Don A. Childs

donallenchilds@yahoo.com
Sign InView Entries
Interested in learning more? You're at the right place!  Click on the article to read.  Click OK to return to the top.
Articles of Interest
Presents or Presence?

“As for you, son of man, the children of your people are talking about you beside the walls and in the doors of the houses; and they speak to one another, everyone saying to his brother, 'Please come and hear what the word is that comes from the LORD.' "So they come to you as people do, they sit before you as My people, and they hear your words, but they do not do them; for with their mouth they show much love, but their hearts pursue their own gain. Indeed you are to them as a very lovely song of one who has a pleasant voice and can play well on an instrument; for they hear your words, but they do not do them. And when this comes to pass--surely it will come--then they will know that a prophet has been among them.” (Ezekiel 33:30-33)

Why didn’t Ezekiel’s people hear him? Verse 31 says, “…their hearts pursue their own gain.” Yet are we really any better? Look at the preaching across the country: never more powerful, more learned, more dynamic, more eloquent. Thus says the Lord: “But if they (the prophets) had stood in My counsel, and had caused My people to hear My words, then they would have turned them from their evil way and from the evil of their doings.” (Jeremiah 23:22) But each one is given to gain, as it is written, “Her heads judge for a bribe, her priests teach for pay, and her prophets divine for money.” (Micah 3:11)  

Do we seek gifts (presents) or do we stand in God’s Presence? You cannot embrace the cross with your hands full.

So, what about Christmas? Will it be presents or His Presence? At the foot of two trees are gifts – one, the Christmas tree with gifts wrapped in colored paper; the other, the tree of Calvary, cruel, blood-stained yet at its foot the Presence of God is given. Merchants everywhere encourage us to “Get in the spirit” and get gifts. A spirit of greed, of covetousness, the spirit which now works in the sons of disobedience calls us (Ephesians 2:2). They are legion!
All this doesn’t minimize that the BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST WAS ORDAINED BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH (Acts 15:18), WAS PROPHESIED BY HOLY MEN OF GOD THROUGH THE CENTURIES (1 Peter 1:11) and was desperately longed for by a lost and dying world – making His birth the singular event most anticipated and recognized in all of human history. As Scripture declares, the birth of Christ is “Good Tidings of Great Joy!” (Luke 2:10) And on this we can all agree!
Nevertheless, I believe we would also agree that His birth has been decorated with an apparent mix of the pagan and sacred, the worship of God and mammon. We are assured by some that there is a secular Christmas and a pure Christmas celebration. Yet this belief is very hard to actually prove. (Concentrate Bereans – Acts 17:11) “I beg you to hear me patiently”, as it is written: “Let the prophets speak and let the others judge.” (1 Corinthians 14:29)  
If there ever was a pure Christmas, it was the first Christmas. (I’m not going to deal with the meaning and origin of the word “Christmas”. The word isn’t in the Bible anyway.) At least three positive elements were found in the first Christmas besides the actual birth:
1) a miracle star
2) magi visit and bring gifts
3) angelic announcement to the shepherds

Interestingly, Christians everywhere attempt to reenact this event weeks in advance by creating a sense that it is about to happen again. Songs of anticipation build up expectancy as if the newborn king is about to arrive for the first time. In many churches advent candles are progressively lit culminating in candlelight services the night before. In cities nationwide, manger scenes are constructed, donkeys are rented, young girls and plastic dolls are all orchestrated with magi bearing gifts. (No matter that the magi didn’t actually attend the birth – Jesus was already in a house when they arrived (Matthew 2:11), and Herod’s death order indicates Jesus may have been approaching two years old – no matter, magi look good at a manger scene.) The role-playing, the emotional build up is repeated year after year as are the events surrounding Easter. Anyway, this is, we are assured, basically the pure Christian Christmas celebration. Gift giving is said to mimic the magi’s example and even the “Don’t Open Til Christmas” labels help children learn how the world had to wait until that special day for God’s greatest gift.  

Christmas lights are said to mimic the star of Bethlehem. Lights on the house, on the bushes, on the mailbox, on the trees. The tree is often topped with a star (like Bethlehem) or an angel (like the shepherds) … but now we’re supposedly getting into the “bad” Christmas. The Christmas tree is bad we are told (Jeremiah 10:2-4). Yet some say its evergreen nature speaks to everlasting life. And Santa, while called bad too, is often said to be a modern version of a true saint called Saint Nicholas who upon discovering three poor girls with no dowry Christianly tossed money into their stockings hung by the chimney with care. This all seems so reasonable and even useful as a witnessing tool. Who could question it? What could be more Christian than Christmas? The media portrays the non-observant as Scrooges and Grinches with bitter, greedy hearts. Should we be surprised that the media defends Christmas?
Yet over 400 years ago the German reformer Martin Luther rocked a sleepy, corrupt church by saying, “Whatever is not founded upon Scripture is of the devil himself.” Or, as another reformer, Menno Simons, stated, “…we must be governed alone by the expressed and positive commands of Christ, and pure doctrines and practices of His Holy apostles…” (The Works of Menno Simons, pg. 31) These do not declare such things on their own authority. Isaiah, 2600 years ago, unquestionably a holy man of God said, “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isaiah 8:20) Isaiah’s word is the Word of God.

I want to ask you three simple questions –

1)Does Scripture teach us, with expressed and positive commands, to celebrate Christmas?
2)Does Scripture teach that because the magi gave gifts to Jesus we also should give gifts to each other?
3)Does Scripture speak in such a way so as to allow us to incorporate pagan rituals into Christian worship?

Let’s deal with the last question first: Does Scripture speak in such a way so as to allow us to incorporate pagan rituals into Christian worship? Review 
2 Kings 17:5-6, 18-19, 23-24, 27, 29, 32-34, 40-41. Samaritans were hated by the Jews for this reason. Even Jesus rightly said, “You (Samaritans) worship what you do not know.” (John 4:22) “So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: "The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, saying, 'Go to this people and say: "Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you will see, and not perceive;  
for the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them." ' "Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!" (Acts 28:25-28) Israel rejected – the Gentiles brought in. “Through their fall, … salvation has come to the Gentiles.” (Romans 11:11 in part)
But before we go any further, I’d like to tell you a little story. Come with me as I pull back time’s curtain just a little to see what it was like in pagan Europe before Christianity was introduced. (My comments will be based upon Will Durant’s book Caesar and Christ, a history.)
The European family was one flooded with spirits, gods and goddesses. There was a god of orchards, one for cattle, one for corn in the oven, Vulcan for making fire, Terminus dwelt in trees, Janus guarded the family’s doors to their home. One commentator of the time reported 30,000 gods in the Roman religion. Never had a religion worshipped so many divinities. Under all this was a tangled mass of popular belief in the worship of nature, totem poles, magic, spells, superstitions and taboos. Sacred orgies, animal and human sacrifice and endless holy days (over one hundred per year) typified European paganism. However, the gods were neglected in the autumn months when barns were full of produce. Yet winter brought a curse. Days shortened, nights grew colder. Fearful pagans fearing the death of their sun god called him back with the lighting of torches and candles – “Come back, O god, O sun – see, we worship you. We too light a lamp!” Leaves fell from the trees; death was everywhere, but wait! There – a tree – still green. It must be more powerful than the death wind. “O tree, teach us your wisdom. Let your spirit adorn our homes, teach our children.” And then, unexpectedly, the sun stopped its decline, the process reversed. The day – the sun god is reborn! He is winning over the death wind. Rejoice! Give gifts to one another! The magic of the evergreen tree prevailed, “and many liberties were allowed.” Thus the celebration of the holy day Saturnalia was begun.
Pagan Europe murdered countless Christian missionaries that were led into its regions. In Rome, Paul was beheaded. Peter was crucified upside down in Rome. The blood flooded the floor of the coliseum. “Throw the Christians to the lions!” the crowds screamed. Christians were covered with tar and used as torches to light Caesar’s pavement. Little Christian children dressed in sheepskins were sent into arenas to be torn to pieces by killer pit bull dogs. Europe was not an easy area to evangelize. Our forefathers were very stubborn and wicked. 
 (Ephesians 2:11-13) “Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh …that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.” Our European forefathers, like the Samaritans, were called on to receive the blessing meant for Israel (see Romans 11:15-25). Yet the European Christians still follow many of their former rituals. “The influence of the Saturnalia upon the celebrations of Christmas and the New Year's has been direct.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 20, p. 8) This is no secret.

The Scent of Europe is Still With Us

When Jacob’s Rachel left home, homemade idols left with her.
When Lot’s wife fled Sodom, Sodom’s lust lingered in her.
When Israel walked out of Egypt, they carried more than Egyptian dust on their feet.
Egypt’s idols they still carried in their hearts.
When Achan left Jericho victoriously, he carried the Babylonian curse in his bag.

A little homemade – idolatry;
A little Sodom – of lust;
A little Egypt – of pride;
A little Babylon – of wealth;
A little leaven leavens the whole and destroys the blood atonement!

Listen: The blood is on the door – good – the blood of the Lamb.
The death angel must pass over – the door is shut but wait:
Hear the word of the Lord: 
“No leaven shall be found in your houses, since whoever eats what is leavened,
that same person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel…” (Exodus 12:19)

Pass it through the fire of God’s Word - Can it stand the test? Embrace it.
If not, and you still hold tight 
You are as foolish as Samson embracing Delilah – she held the scissors.
You are as foolish as Saul sparing the Amalekites – an Amalekite killed him. (2 Samuel 1:13)
You are as foolish as Solomon building that which must tear him down.
You become as one embracing Jesus with Judas’ kiss.

