who were not the high priest of God? Of course there were many thousands. But Aaron wanted even more than the blessing he had been given. Aaron, too, wanted to function as a Moses. Aaron was not satisfied with the function in the body he had been given. Like Miriam, Aaron thought that he, too, could be both the hand and the head. He certainly did not need his younger brother telling him ‘Thus saith the Lord’.

So why then is Miriam struck with leprosy instead of Aaron? The answer is that this entire story is nothing more than a repeat of what happened in the garden of Eden. “The man” who was supposed to be speaking the words of the Lord, was instead following ‘the woman’, allowing the flesh to lead the spirit. Aaron was therefore willing to follow the lead of his sister. Notice how this story is introduced to us:

Num 12:1 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

In introducing this to us Miriam is mentioned first.

It is speculated that Moses had married an Ethiopian woman during a military campaign while still in Egypt. It matters not when Moses had married this woman. God had placed Moses in the position and function of leading His people. It was God’s decision, and it was against Moses’ desire. But Miriam and Aaron were typically not satisfied with where God had placed them so they make the statement:

Num 12:2 And they said, Hath the LORD indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the LORD heard it.

“Hath He not spoken also by us?” This is the exact same “evil spirit from the Lord” which inspired Korah and Dathan and Abiram, just a few weeks after Miriam and Aaron withstood Moses, to say:

Num 16:3 And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?

Being “holy and having the Lord among you” and the Lord having “spoken by you” does not qualify you to become your husband’s head or the bishop of the congregation or a teacher in the church.

1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

It is significant that Miriam is named first, and it is significant that it was Miriam who was stricken with leprosy as punishment for the rebellion of both herself and her jealous brother. God does not take lightly to our lack of appreciation of the blessings He has bestowed upon us. And the fact that He has indeed spoken through us, does not mean that we are meant to be any higher in the body than where he has placed us. What is so revealing in all of the different stories in God’s word about this subject of God’s order in His body is the fact that the disgruntled are always those who had been chosen and placed so very close to the Head Himself. The story of the nine ungrateful lepers comes to mind as we look at another example of those who are so very blessed not being satisfied with the function which Christ Himself has assigned them within His body: Here is another example of that same spirit which was still in the hearts of God’s people just a few weeks after the insubordination of Miriam and Aaron. Korah, Dathan and Abiram were not satisfied with the position of leadership they had been given. These were men who were “famous in the congregation, men of renown.”

Num 16:1 Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men:
Num 16:2 And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown:
Num 16:3 And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?
Num 16:4 And when Moses heard it, he fell upon his face:

This all sounds very much like “Hath the Lord spoken only by Moses?” Aaron is now getting a taste of what he and his sister had put Moses through just a few weeks earlier.

These are not the downtrodden of God’s people. These are the blessed among the people of God. God has blessed these people with knowledge to speak for Him to His people in a certain capacity given to very few people. God has indeed spoken by these people and God Himself has placed them into positions of leadership:

Num 16:2 And they [Korah, Dathan and Abiram] rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown:

These are “princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown.” And still they are disgruntled with their station in life. Just like Miriam and Aaron only weeks before, they impugn the motives and the integrity of those who didn’t even ask for or want the position into which God has placed them as a leader of His people. Moses made excuses to try to get out of his calling. But here is what separated Moses from those who withstood him:

Num 12:7 My servant Moses … who is faithful in all mine house.

“Faithful in all Mine house” means that Moses did not compromise God’s Words in dealing with God’s people. God’s house is His people and His Words and His doctrines. Moses was uncompromising with God’s Words. Not so for those who wanted to be in Moses position:

Num 16:3 And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?

Aaron is now on the receiving end of being accused of thinking that he is the only one through whom God is speaking. Of course Moses, in the insubordination of Miriam and Aaron, had never made any such claim. And again in this instance, neither Moses nor Aaron had made such a claim. It is of great significance that just a short time prior to these two disastrous events of insubordination, where Miriam is smitten with leprosy and where the earth opens up and swallows Korah and his associates, we are given this little story:

Num 11:16 And the LORD said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee.
Num 11:17 And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.

Num 11:24 And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the LORD, and gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the tabernacle.
Num 11:25 And the LORD came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.

No doubt many of these ‘seventy men’ were “famous in the congregation, men of renown” and were swallowed up by the earth along with the rest of the 250 who withstood Moses under the leadership of Korah and company.

Paul tells us “the head of every man is Christ”. How can that be when many men are withstanding and opposing God at every turn? Is Christ the head of Osama Bin Laden? Or for that matter, is Christ the head of the Pope? For those who can receive it the answer is, yes, “the head of every man is Christ”. These men and millions of other men, are not aware of it, but Christ is still “the head of every man.” Read our paper entitled After The Counsel of His Own Will to see that even the rebellions of mankind and even wicked men and all evil are the workings of God who is “working all things after the counsel of His own will”

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

Is “the head of every woman the man?” The answer again is yes. Even though Christ may not appear to the eyes of the natural man to be the head of every man and the man may not appear to the natural man to be the head of every woman, That very appearance of insubordination is actually Christ “working all things after the counsel of His own will”. This is NOT to say every woman should be submissive to every man, as some believe. “Wives, submit yourselves unto YOUR OWN HUSBANDS.”

Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

The same word used for wife is also used for woman. We can see in context that it should mean ‘wife’ here and also in Col 3:18. So the idea that all woman should be subordinate to all men is twisting the meaning of “the head of every woman is the man” to mean all men can just boss any woman around.

What Exactly Is The Difference Between Prophesy and Teaching?

1Co 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

Paul plainly forbids that women should be teachers “in the church.” So what are women to do in God’s church? It seems to many women that all they are told is what they cannot do:

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Co 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Twice Paul mentions that he is referring to “in the churches… it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” And yet we are told by Paul himself that women, in New Testament times did prophesy:

1Co 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Is anyone going to deny a woman the right to pray? I don’t think that anyone thinks that God does not want either married or unmarried women to pray to Him. So why then does anyone think that women should not prophesy? Consider this verse of scripture:

Act 21:8 And the next day we that were of Paul’s company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.
Act 21:9 And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.

If all we want is to know the mind of God, then it would appear that what we need to be asking is exactly what is meant by the word ‘prophesy?’ And why does a woman need to “have her head covered” before she can pray or prophesy? That women can both pray and prophesy is beyond question. We have the scriptures before us. What we now need is demonstrable scripture showing us how women prayed and prophesied. Maybe then we will understand why women can prophesy, and why they cannot teach.

In the very same chapter where Paul tells us:

1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Co 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1Co 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

…he also tells us this earlier in this same chapter:

1Co 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

1Co 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
1Co 14:30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
1Co 14:31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

It is clear from verse 37 that “ye may all prophesy” refers to all men and not to women.

1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

So “edification, exhortation and comfort” are the same as learning; ”the prophets speak… that all may learn and be comforted.” The question now becomes if the church “learns” when the “prophets speak,” and if women can prophesy with their head covered,” why then cannot women teach? Paul seems to be contradicting himself when he tells us that women can prophesy with their heads covered and in the same breath tells us that he suffers not a woman to teach:

1Co 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

This part is not rocket science. Paul is telling us that when a man wears his hair like a woman he is dishonoring his Head, Christ. And when a woman wears her hair like a man, she is dishonoring her head, her husband. But the same principle applies for the unmarried men and women. Whenever any of us, married or single, ignore the words of Christ we are refusing to “acknowledge that the things that [are written] are the commandments of the Lord.”

But even if we are willing to “acknowledge that the things that [Paul] writes are the commandments of the Lord,” it still seems to be a contradiction to say that a woman can prophesy with her head covered and also say:

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

How can a woman prophesy with her head covered without men learning from what she is prophesying? How can a woman prophesy without teaching?

The statement “Philip… had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy” doesn’t tell us any thing about the conditions under which these daughters of Philip prophesied. In fact the very next verse tells us that a male prophet named Agabus, prophesied that Paul would be taken prisoner in Jerusalem and turned over to the Gentiles:

Act 21:10 And as we tarried there [at Philip's house] many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.
Act 21:11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.

Why didn’t Philip’s daughters tell Paul of his impending capture by the Jews? Here we have “four daughters… which did prophesy” and yet Paul and his company “tarried many days” with Philip and his four daughters, until “there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus,” who we are then told warned Paul of what awaited him in Jerusalem. This would be the perfect place to demonstrate how women were to prophesy in the church, if indeed we were being told that this is what the scriptures want us to believe. But the very apostle who is the subject of Agabus’ prophecy, the guest of Philip and his “four daughters which did prophesy,” later tells us “let your women keep silence in the church.”

The reason Philip’s daughters were not used to tell Paul of his fate is one of spiritual order. That spiritual order is, as with all spiritual matters, demonstrated for us in “the things that are made:”

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

The “eternal power and Godhead” are “understood by the things that are made.” Which “things that are made” tell us how we are to understand the godhead? Is it the three parts of an egg; the shell, the white and the yolk? Is it the three forms of water; the solid form of ice, the liquid form of water and the gaseous form of steam? Are these the “things that are made,” by which “His eternal power and godhead” are to be understood? Absolutely not! God is not a trinity. But neither is He a ‘binity.’ God’s eternal power and godhead are the very point which Paul is making in 1 Corinthians 11. The whole point of this chapter is that the relationship between God and Christ is demonstrated by a proper relationship between a man and his wife. But Paul is not limiting this relationship between God and Christ simply to married couples. It is not married couples so much in view as it is “the man” and “the woman.” It is “every man” and “every woman:”

What Is The Meaning of “Her Head Uncovered?”

