Category: Uncategorized

The New Testament affirms that the old law or covenant was taken out of the way (Galatians 3:24-25; Hebrews 10:9). Some suggest there were two laws in the Old Testament era—a moral law and a ceremonial law—and that only the latter was taken away.

Those who make this distinction say the moral law, which consists of the Ten Commandments, is called “the Law of God.” It was given by God, who wrote it on stone tablets which were placed in the ark of the covenant. It is to stand forever. The ceremonial law, which consists of all the other ordinances, is what was called “the Law of Moses.” It was given by Moses, who wrote it in a book which was kept beside the ark of the covenant (Deuteronomy 31:24-26). Only this law was abolished by Christ. The practical effect of all this is: since the Ten Commandments are still in place, people today must keep the Sabbath.

Does the Bible teach the moral/ceremonial law distinction, with the old moral law still in force?

To begin with, the Bible does not use the expressions moral law or ceremonial law. That does not necessarily mean the concepts are not there, but it is interesting. Looking further, the suggested distinctions do not hold up in Biblical usage.

The expressions law of Moses and law of God are used interchangeably. Ezra brought “the book of the law of Moses” to read (Nehemiah 8:1), yet in v. 8 that same book is called “the law of God.” In describing the events of Jesus’s birth, Luke says, “And when the days for their purification according to the Law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, ‘Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord’), and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, ‘A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons’” (Luke 2:22-24).

Since Luke cited the sacrificial regulations of Leviticus 12 as “the Law of the Lord,” it is obvious that the law of God was broader than the Ten Commandments; it included sacrificial laws as well. See 2 Chronicles 31:2-4 for a similar example, or the events of 2 Chronicles 34.

The Bible says the law of Moses was given by God (Ezra 7:6), and the Law of the Lord was given by Moses (2 Chronicles 34:14).

Jesus attributed statements both in and out of the Ten Commandments to God (Matthew 15:4). In Mark’s gospel, He attributed both those same statements to Moses (Mark 7:10)!

Mark 12:28-31 says when a scribe asked Jesus what the greatest commandment was, Jesus cited two: to love God with all your heart (Deuteronomy 6:5) and to love your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus 19:18). He said no other commandment was greater than these. (Paul later wrote that many of the Ten Commandments were summed up in the command to love your neighbor [Romans 13:9]). If the moral/ceremonial law distinction is valid, the greatest commandments were taken away while lesser laws were left intact!

In Romans 7:4-7, Paul cited “You shall not covet,” the last of the Ten Commandments, as part of the law from which we have been released. In 2 Corinthians 3:6, he wrote that the law written on stones is a “ministry of death” which has been replaced by a new covenant, one of life. Therefore, the notion that only the ceremonial law was taken away is clearly false.

This moral/ceremonial law distinction that some suggest is not Biblical. Romans 10:4 says, “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” He is not merely its termination; He is the one who offers righteousness, the goal or aim which the law intended. Righteousness cannot be achieved by keeping laws. It requires forgiveness, and that is obtained in Christ (Ephesians 1:7). Are you in Him? BY TIM HIMMEL

“GOD LOVES YOU AND I LOVE YOU AND THAT’S THE WAY IT’S GONNA BE!” – MIKE

In the Old Testament we read the story Abraham offering his son Isaac.  God told Abraham, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you” (Genesis 22:2).  So Abraham went, and he took Isaac with him.  When they got to Mount Moriah where Abraham would make the offering, Isaac asked about the sacrifice.  In Genesis 22:8, we read: “Abraham said, ‘God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.’ So they went both of them together.”  After God stayed Abraham’s hand, and provided a ram for sacrifice the Bible says, “So Abraham called the name of that place, ‘The LORD will provide’; as it is said to this day, ‘On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided.’”

God will provide.

We all have tests and trials to go through in this life.  There are times of uncertainty, trepidation, worry, and fear.  As we live by faith, God promises to be with us as He was with Abraham.  We deny self, empty our lives to God, and become that living sacrifice that He wants us to be. 