Our fathers served other gods across the Atlantic – their rituals we maintain.
The blood on the door is made void when there is leaven inside.
Come out of her, My people, and get her out of you.
But today, the scent of Europe is still with us.
Our culture can influence us in ways we may not perceive. Take the history of birthday celebrations for example. Our forefathers put great stock in birthdays. Jews, according to Scripture, did not celebrate birthdays. They did keep simple records however. Early Christians echoed this attitude. Origen, in 245 A.D. is typical – “The worthless man…loves things connected with birth and keeps birthday festivals. And I…find nowhere in Scripture that a birthday was kept by a righteous man.” Now please, don’t misunderstand what I am saying here, and I don’t share this to condemn cake and ice cream and party hats although some do behave as if such celebrations are sacred memorials. However, we should realize that the exalting of birthdays is an emphasis from our European past, not a Biblical emphasis. And…while we may not be aware of it, we often (unfortunately) believe Scripture SHOULD emphasize what our culture says is important. Our past tells us that great men have their birthdays celebrated, and if Scripture doesn’t teach a yearly birthday celebration for baby Jesus, well – “By Jove, we’ll just have to invent one!” Do not conform Scripture to culture but let culture be transformed by the renewing of the mind into the true image of Christ (Romans 12:2). 

No, God’s word does not condone incorporating pagan rituals and beliefs into Christian practices today. “Thus says the LORD: ‘Do not learn the way of the Gentiles; do not be dismayed at the signs of heaven, for the Gentiles are dismayed at them. For the customs of the peoples are futile; for one cuts a tree from the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the ax. They decorate it with silver and gold; they fasten it with nails and hammers so that it will not topple.” (Jeremiah 10:2-4)

The second question is: Does Scripture teach us that because the magi brought gifts to Jesus once, we ought to give Christmas presents to each other? If it does, the disciples didn’t seem to catch on since there isn’t even a hint in the New Testament that anyone anywhere exchanged Christmas gifts. They did rob Paul (he provided the gospel free of charge) to pay Peter (the poor saints in Jerusalem.) That is, a gift was sent. If the magi’s gifts teaches Christmas gift giving, the entire early church missed it too! And we may say the magi themselves failed to grasp the supposed fact that they were inspiring a yearly celebration, for they, according to Scripture, never return to repeat the birthday celebration again. If magi gifts allude to yearly gift giving, and we are justified in supposing our practices from such scant Scriptural justification then the Catholic and Reformed arguments for infant baptism are looking better than I thought. Thousands of Anabaptists apparently died for a technicality. No, the Bible doesn’t teach that since magi brought gifts once to Jesus, we should year by year mimic this by giving presents to one another.

Does Scripture teach us with expressed and positive commands to celebrate Christmas? If we say it does, we need to answer two difficulties:
A. Neither Jesus nor His apostles teach such; and
B. Church history clearly indicates there was no celebration of Christ’s birth 
  until 200 to 350 A.D. “The earliest evidence for the feast (of Christmas) 
is from Egypt in the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria of about the 
year 200.” (Colliers, Vol. 5, p. 237) “Christmas on December 25th is 
first known to have been celebrated in Rome in the 2nd quarter of the 4th 
century.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 15, p. 705) The church in 
Jerusalem didn’t begin to celebrate it until a century later.

If Scripture, if Jesus, if the apostles teach us to celebrate Christmas; why didn’t Jesus say so, the apostles do so, and the early church “Ho-ho”? If we will speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent, then we know of no Christmas celebration. If we feel compelled to speak in harmony with our culture, our traditions, and our ideas of what should be the Christian emphasis – Isaiah says it is because there is no light in us (Isaiah 8:20).

Jesus Christ once declared: “In vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matthew 15:9) Nothing can be called Christian unless Christ through God’s word teaches this!  

So there, your blood pressure went up, the arguments went tumbling through your mind. Let me ask you: Have I become your enemy because I tell you the truth? These facts can no longer be hidden. You would suppose that something as non-Biblical as Christmas would be lightly held. And if I wanted to opt out, no one would really care. WRONG!!! The firestorm of controversy over becoming non-observant is both persistent and vicious. Our own families (one Christian, the other heathen) reacted much the same way. Shock, confusion, anger – it is even difficult to become a member of Christ’s Church if you don’t participate. “You may be a Jehovah’s Witness!” As Michael Satler, Anabaptist martyr could have said of the persecution, “If we are mistaken, we have suffered accordingly for our ignorance.” He was burned alive.

Scripture is our authority – Christ is our Head. I’ve read the Bible; you’ve read the Bible. You’re responsible to God. Be a Berean (Acts 17:11); faithfully, honestly, nobly check these things out. “Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind.” (Romans 14:5b) If you are doing presents – do it. Trees – do it. Santa – do it. (Oh, that may be going too far.) But when you get a few spare minutes, I ask you, please consider what I’ve said. And may the Lord bless you.

(Acts 17:10-13)
“Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men.”

Obviously, the real meaning of Christ’s birth has little to do with trees, gifts, celebrations, holidays or Santa. And look what I’ve done … I’ve spent all this time attending to the correction of such things!
Matthew and Luke tell of Jesus’ birth, while Mark does not. John goes out of his way to stress the point that the Word was born but already existed in eternity. As for all the rest of the New Testament, there is but one further comment concerning the birth – Paul says in passing that Christ “was born of a woman.” (Galatians 4:4) Why does the New Testament de-emphasize the birth of Christ? Well, it could be what I’ve already said about the Jewish tendency of ignoring birthdays, OR, it could be that Old Testament Scripture had either ignored them or put them in a bad light (such as Pharaoh’s birthday), OR, it could be the intentional turning away from the human aspects of Jesus as indicated in 2 Corinthians 5:16 where we read, “Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we now know Him thus no longer,” OR, it could be the point John makes at the beginning of his gospel and Paul makes in his – Hebrews 7:3 – Christ today is eternal “having neither beginning of days nor end of life…” The overwhelming emphasis in the New Testament is on the message that Christ is God, Christ is alive, and Christ desires to dwell in us daily through His Presence, the Holy Spirit. (Colossians 1:27) “Christ in you, the hope of glory.” The exceeding glory of Christ Jesus with us today makes the birth of Christ yesterday like a pale photograph, precious but yet less glorious. As when Christ bursts through the sky to take us all home, we’ll leave our quiet devotionals on the desk.  
Beware, lest you worship the memory of Christ and, in the present, bar the door of your heart to His actual Presence. Don’t suppose this can’t be done. Let’s face it, the baby Jesus is easier to admire than the living Christ is to obey! Look around, the world adores the baby and rejects the Man. The world idolizes the Christ Child in fine plastic; and yet argues, grieves and scorns the Spirit and truth of the living Christ. The world unashamedly, hypocritically sings, “Hosanna” and “Oh, come let us adore Him”, and moments later can be heard in their actions shouting, “Crucify Him, Crucify Him!” – all over again, 2000 years later. Jesus is no more welcome today in America than He was in Israel – yet strangely, we today hear Herod’s sentiment being repeated in Christmas celebrations: “Go and search diligently for the Christ Child, and when you have found Him, bring back word to me that I may come and worship Him also.” Can Herod’s spirit be with us? As this nation sings, “Oh, come let us…” more babies are slaughtered in abortion daily (4000) than was the entire population of Bethlehem in Jesus’ day. Will God pardon such a nation as this? Does God accept such worship? The blood of innocents still flows. One nation, which draws near to God with their mouths yet their hearts are far from Him!  
In conclusion then…what is the point of Scripture’s Christmas story? Simply put – Our hearts are more vile than any shepherd’s cave. Our minds more hostile than Roman legions. Yet the birth of Christ teaches us one eternal truth – a truth as unbelievable as God born in a cave or love in the face of vicious hatred – (one eternal truth) “God loves us so much He opens His very Self to our dirty, hostile hearts, inviting us to let Him in to stay.” Faith begins so small, like leaven in flour; yet if we welcome Him, He will increase and fill all of you for: “He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.”  
This Christmas, as you witness the world play the hypocrite, pray for them – the wrath of God looms over such a people. Pray that you can direct them away from the plastic to the Presence of Christ - away from a focus on the presents into fellowship with His true Presence. Pray that our vile hearts will not be as that inn – overcrowded with urgent things but EMPTY, SWEPT and PUT IN ORDER, awaiting again the rushing, mighty wind filling the whole house with, not the spirit of Christmas, but the Spirit who is from above!  

Ready? Let’s invite Him in again!


God's Rest

Text: Genesis 2:1-3
“Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.”

It is my personal belief that the teaching of the Sabbath is one of the most important teachings in the entire Bible. My goal is to appreciate God’s great provision in Christ Jesus. As it is written: “He who glories, let him glory in the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 1:31) Those who observe the day and those who call everyday alike should and can, through Christ, mutually respect each other in God’s love. As Romans says: “Therefore receive one another, just as Christ also received us, to the glory of God.” (Romans 15:7)
Take another look at Genesis 2:1-3. Again, let me say that my focus in this is purposely narrow. However, this Sabbath teaching stretches from Genesis to Revelation. Truly it is one of God’s most emphasized themes. To me, the Sabbath and the sacrificial system most clearly points to Jesus. This is not to be understood as negating or endorsing the viewpoint of those who desire to demonstrate this by observing one day in seven as a day of physical rest.