1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
1Co 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
1Co 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
1Co 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
1Co 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

“The head of every man is Christ, but the head of the woman is the man.” This statement is not speaking of marriage only. It has to do with the order which God has instituted in “the things that are made.” The reason given for why women are supposed to be “covered when they pray or prophesy is “a man indeed ought not cover his head forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” And why is the woman “the glory of the man?” “Because the man is not of the woman; but the woman is of the man,” meaning that what we are demonstrating in our acknowledgment of these facts is that we understand and see that the Father is not of Christ but Christ is of the Father. It is by demonstrating physical order that we learn of spiritual order.

Now why is God spending so much of this chapter explaining to us what is the relationship Christ has with His father? Why does he tell us that the relationship between the man and the woman demonstrates Christ’s relationship to His father. One of the reasons given is so that we will know how to conduct ourselves “when you come together into one place:“

1Co 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

1Co 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.

1Co 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
1Co 11:34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

Part of this chapter is about how we are to conduct ourselves “when we come together in one place.” In giving these behavioral instructions we are told that a woman is not to pray or prophesywith her head uncovered. A ‘covered head’ is explained as Christ being the head of the man and the man being the head of a woman.

1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 
1Co 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 
1Co 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

We are not talking about a physical vail as is the custom for women to wear in Middle eastern countries to this very day. The covering is Christ being the head of the man and the man being the head of the woman; not because they are a married couple, but for this reason:

1Co 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

And this is all to remind us that “The head of Christ is God.” The false, unscriptural doctrine of the trinity, a doctrine of three “co-equal members of one Godhead” promotes a lack of order. It promotes a homosexual attitude which says there is no need for a single head of a household. It promotes confusion in the family, and it promotes confusion in the church. God, on the other hand, wants us to be an example of His order. Not just in spirit but also in “walk,” in our physical bodies:

1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
1Co 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

We are not our own. We are “bought with a price.” That is why we need to “tremble” at every word of God and seek only to know His mind on this and every subject. And God’s mind on this subject is that we recognize that how we conduct ourselves in our physical bodies is a reflection of how we conduct ourselves in spirit.

Christ never spoke a word unless He was told to do so by His Head, His covering, His Father. If I speak a word which has not been spoken in scripture, if any man cannot demonstrate that he is speaking in accord with God’s Word, that man or that woman is prophesying with his or her head “uncovered.”

What then, are the differences between the functions of men and women “in the church.” The very apostle who, under inspiration of God’s holy spirit wrote:

1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

also wrote:

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Now if “there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus,” why then does Paul say “the head of the man is Christ and the head of the woman is the man?” If there is “neither bond nor free… in Christ” why then did Paul send Onesimus back to his owner Philemon?

The writings of Paul and Peter and the words of Christ Himself answer this dilemma. We are all “one in Christ” “in spirit” as a “many membered body” (1 Corinthians 12). And “in spirit” means that we are “one in Christ” only in down payment form which will not be realized in the fulness of the inheritance until we are resurrected.

Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit ofpromise,
Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest [Greek-down payment] of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Christ clarified this very point for the unbelieving Sadducees who asked Him this question:

Mat 22:23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
Mat 22:24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
Mat 22:25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
Mat 22:26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
Mat 22:27 And last of all the woman died also.
Mat 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Christ puts the resurrection as yet future. John, too, points out that the resurrection and “our inheritance… the redemption of the purchased possession,” is yet future:

1Jn 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

I will be the first to tell you that every word of God must be experienced inwardly before we will be in a position to rule and reign over others outwardly. Nevertheless we must never forget that there is a Will Be component to those words and “it does not yet appear what we shall be…” and in the mean time we are to “glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.”

Paul also warns us against those who do not see the need to wait for the resurrection when there will be “neither marrying nor giving in marriage:”

2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

Yet those who point to Gal 3:28 to justify their desire to nullify “the commandments of the Lord” concerning women are effectively saying that the resurrection is past. They are taking the “down payment of the Spirit” as having already received the “fulness of Christ… the inheritance of the purchased possession.” The next logical conclusion is that since we are neither male nor female, but we are all one in Christ, therefore there is no need for husbands to be the heads of their families and “the head of the wife.” Since they no longer need to be quiet in church, they no longer need to “submit unto your husband as unto Christ.”

Of course not every one who believes in ‘fullness now’ would go that far, but that is the logical progression of such heresy. Paul had no such heretical thought in his mind and just two chapters later tells us exactly what he meant by being “sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise:”

Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

We are sealed with “the Holy Spirit of promise “unto the day of redemption.” Are we to be living as if resurrected? Yes, we are:

Rom 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

But what does “yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead” mean? Does it mean that we, even now, should “neither marry nor give in marriage” since that is how it will be in the resurrection? No, that is not what we are to make of living “as those that are alive from the dead.” Here is the point of making the statement that we are to “yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead.” It is the very next verse:

Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

We are not to deduce from Paul’s statement that since we are all “one in Christ ” that therefore there are no differences in our physical lives and bodies. Men are still men, masters are still masters, slaves are still slaves and women are still women; “until the redemption of the purchased possession,” which means until the actual resurrection from the dead. Until that time the order which God has placed in His physical creation is still intact. And it is the unwillingness of men to accept their responsibilities as leaders in God’s service that has produced the incredible power of the feminist and homosexual lobbies in our modern societies. It is neither the women nor the homosexuals who are responsible for our broken and dying social system. Here is what Paul says about those who claim that they are God’s people who are to be the light of the world:

Rom 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

It is an unwillingness to stand up for God’s unpopular Word which has led us to where we are. What then does God’s Word say is the part which women are to play in a church which “blasphemes the name of God among the heathen?” Are women who seek to know the mind of God, now to aspire to become a Deborah and become the judges of God’s people? Are they now to become ministers and teachers in the churches because men, who profess to be Christians, have abrogated their God-given place in His service? The admonitions given as to what is the order to be maintained in God’s church are not addressed to women. They are addressed to “the man”:

1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
1Ti 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 For [because] Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

These words are all addressed to those men who ought to be the elders and leaders in the churches. “Adam was not deceived” does not mean that Adam did not also transgress. He certainly did. He just did so willingly and knowingly, rather that be separated from his wife:

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

It is in this way that Adam is a figure of Christ. While Adam was the willing channel of death to all, Christ, through partaking of that death, is also the willing channel of life to all.

There is plenty of ‘transgression’ to go around for both men and women. What we need now to understand is what is the difference between prophecy and teaching. Only then can we understand how Paul can say that a woman can prophesy with her head covered but she cannot teach. So we will begin now to make clear what is the difference between prophesying and teaching?

To begin our search for the Biblical answer to this question we are going to list all of the verses in the New Testament which deal with prophetesses and women prophesying. We want only to know what these women were doing.

The word ‘prophetess’ appears but twice in the New Testament. The first is in a positive sense and the second is in a negative light. Here is the first positive appearance of this word:

Luk 2:36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;
Luk 2:37 And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.
Luk 2:38 And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

Anna was a prophetess. What did she do in this capacity? She “served God with fastings and prayers night and day.” She also “came in that instant and gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of Him to all them that looked for redemption in Israel.”

To understand what “that instant” means we have to read about what happened just before “that instant:”

Luk 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
Luk 2:22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present [him] to the Lord;
Luk 2:23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)
Luk 2:24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
Luk 2:25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.
Luk 2:26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.
Luk 2:27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,
Luk 2:28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,
Luk 2:29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:
Luk 2:30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
Luk 2:31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
Luk 2:32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
Luk 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
Luk 2:34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;
Luk 2:35 (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.

So Anna heard Simeon state that this child was the Christ. “She also “came in that instant and gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of Him to all them that looked for redemption in Israel.” So Anna bore witness “to all them that looked for redemption in Israel” to what she had heard Simeon say.

Here is the second mention of a prophetess in the New Testament:

Rev 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

A few other New Testament verses come immediately to mind when reading Rev 2:20.

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

The church at Thyatira allowed a prophetess to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things [false doctrines] sacrificed unto idols. The ‘food’ Jezebel was serving up was all of her false doctrines.

Jezebel certainly did not bother to “cover her head.” That is one thing we know characterizes Jezebel. Jezebel had a man murdered for her husbands sake and didn’t even bother to tell her husband what she was doing.

And yet we are told that a woman can prophesy if her head is ‘covered:’

1Co 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

And again we are told:

Act 21:9 And the same man [Philip] had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.

So we have two scriptural witnesses which tell us that women can ‘prophecy.’ But in the same breath in which Paul tells us that a woman can prophesy with her head covered, he also informs us that women are to “keep silent in the church.”

1Co 14:31 For ye [ye men] may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Co 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1Co 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

“Came the word of God… unto you only?” Do you “think yourself to be spiritual?” Well, if you do, maybe you need to reread verse 37 a few times and allow those inspired words to sink into your ‘spiritual’ mind. These admonitions are spiritual admonitions carrying with them spiritual truths. When we become so bold as to say that these words which Paul, under inspiration of God’s Spirit, admonishes us to consider a “spiritual… commandments of the Lord,” are in reality nothing more that physical admonitions concerning physical order in a physical congregation, then we are defying the apostle and telling him that he needs to realize that his words are physical, and that he needs to acknowledge that the things we are writing are what is truly spiritual.