Before Abraham could offer up his son to God, Abraham had to offer up himself trusting that God would take care of him and his family.  His proclamation to Isaac, “God will provide,” gives us hope that when troubles arise in our life God will be there for us and provide what we are needing for the moment.  It is hard to relinquish control to God, but in doing so, God will conform of us to image of His dear Son, who gave up everything to teach us who God created us to be.  God bless you and I love you. BY KEVIN CAULEY

“GOD LOVES YOU AND I LOVE YOU AND THAT’S THE WAY IT’S GONNA BE!” – MIKE

People who insist that the Old Testament Law is still in force often appeal to Jesus’ statement that He did not come to abolish the Law and Prophets. Think with me about that statement.

Let’s begin by hearing Jesus’ complete statement. It is recorded in Matthew 5:17-19. “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

At first glance, it does sound as if the Law would never be abolished. However, other passages unmistakably teach that it was. Paul wrote that Jesus abolished “in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances” (Ephesians 2:15). He described the Law as a tutor to lead to Christ (Galatians 3:24), then said we are no longer under a tutor (v. 25). The author of Hebrews argued that Jesus priestly service necessitated a change in law (7:11-14) and that “He takes away the first in order to establish the second” (10:9). He also reminds us of Jeremiah’s prophecy that God would make a new covenant with His people (8:7-13; Jeremiah 32:31-34).

Is all this a hopeless contradiction? Not at all. Think further about Jesus’ statement.

The Not/But Contrast
Sometimes, when Bible writers or speakers state a not/but contrast, not is used in an absolute sense, completely eliminating that element altogether. For example, love does not rejoice in unrighteousness but rejoices with the truth (1 Corinthians 13:6). Christians must not return evil for evil but give a blessing instead (1 Peter 3:9).

In other cases, a not/but contrast serves only to de-emphasize the not element. The idea is: not merely, exclusively, or primarily this, but more especially that. For example, when Jesus said, “Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life . . .” (John 6:27), He was not prohibiting working for a living; He was warning against too much focus on the physical and not enough on the spiritual. Likewise, Paul’s statement that “we are not under law but under grace” (Romans 6:15) cannot be interpreted to mean we are under no law at all; if that were the case, we could not sin, because sin, by definition, is a violation of God’s law (4:15). We are indeed under law, but more especially, under grace.

Interpreting Jesus’ statement “I did not come to abolish but to fulfill” in the absolute sense makes it contradict the numerous clear references to the Law being abolished. Taking it in the relative sense—not merely to abolish but especially to fulfill—fits perfectly with all other references.

Accomplishing/Fulfilling the Law
Jesus said the Law could not be taken away until all was accomplished, and that He came to fulfill it. How did Jesus fulfill or accomplish the Law? He did so in at least four ways.

First, He fulfilled the Law’s precepts by keeping them perfectly. He lived under the Law (Galatians 4:4) and did so without sin (John 8:46).

Second, He fulfilled the Law’s prophecies. Predictions of what Jesus would do were not just stated in the prophets; they were also symbolized in the Law (e.g., the cities of refuge, the day of atonement, the Passover, redemption, etc.). At the end of His life, Jesus referred back to His word that all things written about Him in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled (Luke 24:44-46).

Third, He fulfilled the Law’s penalty for sin. The Law cursed anyone who did not keep it perfectly (Galatians 3:10; Deuteronomy 27:26; 28:1). Though He was sinless, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having became a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’” (Galatians 3:13). This citation is from Deuteronomy 21:22-23. Stoning was the means of execution under the Law. Sometimes, however, a man who was executed because of his sin was subsequently hanged on a tree to heap further humiliation on him; it showed him to be accursed. Jesus died by means of being hanged on a tree so to speak, thereby illustrating the purpose of His death: it was atonement for our sins.

Fourth, He fulfilled the Law’s purpose. The Law was intended to give life (Deuteronomy 30:15-20). It had a major deficiency, however: it did contain a sufficient provision for removing the guilt of anyone who violated it. What the Law could not do, God did through Jesus’ death (Romans 8:3-4). Therefore Paul could say, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Romans 10:4). He is the “end,” not just in the sense of cessation but also in the sense of the goal or intent.

Conclusion
Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:17-19 did not preclude His taking away the Law. He fulfilled all that the Law said about Him. Once He had done that, He could and did take it away. Until that occurred, however, He cautioned against neglecting it or tampering with it. While we do not live under the Old Testament Law, while we are “under grace,” we surely need that same careful spirit in our approach to the law of Christ. BY FRANK HIMMEL

“GOD LOVES YOU AND I LOVE YOU AND THAT’S THE WAY IT’S GONNA BE!” – MIKE