Back to Media

 

God gave the Ten Commandments and a lot of ordinances to Israel. Some rules and principles carried over into the New Testament. It is still wrong to murder, steal, worship other Gods, or commit adultery. However, the church is not expected to follow the Law of Moses. This was given to Israel and not the church.

The church following all the ordinances and sacrifices would be akin to Israel being baptized and taking communion. God gives instructions to different people at different times. It is important to be obedient to what he tells you and not others.

Would it mean anything to God for us to start building an ark? This is what he told Noah for the saving of the righteous at that time. If you want to go back and follow old instructions: why not go back further?

Should we:

Leave our current city (like Abraham and Lot were told)

Sacrifice our sons in Moriah (Abraham)

Go and kill all the men, women, children, and animals that live in Amalek (Saul)

Put blood on our house for the Passover.

Go and warn Nineveh (Jonah)

There are any number of meaningful examples in the Old Testament. It is valuable reading. You must make a distinction between the covenant God had with Israel and what he does with the church. Not even everyone in the Old Testament was under the Law of Moses.

Names like:

Adam and Eve

Seth

Noah

Abraham and Lot

Isaac

Israel himself

Moses wasn’t under the law for most of his life

Should Adam have circumcised Seth? Why didn’t he build a tabernacle and walk around the wilderness? Even the Old Testament isn’t all about the Law of Moses. Why would the New Testament be?

I will start my Biblical support of my position with the tenth chapter of Acts. Did God use a sinful vision to show something was all right? Would that make any sense? Of course I am referring to the vision Peter saw. In his dream all manner of beasts were given for him to eat.

Under the Law of Moses, this would not have been permissible. However, the rules are all up to God. After Peter originally objects he is told “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.”

I am big on not changing God’s rules. I think I made that clear in other papers. I don’t agree with the whole times have changed argument in regards to men making it. On the other hand, God can change whatever he wants whenever he wants.

Say someone had three small children. He thought it wise for them not to cross the street due to their age. If the kids got together after a while and decided they no longer should follow because they were a little older this would not play. They would still be disobeying. If daddy sees they are older he could tell them to disregard the rule. This is his prerogative as a parent.

God can change whatever commands he wants followed for whichever group he designates. He will tailor appropriate rules to suit the situation. This rule seems as more of a symbolic wrong which stood as a picture. Israel was to only partake of clean animals as defined by God. It marked a larger separation.

He then opened this to reveal the opening of righteousness or spiritual cleanliness to a group that was seen as unclean (the gentiles). I have heard people debate that we should eat only clean animals by saying this was a symbolic dream. Of course it was symbolic and that just makes my point.

There was no need for this rule anymore because it represented something which was no longer there. The clean/ unclean distinction between people based on biological lineage was torn down. If it is gone, why have a physical rule representing it? This would be misleading and unnecessary.

Also, God was showing Peter that something was all right. He wanted him to feel comfortable in preaching to a gentile. Would he represent something which was all right with something which is a sin (eating unclean animals)? What kind of garbled and mixed message would this be?

God was showing a change. He was showing that this change was of him and by him. More than just all right, this was God’s plan. To question it is to question God. He didn’t like it when Peter questioned it as the quote above shows.

How could eating unclean animals still be wrong? Does God use sin to show something is all right? Should he have used Peter committing fornication, murder, idolatry, or persecuting the church to make the point that spreading the word to the gentile was good? What possible sense could that make?

Especially when you consider how serious God takes internal thought in relation to sin. Things like lust and hatred are wrong in and of themselves. Do you really think God implanted a thought of what some claim as sin in the church age into Peter? So God sees eating unclean animals as sin and therefore made Peter do it in a vision to show something was permissible now.

Yes, this was a vision. The only way the vision makes any sense given the context of the story is if eating all manner of animals is in accordance with his will. Otherwise this whole story becomes ridiculously inconsistent.

(1st Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving)

This is a stark contrast to the law of Moses. Even if Israel said thanks, they weren’t to eat certain animals. It would have been like saying thanks to sin. God designated animals as clean and unclean. This clearly isn’t the case anymore.

Beside dietary law the rule of circumcision is also of interest. I will start this discussion with the 2nd chapter of Romans. Paul makes it clear that the law was a path to the fulfillment of righteousness. Bragging about it doesn’t mean the bragger is on this path with their actions. The gentile might do a better job without the law.