“God rested”
Among the unusual statements in all of Scripture is this: “...and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.” Since rest is so common and necessary to each of us, we read this almost without thinking. Yes, six days of labor then “God rested.” What’s so unusual about that? Simply this...God doesn’t get tired. The Almighty, all-powerful, omnipotent God has no limit to His strength. Psalm 121:4 declares: “Behold, He who keeps Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.” There is no limit to His energy yet we do read: “God rested.” Perplexing.
I wondered whether the original Hebrew might not shed some light on a peculiar statement. And it does! The Hebrew word translated in our English Bible as “rested” is Shahvath. (Strong’s #7673) While it sounds very close to “Sabbath” it is not the same word. Genesis 2:2 used a primitive root which means rest but with an added meaning. Used 71 times in the Old Testament, translated once as Sabbath, many times as rested or ceased and once as celebrated. That is correct: celebrated. “It shall be to you a sabbath of solemn rest, and you shall afflict your souls; on the ninth day of the month at evening, from evening to evening, you shall celebrate your sabbath.” (Leviticus 23:32) All three forms of “Sabbath” are used here. “God celebrated” in all the work He had done. God left off creating and rested in a satisfied celebration. (See attached appendix by Abraham Joshua Heschel) That the Almighty didn’t cease from labor altogether is evident in three ways.  

1. God doesn’t tire. (Psalm 121:4)
2. He continually upholds all things by the word of His power. (Hebrews 1:3)
3. Jesus declared: “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.” (John 5:17)

The next question could be “Why?” Why describe God as doing something He doesn’t need to do? I think it is because God is trying to draw our attention to something He wants us to concentrate on. Most of us read “God rested,” shrug our shoulders, say “that’s weird” and go on without another thought. Yet God did cease creating and looked back at what He had created with a celebration of quiet contentment. “Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.” (Genesis 1:31a) And...sanctified this most precious of days...the seventh day of the creation week spent presumably in communion with man. After all, man was created on day six. What they did together, if they were together, we are not told. But this day was forever marked as a tremendously significant event. But what does it mean that “God rested” and “sanctified the seventh day’? Here we are not told. Many would like to tell us what this means, but here in our Bibles, we are not told. Man isn’t told to copy God every seventh day. Many would urge me to embrace the obvious. But, as I have said, this is not to rebuke or correct, but to appreciate. Appreciate what God did for us through Christ. For, as the Bible says, Christ is the goal of Scripture. (Romans 10:4)

Exodus 20:8-11: the Ten Commandments. Remember? Yes, remember...some months earlier, God had commanded all Israel to leave off the collection of manna on the seventh day. (Exodus 16:23) Yes, remember...God had rested (whatever that means) on the seventh day, therefore six days you shall labor and on the seventh you shall also rest. This central command in the Ten Commandments is the preeminent commandment. When the Jews ignored this command, God reacted - BIG TIME. For example, the seventy years in Babylon was to let the land enjoy its neglected Sabbaths. (2 Chronicles 36:21)

If you don’t mind, to further illustrate the emphasis God put on the seventh-day Sabbath, read Ezekiel 20:1-26. As I said, Sabbath is a big ticket item with God. “Moreover, I also gave them My Sabbaths, to be a sign between them and Me, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctifies them.” (Ezekiel 20:12) Is God really punishing Israel because they simply failed to rest one day a week? Did you catch that comment about God giving the children of Israel the Sabbath? Let’s go back to that time period through the prophetic lens of Psalm 95:8-11. Speaking to the Jews of King David’s time, he says, “Do not harden your hearts, as in the rebellion, as in the day of trial in the wilderness, when your fathers tested Me; they tried Me, though they saw My work. For forty years I was grieved with that generation, and said, ‘It is a people who go astray in their hearts, and they do not know My ways,’ so I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest.’” God promised the hard-hearted Jews of the wilderness that they would not enter “His rest”. What does He mean by “His rest”? This reminds us of the Genesis 2:2 passage, doesn’t it? But the Jews of Joshua’s day had both the weekday Sabbath and rest from their enemies. “Then the land had rest from war.” (Joshua 14:15) “The Lord gave them rest all around, the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand...” (Joshua 21:44-46) Under Mosaic law, they had the weekday Sabbath as well. But if Joshua had given them the true rest, God’s Rest, then David, hundreds of years later, would not have spoken of another day. (Or so says the New Testament book of Hebrews 4:8-9) However, it says that they had rest in Joshua. Yet, even at the end of Joshua’s time, he pronounces judgment on Israel due to their hearts which always go astray. He knew their sin problem wasn’t truly dealt with. He declares to them, “You cannot serve the Lord, for He is a holy God...” (Joshua 24:19) and urges them once again to “put away the foreign gods which are among you...” (Joshua 24:23) He knew well they would wander in their hearts, go astray as their fathers had. And so the book of Judges painfully testifies. They had not entered into, indeed could not enter into, God’s true Rest because of sin.  

Yes, God’s work of creating was completed as of day seven, but sin required a new work on God’s part - the work of redemption. As Isaiah the prophet said, “For Jerusalem’s sake, I will not rest... (Hebrew: Sha-kat’)” (Isaiah 62:1) Israel, because of her sin, had been too foolish to know the true Way to the living waters. “For with stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to this people, to whom He said, ‘This is the rest with which you may cause the weary to rest,’ and ‘This is the refreshing’; yet they would not hear.” (Isaiah 28:11-12) “For thus says the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel: ‘In returning and rest you shall be saved; in quietness and confidence shall be your strength.’ But you would not, and you said, ‘No, for we will flee on horses’ - therefore you shall flee! And, ‘We will ride on swift horses’ - therefore those who pursue you shall be swift!” (Isaiah 30:15-16)
The Jews rejected the waters of Shiloh which flow softly (Isaiah 8:6). They turned up their noses at the still waters of God’s true rest. Did you know that the Hebrew word for “still” water in Psalm 23 is the same word translated “rest” in the two Isaiah passages above! “Still waters” or “waters of rest” - God’s true rest. They refused the Old Way. “Thus says the Lord: ‘Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; then you will find rest for your souls,’ but they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’” (Jeremiah 6:16) They would not walk in it. Yet, at times, they did have rest from their enemies. And in Jesus’ day, they zealously observed the week day Sabbath, but still, all the while, refused the Old Way. Refused the still waters of God’s true rest. Oh yes, they had a day of cessation of physical labor, but they rejected the Holy One of Israel who had come to bring them the true Rest. And they nailed Him to a tree to protect their nation from unrest they believed would come as the result of His gospel. Of course, this all transpired by the preordained hand of God. How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out.
So the question God proposes is, are you interested in entering His Rest, the true rest for your souls? Jesus rejoiced in Spirit saying, “Come unto Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” (Matthew 11:28-30) You may be saying to yourself: “All my life I have observed the Sabbath, every week, yet I am not sure if I am in God’s true Rest. Well...Hebrews 4:3 assures us that “We who have believed do enter that rest...” Have you believed the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ? Are you trusting in His work of redemption alone for satisfaction of God’s righteous demands? Remember that those who have entered “His Rest” have ceased from their own works as God did from His! “For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.” (Hebrews 4:10) Jesus declared, “It is finished!” (John 19:30) Is it settled with you?  
If you will, allow me to address some practical aspects of this matter. The consistent testimony in the New Testament is that on the seventh day Sabbath, Jesus was found doing two things:
1. teaching in the synagogues or temple, and
2. healing all those who were oppressed by the devil.
For Him, Sabbath was a day to actively spread the message of the kingdom of heaven. Likewise for us, we should not forsake the assembling together, as is the habit of probably most who profess Christ in this country. Make it a habit to assemble, to do good, all the more as you see “the day” approaching. Yet, we also need rest. Physical, emotional, refreshing away from the crowds. Here also Jesus is our perfect example. As Jesus said to His disciples: “Come aside by yourselves to a deserted place and rest a while. For there were many coming and going, and they did not even have time to eat.” (Mark 6:31) Therefore, as you are lead by Christ’s Spirit, be open to His call to “come aside by yourselves and rest awhile.” We do need physical, emotional and spiritual rest, as the Spirit leads not a law.

You, for one, may be tired of hearing about the Sabbath. But consider what you have heard. The gospel is proclaimed through the Sabbath. Jesus brings us the true Rest for our souls in His awesome work at Calvary. When He cried aloud, “It is finished” (John 19:30), God’s work of redemption, greater than the work of creation, was once for all time completed. “For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” (2 Corinthians 4:6) Now Jesus sits, did you catch that, sits at the right hand of God waiting until His enemies are made His footstool. “But to which of the angels has He ever said: ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool’?” (Hebrews 1:13) He said to His Father, “I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Me together with yourself, with the glory which I had with you before the world was.” (John 17:4b-5)  

Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your heart. Today is the day of salvation.




                                                             Cutting of the Hair or Rapunzel Revisited?


Question: Does the New Covenant prohibit women from cutting, or even trimming their hair?

  This question will be the focus our study. However I must hasten to insert some very important thoughts before we proceed with another word. Having discussed this topic publically for several years, I've been made keenly aware that for one to even ask such a question opens oneself up to instant mockery. Mainstream Christians generally react very badly to merely hearing the question. Here are a few of the typical comments I've heard: "That is just Pharisaical, pure and simple." "Christians who argue about such matters are the exact reason people don't bother with church." "God doesn't care about such things, He only looks at the heart." As a result of reactions such as these, any discussion of this nature runs the risk of causing misunderstanding and damage to the ears of some Christians. I trust that causing Christians to be "offended", even unintentionally, is a serious matter and should solicit the utmost caution from any who attempt to answer such nuanced questions of Biblical application.  