All who do this, and it has come to the point that this includes most of the Protestant and many Catholics also, are at the same time both “adding to” and “taking from” the plain, straightforward words of God. “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.”

Here is what James says about the scriptures:

Jas 4:5 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?
Jas 4:6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
Jas 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

To submit to God, is to submit to His Word. When one part of the body of Christ lusts and envies the function of another part of the body, there is pride and “every evil work.”

Jas 3:13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
Jas 3:14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
Jas 3:15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
Jas 3:16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.

Pilate asked the question,’What is Truth?’ Christ Himself gives us the answer:

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

The fact that the Pharisees could quote the Old Testament and still not understand it testifies only to their blinded condition. It does not testify to the inefficacy of the scriptures themselves. So I will also pose this question to those who feel that they have “progressed” beyond the plain words of scripture; “do you think that the scripture says in vain”…

1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

1Co 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Nevertheless we still have to confront the verses which say a woman can ‘prophesy.’ We still have to answer the question which always comes up ‘What is the difference between ‘prophecy’ and ‘teaching?’ How can Paul say “let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law,” and in the same breath say that a woman can prophesy with her head covered?

1Co 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

The only way we will come to understand this is to come to see that Paul understood clearly, that the word ‘prophesy’ had a very broad definition which included much more than men “speaking to the edification, exhortation and comfort” of the entire congregation:

1Co 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

Is “edification, exhortation and comfort” all that ‘prophesy’ entails. If “edification, exhortation and comfort” are the full and complete definition of the word ‘prophesy’, then it would appear that Paul is contradicting himself when he tells us that women can prophesy but they cannot teach. After all, what is ‘teaching if it does not edify and exhort and comfort the person being taught?

But if, on the other hand, the definition of this word ‘prophesy’ is much broader than simply teaching to edify, exhort and comfort, then Paul would not be contradicting himself at all when he says that a woman can prophesy with her head covered, yet not teach. Philip’s daughters also could be prophetesses and still not be teachers.So the next step we must take in our quest for Truth should be to ask our heavenly Father to show us what His Spirit had in mind whenever it inspired the “holy men of old” to write down this word ‘prophesy.’

Mat 13:52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Does that sound like we are ever intended to get to the the point that we can leave the scriptures behind under the guise of ‘progressing in the spirit?’ It absolutely does not, and all who are attaching themselves to this ‘fulness now’ doctrine are attaching themselves to a deadly doctrine which is nothing less than the old ‘the resurrection is past” doctrine which Paul warned us all against.

2Ti 2:17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

Let’s go now to the Old Testament which Paul told Timothy to “study to show thyself approved unto God,” and see if we can find out what all is included under the definition of this word ‘prophesy:’

‘Prophesy’ Includes

1) Singing
2) Playing Musical Instruments
3) Prayer
4) Relating dreams
5) Edification Exhortation and Comfort

So it is possible to prophesy without teaching, but you cannot teach without prophesying. Prophesying is a very broad brush while teaching is a very focused part of prophesying.

That is right! When we look into how this word is used in the Old Testament, we find that ‘prophesy’ is a word which is used to include much more than simply speaking as a teacher or a preacher. Let us read what the Holy Spirit inspired to be called ‘prophesy.’

1) Prophesying Includes Singing

The seventy elders who were to help Moses judge the people were all prophets:

Num 11:25 And the LORD came down in a cloud, and spake unto him [Moses], and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them,they prophesied, and did not cease.

Where were these leaders and elders when they were prophesying? Were they in the camp teaching the people? They could have been, but no, they were not:

Num 11:16 And the LORD said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee.
Num 11:17 And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.

Num 11:25 And the LORD came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.

These seventy men were all standing with Moses at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. The only person in the group who was made aware of what was about to happen and who prophesied of the imminent arrival of flocks of quail which would fall upon the camp of Israel three feet deep a days journey on either side of the camp, was Moses. So what were these 70 men doing while “they prophesied, and did not cease?”

Let’s read on and see what others did when they too ‘prophesied,’ and maybe then we can get a feel for what was happening with these men at the tabernacle of the congregation:

2) Prophecy Includes Playing Musical Instruments

1Sa 10:5 After that thou [King Saul] shalt come to the hill of God, where is the garrison of the Philistines: and it shall come to pass, when thou art come thither to the city, that thou shalt meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place with a psaltery, and a tabret, and a pipe, and a harp, before them; and they shall prophesy:
1Sa 10:6 And the Spirit of the LORD will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man.

1Sa 10:9 And it was so, that when he had turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him another heart: and all those signs came to pass that day.
1Sa 10:10 And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them.
1Sa 10:11 And it came to pass, when all that knew him beforetime saw that, behold, he prophesied among the prophets, [with a psaltery, and a tabret, and a pipe, and a harp, before them;] then the people said one to another, What is this that is come unto the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?
1Sa 10:12 And one of the same place answered and said, But who is their father? Therefore it became a proverb, Is Saul also among the prophets?

How is it that King Saul prophesied with these prophets? Answer: “With a psaltery, and a tabret, and a pipe, and a harp, before them… they shall prophesy.”

King David appointed men to “prophesy with ” musical instruments:

1Ch 25:1 Moreover David and the captains of the host separated to the service of the sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of Jeduthun, who should prophesy with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals: and the number of the workmen according to their service was:
1Ch 25:2 Of the sons of Asaph; Zaccur, and Joseph, and Nethaniah, and Asarelah, the sons of Asaph under the hands of Asaph, which prophesied [with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals] according to the order of the king.
1Ch 25:3 Of Jeduthun: the sons of Jeduthun; Gedaliah, and Zeri, and Jeshaiah, Hashabiah, and Mattithiah, six, under the hands of their father Jeduthun, who prophesied with a harp, to give thanks and to praise the LORD.

1Ch 25:6 All these were under the hands of their father for song in the house of the LORD, with cymbals, psalteries, and harps, for the service of the house of God, according to the king’s order to Asaph, Jeduthun, and Heman.

“For song in the house of the LORD, with cymbals, psalteries, and harps, for the service of the house of God.

Of all of these men it is said: “Who prophesied with a harp, to give thanks and to praise the LORD.”

Even an evil spirit prophesied through King Saul as David played upon his instrument:

1Sa 18:10 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and there was a javelin in Saul’s hand.
1Sa 18:11 And Saul cast the javelin; for he said, I will smite David even to the wall with it. And David avoided out of his presence twice.

Is it not obvious that when King Saul “prophesied in the midst of the house” he was singing to David’s music just as He did at the very beginning of his reign when he ‘prophesied’ with the “company of prophets” with musical instruments:

1Sa 10:5 After that thou [King Saul] shalt come to the hill of God, where is the garrison of the Philistines: and it shall come to pass, when thou art come thither to the city, that thou shalt meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place with a psaltery, and a tabret, and a pipe, and a harp, before them; and they shall prophesy.

1Sa 10:10 And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them.

Is this not the same thing that took place among the seventy elders at the tabernacle of the congregation?

Num 11:16 And the LORD said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee.
Num 11:17 And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.

Num 11:25 And the LORD came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.

Is this not why Miriam, Moses sister is called a prophetess? Did not God speak through Miriam as she lead the women in song in celebrating the destruction of the Egyptian army in the depths of the Red Sea?

Exo 15:20 And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.

3) Prophecy Includes Prayers:

1Ki 18:27 And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them [the prophets of Baal], and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.
1Ki 18:28 And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them.
1Ki 18:29 And it came to pass, when midday was past, and they prophesied until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that there was neither voice, nor any to answer, nor any that regarded.

The prophets of Baal were praying and begging their God to come down and burn up their offering. And we are told “they prophesied until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice…”

It should be very clear that prophesying has a much broader application than simply teaching in a congregation. It should by now be clear that Paul was referring to this much broader application when he made the statement that women could indeed prophesy with their heads covered and yet they are not permitted to teach “as also saith the law.”

What Is Love?

Of course there always have been and there always will be false prophets. The last thing in the world these false prophets want you to do is to expose them and their false doctrines. Consequently, such prophets will aways, of necessity, be accusing God’s true prophets of being less than loving when they “try the spirits” and find them to be false spirits. It is called ‘unloving’ to actually apply God’s Words. We then end up right back in the same position of those who teach the false, cancerous doctrine of “agreement in the essentials and tolerance in the non-essentials.” It is the very same doctrine which has produced the 30,000 plus Christian denominations, all claiming to be serving the same God while teaching conflicting and opposing doctrines and “saying peace, peace, when there is no peace.” Here are a few of the scriptures which are considered ‘unloving’ by the heretics of “historical orthodox Christianity.”

“A man that is an heretick, after the first and second admonition reject,” becomes words of hatred proffered, apparently by that same hateful apostle who hates women:

Tit 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

2Jn 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
2Jn 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 
Rom 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

Are these the doctrines of Christ or are these false doctrines from false apostles? Are these spiritual Truths or are these words merely ink on paper? Are those who take these words seriously just modern day Pharisees who know their Bibles but don’t know and recognize Christ? The difference is the difference between life and death. Here again is Paul’s answer to that question:

1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

And here too, is the verse just before John’s admonition to keep any other doctrine out of your spiritual house:

2Jn 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

Are you “abiding in the doctrine of Christ, or have you “progressed” beyond that doctrine? Has it now become unloving to apply these strict warnings against allowing heretics and heresy into your spiritual house? Has it now become a loving thing to just allow a spiritual fornicator to remain in your spiritual house and “leaven the whole lump?”