This entire discussion is very telling in terms of God’s plan. However, it crystallizes around circumcision at the end. The last five verses show circumcision as an embodiment of the first point. Being circumcised was just an outward sign of one’s position with God. The circumcision God wants is actually in the heart.

You can expound on God’s rules all you want. You can talk about God’s rules and how great they are. He wants his lessons to live inside you. Circumcision does not prove this.

(1st Corinthians 7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.)

Was this attitude all right during the law? Was it “if you want to do the sacrifice, do so, if not, don’t.” This isn’t showing a general liberal attitude towards God’s word but showing circumcision isn’t necessary to the church.

(Galatians 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised)

I’m sure Paul would have compelled Titus to be circumcised if this was the will of God. Paul wasn’t big for looking the other way from iniquity. Remember the guy fornicating with his father’s wife in Corinth? This must not be a commandment for the church age.

The 15th chapter of Acts leads us from circumcision to the more general idea of keeping the Old Testament law during the church age. Verse one says “And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” Verses 2-6 describe how Paul and the apostles gathered to discuss this matter. Peter’s answer goes from 7-11.

(10, 11 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? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.)

Notice the powerful language in ten. Peter said “why tempt ye God.” This idea of putting members of the church under the Old Testament law could only frustrate God. It would only frustrate the grace he offered to the church.

Also in ten the Law in and of itself saved nobody. Why be like Israel when they couldn’t keep it either? This would be adding a burden the church couldn’t bear.

The final point here is that Peter and Paul were of the tribe of Israel by lineage. Peter includes them as not being under the law but under the grace of Christ “even as they.” Even those who were Jews by nature were under grace. Why impose the law on those who weren’t Jews by nature? James picks up on this in verses 13-21.

(19, 20 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.)

James says they shouldn’t “trouble” them with the law. God’s rules aren’t a problem. But why encumber a group with rules that are not relevant to them? That is James’ point here. He then starts setting down some of the rules the church will be accountable for.

I don’t see these as something to ignore or have some libertine attitude toward. You should never do that with rules that apply to you from God. You should disregard commands not given to those of the church. These will only confuse and add too heavy a burden. Verses 23-29 describe letters sent out by the apostles.

(24 Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, ‘Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law:’ to whom we gave no such commandment)

How easy would it have been to tell the church to keep the law? There was a lot of pressure in the area to say this. The letter could have just said “keep the law of Moses.” This is obviously not what the apostles thought.

Note again the powerful language “subverting your souls.” Was this idea of keeping the law to be confused with a good thing after reading this? A subversive is not a good guide but a liar leading you astray.

A clear line was drawn here between the apostles and those of Judea who were preaching circumcision and the law as necessary. I don’t see how they could have made it more clear. This was a foreign message which the apostles rejected. They distance from these other messengers by saying “to whom we gave no such commandment.” This message was against the apostle’s point. It was not of God.

Anyone who thinks we are under the law in the church age should read chapters 2-5 of Galatians. I believe any number of verses in these chapters make it quite clear we aren’t under the law. Let’s look at some verses from chapter 2.

(14-17 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, “If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.”)

Straight away Paul makes the point that even Peter as a Jew by nature doesn’t keep the law. Therefore, why impose it on gentiles? This would be beyond hypocritical. Hypocritical would be if Peter was a gentile, not keeping the law, trying to get other gentiles to follow. If the law were necessary, Peter should have followed it more than the gentile.

Notice “a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.” The word “but” shows a complete change of direction not to be confused or mingled with the first part. If you are under the grace of Christ you aren’t under the law. Notice again “that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” We are justified by this and not that. It is an either/ or proposition.

The rest of this chapter is also very instructive in regards to the law. Verses 18 and 19 show that Paul sees himself as dead to the law. He doesn’t want to rebuild what Christ put down. Being under the law would put Paul back under sin.

Note 21: “I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness came by the law, then Christ died in vain.” You are not enhancing your standing in Christ by putting yourself under the law. You are agitating it. You are calling it into question. By relying on the law you can make Christ’s sacrifice of no effect.

(Galatians 3:2, 3, 5 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? He therefore That ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth He it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?)