  Does God Care About Hair?  

  Therefore, if I may, please permit me to preamble my study with a simple question: Does God care about hair? It sounds like a ridiculous question to most believers. And I'd say the most common answer is a resounding, "No!" But here's the first surprise discovered in this study....He does! Even though it is inescapably true God does not consider one's hairdo when choosing a king, "man looks on the outside, God looks upon the heart..." (1st Samuel 16:7); our Bible does reveal God saying quite alot concerning hair. Let me give you just a couple examples. In the Law of Moses, God commands "Do not trim the hair upon the sides of your head." (Leviticus 19:27) Also, the vow of the Nazarite included a prohibition to any cutting of the hair whatsoever. (Numbers 6) God required female captives to have their heads shaved before joining the family. (Deuteronomy 21:12) These examples are sufficient to show God does care about such things. The error of the Pharisee wasn't that he took care of the outward appearance, but that he cared for little else. As Jesus stated, "They do all their deeds to be seen by men." (Matthew 23:5) 

  If I may, allow me to make a second point. As a Christian, I want to be humble. God's ways are higher than our ways. His thinking far beyond our thinking. (Isaiah 55:8f) I want to be open to whatever God says concerning any thing and not presume to tell God what areas of my life he can guide or not guide. Surely He cares for our hearts, yet He knows better than we do that our external appearance can and often does reflect the condition of that heart. For one to emphasize appearance to the neglect of the heart would indeed be Pharisaical; however, to tell God that He must not speak to you concerning your appearance is worse. 

  Therefore lets us try and come to the question with an open and humble heart. If God does tell us, in His Holy Word, how to arrange our hearts or our appearance let us accept His will with loving trust that "Father knows best."

  What Saith Scripture?

  Having completed the preliminaries, lets go on and see if we can answer the question: Does the New Covenant prohibit women from cutting, or even trimming their hair? How could we definitively answer whether the New Testament teaches this or not? Well? The Strong's Exhaustive concordance lists every time 'hair' is mentioned in the New Testament. If there is such a verse it should be found that way. So here goes....the word hair is used 15 times in the King James Version of the Bible. The New KJV uses 'hair' 19 times. The NIV uses 'hair' 21 times. Why the difference? Because sometimes 'hair' is being talked about but isn't specifically mentioned. Some of the additional times in the newer versions are places where the translators supply the word 'hair' because its obvious that's what's being discussed. The plural 'hairs' adds only a couple more passages. Anyone with a Strong's can look over all the New Covenant passages on hair fairly quickly. (Strong's # 2359 Greek: THRIX)

  The only verse I can see that even comes close to touching on our question is 1st Corinthians 11:5, 6. Since it is the passage I'll put it here in full:

"But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered." (New KJV)

Our focus is obviously on the second half of verse 6, which is understood to mean: "(it is) a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaved..." For the sake of brevity, let's isolate this last phrase. I realize that commenting on an isolated phrase separate from its context is dangerous hermeneutically. Nevertheless, looking over the other verses dealing with hair in the New Testament, there's little doubt this phrase alone could provide support for the "no cut, no trim" teaching. In this phrase, the inspired apostle is appealing to common human practice to support the early Christian teaching that women ought to veil their heads. Interestingly, the opposite common human practice is cited to indicate men ought to refrain from religious head coverings. But that's outside of our purposes for this article. Generally speaking, few cultures have women shaving their heads. The act of removing women's hair has often been seen as a token of humiliation. Think of the horrific photos of bald prisoners being marched to their deaths at Nazi death camps, for instance. Isaiah seems to be of this opinion as well when he writes:

"And so it shall be: instead of a sweet smell there will be a stench; instead of a sash, a rope; instead of well-set hair, baldness ; instead of a rich robe, a girding of sackcloth; and branding instead of beauty." (Isaiah 3:24) Even today here in liberal America, where even sexual identity is surgically altered, when Brittany Spears shaved all her hair off it was commonly seen as a sign of serious depression. Nevertheless I'm sure exceptions can be cited. Yet this is one fad that rarely catches on! 

  Yet now we're back to our question. If being shorn or shaved is shameful, what is meant by "shorn"? (I assume we all know what it means to be shaved. See Greek #3587.) Some have said that the meaning of being "shorn" means "put the scissors to." This definition could very well be made to support the "no cut, no trim" concept. It would have Paul saying that its a shame for a woman to "put the scissors to her hair or shave it off." Can we definitively discover the actual meaning of this Greek word? Yes, I know we can. The Strong's #2751. Used 4 times in the New Testament. (Acts 8:32; 18:18; 1st Corinthians 11:6 twice.) The first reference tells how Jesus was silent before His "shearers". Sheep, when "shorn," aren't usually just "trimmed" a little here or there. Similarly, Jesus wasn't "trimmed" but completely cut off by His "shearers". The second tells how Paul had his hair "shorn" in Cenchrea because he had completed his vow. The IVP New Testament Background Commentary states that Jewish people shaved their heads after completing a vow. (Page 377) The Tyndale New Testament Commentary declares that the shaving of the hair was permissible outside of Jerusalem after vows. (Page 300) Sanford G. Shetler in Paul's Letter to the Corinthians, his commentary on 1st Corinthians, says of "shorn": "The command, 'let her be shorn' suggests the custom of the times to impose this mark of identification upon a disgraced person." (Christian Light Publications, page 91, 1971) If it was to be a public mark of identification, according to Shetler, its hard to imagine a mere trim to be adequate for a public display. The last two places "shorn" is used is in our focus verse. Vine's Expository Dictionary defines the Greek word KEIRO (#2751) as: "to shave" 1st Cor 11:6 twice. Thayer's Greek Lexicon states: "absolutely, of shearing or cutting short the hair of the head, 1 Cor 11:6 twice." If the Greek dictionaries are considered, its hard to escape the conclusion that to define "shorn" as simply meaning "put the scissors to" is simply incorrect. 

  From Principle to Application?

  Question: If it is true that a woman shorn or shaved is shameful, could it be logical that any women who even trims the hair is engaging in questionable behavior? Anyone who maintains trimming is questionable based upon this phrase in 1st Corinthians should first plainly concede the verse does not actually say so. However, extending the principle of a passage to specific applications is a common Christian practice. Take for example the Bible statement "Your body is the temple of God." (1st Corinthians 3) From this basic principle, Christians widely believe cigarette smoking to be a sin. The Bible doesn't say anything about cigarettes. Here we use a principle and then extend it to an application. We need to ask ourselves: Does the fact that it is shameful for a woman to cut her hair off lead to the application that any trimming whatsoever is sinful? This seems weak.

  Haven't You Witnessed the Slippery Slope?

  What is more commonly suggested is that once a women begins to trim her hair she often is drawn to style it. Once she begins to style her hair she wants to either shrink the veiling or do away with it completely in order to show off her new hair-do. This is called the "slippery slope" problem. The solution is to preempt this slide by creating traditions which stop it before it begins. Since it seems clear there is no express Biblical support for the "no cut, no trim" tradition, could such a extra-Biblical guideline be maintained if it stops the "slippery slope"? And we should always ask ourselves, does this "slippery slope doctrine" be harmonized with the teachings of the New Covenant? Before we answer that we must fully admit such a trend is obvious. Time and again many of us in Anabaptist churches have watched this take place. First the woman's hair is allowed to hang loosely down, then trimming begins, then styling, then shrinking veilings until.....'liberation theology' takes hold.  

  First lets see if the New Testament says anything about the "slippery slope doctrine". The basic idea is that we may add man-made religious rules which protect believers (like a hedge) from transgressing God's Word. The idea isn't new by any means. This was the main difference between the two main Jewish sects of the New Testament time period. Listen to this fascinating quote from the first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus: "What I would explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the law of Moses, and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written Word; but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers. Concerning these things it is that great disputes and differences have arisen among them." (Antiquities of the Jews; Book 13, Chap. 10, v.6) In this rare instance, the Sadducees had Moses' law squarely on their side. (See Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32) As one source rightly notes: "By heaping more and more strict laws on top of those given by God Himself, they sought to insulate the Law and protect themselves from its violation." This is what became known as "building a hedge" around the law. For example, the law taught no one could go out from his place on the Sabbath. (Exodus 16:29) The Jewish Talmud created a "hedge" law stipulating one go no further from your house than 3675 feet and 9 inches! Jesus Christ rebuked the Jewish leaders for all such traditions. The unexpected consequence was that their worship became worthless. "...in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." (Matthew 15:9) Its seems doubtful the New Testament can be cited in support of extra-Biblical commands. 

  The New Testament book of Colossians makes this amazing analysis: 

 "Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations —  
 "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," which all concern things which perish with the using — according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 
These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh." (2:20-23) 

 Note especially the phrase "self-imposed religion". The King James has instead "will-worship". The apostle's point is that the "command" is not from God Himself but originates from human will. Additionally, do you see that the inspired writer admits these man-made regulations can "have an appearance of wisdom"? Notwithstanding their appearance, reality is that they are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh. I may have written less emphatically. I may have said they help a little. But no, Scripture says otherwise and therefore so must we. Of hair, we have subjected ourselves to regulations such as: "Do not let loose, do not trim, do not style," according to the commandments of men. It may be styling hair is worldly. If so, when was the last time you heard a sermon reminding men to avoid worldly hair styles? (Compare 1st Peter 3:3; 1st Timothy 2:9; and Romans 12:2) Extra-Biblical regulations may have an appearance of wisdom, but actually are of no value in stopping the slippery slide of the worldly inclined. In fact, isn't it self-contradictory to install a "worldly" (man-made) regulation in order to control worldliness? The cure injects its patient with the very virus it pretends to fight. (For those thinking the "binding" power granted to Peter in Matthew 16 may provide justification to church regulation, please see my study entitled: Of Binding and Loosing.) 