Here is a verse for the consideration of all those who believe that the written word holds us back from ‘progressing in the things of the spirit:’

1Co 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and [to] Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think [of men] above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
1Co 4:7 For who maketh thee to differ [from another]? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive [it], why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received [it]?

All you who are teaching that you are receiving revelation completely independently of God’s written words, look closely at verse 6. Now leave out the words which have been added to the text. They are bracketed to let us know that these words were added by the translators. Here is how verse six reads without the added words:

1Co 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

Not one of God’s apostles ever “thought above that which was written. And none of them was “puffed up one against the other.” Those who “think above that which is written,” are the very ones who are “puffed up for one against another.” All who go beyond “what is written” have gone ‘beyond’ any possible hope of “trying the spirits to see whether they be of God.” They have not “learned… not to think above that which is written.” They are adrift in a sea of heresy without the rudder of “that which is written” against which to try those “idols of the heart” which have them in their grip. Paul poses this question to all such “prophets who think themselves spiritual:”

1Co 4:7 For who maketh thee to differ [from another]? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive [it], why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received[it]?

After receiving so much from “that which is written,” these “prophets who think themselves spiritual” refuse to “acknowledge that the things which Paul writes are the commandments of the Lord.”

1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

And what are we again told to do with such heretics? Here is the very next verse. It accords with all the other verses which deal with heresy and heretics:

1Co 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

When we go back to a mindset of fear that others will perceive us as dictators who are just looking for an excuse to cast others out of our synagogues, then the sad truth is that we were never really in the synagogue of Christ. Those who “abide in the doctrine of Christ” are uncompromising when it comes to “abiding in Him.”

1Jn 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
1Jn 2:28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

Eze 13:22 Because with lies ye [false prophets] have made the heart of the righteous [who try the spirits] sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked [with all their heresies], that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life ['let's all just love each other']:

Again, what is Truth?

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

When we ‘progress’ beyond God’s Word, we are not sanctified but rather defiled in the very same way the false prophets of old were defiled:

1Ki 22:10 And the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah sat each on his throne, having put on their robes, in a void place in the entrance of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets prophesied before them.
1Ki 22:11 And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made him horns of iron: and he said, Thus saith the LORD, With these shalt thou push the Syrians, until thou have consumed them.
1Ki 22:12 And all the prophets prophesied so, saying, Go up to Ramothgilead, and prosper: for the LORD shall deliver it into the king’s hand.

When God decides to deceive us, we are deceived by our own prophecies. Prophesying in a manner faithful to the word of God will cause all the prophets who are not faithful to God’s Word to hate you and want you dead:

Jer 2:8 The priests said not, Where is the LORD? and they that handle the law knew me not: the pastors also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit.

Jer 5:31 The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love [to have it] so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?

Jer 11:21 Therefore thus saith the LORD of the men of Anathoth, that seek thy life, saying, Prophesy not in the name of the LORD, that thou die not by our hand:

Jer 14:14 Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.[Independent of God's Word]

Jer 26:11 Then spake the priests and the prophets unto the princes and to all the people, saying, This man is worthy to die; for he hath prophesied against this city ["Spiritual Sodom, Where our lord was crucified"], as ye have heard with your ears.

Eze 13:2 Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel that prophesy, and say thou unto them that prophesy out of their own hearts, Hear ye the word of the LORD;
Eze 13:3 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing!
Eze 13:4 O Israel, thy prophets are like the foxes in the deserts.
Eze 13:5 Ye have not gone up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the LORD.
Eze 13:6 They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The LORD saith: and the LORD hath not sent them: and they have made others to hope that they would confirm the word.

So true prophecy must be in accord with God’s word and not “our own spirit.” “The LORD hath not sent them: and they have made others to hope that they would confirm the word.”

Jer 19:14 Then came Jeremiah from Tophet, whither the LORD had sent him to prophesy; and he stood in the court of the LORD’S house; and said to all the people,
Jer 19:15 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon this city and upon all her towns all the evil that I have pronounced against it, because they have hardened their necks, that they might not hear my words.

4) Prophecy includes relating dreams.

Jer 23:25 I have heard what the prophets said, that prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed.
Jer 23:26 How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart;

Even our dreams must be tried “to see whether they be of God.” Any prophet who has progressed outside of God’s Word is a false prophet indeed. And there are many thousands of such prophets.

5) Prophesy Includes “Edification, Exhortation, and Comfort”

1Co 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

While there is no argument at all that many women are very capable public speakers and teachers, the Word of God is still our standard:

1Co 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak [as a teacher] in the church.

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach [in the church], nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Women can and should be teaching their children and younger women. There are so very many ways to help in the church which are crying out to be be filled by women who, like Miriam, want to be a Moses instead of a Miriam.

Both Joel and Peter tell us “Your sons and daughters shall prophesy.”

Joe 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
Joe 2:29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

We have seen how had Miriam prophesied?

Exo 15:20 And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.
Ex 15:21 And Miriam answered them, Sing ye to the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.

Deborah was both a prophetess and a judge. Here is how she is introduced to us:

Jdg 4:4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
Jdg 4:5 And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.

Now look at the very next verse in this story of Deborah:

Jdg 4:6 And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedeshnaphtali, and said unto him, Hath not the LORD God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun?
Jdg 4:7 And I will draw unto thee to the river Kishon Sisera, the captain of Jabin’s army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into thine hand.

And what is the response from this great male leader of the armies of Israel, the people of God?

Jdg 4:8 And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go.

And how does God react to such a spineless man who has to have a woman with him before he will go to war? Who cannot follow the spirit of God’s Word but must be able to see the flesh taking the lead, the soul leading the spirit?

Jdg 4:9 And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh.

So the whole story of Deborah’s judging of Israel is not one which is meant to inspire young girls to political leadership. It is rather a story which emphasizes the shameful condition which has always been the case in Israel:

God already had decided to have a woman to take Barak’s honor because God is relating this whole story of Deborah’s time of judging Israel to show us just how far from Him are the spineless men of Israel’ Here is how God summarizes the state of affairs in His church:

Isa 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee [women rulers, "that woman Jezebel"] cause thee to err, anddestroy the way of thy paths [false doctrines "destroy" any Truth they encounter].

This is not a positive statement and the story of Deborah is not one of the highlights of Israel’s sad and rebellious history. It too “happened to them and is written for our admonition…”

Barak is a perfect spiritual example of the men in the churches who call themselves by God’s name today. They would never in a thousand years quote Paul’s words to the Corinthians, to Timothy or to Titus in their churches. They are afraid of what might happen if a woman is not leading them in their service to God. As Maud Amy Humbard told one of the TV news magazines many years ago, “Rex (her husband Rex Humbard, whose TV program was the largest religious program on TV at that time) “Rex might be the head of the house, but I am the neck, and the neck turns the head.” Rex Humbard, ‘Mr’ Joyce Myers, Kenneth Copeland and all of the other ministers of our day, demonstrate by their actions that they despise the words of God as respecting the function of men and the function of women in the body of Christ.

1Ti3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Those are the Biblical qualifications of a ‘bishop.’ What are the qualifications of a deacon?

1Ti 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
1Ti 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
1Ti 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
1Ti 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
1Ti 3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Now if God’s Word said that a bishop must be the ‘wife of one husband,’ then that is what I would also say. But instead we are told that both a bishop and a deacon “must be the husband of one wife ruling their children and their own houses well” or else they are not qualified to be bishops or deacons.

Can a woman somehow fulfill those qualifications? No, a woman cannot be “the husband of one wife.” If Joyce Myers rules her house and has her children in subjection is she thereby qualified to rule the house of God? No, if Joyce Myers rules her husband she is not even qualified to be a proper mother because she is not setting a proper Biblical example for her children, much less being a proper ruler over the house of God.

And what are women to do in God’s church? Are we given any specific instructions for women?

Mar 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
Mar 15:41 (Who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him;) and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem.

“Many… women… came up with Christ unto Jerusalem… followed Him and ministered unto Him.” How did these women “minister to Christ? They “ministered to Him” then just as they should be ministering to Him to this day. They helped in every way they could. Martha prepared meals, Peter’s mother in law “ministered” to Christ immediately after he healed her of her fever. Mary ministered to Christ by sitting quietly at His feet as He taught and by washing His feet with her tears and wiping them with her long hair. Mary was content with whatever she was given to do for Christ.

Mat 26:13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.

Mary’s humility and obedience is the example which Christ holds forth to us showing what ‘the woman’ is to do in His service. Such an attitude will be richly rewarded while all of todays women preachers and teachers “in the churches” will be having this “idol of the heart” burned out of them.

Other women “ministered” to Christ financially:

Luk 8:1 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him,
Luk 8:2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,
Luk 8:3 And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.

And what are the specific instructions given in the New Testament as regards women?

1Ti 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
1Ti 2:8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
1Ti 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

And why should “not a woman… teach nor usurp authority over the man?”