In both 2 and 5 the question is the hearing of faith or the works of the law. Paul is asking them to make a choice between them. You don’t mingle the two together. He is also making it clear what that choice should be.

Verses 6-9 of this chapter give our example from the Old Testament. His name was Abraham. He was made a promise through faith. This promise extended to those in the church age who followed his example. He believed God and was obedient to God though his obedience had nothing to do with the law of Moses. He predated this. He wasn’t accountable to the law just as we are not now.

(3:10, 11 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, “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.”)

You can put yourself under the law if you so please and wish to. The problem is that it doesn’t lead to righteousness or salvation unless you keep it perfectly which you can’t. Even if you could: it isn’t what God asks of anyone in the church age. Given this: you are actually putting yourself under a curse.

(3:16-19 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, “And to seeds,” as of many; but as of one, “And to thy Seed,” Which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made;------)

The overarching promise from the Old Testament was the one made to Abraham. The righteous will inherit the earth. This isn’t dependant on the law. The law was added 430 years later. The promise is extended through the grace found in Christ.

These verses show the beginning and end of the time of the law through careful reading. They tell you when and why it was added. Verse 19 shows its end with “till the seed should come to whom the promise was made.” When Christ completed his purpose the law was no longer in effect. Paul furthers this later in the chapter.

(Galatians 3:22-25 But 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 were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith is come, we are no longer under the schoolmaster.)

The law was perfectly valid before Christ. This is what Israel was instructed to do by God. However, it pointed toward the need for Christ above all. It showed man in a concrete way how much he comes up short. The sacrifices and the high priest behind the veil showed forth the one who could take away sin. The law was ultimately symbolic of something and someone greater.

The law prepared the way. This is how the analogy of the schoolmaster comes into play. The schoolmaster teaches you lessons which will hopefully be applicable outside of class. Most people don’t spend their entire life in school. It is more of a means to an end.

Schools in most regions teach math, language, history, the arts, and something about society and sociology. They enhance the student’s ability to process life in the area where they live. Schools first help to assimilate children into the complicated world they will hopefully contribute to one day. This is the purpose of basic education.

Colleges further advance these basic ideas. They can also help someone hone their knowledge in a particular field. Some go to trade or training schools with this same intent. This can help them to get a job that requires specialized knowledge or training. It can then hopefully help them to be proficient at their job.

Schools are not meant to be a never ending journey. They ultimately prepare the student for something else. The law was not the endpoint of salvation but more of a forerunner. It was a good teacher for sharp students.

Verse 25 makes it abundantly clear that after faith in Christ one is no longer under law. I don’t see how this point could be missed. The purpose of the law was to get to Christ. Once you have him on your side through faith you no longer need the thing pointing you to him.

Say you were looking for a remote store out in the middle of nowhere. One of the townsfolk tells you to look hard for the sign pointing to it off a dirt road. You find the store using the sign and go and purchase whatever you needed. Does it benefit you to go back out and look for the sign again? The sign already served its purpose to you. The instructions to look for the sign are now useless. It would also be like a calculus wizard going back to basic math in elementary school. Why?

(3:26-29 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 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. And if ye be Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.)

The promise to Abraham supercedes the law. Faith in Christ is more perfect than the law. These are two of the essential building blocks of salvation. The first and last verses in this quote make this obvious. Where is the law in all this? To answer my own question: it is excluded.

Verse 28 further hits home another point. It was irrelevant that Peter was of the lineage of Israel from the discussions above. All that are under Christ are in the exact same boat. In the church age all of the church are under the same standards. These standards don’t include the law for anyone. “There is neither Jew nor Greek.”

(Galatians 4:1-7 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord o all; but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of 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. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, “Abba, Father.” Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.)

Paul adds more depth to the idea of the law as a schoolmaster here. He really wants to make this point. The law served its purpose but it is now over. Those under the law have been redeemed and gone from servant to son.

The picture from verses 21-31 of this chapter is also illuminating to the question at hand. In 21 Paul says “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?” Right off the bat, does this sound like he supports the position of those who think they are under the law?

Paul then explores the story of Abraham’s two sons as an allegory. Ishmael was born of a bondwoman and stood for the bondage of the law. Isaac was born of the freewoman by promise representing grace.