  Misplaced Consciences?

  There remains an even more insidious problem. Please follow me patiently on this. God has promised to empower us by His Spirit in order to obey His Word, right? Does He also promise to empower us to keep our own traditions? No, He does not. So here's the problem. When Christians hear the church requires certain practices, some naturally believe the Bible requires such. Since God will not super-naturally empower us to keep our own standards, human frailty may assert itself causing disobedience. (See Romans 7:14ff) Since the believer mistakenly believes the tradition to be inspired and required he may feel false guilt. Such guilt may cause him to withdraw in shame from God's fellowship. As a result, spiritual weakness invades his life. And we find that the commandment of good intention which sought to bring life actually brings death. Therein lies the greatest danger of man-made commands.

  In conclusion: Does the New Covenant prohibit women from cutting, or even trimming their hair? The answer is: "No." Could such a regulation be seen as an application and extension of a general Biblical principle? "Not likely." Is it in harmony with the New Testament to create extra-Biblical traditions to avoid the "slippery slope" and form a hedge about the faithful? "Absolutely not!"


"I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the Word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all long suffering and teaching." (2nd Timothy 4)


Then, and only then, will God's flock be truly safe! Sola Scriptura!
Law Keepers


The Law of Moses
(Part One)
  Many have asked: “What is the Christian’s relationship to the Law of Moses?” Immediately one thinks of the glorious temple with it’s laws regulating animal sacrifice. We picture the massive pilgrimages to Jerusalem to observe Passover, the priests examining lepers, and prohibition to certain foods. Yet alongside of these are higher observances, such as the command to love God and our neighbor as ourselves. There seems to be the “important” and the “unimportant” in Moses’ Law.
  Some have suggested that the Law of Moses may be divided into categories. Perhaps a logical division can be discovered delineating the Law into moral, civil, or ceremonial groupings. Others have thought perhaps a separation between the Ten Commandments and the rest of the Law could be established. This approach will be the question addressed in this study. With this we will add a second thought, which will be addressed in the second study entitled “The Eternal Law of God”. (This original study was written in a personal letter so some aspects may apply only in a limited way.)