1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Tit 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
Tit 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
Tit 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

There it is. That is what women should be doing “in the churches.” What a witness are such women! These women do not “despise governments and dominions” ordained by God for the good of his own ‘body.’ “Be teachers of good things… teach the young women to be sober, love their husbands instead of naturally being against them, love and teach their children, be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” There is what God would have women to do in His “church which is His body.”

Is all of this still true today? If it ever was true, then it is still true for today because Truth is not something which changes with time. Jesus Christ is the Truth. Truth Is, Was and Will Be Truth.Truth never changes”

Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Mat 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

All who are willing to twist and distort God’s Word to make “of note among the apostles” into ‘are notable apostles’ are accomplishing nothing less than demonstrating their unwillingness to relinquish this idol of their heart.

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Andronicus and Junia were “kinsmen, fellowprisoners, of note among the apostles and in Christ before Paul.” Is there one word in that verse that intimates that these two women were somehow qualified to be apostles and were somehow exempt from the “commandments of the Lord” concerning the function of women “in the church?”

Conclusion

It should now be obvious that:

1) Christ is “the beginning of the creation of God,” and when all is said and done and the aion’s have run their course, that the power of the throne will still reside in the Father and Christ will still “be subject unto Him.” This is the lesson we are to learn from the fact that “He made them male and female.”

2) When Paul spoke of a woman “prophesying with her head covered” he was not contradicting his own multiple admonitions against allowing women to be bishops and teachers. It should be obvious that the prophesying he was referring to was either 1) singing 2) playing a musical instrument, or 3) praying. It would never have entered Paul’s mind to allow a woman to be a bishop or a teacher. So it is doubtful that she would be either leading a prayer or relating her dreams “in the church.”

3) As long as we are male and female we are not yet in possession of “the promised possession.” It should also be clear that just because there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage in the resurrection, this does not exclude a hierarchy in the spirit realm.

4) Adam’s condition before Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib was a condition of not being complete, and it was through Eve and not separated from Eve, that Adam would become complete. Just as “the church [is] the fulness of Him [Christ] that fills All in all:”

Eph 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him [to be] the head over all things to the church,
Eph 1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

5) That “come out of her my people” is a call to come out of the bondwoman with her bond servant son into the freewoman and her “son of the freewoman.” It should be clear that both are “In Me… In Christ,” and both are the “seed of Abraham” even though one is carnal and rejected. It should now be clear that going from the first Adam to the last Adam is an inevitable progression that all mankind will experience “each in his own order.”

6) That any one who thinks himself a prophet or spiritual needs to acknowledge that the things written are the commandments of the Lord, and that anyone who supposedly has “progressed” beyond those “commandments of the Lord” has ‘progressed,’ right along with Judas, from apostleship into apostasy.

7) That we are “sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise” and will be fighting a spiritual war with the “powers and principalities and rulers of darkness of this world,” so long as we are in this “sinful flesh,”

Eph 6:10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
Eph 6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Mike

• right click to download audio
• Click to play: 

A letter written to www.iswasandwillbe; response by Mike Vinson

Posted January 10, 2012

I came across your website in pursuing a deeper relationship with Christ. I understand that your organization believes a radical view of salvation different from the traditional teachings of Christianity.

Please clarify for me. The unrepentant sinner and those who have asked Jesus Christ to be their Lord and Savior (Sinner’s Prayer) will share the same mercy and grace throughout eternity? There is no hell? No lake of fire and torment? We will live blissfully beside Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists and all who do not accept Christ’s salvation?

Regards,

J_____

Hi J____,

Thank you for your question.

You ask:

The unrepentant sinner and those who have asked Jesus Christ to be their Lord and Savior (Sinner’s Prayer) will share the same mercy and grace throughout eternity? There is no hell? No lake of fire and torment? We will live blissfully beside Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists and all who do not accept Christ’s salvation?

Your question echoes the fact that you have read very little of our website. The scriptures teach that there will be no “Muslims, Buddhists, or Atheists” in the kingdom of God, and what is written oniswasandwillbe.com makes that Biblical doctrine very clear. Sin is common to all mankind, whether Muslim, Buddhist, or Atheists, and yet we are clearly told:

1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

But 1Co 6:9 is not “the sum of God’s Word concerning the fate of “mankind”, and Truth on any subject is found only in “the sum of thy Word”.

Psa 119:160 The sum of thy word is truth; And every one of thy righteous ordinances endureth for ever. (ESV)

It is my prayer that “the sum of God’s Word” is granted to be of more value to you than the sum of those who dismiss God’s Word, simply because so few supposed ‘great men of God’ accept “the sum” of God’s Word.

Since it is manifestly made clear that “neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind… shall inherit the kingdom of God”, and since it is equally clear that we “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God”, it should be amply clear that God has provided a way to change all those sinful characteristics and provide “a propitiation for our sins, but not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world”. And that is what the scriptures actually teach from Genesis to Revelation.

Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him [sin].

This is the simple truth of the entire Bible:

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

The first “all” is “as“, or ‘in the same manner as’ the second “all”. “For as in Adam… even so in Christ…” That is what Christ, and all of His apostles taught. That is indeed “gospel”, or ‘good news’, for all mankind!

So let’s ask the simple question, “How did we all come to be ‘in Adam’?” How that was accomplished is the manner in which we will all came to be “in Christ”. “Even so in Christ will all be made alive”.

We certainly were not given the option of being “in Adam”, and neither are we given the option of accepting Christ. The Bible is very clear on this question. God is working all things after the counsel of His own will. Not just the good and righteous things, but “all things”, and He is doing so in a way that will “through your mercy” give mercy to all who are “in unbelief”.

Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

God either “shows mercy” or “He hardens”.

Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Why would God “harden” anyone? We have just been informed that “it is not of him that willeth… but of God” who either shows mercy or hardens our hearts. The answer is that God, according to His Word, is in the process of making all mankind in His image and after His likeness, and He is doing so incrementally in a three step process, “every man in his own order, Christ the firstfruits, afterward those that are Christ’s at His coming, and then comes [the harvest of all the rest of mankind at] the end [when] death [itself] will be destroyed and God will be All in all” (1Co 15:22-28).

So all those “Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists and all who do not accept Christ’s salvation” “will suffer [the] loss” of being “Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists and rejecting Christ’s salvation” “but he himself shall be saved… by fire“. That is what the scriptures teach concerning the fate of all mankind. The fire of God’s Word will destroy our old man, ‘yet we ourselves will be saved… by that very same fire’. So the prophecy we were given in Genesis 4 is confirmed in the New Testament.

Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him [sin].

This web site teaches that there is a “lake of fire”, but it is noted that this is a ‘lake’. It is not the ‘sea’ which is the symbol for the masses who are to be purified in this ‘lake’.

Mat 22:14 For many [the sea of mankind at this time] are called, but few [the little lake of fire] are chosen.

It is also noted that this “lake of fire appears on the scene at the same time as something called “a great white throne”. It is not a ‘black throne’, it is a “white throne”, because it is “as by fire… [that] all mankind… shall be saved”.

Here is the scripture that tells this Truth to all who have been granted “eyes that see and ears that hear… the things of the spirit”:

1Co 3:13 Every man’s work [Every Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist and all who reject Christ] shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; andthe fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.
1Co 3:14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
1Co 3:15 If any man’s work shall be burned [Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist and all who reject Christ] , he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

I simply read those words to a lady at one time, and her response was “That’s your opinion!” That is not simply my opinion, that is the Truth of the Word of God, as are all these next verses of scripture:

1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

This is not some wistful desire on God’s part. What God wants God gets:

Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

So if God “will have all men to be saved, and to come to a knowledge of the Truth” then He “will do all [His] pleasure”, and all the doctrines of men to the contrary will not stop Him.

When all these Christ-rejecting groups you mentioned, “come unto the knowledge of the Truth”, they will no longer be Muslims, Buddhists or Atheists, and they will no longer reject Christ. God can and God will “have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth”, through the sufferings of the Christ within them all “each in his own order”. That is the function of “the lake of fire”. The lake of fire destroys death and the grave.

Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell [Greek, hades, the unseen, the grave] were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

I quoted 1Co 15:22 above. Now let’s read that verse again and notice the very next verse of 1Co 15:

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming ["a kind of firstfruits", Jas 1:18] .
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end [the later harvest of the fruit, "at the end of the year" seven weeks after the feast of the "firstfruits of [the] wheat harvest”], when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Jas 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

Exo 34:22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year’s end.

We are not begotten of our own will, but “of His own will begat He us”.

Any farmer knows that there are, “in… order”, three harvests in every year. There is a spring, a summer and a fall harvest. The fall harvest was the harvest at “the end of the year”. That is what the apostle Paul means when he tells us:

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

How are ‘all… in Adam’ going to be “made alive”?

1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.

That covers the first two ‘firstfruit’ harvests. Christ is the harvest of firstfruits of the barley, but the firstfruits of the wheat must also be harvested 50 days later. That is why the New Testament church had to be founded on ‘Pentecost’, which is Greek for ‘count fifty’ or seven weeks and one day. “Christ, the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at His coming” takes care of the first two harvests. But the huge harvest of “all in Adam” comes “in his own order… at the end of the year”.

Exo 34:18 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep [Christ, the first of the firstfruits]. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.

Exo 34:22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year’s end. 
Exo 34:23 Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord GOD, the God of Israel.

So there they are “each in his own order”. There are three harvests, two which are referred to as “a kind of firstfruits” and one “at the end of the year”.