Verse 24 shows Paul is talking about two covenants. To put yourself under law at this time is to be comparable to being Ishmael who didn’t receive the ultimate righteous promise. Verse 28 says that we “as Isaac was, are the children of promise.”

Verses 29 and 30 remind me of the quote from acts. Those still under the law will persecute those who have set themselves free from it through Christ. They will try and force this unnecessary bondage on the freeborn. Many did this to Christ and the apostles and it still occurs to this day.

In the end though, the bondwoman is cast out. There is no meeting of the minds or correlation here. Those under the law and those under grace are very much at odds. Those under Christ receive the promise and those under the law don’t.

(Galatians 5:1-9 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, 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. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? This persuasion cometh not of Him That calleth you. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.)

This is the grand finale on Paul’s dissertation on not being under the law in this letter. Paul first refers to being under law as being “entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” Does this sound good and productive?

From verse 2, of course some males are still circumcised for reasons of cleanliness. The clear context here is circumcision for adherence to the law. If you put your stock in finding God’s favor through the law then “Christ shall profit you nothing.”

I love the point in three that you can’t pick part of the law to be accountable for. I will further this discussion later. This reliance of the law also leaves you a “debtor.” You will have to pay for your sins without Christ paying for them for you.

Verse 4 again shows the either/ or nature between the church’s position of grace and being under the law. It says “whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” Notice the way this has built on itself in just a few verses. To keep part of the law is to be accountable for all of it. This leads to falling from grace. The law just isn’t to be dabbled with at this point. It just doesn’t fit in to the church.

Verse 6 again points out that circumcision, like the rest of the law, just doesn’t avail anything. Verses 7 and 8 show this giving over to the law as a perversion or deviation from the righteous path they were on. The law doesn’t add to what you are doing as a member of the church in the eyes of God. It takes away from it. It is a classic matter of addition by subtraction.

Verse 9 again shows not to even dabble with a little of the law. It says “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” It is like adding corruption. This corruption spreads. This is no small matter to be overlooked. It becomes a big matter when you try to infuse the law into the recipe of righteousness.

(Colossians 2:16, 17 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.)

I made the point that it is in bounds to reprove or rebuke a brother in regards to what was given to the church in my paper on works. You should make judgments on certain actions as a church. You can’t say you shouldn’t make judgments on things like reveling or hatred. This is clearly showing that you shouldn’t hold anyone accountable to the works of the law. Anyone who tells me that I must keep the sabbath is at odds with this verse.

Paul even briefly examines why this is the case. The law included many things which were “a shadow of things to come.” Once something, or in this case someone, comes you no longer need to foreshadow. You no longer need to foretell or prophecy. Why settle for a picture instead of the real?

Chapters 7-10 in Hebrews also make my point in different ways. 5:10 and 6:20 show that Christ was a high priest after the order of Melchisedec. 7:1-10 show the importance of this priesthood. Verses 11 and 12 say “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.”

Things have changed! There was no way to find perfection under the law! It was not a standalone! It pointed forward to something greater!

Verses 13-17 show that Christ was not of the tribe of Levi and not of the order given under the law. The priests of the law symbolically paid tithes or homage to this greater priesthood. Verses 18 and 19 read “For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.”

To disannul is to cancel or abolish. The reason the law had to be cancelled is then given. It was unprofitable without something greater coming to replace it. It says “For the law made nothing perfect.”

It kind of amazes me that people still want to be under the law almost two thousand years after Christ. Perpetually keeping the law gets you nowhere. It was not God’s ultimate plan but something for Israel to do in Christ’s stead until he came. Now it has been annulled. Christ is the “better hope” you should follow.

Verse 22 says “By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.” If you have the better testament available to you: why follow the worse one. It is now passé. It has been replaced by a better one. There is no reason to look back other than using Israel and the righteous of the Old Testament as examples.

(7:26-28 For such an High Priest became us, Who is holy, harmless, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for His own sins, and then for the people’s: for this He did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, Who is consecrated for evermore.)

The high priests of Israel made symbolic and imperfect offerings. They had to repeat them over and over. Christ’s perfect offering of his own life was the logical endpoint of this. Christ’s one time and perfect sacrifice is better than a million bulls or goats. Why go back to something which is so much less?