  Let’s begin... The topic given by you: “Why the 10 commandments are unique and separate from the rest of Moses’ Law, and why the 10 commandments are eternal.”
  I wish to mention why I believe the 1st phrase is first and why you felt you had to prove such. If you would agree that the Old Covenant, the Law of Moses in it’s entirety stands together then anyone could ask: What of sacrifice, temple service, or feast days? Surely they are done away. This would undermine the conclusion that the “Law of Moses” is for today. Hence the need to attempt to prove the separateness of the 10 commandments. I would suppose a diligent search was made for a passage in God’s Word that says: “The 10 commandments stand separate and unique from the rest of Moses’ Law...”, etc. and was not found. Even so, this does not hamper your case. Secondary reasons may be found short of such a statement. Yet from my end I ask: Can a verse be found which does say that the Law of Moses in it’s entirety stands as a cohesive unit? Two verses could indicate such:
James 2:10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one [point], he is guilty of all.
Galatians 3:10b "Cursed [is] everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."
  This second passage from Galatians is a quote from the Law of Moses itself. See Deut. 27:26. It is the very Lord God of Israel who makes it quite clear that Israel is to keep all the Law if they expect to be blessed. "Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the LORD your God will set you high above all nations of the earth. Deuteronomy 28:1. The commandments, ordinances, and statutes are always treated as a unit, a cohesive whole. The phrase “commandments, statutes, and ordinances” is used time and again as the requirement for God’s blessings (See Deut. 28:1, 13, 14, 15, 45, 58; 29:1; 30:2, 8, 10; 31:9-13, 24-26; 32:46) The very God of Israel stressed over and over again that the children of Israel were not to elevate the 10 commandments over the rest. As He said so clearly: Deuteronomy 30:15 "See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, 16 "in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, (not part of the 10 commandments) to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the LORD your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. Note especially Deut. 31:24-26 as to the location of the Law of Moses, which was not the “Ten”, “put it beside the Ark of the Covenant.” This is done with the severe warning not to think of these as something an Israelite could put on a secondary level. NO WAY! The Law stood as a unified whole according to the God who wrote it. …"Cursed [is] everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." Amen!
  But key to arguing for the Law being eternal is the necessity of dividing the Law into various categories in order to dispense with some portions obviously not applicable to the Christian. Yet if neither the Old Testament nor the New provides such proof why do we go on? Because additional secondary arguments are proposed that may provide such evidence. They are listed as follows:  
a.) Unique Signs b.) Unique use of the Creator’s Name c.) Unique emphasis in that the audible voice of God was heard by all the people when the 10 commandments were given d.) Unique personal involvement of God Himself – “the finger of God” said to be used e.) Ten Commandments placed above all else by being placed in the Ark of the Testimony f.) Unique medium – written on stone g.) New Testament uniquely emphasizes the “10” h.) Rev. 11 states the Ark is in heaven, showing the unique position of the tablets in that they were brought to heaven.
  The obvious question before us is: Do these eight points prove that the Law can be divided into separate sections? And do these points indicate the “10” are to be viewed as somehow unique and hence superior to the rest?
  I always first ask: Does God Himself say this about His Law? I believe we’ve already seen that He does not. But what of these “evidences”?
  a.) Unique Signs - In this first item the primary question is: Why did the thunder, lightning flashes, the sound of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking stop? Your conclusion was because God was indication that the “10” were being held up as something unique from the rest of the Law of Moses. Is this what scripture says? Notice Exodus 20:18 & 19. After these fantastic signs the people “trembled, and stood afar off”. Stood afar off? They apparently were getting back away from the mountain. Then v. 19, “The people said to Moses, ‘You speak with us, and we will hear, but let not God speak with us, lest we die.’” And verse 21, “So the people stood afar off, but Moses drew near the thick darkness where God was.” The people were made afraid by these manifestations of God’s power. The parallel passage in Deut. indicates the same. 5:22 tells of the signs. V. 25 the people say “… why should we die? For this great fire will consume us; if we hear the voice of the Lord our God anymore, we shall die.” The Lord says this is good. He would continue from this point on speaking directly to Moses (v. 28-33). Yet in these verses in Deut. God reiterates the need to “walk in all the ways which the Lord your God has commanded you…” (v.33)
  In conclusion on the point of the unique signs, if God had not told us why the thunder, etc. stopped, we would be inclined to supply a reason. But in this case we are told why. The people were afraid and asked that God leave off speaking directly to them. Yet God appears to know that a change in communication style may lead the people to put lesser status on the rest! Is this not what some have concluded from the change?! Deut. 6:2 “fear the Lord your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you…” And this is said immediately after the signs are over.!
  b.) Does the use of God (Elohim) indicate a unique place is to be given to the “10” over the rest of the Law of Moses? The first thing I did here was to see if this use of “God” is repeated in Deut. 5, the reiteration of the Law. Deuteronomy does not repeat the use of “God” as did Exodus 20. If both did so, it seems your observation would be strengthened. How do you explain the change? Is there a scripture that tells us why the change? I would suggest a study of the use of these names. Often the names are used interchangeably without any apparent reason. Many theories have been proposed to explain this including the Documentary Hypothesis. (See Evidence That Demands a Verdict – Vol. 2)
  Since Exodus 20 uses “God” while the same “10” in Deut. 5 does not, a solid conclusion cannot be reached. In any event, God doesn’t tell us why the use of “God” in one and not the other. Any speculation as to the cause is outside of our knowledge.
  As for the use of the names of God… often when God wants to be personal with His people He uses “YHWH” as in the case where God calls Himself “I AM” to Moses. This is, of course, a form of the word “YHWH”. A very intimate term used with Moses. He is granted the privilege of using God’s personal name with the children of Israel. “God” (Heb. Elohim) is used of all sorts of “deities” both major and minor. People are even called “Elohim” in Y82:6.
  Let me ask a question: What is more foundational than Deut. 6:4 “Hear O Israel the Lord our God the Lord is One. And you shall love the Lord your God…”? Also, like it, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Lev. 19:18)? Could any word from the Lord be more central, more fundamental to all other laws? In fact, we are told plainly that on these two commandments “hang all the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 22:40) Neither is part of the Ten Commandments. Neither is introduced with the sole use of the name “God” (Elohim). These two are the bed-rock of all the Law and were not even written on stone!
Does the fact that all the people verbally heard the “Ten” indicate they are separate from the rest? We’ve already read those passages which seem to indicate why the verbal communication directly from God ceased. The people were afraid, therefore God decided to speak directly only to Moses. See for review Deut. 5:22-23.
  c.) Does the fact that all the people verbally heard the “Ten” indicate they are separate from the rest? We’ve already read those passages which seem to indicate why the verbal communication directly from God ceased. The people were afraid of the loud trumpets, therefore God decided to speak directly only to Moses. See for review Deut. 5:22-23.
  d.) Does the fact that the tablets are on stone prove they are unique and separate from the Law? The fact that God wrote the tablets with His own finger does make them unique, that’s for sure, but does this indicate that they are superior to the rest? They apparently were not the most fundamental since they hang on the two. 1) Love God, and 2) Love your neighbor as yourself. And as I’ve already mentioned, neither of these were written directly by God’s finger. In my opinion I believe you are unscripturally exalting the “10”. Consider the section in II Corinthians. 3:1-18. I cannot rewrite the entire chapter here but just let me bring out some key thoughts. (Please do read this chapter and ask yourself whether your “eternal”/preeminent view of the stone tablets rings in harmony with the inspired apostle. II Cor. 3:7 But if the ministry of death, written [and] engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which [glory] was passing away, (KJV: ‘to be done away’) 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation [had] glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. 11 For if what is passing away [was] glorious, what remains [is] much more glorious.”
  This chapter, speaking specifically of the tablets of stone, does not bestow upon these an eternal, unique place but plainly declared: “the ministry, of death, written and engraved on stones… is to be done away.”
  e.) Does the fact that the tablets were placed in the ark confer special eternal significance? Throughout this study I have been forced to take the uncomfortable position of having to say that the “Ten” are not unique. Yet I do happily admit that they are unique but not unique in such a way so as to separate them in importance or permanence in relation to the whole Law of Moses. The Book of the Law was placed beside the Ark and said to be essential to Israel’s blessings. (Deut. 31:24-26; 32:46) It may be helpful to recall the other items in the Ark and ask if their inclusion in this holy box also would indicate permanence for them as well. Heb 9:4 lists the golden pot of manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant. does their inclusion in the Ark demonstrate permanence or eternality for these as well? Why were these items placed in the Ark? Could the reason they were placed there help us understand why the tablets were put there? Is there a verse of scripture that tells us why the tablets, golden jar, and Aaron’s rod were place there? We are told that Aaron’s Rod was placed in the Ark as a sign against the rebels. (Num. 17:10) It was a symbol of Aaron’s priestly power. In other words, it represented the whole of Aaron’s authority over Israel. The golden jar of Manna was put in the Ark for generations to come so they would be reminded of God’s provision in the wilderness. The omer of manna was kept as representative of the whole provision of God in the wilderness. (Ex. 16:32-36) From what we’ve already seen, the stone tablets would have been placed in the Ark to stand as representative of the whole Law of Moses. It was not superior to the “Shema” command of Deut. 6:4. It was not the essence of the Law, this is recorded in Deut. 10:12-13. “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good?”
  f.) Does the fact that the “10” were written on stone designate some unique/separate status for them? That the “10” were written on stone does seem significant until one realizes that stone tablets are common during this era. In the excellent little book entitled “Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis” evidence is presented to prove that stone was the common medium of choice in this time period. The discovery of the city of Ebla in 1975 uncovered “thousands upon thousands of cuneiform tablets”. (Wonders and Discoveries of the Bible, pg 47) Biblical references to stone tablets are common. See for example Hab. 2:2 where his vision is written on stone tablet.
  g.) Does the NT emphasize the “10” in such a way so as to indicate their special priority over the rest of the Law of Moses? Now this is work! Remember, the command to “love the Lord” is not part of the “10”! This command is repeated in dozens of different ways. The command to “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18) is quoted verbatim seven times in the NT. Obviously variations are found constantly throughout the NT. In what way are the “Ten” emphasized more than these other commands which were written only on parchment? These two commands, love the Lord and your neighbor, are not written on stone with God’s finger yet are preeminent to all the stone commandments! Other secondary laws are frequently mentioned in the New Testament as well. These are often used in interesting “spiritual” ways, such as the use of “Do not muzzle an ox…” in I Cor. 9. Other examples include I Cor. 14:21 of women being submissive. Acts 23:5 of respect for rulers. Mosaic Law commanding priestly support, see I Cor. 10:18. The Passover law is referenced as applicable to New Covenant believers in a new spiritual way, see I Cor. 5:7. If reiteration of the “10” proves uniqueness among the Law of Moses, the evidence is against you. Both the Shema (Deut. 6:4-5) and the Levitical command to “Love thy neighbor” (Lev. 19:18) are emphasized far more frequently than any other of the “10” commandments.  
  h.) Does the fact that the Ark of the Covenant is seen in heaven indicate the special role of the “10” commandments? First we must ask: Did John the Revelator see the gold-covered acacia box of Exodus chapter 25? In Hebrews chapter 8 we are told that the Levitical priests serve “the copy and shadow of the heavenly things”, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” (v.5) The earthly tabernacle was a copy of the true heavenly tabernacle. Notice in Rev. 11:19 that not only is the Ark of His covenant seen but so is the temple of God. Will anyone suggest that the entire Mosaic or Solomonic Temple was taken to heaven? Probably not. The Mosaic tabernacle, all its furnishings including the Ark were but copies of heavenly things. Hebrews 9:23-24 speaking of the need for blood atonement states: “Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself…” The Temple of God in heaven, the Ark of the Covenant in heaven are not the earthly models made by human hands. Jeremiah declares that the earthly Ark of the Covenant will be forgotten after Christ comes. See Jer. 3:16. Thus concludes this evaluation.
  Please allow me the luxury of summarizing to this point. Your first proposition that the “10” can be isolated from the rest of the Law of Moses seems to be untrue. Not only isn’t there a verse that says this but several Old and New Testament verses appear to plainly state otherwise. The secondary applications fall short of providing any supporting evidence. Therefore I can safely say both Old and New Testaments treat the entire Law of Moses as one unified whole. I would like to add that God repeatedly emphasizes that all His commandments are to be obeyed if blessings are to be expected.
  Since such a distinction cannot be made on the basis of Scripture, we conclude the Law of Moses is one body of ordinances without seam. 
  We move onto the second proposition: namely, that the “10” commandments are eternal. Allow me to restate this suggestion. The “10” commandments reflect foundational truth, central to God’s economy. The other commands not written on stone, not written with the finger of God, not put in the Ark, not accompanied with unique signs, not spoken verbally to all the people are of a more temporal, secondary nature. May I remind you this “secondary” group would include the command to “Love God” and “love one’s neighbor as one’s self”. We are told that all the Law (presumably including the “10”) hang on these two commandments. These two commandments were not written on stone, were not written with the finger of God, were not put in the Ark, were not given while being accompanied with unique signs, and were not given verbally to all the people but only directly to Moses!
  Jesus Christ said, “think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, ‘til heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, ‘til all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matt. 5:17-19
  The Law mentioned is the Law of Moses. It stands as a unified whole. But our Lord’s reference is not only to the Law but also to the prophets. Any thought that Jesus is limiting His scope to the “10” is at once swept away with the inclusion of the “the prophets”. If even the teachings of the prophets are included surely all of Moses’ Law is included. Verse 18 gives when this will cease to be true “til heaven and earth pass”. He does not say that they will stand until the New Covenant is ratified in His blood. Nor does He say they are eternal but will abide “til heaven and earth pass”. This verse proves more than you wish, if you only intend that the “10” continue applicable for us today! Verse 20 states that if anyone diminishes even the least of these commandments (contained in the Law and the Prophets) will be called “least”. Not too good. The suggestion is that the “10” are unique and to be obeyed today while the lesser commands and the Prophets were somehow temporal? Shall I call these least in the kingdom of heaven?
  Paul wrote: “Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm. But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this; that the law is not made for a righteous person…” I Tim. 1:5-9
  How can Christ say “think not that I come to destroy” and then cancel the handwriting of ordinances that are contrary to us? (Col. 2:14) How can Christ say “think not that I come to destroy” and then annul the former commandments? (Heb. 7:18) How can Christ say “think not that I come to destroy” and then declare us dead to the Law through the body of Christ? (Rom. 7:1-6) Because in “fulfilling” the Law and the Prophets He fills the Law full of its very purpose. He completes the purpose the Law was given in the first place. It was our schoolmaster or tutor to bring us to Christ “but after Christ has come we are no longer under a tutor (the Law)”. Gal. 3:24-25
  Truly this really isn’t so hard to understand. As great as the Law of Moses was, “the law made nothing perfect”. (Heb. 7:19) Why? Because there was some fault in the Law? Not at all. Yet we may also say that if perfection were possible by the Law why would God have raised up Christ? If that first covenant had been faultless then no place would have been sought for a second covenant. Yet the fault lay not with the Law but with us! “What the Law could not do, God did in sending His own Son…” Rom. 8:3ff. By giving us of His Holy Spirit to guide us in the inner man, the river of life flowing out of our innermost being, we can walk in newness of life. “The Law was not made for a righteous man.” I Tim 1:9a Are you a righteous man? Am I? Have I taken up my cross daily? Do I walk in the Spirit? (Only then will I not fulfill the lusts of the flesh – Gal. 5:16) Only then will we fulfill the “righteous requirements of the Law” Rom. 8:4-5.
  What are His eternal requirements? Just this – to love the Lord our God with all of our being and love everyone as ourselves. May Christ dwell in us and fulfill through us every jot and tittle! Amen.
  In the course of your discussion in the eternal nature of the Law you stated that on judgment day men will be judged as to whether or not they kept the “Ten” commandments. Surely this would not be true for the Christian, right? See John 5:24, Matt. 7:22; John 12:48. But by what standard will the heathen be judged? In Acts 17:30-31 we read that in time past God “winked at” the ignorance of the heathen but now (since Christ has come) has appointed a day to judge the world “by that man whom He hath ordained”. This “man” is said to have been raised from the dead. In Romans chapter two the heathen are said to have consciences that may reflect to one degree or another the Law of God by nature. But by what will they be judged? “God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.” (Rom. 2:16) Jesus Christ will judge all men. “God has highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Phil. 2:9-11. In Matthew 25 our Lord Jesus speaks of the day the “Son of Man shall come in His glory” to judge the “nations”. See Matt. 25:31ff. Yes, all “nations” shall be gathered before Him for judgment. On what basis will Christ judge these “nations”? On one word: “Love”. Those who love others will be received: “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you…” (Matt. 25:34) But those who do not love: “Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire…” (Matt. 25:41) The words of Christ will determine all men’s destinies. This is why we have been sent to “preach the gospel” not the Law of Moses.
  Personally I am stunned when I hear some say: “Scripturally there isn’t a lot of things that are recorded as being done with (God’s) hands.” Immediately I pictured in my mind’s eyes the hands of Immanuel pierced and bleeding for you and me. Jesus once declared to the unbelieving Jews that in Him the finger of God had come near to them. (Luke 11:20) Even Christians sometimes see Moses, Elijah, and Jesus as somewhat equal. Moses often is thought of as superior to Christ because of the manifestations of God’s power that accompanied his ministry. The writer of Hebrews juxtaposes the burning mountain with our New Covenant with these words: “For you have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire, and to blackness and darkness and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet and the voice of words, so that those who heard it begged that the word should not be spoken to them anymore. (For they could not endure what was commanded: ‘And if so much as a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned or shot with an arrow.’) And so terrifying was the sight that Moses said: “I am exceedingly afraid and trembling.’ But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven, whose voice then shook the earth; but now He has promised, saying, ‘Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven’.” (12:18-26) See how the inspired writer compares the unique signs of Sinai with our New Covenant blessings? They came to a mountain that was terrifying, we have come to the “heavenly Jerusalem”. Peter was presented with a dilemma. Before him stood Moses, Elijah, and Jesus. What could he say? He blurts out, “I’ll build three tabernacles, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah!” See his confusion? He sought to honor God in the Law, the Prophets, and the Messiah. What does God say to this attempt to honor all? Both Moses and Elijah vanished! Jesus was left alone. And then the voice from heaven (not unlike Sinai) “This is My beloved Son, heed Him.” Many like Peter have faithfully desired to honor God in what they have said. They have understood that somehow we have been attacking God’s Law, and they have sought to defend God’s truth.
  In concluding your presentation you stated: “Are the Ten Commandments for the Christian?” You answered yourself with a clear “No!” And then you asked, “Are we under them?” Again, you answered, “No”, and then added, “…not as long as we live above them.” Yet here I was a little confused. Your entire presentation was focused on proving the Ten Commandments are God’s moral foundation, eternal in the heavens. You said: “Paul kept the Jewish Law.” and that “the Ten Commandments will be used to judge the dead.” and that the “Ten” are central to God’s economy. Furthermore you said Jesus did not come to destroy the Law meaning it is still applicable for today. Then you said that the Christian is not under the Law. Were you referring to the “Ten”? You did say this. Was this what you meant to say? What Scriptures would cause someone to say both that the “Ten” are eternal and yet not for us today?
  In the second study the statement is made that “Yes” there is an eternal law. However this cannot be confined to the “Ten”.
  As I said earlier, the purpose in trying to separate the “Ten” from the rest was because all Christians reject the need to obey all of Moses’ Law. Indeed the Jews themselves cannot since they have no temple. However if Scripture doesn’t teach such a segregating of Moses’ law into “important” or “unimportant”, or “greater” or “lesser”, or “eternal” and “temporary” we would be wise to leave off creating such categories.
  As we’ll see in the next study, there is an eternal law of god. The covenant with Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses all reflect such a law. Yet the Law given at Sinai (Horeb) was not given to the fathers before. (Deut. 5:1-3)
  How could there be sin without law? Did Cain break a law when he murdered his brother? Yes, the law of love. “God is love” a verse so well known and yet so little understood. Cain broke the law of love. When we walk in love in god we will fulfill the “righteous requirements of the law”.