1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end [the later harvest of the fruit, "at the end of the year"] when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

James does not say ‘We of our own free will chose Christ’, rather he tells us the same thing Christ told His disciples:

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw [Greek - 'drag', like Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus] him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

So there is no Biblical doctrine of ‘free will’, even a so-called ‘free will offering’ is, according to “the sum of God’s Word” (Psa 119:160) explained as being “from the Lord”.

Pro 16:1 The preparations of the heart in man [man's will], and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD.

So God “prepares our heart” to “both will… and do… His good pleasure”. Sure, we all must “Work out [our] own salvation”, but why do we do so? Do we do so because we “freely choose” to do so? What is Christ’s doctrine on the subject of mankind’s will? Here it is for all who are given eyes to see and ears to hear… the mysteries of the kingdom of God” (Mat 13:10-16)

Php 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
Php 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. 

Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

There it is in very clear words. God works in us “both to will and to do… His good pleasure”, God either “shows mercy” to those who He is saving at this time, or he hardens them at this time. That is how He “works in us… to will…” But those who are not at this time being saved will later, at another harvest “at the end of the year”, after being “tried by fire” and having “the preparations of their heart” prepared to repent of their Muslim, Buddhist, Atheistic and Christ-rejecting” ways, “they also may receive mercy… through your mercy”.

Rom 11:30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
Rom 11:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 
Rom 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

The church of Christ’s time is the type and shadow of the apostate harlot church of all time. It was and it is “those Jews that believed on [Christ]” who wanted to kill Him”. It is the same to this very day. If Christ were here teaching His Mat 5-7 gospel today, and He is doing just that in those who are being persecuted for saying what He said, He would again be crucified by “those [Christians] who believe on Him”.

Joh 8:30 As he spake these words, many believed on him.
Joh 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

As at that time, multitudes today believe on Christ and are His disciples, but very few are His “disciples indeed” who “continue in His Word”.

Joh 8:33 They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
Joh 8:35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
Joh 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
Joh 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
Joh 8:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
Joh 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
Joh 8:40 But now ye [Jews that believe on me] seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
Joh 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

“You cannot hear my word”. Hearing Christ and coming to His Father has nothing to do with any man’s will. It has only to do with those who God gives ‘eyes that see and ears that hear’. Here are Christ’s own words, concerning who was and who was not given eyes to see and ears to hear. Contrary to all orthodox teaching, here is why Christ spoke in parables:

Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given [to understand the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven].
Mat 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

No one can understand, see or hear the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, unless God drags them to Himself totally independent of their own will.

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw [Greek drag] him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

So the doctrine of Christ is that you and I are clay in His hands (Jer 18:4), and He is “working all things after the counsel of His own will” [Eph 1:11], and He is ‘working in us both to will and to do… His good pleasure” (Php 2:13), and He is doing ‘all His pleasure’ [Isa 46:10], and it is God Himself who has given us “an experience of evil” and has “made us to err” and has made “even the wicked for the day of evil” within each of us. So all the sins of all mankind of all time simply demonstrate that flesh was designed by God to be sinful and to be destroyed and replaced by “a spiritual body” for all who are “in Adam”.

Pro 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. 

Ecc 1:13 I applied my heart to inquiring and exploring by wisdom concerning all that is done under the heavens:it is an experience of evil Elohim has given to the sons of humanityto humble them by it.

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Isa 63:17 O LORD, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants’ sake, the tribes of thine inheritance.

Jer 18:4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.

1Ti 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially [not exclusively] of those that believe.

Like any loving father, our heavenly Father simply wants us to learn to be humble and to repent of the evil that He “made us to” do, That is the purpose for ‘giving us an experience of evil’. He did not put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the very middle of the Garden of Eden hoping against hope that man would not eat of it. He knew man would eat of it because “the vessel of clay that he made was marred in [His] hand”, and was simply incapable of avoiding sinful temptations. That is why He put it there. That is why we are told that our calling was given us “in Christ, before the world began”.

2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Tit 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Christ simply doesn’t intend for the masses of those who come to him to hear his parables and His words of life to understand those words at this time. That is why Christ spoke in parables. He did NOT speak in parables to ‘make his meaning clearer’, rather He did so “because… it is not given to [the "multitudes" of Christians] to understand the mysteries of the kingdom” at this time. At this time “Many are called but few are chosen”.

Out of all the tens of thousands of “those Jews which believed on Him”, there were only 120 on the day of Pentecost who were ‘chosen’ to receive His spirit, and His mind. The church was given a time of great physical miracles which, following the resurrection of Lazarus, Christ Himself and “many saints after His resurrection”, served to establish the legitimacy of Christ’s church. But as it always has done, it soon fell victim to false prophets and apostasy.

2Ti 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

Even some of Paul most trusted “fellow laborers” had forsaken him.

2Ti 4:10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.

2Ti 4:14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:
2Ti 4:15 Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words.
2Ti 4:16 At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.
2Ti 4:17 Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.

This apostasy was not just noted by Paul. John knew well what Paul was experiencing. The book of Revelation is addressed in symbolism to “the seven churches of Asia”, the very churches which had “all forsaken” the apostle Paul.

3Jn 1:9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
3Jn 1:10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.

“Diotrephes… casts them out of the church”. That is just how complete was the apostasy of the church before the apostles were all dead, and in the same epistle which chronicles the apostasy of “all they which are in Asia, we are told that this would continue:

2Ti 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

So the Protestant Reformation notwithstanding, the deception has only gotten worse, as Martin Luther warred with and killed Catholics who were killing Protestants, and Calvin murdered Michael Servetus, burning him alive at the stake. And these men are to this very day counted as ‘great men of God’, even as they demonstrated that Christ’s words “had no place in them”.

Nevertheless, Christ is the propitiation for all men, and through the fire of the lake of fire, the most depraved men will one day be caused to confess Christ, repent of rejecting Him and His words, and will be brought by God to repent of being ” Muslims, Buddhists, and Atheists.

I hope all these plain statements from the Word of God help you to see what is in God’s Word concerning the true prayer of all sinners, and the predestined salvation of “all who are in Adam”.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Rom 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 

1Co 3:13 Every man‘s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.
1Co 3:14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
1Co 3:15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Your brother who suffers reproach because I “trust in the living God who is the Savior of all men…”

1Ti 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Mike

• right click to download audio
• Click to play: 

by Mike Vinson (www.iswasandwillbe.com)

Dear Mike,
I was more than a little surprised when I read that you consider it unacceptable to allow an Orthodox Priest (a Christian) to pray for another Christian.

Can you kindly elaborate on why you would consider the oldest Christian denomination to be unworthy of receiving prayer from? These are quite fervent people who spend many hours a week in Christian prayer and worship. Are you perhaps thinking that Orthodox Christians are the same as Orthodox Jews? (they are quite different) 

(Quoting you) “….Orthodox Christian ministers do not “hear God’s words”. They are ‘of their father the Devil’. They ‘do the deeds of their father’, and they do not understand Christ’s speech because they cannot hear His word, simply because they have not yet been given to understand the mysteries of the kingdom of God……” 

I assure you, that this does not sound like you are referring to an Orthodox Christian, but rather an Orthodox Jew, and you might consider writing a clarification on this point. Can you kindly clarify your response in a succinct manner please? 

To assist, I’ve narrowed it down to 2 basic choices: Orthodox Jews-yes or no and Orthodox Christians – yes or no. If it is because they are considered by God to be apostate, when did this start?
Thank you for your time.

In Christ,

M____

Hi M____,
Thank you for your question. You asked me to clarify whether I was writing about Jews or Christians when I wrote that those who know the Christ of the scriptures should not allow orthodox Christian ministers to pray over them. 

Let me assure you that when I write that a follower of our Lord should not permit an orthodox Christian minister, to whom the words of our Lord are pure heresy, to pray for him, I am not referring to an orthodox Jewish Rabbi, to whom the Pope would be considered a scriptural heretic anyway. And I am not speaking of an instance where an orthodox friend or minister, finding out you were sick, asks if you would like prayer for your illness. The point under discussion is an orthodox minister praying for your doctrinal or spiritual understanding. That is just how stark the differences between anyone who takes seriously the words of our Lord, and those who proudly proclaim themselves ‘orthodox Christians’ are.

Neither an orthodox Christian nor an orthodox Jewish Rabbi, would dare to tell those in their charge that they should love their enemies, and “put up thy sword, all who live by the sword shall die by the sword”. If either of them were to abide by that one commandment of our Lord, he would not be an orthodox Christian nor an orthodox Jew.

In this e-mail I will demonstrate for you that the apostasy of the Christian church was an accomplished fact before the death of the original apostles, and that “many have come in Christs name saying He is Christ, [and yet] have deceived many”, and that this process has only gotten worse since the day our Lord uttered those words.
2Ti 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

Mat 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world Greek, aion, age]?
Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
Mat 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
In light of the fact that the word “many” means ‘the majority’ and in light of the fact that Christ said that it would be doubtful that the Son of Man would find faith when He returned, is is super clear, that either our Lord was lying, or else the established orthodox Christian church is the “many who have come in His name, have confessed that Jesus is the Christ, and who are still in the position of “deceiving many.”
Luk 18:7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?
Luk 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
If orthodox Christianity is the church of our Lord, then the answer to that question, posed by our Lord, would be, Certainly, when the Son of Man comes he will find that orthodox Christianity is the largest religion on the earth, and the evil men and seducers, are the vast minority, and there are but a few who have come in Christ’s name and they have deceived but a comparative few souls, compared to the billions Christians who consider themselves to be a part of the orthodox Christian faith. Is that what the scripture show us will be the case? Not according to Luk 18:8.