Verses 1-5 in the next chapter explain the power of Christ’s ascension versus the symbolic nature of Moses’ creation. Christ is literally by God in the heavens to make direct intercession for those who are his. Verse five refers to the things of the law as “the example and shadow of heavenly things.

(8:6, 7 But now hath He obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.)

If someone takes a second wife, their first is no longer their wife. They are no longer accountable to her. A second covenant can only imply the end of the first. You are no longer bound by the first under God. The newest contract is the one both sides are accountable for. Old contracts are ripped up and discarded.

For the first to be replaced, it must have come up short in delivering man a means of salvation in and of itself. Otherwise, why scrap it? The second is a better and more complete covenant which doesn’t need to be replaced or enhanced with the first. The new covenant is what is applicable for the church.

(8:8, 9 For finding fault with them, He saith, “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; because they continued not in My covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.)

Why would you wait to be part of the new covenant after Christ? Read carefully “Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers.” You are not under the law. How much more clear could he make this? Is your argument that you are not under it but kind of still are? Is God wrong in saying the new is not of the old?

Verses 10-12 continue this thought: AND THEN

(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.)

Can you really continue to make the argument that we are under the law at this point given this verse? God has “made the first old.” It has withered away into obsolescence. What else could the point of this verse possibly be?

Chapter nine really establishes the symbolic nature of the law. The first seven verses cover the tabernacle and the high priest going behind the veil. This was clearly an allegory of Christ entering into heaven and being with God.

The whole thing was like a play. It was a physical representation of a future event. All the props stood for something. The high priest stood in for Christ. Leaving the story of Christ out of this would have left it just a guy going into part of a tent. There was nothing mystical about this as a standalone.

(9:8-10 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the Holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.)

Closely notice the past tense nature of this quote pertaining to the tabernacle. Note “while as the first tabernacle was yet standing,” “Which was a figure for the time then present,” and “imposed on them until the time of reformation.” This was past tense when Paul wrote it almost two thousand years ago.

Also note that this couldn’t make anyone perfect. It was just representative of the great event. Accepting Christ directly can make you be seen as perfect through his death, burial, and glorious resurrection and ascension.

Verses 11-14 reveal how much better Christ’s blood and true tabernacle are than what Israel had. Verses 15-22 give the importance of death in establishing the beginning of a testament. Note again the past tense nature of the Old Testament in 15: “that were under the first testament.”

Verses 23-28 show there is no further need for animal sacrifice. Salvation is obtained through Christ’s one perfect sacrifice. All the ones Israel did only pointed to that.

The tenth chapter really makes the end of the law and the reason why it ended beyond clear. Verse one again points out the law had “a shadow of good things to come.” It then says it “can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect.” The whole goal is to be seen without sin by God. Obviously, animal sacrifice can’t accomplish this so why keep doing it?

Verse 2 yet again refers in past tense to this. It says “for then would they not have ceased to be offered.” Obviously, they have ceased to be offered because they no longer serve a purpose. They cannot make anyone perfect. Christ can.

Verse 4 says “for it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.” Is Paul’s point that you should still do it? Why follow something which doesn’t lead to salvation? This is about as useful as asking a pagan idol for forgiveness. God won’t accept it.

Verse 5 points to the need of a man needed for sacrifice. Verse 6 says “in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hast had no pleasure.” Verse 8 says “sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin Thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein;’ which are offered by the law.” See how he lumps the law in with this in the end. There is no use for the law or the sacrifices therein anymore.

Verse 9 closes this out big by saying “he taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” Did it say “he took away part of the first,” or “he added to the first,” or “do both the first and the second?” When something is taken away it is gone. This wasn’t just talking about sacrifice but the first covenant.

The first covenant is no longer in existence in part or in whole. It has been replaced by the second and more perfect one. Why try to dig up even part of what God buried? He took it away for a reason. His purpose is perfect. Is going against it a path to pleasing him? I think not.

There is no option to take the first or the second here. There is no remix version where you do a little of both. The first option was taken away which only leaves the second. I don’t see what other reasonable conclusion could be taken from this.

Part-timers need not apply

I have shown how the Sabbath, dietary rules, circumcision, sacrifice, and the law itself have been faded out. What gets me are those who want to keep part of the law. They pick and choose a few rules to follow as though this will get them some extra credit. I see this philosophy as being very similar to that of a lot of modern day Christians who pick and choose which parts of the New Testament to follow. This is a weak and half-hearted way to try and please God.