  The Eternal Law of God
(Part two)
  In the first study I examined the possibility that the “Ten” Commandments stand distinct from the rest of the Law of Moses. While I happily admitted they are unique, I attempted to show that Scripture treats Moses’ Law as a unified whole. Eight secondary arguments were introduced which appear to show the “Ten” are separate from the rest. In my first paper I demonstrate from Moses’ Law itself that such is not the case. As it is written: “Cursed is the man who does not continue in all things that are written in the Book of the Law, to do them.” Deut. 27:26 (Gal. 3:10b) The purpose behind trying to demonstrate a distinction between the “Ten” and the rest of Moses’ Law was to argue that they are eternal while the rest are temporary. We saw, however, that this “temporary” group would include the command both to “Love God” (Deut. 6:4-6) and to “love your neighbor as yourself”. (Lev. 19:18b) Therefore I concluded such an arbitrary distinction was not found in Scripture but rather was produced because of what is perceived as a contradiction in Scripture: namely, if the Law of Moses is done away with does this make us “lawless”.
  I have come to realize that the cause for all the tension over this issue has arisen from a misunderstanding. Let me explain.
  The inspired apostle declares in a dozen ways that the law of Moses is done away. For review see the following list:“Dead to the law” Romans 7:1-6 (Christ is end of Law Romans 10:4)
“glory was passing away” II Corinthians 3:1-18
“having abolished in His flesh…the law…” Ephesians 2:14-15
“having wiped out the handwriting…” Colossians 2:13-14
“annulling of the former commandments…” Hebrews 7:18
“He made the first obsolete” Hebrews 8:13a
“ready to vanish away” Hebrews 8:13b
“imposed until the time of reformation” Hebrews 9:10b
“takes away the first that He may establish the second” Hebrews 10:9b
  But even though he says this (or should I say “God says this”) he (Paul) is not law-less. People get the wrong impression that if the Law of Moses is abolished then there is no law. This is the misunderstanding that has caused so much confusion. I’d like you to consider one very interesting passage that solves our problem. It is a familiar verse but there is a comment therein that you may not have caught. I Cor. 9:19-23 “For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more, and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.” Notice embedded in the middle of this Scripture is the comment “I became…to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law…” This verse is worth thinking about. Paul could conduct himself as if he was “without law”. What law? This verse follows a similar comment that Paul could live as a Jew, and then he could live as one under the law, then he could live as one without law. Paul leaves us few choices as to how to interpret this. The Tyndale Commentary does a nice job here: “The ‘law’ is the law of Moses. Paul was not himself bound to that law. The true text adds, ‘not being myself under the law’.” (Vol. 7, pg. 138) Yet we must also ask: “What does he mean he was “without law”? Again, Tyndale Commentary: “When he says that he was ‘as without law’ he does not wish to give the impression that he was under no restraint. So he adds that he is ‘under law to Christ’. Both expressions indicate that he was no free agent, but the servant of God.” (ibid.)
  If the law of Moses is annulled, as Paul through the Holy Spirit said it is, then is there a law of God and Christ apart from the law of Moses? This is exactly what God is indicating. Paul is saying he’s out from under the Law of Moses yet is under law toward Christ. Nevertheless Paul was slandered with the accusation that he was teaching: “Let us do evil that good may come.” (Rom. 3:8) And so it is even to this day. Those in Christ who accept that Moses’ Law is “done away” are often slandered in the same way. However, Christ Jesus says, “Most assuredly I say to you whoever keeps My word will never see death. (John 8:51) And, “If you love Me, keep My commandments.” (John 14:15) James refers to the gospel of Christ when he exhorts: “So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.” (2:12) This is an interesting use of words: “the law of liberty”. Two words that often don’t fit together. Paul speaks of the “law of Christ” in Galatians 6:2. And again, “The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus…” Rom. 8:2a The law of Moses has passed away. All judgment has passed into Christ’s hands. “All authority in heaven and earth is given unto Me.” Matt. 28:10. Christ’s word, His law will determine all men’s destinies. (See John 12:48; Acts 17:31; Rom. 2:16)
  It is not a choice between Moses’ Law or nothing. It is between Moses’ Law or the Law of Christ. Will Moses be our priest or will Christ? “For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.” As a result we read: “For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.” (Heb. 7:12-14;18)  
  Consider this in Rom. 3:21 “But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.” Again, this is a profound thought! The righteousness of God is being revealed in Christ separate from the law of Moses. Get it? The righteousness of God can be revealed (hence demonstrated) through faith in Christ without reference to the Mosaic Law.
  In conclusion, I agree there is an eternal law. It is on this law that all other laws are based. This “eternal law” is the righteous requirement of the law of Romans 8:3ff. Jesus said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matt. 22:35-40) At the most basic level: “Love is the fulfillment of the law.” (Rom. 13:10b)
  In the days of Adam love towards God was seen as the first couple obeyed His commandment to tend and keep the garden, to eat only green herbs, and leave off the tree of knowledge. In Noah’s day this love was reflected in faithful ark building, animal sacrifice, and eating no blood. In Abraham’s experience love towards God meant leaving Ur, circumcision, and a willingness to sacrifice Isaac. Moses’ generation love was typified in temple building, holy feast days, and kosher food laws. Now the Son of God has come “with a greater and more perfect sacrifice”, with a “greater temple”, with an “unchangeable priesthood”, and an “everlasting covenant”, eternal in the heavens.
  Do we in Christ have an eternal law? Yes, “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus”. But there’s more! There’s “Love”. Love that goes beyond understanding. (Eph. 3:19) Love that never fails. (I Cor. 13:8)
  With this one verse I’ll close; but before I do let me ask: “What is the gospel’s motivation: Love or Law?”
  “The love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.” II Cor. 5:14-15.