But when I say that we ought not allow orthodox Christian ministers to pray for us, please understand that I am not denying the sincerity of anyone in the orthodox Christian denominations or the Jewish religion. Nevertheless it is abundantly clear that the Son of God would never allow a dedicated Pharisee who wanted Him dead and who considered Him to be a heretic, to pray over Him and to ask God to remove Christ’s own doctrine from Christ. That is why we are not to allow those who are completely opposed to everything we stand for to pray over us, and anyone who is an orthodox Christian has virtually nothing doctrinally in common with the Christ, of scripture or with those who know the Christ of scripture. 

Having said that, let me confess that I was myself a very sincere orthodox Christian for much of my own life. So I am not condemning anyone for being where God has placed them at this time in their lives. Where any of us are at any given time is all the sovereign work of our Lord Himself according to the scriptures. Every day of life for every human who has ever lived, was known and planned of God “before there were any of those days”.

Look at this 16th verse of Psa 139, in several different translations:
Psa 139:16
(ASV) Thine eyes did see mine unformed substance; And in thy book they were all written, Even the days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was none of them.

(CEV) but with your own eyes you saw my body being formed. Even before I was born, you had written in your book everything I would do.

(GNB) you saw me before I was born. The days allotted to me had all been recorded in your book, before any of them ever began.

(GW) Your eyes saw me when I was only a fetus. Every day of my life was recorded in your book before one of them had taken place.

(MSG) Like an open book, you watched me grow from conception to birth; all the stages of my life were spread out before you, The days of my life all prepared before I’d even lived one day.

(NIV) your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

(NKJV) Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.
This is all summed up in the New Testament in these verses and many others like them.
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

Rom 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
So contrary to what every orthodox Christian minister teaches, it was not the Jews or the Romans who were responsible for Christ’s death. Instead both the Jews and the Gentiles were then, and are to this very day, “doing what God’s hand and God’s counsel has before determined to be done… [since] all their days were written in God’s book before there were any of them”. That is the doctrine of Christ, and that is the doctrine of the New Testament. The death of Christ had nothing at all to do with Judas’s or the Pharisee’s or Pilate, or the Roman’s supposed ‘free will’. Every detail of Christ’s crucifixion was planned in advance and was executed simply because God’s own “hand and counsel determined before” that it be done, as it was done. That is what the scriptures teach.
Act 4:26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
Act 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
Act 4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before [in God's book] to be done.
This subject of the sovereignty of God is dealt with in depth in a paper which is entitled After The Counsel of His Own Will, which can be located in the Essential Reading section in the upper left corner of the iswasandwillbe.com home page.

So sincerity is not to be confused with obedience to the doctrine of Christ. Christ Himself acknowledged that those who killed Him did not know what they were doing.
Luk 23:33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.
Luk 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
Saul of Tarsus, before his name was changed to the apostle ‘Paul’, persecuted the body of Christ thinking he was doing God a service.
Act 22:8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.

1Ti 1:13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
We all, and I include myself, “were before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious… doing so ignorantly in unbelief”. When we give the doctrines of Christ lip service and then do the exact opposite, we are “blaspheming the name of God among the Gentiles”.
Rom 2:21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
Rom 2:22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
Rom 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
Rom 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
It seems like only yesterday that I hated the truths I now see in the Word of God. I hated the idea of having to love my enemies. I especially hated the very thought of not having a free will, which was independent of God’s will over my every day life.

So Christ recognized those who “believed on Him”, and who yet “wanted to kill Him” as being “of their father the devil”, and He recognized them as being such by God’s own design, and yet He never once doubted their sincerity, and even asked His Father to forgive them because they were completely unaware that they we crucifying the Son of God.
So when you say:
“These are quite fervent people who spend many hours a week in Christian prayer and worship.”
I have no doubt that is very often true, but then so did the “blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious” Saul of Tarsus, who was later to become the repentant “Paul the apostle” who agreed with our Lord, that we are to love our enemies, and “endure all things”.
Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
Mat 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

1Co 13:4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
1Co 13:5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
1Co 13:6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
1Co 13:7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
So this question of yours offers me the opportunity to clarify for you how the established Jewish church of Christ’s day, as well as the Jews of Christ’s day who “believed on Him [and yet] wanted to kill Him”, are the Biblical type of the established church of every generation since our Lord walked the earth. The established church of every generation rejects the above words of our Lord, along with many other teachings of the New Testament. 

When we fail to see that the Jewish church and the Jews of Christ’s day are the Biblical symbol of the established Christian church of today and of every day since the apostles, then all of our Lord’s words will always be for, and apply to someone else besides me. They will always apply to ‘those evil Jews’, those sadistic Roman soldiers, or to someone who is not part of the orthodox Christian church. When that happens, His “words will have no place in us” (Joh 8:37).. 

You see, it was not just those Jews which did not believe on Christ, who wanted him dead. It was also “those Jews which believed on Christ” who wanted Him dead. This is something “the oldest Christian denomination” to this very day does not recognize. They still think it was unbelieving Jews who sought to kill Christ, and they demonstrate their spiritual blindness, and their inability to see that it is “believers in Christ”, to this very day who reject the Christ of the scriptures, and in doing so fulfill these words of our Lord:
Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
Mat 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
It is people “who believe in Christ”, and who “come in His name, [who] shall deceive many”. 

Here it is again:
Joh 8:30 As he spake these words, many believed on him.
Joh 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed;

Joh 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye ["who believe on me, and who claim to be Abraham's seed by being "in Christ", Gal 3:28] seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
So it was believers who “had no place in them for Christ’s Word”, who wanted to kill Him. It is the same to this very day, and that is why the established Jewish church of Christ’s day is the Biblical type and shadow of orthodox Christianity to the very day. The Jewish church was even called “the church in the wilderness”.
Act 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
Act 7:39 To whom our [churhc] fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt,
Our so-called, orthodox Christian “church fathers” except for the true apostles of our Lord, who are the real “church fathers”, have done the same, and have thrust Christ and His Words from them. What orthodox minister can you name for me who would dare to tell a most loyal soldier, fighting for the Son of God Himself, these words, as Christ told Peter and you and me:
Mat 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him [Peter], Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
Mat 26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
All orthodox ministers teach us to fight for God and country. They despise these words of our Lord when it comes to fighting in the wars of this age, and of this world. That is true for both orthodox Christians and Jews.

When orthodox Christians, be they the Pope himself or any Protestant minister, teach you to ‘love your enemies”, and then with the same mouth and same forked tongue, tells you to hate our enemies and go out and fight for God and country, while claiming to be Christians, they are doing nothing less than “blaspheming the name of Christ among the Gentiles”. 

What orthodox minister or priest, can you name who even knows the meaning of these words:
Col 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church:
If Christ really is living His life in us, then we, like Him, will lay down our lives with Him, we will “put up again our swords”, and we will “fill up in our bodies what is behind of the afflictions of Christ”, rather than fight to preserve this life.
Luk 17:33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
If Christ really is living His life in us, then our battle for Him and His cause will be fought as He fought that battle. It will be fought against all the false orthodox ministers who have come in Christ;s name, “saying that He is Christ”, and yet teaching those in their charge, who are all part of the differing warring denominational factions in this world, to go out and fight and kill their fellow man in the name of God and country.

My intention is to stand on the Words of Christ, and the most obvious thing in this world is that orthodox Christianity is exactly who Christ had in mind when, as quoted earlier, He made this statement concerning the end of this age:
Mat 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? [Greek, aion, age]
Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
Mat 24:5 For many [read orthodox Christians - not Jews who deny Christ] shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Those words have been true since the day they were uttered. There always have been, and there will always be “many who come in Christ’s name, confessing that Jesus is Christ, [and yet] deceiving many”. 

Now I want you to be honest with yourself. Do you honestly believe Christ was speaking of physical Jews when, in answer to “When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the world?” Christ’s answer was referring to ‘Many orthodox Jews shall come in My name, saying I am Christ; and shall deceive many’? Would that even be logical, seeing that all but a few of the Jews have completely rejected our Lord?

”Many” does not mean ‘a few’. It means the majority of orthodoxy – Jewish or Christian – who in actual practice, utterly despise these words of our Lord:
Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
Can you name a single orthodox minister, or priest, who lives by those words? Of course you cannot. If he did, he would not be an orthodox priest or minister. Orthodox ministers teach that you should love your enemy unless he really means you and your family and your country bodily harm, in which case, and I quote one nationally known minister, “You should step on him like a cockroach”. That explains why our Creator used a serpent to symbolize the devil. A serpent has a forked tongue and confesses to the Truth, while at the same time denying it.