I really think you need to come to a point where you are under the law or you aren’t. If you say the church is under the Law of Moses, there are a lot of rules you need to know about. You should carefully read Deuteronomy, Numbers, Leviticus, and Exodus. They are filled with rules to follow under the law.

Or is your argument that we are kind of under the law. We are under just the rules that we want to follow. I guess we aren’t under the law on the ones you don’t wish to bother with. Rules like:

The purifying and sacrifice to accompany the mother after childbirth (Lev. 12)

Seven month, ten day Sabbath and atonement (Lev. 16)

You can’t mingle or mix different cattle, seed in the field, or fabrics for a garment (Lev. 19:19) better check those tags on your shirts a little closer- don’t want to break the law

Rounding the corners of your beard or head (Lev. 19:27)

You should support the death penalty for all gays (Lev. 20:13)

Death penalty for wizards (Lev. 20:27)

Daughters of a priest who play the whore role should be burnt with fire (Lev. 21:9)

These are just a few from Leviticus. There are many more for you to follow. If we are under the law, let’s be consistent and follow the law. If not, look for the rules which carry over to the church age and the law might give you more depth of understanding on them. Just look for the symbolism and message in those rules which don’t. They aren’t given to the church.

It is like the old saying, in for a penny in for a pound. If you are in, go all in or don’t bother. Did God have respect for those of his chosen people who kept part of the law? Why would he have respect for you doing the same? Should we keep maybe half the law and half the commandments given to the church? How about a mixture of what God told Noah, Adam, Lot, Abraham, Moses, and the church? Let’s just dabble and make our own remix covenant. Inconvenient rules shall be discarded. Find others given to someone else to fill in the void.

(Luke 5:36-38 And He spake also a parable unto them; “No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old. And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.)

What do you think this is speaking of? You don’t combine the new and the old. There isn’t a happy medium. Either go new or old but not both all at once. This combining of the two will only fall apart like a cheap suit or spill out from a broken container.

(2nd Corinthians 3:11-18 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.)

The first part of this chapter makes it clear this is a comparison between the Law of Moses and the ministry of Christ. Verse 7 refers to the Law of Moses as the ministry of death. Nine calls it the ministration of condemnation. Is this something you want now?

This leads into 11 which reads “if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.” The commandments of Moses were “done away.” For the last time, notice the past tense “was glorious.” What more could it say to tell you this is over? Should it say it is so, so, so, so, so, very, very, very, very over and done with? If it did; would you still say we should keep part or all of it?

In 13 the veil represented Israel’s inability to see the true glory of God. It also says “that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished.” They see no end to the law. They are blinded to the glorious gospel of Christ superceding it. Notice again the power word “abolish.”

Verse 14 shows that if you follow the ways of Israel to this day it is the blind leading the blind. The veil stays up due to the reading and adherence to the Old Testament which was “done away in Christ.” The veil of Moses was actually also symbolic of the future blindness of Israel by trying to follow the law in the church age. It is a spiritual blindness in their heart. Verse 15 points this out.

The Law of Moses and the veil therewith are something to be turned away from in verse 16. It isn’t to be a part of something new but discarded. In 17, the Lord grants liberty from the law through grace. Through this we can plainly see the glory of God in verse18.

Do you wish to be blinded or even partially blind? Looking at the New Testament through the prism of the old will create this situation. The two don’t work together. They are separate and meant to be kept that way. The one is over and the new is now the true.

To find the new you must turn away from the old. It isn’t right behind the old such that you can follow one direction and go through both. It is a new and better direction. The old only leads to death now that there is something better. Why mingle death in with life? Is life not good enough by itself?

Do you want liberty of liberty/ slavery? Do you want freedom from the law or freedom/ keep parts of the law? Do you want Christ or Christ/ Moses? Isn’t Christ enough? Finally, do you want grace or grace/ under the law of condemnation? All these things are mutually exclusive. They can’t exist together all at once.

If you are at liberty from the law; you are at liberty from all of it. If you are under the grace of Christ; this is complete and doesn’t need to be added to or taken away from. Layering more onto Christ’s way is subtraction by addition. Why mess with perfection?