Those who read this web page regularly know that the primary application of all scripture is to be understood as being first lived out within the lives of each of us.
Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man [Greek, anthropos - mankind, you and me] shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
We all first fall into the lies of orthodox religion, including orthodox Christianity. Orthodoxy is called in scripture, “Babylon the Great, the Mother Of Harlots, and of the Abominations of The World”.
Rev 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
Rev 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
Rev 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
Who is this great spiritual harlot? Many Protestants say it is the Catholic Church. But if that is the case, who then would that make the many Protestant churches? Who also would that make the established Jewish church of Christ’s day? Would Judaism then become the Grandmother of Harlots? It is clear from Christ’s own teachings, that all who hate Christ’s doctrines, and in whom “Christ’s words have no place”, are “Mystery Babylon The Great” in every generation of mankind. In Christ’s own words, it was the established church of His day, and so it has always been. It is Babylon The Great, in whom Christ’s Words have no place, who want Him dead. Today’s established church which utterly despises the doctrines of Christ, happens to be both the Jewish religion, who to this day considers Christ to be “a criminal who died for His crimes”, as well as all of the established Catholic and Protestant churches, who have all been killing each other and their enemies since the days when Christ told Peter, “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword (Mat 26:52 ).
Joh 18:7 Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.
Joh 18:8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:
Joh 18:9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.
Joh 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.
Joh 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
Who gave Christ this “cup to drink”? That is right, it was “My Father”. We are to drink of that same cup from which our Lord drank, by simply obeying His doctrine. That is how we “die daily” and “lose our lives”.
Mat 10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

1Co 15:31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.
Our drinking of that same cup is laying down our lives in His service instead of fighting to preserve our physical flesh. This is Christ’s doctrine, and that doctrine to this very day will get Christ and His disciples crucified, by the established Catholic and Protestant ministers, to whom it is not given to drink of His cup.
Mar 10:39 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:
Jesus told His disciples of every age, that if they were willing to follow Him they would “be hated of all men” and those men would “scourge you in their synagogues” [read 'churches'].
Mat 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves [A Biblical word for apostate Christians, not Jews, Act 20:29-30]: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
Mat 10:17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; [churches]
Mat 10:18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
Mat 10:19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
Mat 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
Mat 10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.
Mat 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
“Christ’s name’s sake” is His doctrine’s sake. It is those who hear, but “cannot receive” Christ’s words who hated Christ while He was here on this earth, and it is the very same people who hear Christ’s words today, who claim to be Christians, but who cannot receive and live by Christ’s doctrines, who hate those who are faithful to that doctrine. It has always been so.
Joh 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they [the church] have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
As I have shown, it was not the Romans who wanted Christ dead. No, it was the church of His day, and what is so little understood to this very day is that it was those of that church “who believed on Him” who wanted Him dead, simply because it was not then and it is not to this day, granted to the “many which believed on Him”, them to receive His Words and His doctrine. That is what the New Testament teaches from Matthew 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.

Here is what has been given us to understand, if we have been given eyes that see and ears that hear the mysteries of the kingdom of God. Here is the very root and beginning of the apostasy of those who believed on Jesus Christ. That apostasy from our Savior began before he was even crucified. It subsided after the founding of His spiritual church, but it gained great momentum even before the death of the original apostles of Christ. 

Here is what we have been told by the scriptures themselves as to how “many would come in Christ’s name and would deceive many”:
Joh 8:30 As he spake these words, many believed on him.
Joh 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Speaking to these very same “believing Jews” Christ continues in this same chapter:
Joh 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
Here we have our Savior acknowledging that these believing Jews are “Abraham’s seed”, and yet He also tells us that “those Jews which believed on Him… seek to kill Him… because His Word has no place within the many who believe on Him.

There is one more thing we need to realize concerning when and where the outward apostasy away from the words of our Lord, of the orthodox Christian church began. The truth is that the apostasy moving away from the words of our Lord, was an accomplished fact, even before the death of the apostles themselves. 

We are all aware of the sad shape of the seven churches of Asia as a whole, as their sad spiritual condition is made known to us in Revelation 2-3.
Rev 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
Rev 2:3 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name’s sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.
Rev 2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.

Rev 2:12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;
Rev 2:13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan’s seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas [was] my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.
Rev 2:14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
Rev 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, [Meaning 'Nico' - rule, 'laitans' - laity] which thing I hate.
Rev 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Rev 2:18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet [are] like fine brass;
Rev 2:19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.
Rev 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
Rev 2:21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
Rev 2:22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
Rev 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

Rev 3:1 And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.

Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
Rev 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
Rev 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
That was the state of the church before the death of the apostles. Here is what the apostle Paul said of these same churches of Asia before his death.
2Ti 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
Paul saw this coming and had warned Timothy of it in his first epistle:
1Ti 1:19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
1Ti 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
How do we “blaspheme the name of God among the Gentiles”? We do so by preaching one thing, and then with a forked tongue preaching and doing the exact opposite. So this epistle concludes with the names of even more of “those who believed on Christ” who forsook the very apostles of Christ, and thereby they forsook Christ.
2Ti 4:9 Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me:
2Ti 4:10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.

2Ti 4:14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:
2Ti 4:15 Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words.
2Ti 4:16 At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.
2Ti 4:17 Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and [that] all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.
2Ti 4:18 And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.
To this very day, all orthodox men, men who, like Demas, Cresens, and Titus, who all were formerly Paul’s “fellow laborers in the gospel”, “love this world” more than the words of our Lord, and they forsake those who stand firm on the word of God. That is how it was with Christ, that is how it was with His apostles, and that is how it will be with “all who will live godly in Christ Jesus”, as Paul had just told Timothy.
2Ti 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
Did the other apostles have this same experience? Yes, of course they all did, but the apostle John makes it clear that the orthodox Christians of his day were already so ensconced as to be able to put the true Christians “out of the church”.
3Jn 1:9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
3Jn 1:10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.
3Jn 1:11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.
The apostasy had gained so much strength in the churches that the apostates were in control and were “casting out of the church” those who were sent to them by the apostles.

What do we know for certain of these “evil men”? Were they prophesied to be rooted out of the church by those who put the love of God above the love and acceptance of their fellow apostate Christians? No, that is not what we are told would happen. Here is the one thing we know for certain concerning these apostate Christians and their doctrines:
Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
Mat 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
To which the holy spirit adds these words immediately after telling us that we are to expect to be persecuted by these very apostates known as orthodox Christians.
2Ti 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
2Ti 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
So that is what has been taking place since the days of the apostles. It was so bad by the beginning of the fourth century that a pagan king named Constantine had co-opted the entire church and was waging wars against his enemies in the name of Christ.

Instead of “rejecting a heretic, and having no company” with him, as the holy spirit admonishes us, Constantine and the Catholic bishops appointed by Constantine, had heretics killed. Orthodox Protestants did no better when Martin Luther waged war against the Catholics of Europe, making the so-called Reformation nothing less than simply a more insidious apostasy.
Tit 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

2Jn 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
2Jn 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
2Jn 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
But the words inspired by the holy spirit were not sufficient for either the Catholics or the Protestants, so the great Protestant minister Calvin, had Michael Servetus burned alive at the stake, and had his throat slit so as to keep Servetus from spreading his supposed heresy with his dying breath. I have no doubt that Luther, Calvin and many Popes have been very sincere men who have spent many hours in fervent prayer, but sincerity and due diligence do not equate to obeying the words of our Lord.
Luk 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
Orthodox Christianity and each of us within it have “lost (our) first love, dwell where Satan’s seat is, and hold the doctrine of Balaam”, who snared God’s people with the doctrines of the daughters of the people of the lands who they were told to destroy. Those pagan daughters are the Biblical symbol of all the false doctrines which have taken root in the orthodox Christian Church and in each of us who have all been a part of that unholy system called Babylon the great the mother of harlots and of abominations of the world. 

Evil men and seducers have waxed worse and worse since the days of the apostles, to the extent that orthodox Christianity, now practices the doctrine of the Nicolaitans who lord it over the laity, while supporting the false doctrines of the false prophetess Jezebel. 

Orthodox Christianity has a name that it is alive, but it is, in reality, spiritually dead. It thinks it is rich and increased with goods and in need of nothing, not knowing it is wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked.
Rev 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
In the epistles of Paul to Timothy, and in the second epistle of John, we have an array of sincere, Christian men, who no doubt had spent many hours in prayer with the apostles Paul and John. They include Paul’s fellow laborers in the gospel like Demas, Crescens, and Titus, who he considered a son.
Phm 1:24 Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellowlabourers.

Tit 1:4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
They include all the prominent men of the Ephesian congregation. Hymenaeus and Alexander, Phygellus and Hermogenes, and Alexander the coppersmith. This may be the same Alexander of 1Ti 1:20, but whoever these men are, they became the original orthodox Christian church fathers, who “cast out of the church” the true followers of our Lord, and did not allow them to speak in the very churches which the apostles had raised up in all those cities.

We have no record of these men being exposed and rooted out of their prominent positions. We do have scriptures out of the mouth of our Lord which tell us that many would come in His name and deceive many, and we have even later inspired scripture which declares that these very same deceivers would wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.

So you tell me, where are the many who Christ said would come in His name and deceive many? Where are the wicked men and seducers who would wax worse and worse? Are these not words which have proceeded out of the mouth of God which you and I have lived as we have all been partaking in the Babylonian harlot system known as orthodox Christianity, which to this very day would crucify Christ if He returned and taught the multitudes of orthodox Christians of today to love their enemies?

I hope this has made clear who I was speaking of when I said that no true follower of Christ would receive a prayer over him by an orthodox Christian minister who has nothing spiritually in common with a true son of God who calls Christ his Lord and does what Christ says to do.

Your brother in the true shepherd of His flock, Christ,
Mike