(Galatians 5:13-16)May God bless you as you meditate upon these wonderful testimonies of His love.



Stone or Spirit?
(Part Three)
  After our discussion the other day my mind continued to dwell on the particulars of our topic. If nothing else comes of this, once again we’ve all been challenged to delve deeper into Scripture! How unfortunately we find ourselves finding zeal to study more when our own positions are at stake. May God deliver us from such pride and instead may we all see truth as more important than life itself. It is only those who can accept the truth, said Jesus, that can accept Him. We must humble ourselves and with true brotherly love seek to really hear each other.
  It is in this heart I seek to continue. We know that anyone can defend anything. Reasonings can be devised appearing to establish anything. It may never be possible to eliminate every shred of doubt on any subject. Is there God? Is Jesus the Messiah? Is the Bible the Word of God? Did Jesus raise from the dead? Sufficient evidence can be given. But he who decides to disbelieve can never be convinced. The willingness to honestly consider the evidence is essential to ever finding truth. I do not write this to criticize you but for us both to be humble before God.
  Let me recite what I heard you say. (Although this maybe part of our problem – I may not have heard you correctly.) You said that the “Ten” Commandments are separate from the rest and they are eternal. Furthermore that when the New Testament declares that the “law” has been done away it refers to that part of Moses’ Law not written on stone. Again, if the “law” is said to be in continuance in the New Covenant, you say, this refers to the “Ten”. On the other hand, if the New Testament says the “law” is done away this refers to the statutes and judgments which were not the “Ten”. Do I understand the idea? (If this is not correct the following will not help.)
  Consider Rom. 7:1-6. I won’t reprint the text here trusting you’ll have it open before you as I attempt to explain.
  v.1 Paul is speaking to those who “know the law”.
  v.2 What “law” is Paul referring to? It is the seventh commandment. “Thou shall not commit adultery.” Could anything be clearer? Yet I suppose even this could be debated.
  v.3 Paul declares that a woman will not be called an adulterous if she marries after her first husband dies. He shows here that death releases one from Moses’ Law.
  v.4 Here the inspired apostle states that we “brethren” have become dead to the law through the body of Christ. What law is he referring to? What law does he use to illustrate his point? One of the ten! You are free from the law of adultery if death takes your spouse. What law? One of the ten. This is a fact of Moses’ Law. It only had dominion over a man as long as he lived. (See verse 1 again.)
  v.5 Paul puts this in the past tense “when we were in the flesh”. (Compare 8:8,9) Reiterates that we have dies, thus bringing us to v.6.
  v.6 “But now” (present tense) we are said to be delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by. What “law”? Notice Paul doesn’t limit his scope here to include only the statutes not written on stone. His analogy begins with “Do not commit adultery”, yet extends to all the law since Moses’ Law (all of it) had dominion over a man only as long as he lived. (Again, see verse 1.)
  Yet at the end of verse 6 Paul contrasts the “newness of the Spirit” with the “oldness of the letter”. The latter phrase contextually referring to Moses’ Law in its entirety.
  As far as commentaries are concerned it is stated in Hodge concerning this section, “It may mean specifically the Mosaic Law” (pg. 214). That the Law of Moses cannot be ruled out is sufficient to my present purpose. Yet I would say Paul does specifically refer to one of the “Ten” by analogy. Other laws of Moses, not on stone, would be put into question by such a strong word by Paul on adultery. (Compare Rom. 7:2-4 with Deut. 24:1-4) In other words, “Do not commit adultery” is stronger than Deut. 24:1-4 which our Lord said was given “because of the hardness of heart”. (Matt. 19:8) The Expositor’s Bible Commentary says that the lack of the definite article before “law” does not rule out it being a reference to Moses’ Law “since ‘Law’ occurs without the article in passages that clearly have to do with the Mosaic legislation (e.g. 5:20)”. (Vol. 10; pg. 76 top) Jamison, Fausset, and Brown say it is in reference to Moses’ Law. (pg. 237 NT section)
  But commentaries will always be able to be pitted one against another! Some are always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
  Put plainly, the “Ten” have dominion over a man as long as he lives. Consider the law, “Do not commit adultery.”
  [II Cor. 3 says that “the tablets of stone” (v.3) and those “written and engraved on stones” had a glory that is “passing away” (v.7-11).]
  The Old Covenant was given to those who came out of Egypt. The New Covenant is “NOT according to the covenant” given at Sinai. How can the “Ten” be eternal if it was not given to those before the giving of the tablets (See Deut. 5:1-3) and the New isn’t according to it either? Even the Jewish prophets themselves speak of such a change. Consider Jeremiah, “Behold, the days are coming, says 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 that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt…” (31:31-32a) The “Ten” are called the “Covenant” in Deut. 5:2-3. (I believe they stood as representative for the whole Mosaic Law.) In Jeremiah’s prophecy he refers to the “covenant” made with the generation having left Egypt. This is the “Ten”. In the divine commentary in Hebrews after quoting the Jeremiah prophecy we read, “In that He says, ‘A new covenant’, He had made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” (Hebrews 8:13) The first covenant is obsolete. Can this be misconstrued so as to have reference only to that which is not written on stone? As Hebrews 9 continues it describes those items considered to be contained in the first covenant. Notice the list includes “the tablets of the covenant”! (9:4) The summation is made in 10:9b “He (God) takes away the first that He may establish the second.”
  And as God here has said so it has come to pass, the Ark of the Covenant and the stone tablets have vanished away. Yet we hear a voice, “This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, heed Him.” The Law and the Prophets have been fulfilled. In Christ is vested all authority in heaven and on earth. His word will judge the nations (Matt. 25) the heathen (Romans 2), all men everywhere (Acts 17) and even those who reject Him (John 12:48).
  You said that the Jew will see Moses’ Law as one unified whole. Why would they? Rabbi Garfein of Tallahassee says this because that is what Moses’ Law says for itself. (See Deut. 27:26) And you agree that a Jew would see it that way. Why, I ask you, would a Jew see it that way? Could it be because the Law of Moses allows no other view if we come to our conclusions based on what the Law says about itself? Do you say this is true?
  Then let me ask you, how can you then find within the Law of Moses evidences which contradict the Law of Moses? In other words, if the Jew believes the Law is one because of what the Law itself says, how can you go to the same Law and attempt to prove the opposite?
  Perhaps your arguments will be best discovered in the New Testament not the Old. Yet now that door is closed as well. The tablets of stone are said to be of that covenant which is “obsolete”. (Heb. 8:13)
  Word Study on #3822 translated as “obsolete” in New KJV, but as “old” in KJV. Thayer’s Greek / English Lexicon declares: “to declare a thing to be old and so about to be abrogated, Heb. viii, 13”. The Arndt and Gingrich Lexicon says: “what has become obsolete.” (pg 606) The “Old” covenant isn’t simply “Old” it is obsolete. And as Heb. 10:9 stated, “He takes away the first” to establish the second.  
  Yet some who defend the “Ten” for today, who insist on bringing Moses’ Law onto the church also tell us the Sermon on the Mount is not for us today! How subtle they are who seek to replace our Master’s Word of life with Moses’ stone tablets. Dispensational disaster, I’d call it!







The Sabbath

When most of us hear the word “Sabbath”, we think of the weekly day of rest. However, each Jewish holy day was commanded by God to be a Sabbath, no matter what day of the week it fell on. Passover, the Day of Atonement, Feast of Trumpets, Feast of Tabernacles, Feast of Unleavened Bread, and the New Moon were all proscribed as Sabbaths. There was the year long Sabbath for the land. A two-day Sabbath/Feast celebrated Purim. A seven-day celebration marked Hanukkah, called in the New Testament the Feast of Dedication in John 10:22. Only one nation in the world observes more holidays than the United States, and I suppose you’ve already guessed who: Israel.
Above and beyond this, certain Hebrew prophets related God’s greater offer of a Sabbath-rest for the soul. (See Jeremiah 6:16) Other prophets expressed God’s weariness with the Mosaic observances. For example, God’s Spirit thunders through Isaiah, saying, “Hear the word of the Lord...Bring no more futile sacrifices; incense is an abomination to Me, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies. I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; they are a trouble to Me. I am weary of bearing them.” (Isaiah chapter one)
Yes, it is true, God Himself had commanded these things. Even so, God had only subjected Israel to these fleshly ordinances until the One should come who both fulfills and transcends such laws. To the Jewish ear, “Sabbath” would mean so much more than a weekly rest day. God’s rest for the soul, however, eclipsed required days of physical inactivity.  
It is hard to hear common Scripture used in a way you may not have considered before, but let’s try.
A. Genesis 2:1-3: “Thus the heavens and the earth and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.” This is our first “Sabbath” text. Did you read the word “Sabbath?” Did you read the command of man needing to take a weekly day of rest? Adam, being in the Garden of Eden, needed no day off from Paradise to be refreshed. (Likewise, when we attain to heaven, our Paradise [complete with the Tree of Life], we also will need no day of rest.) Most importantly, we must try and determine what is meant by God resting. God doesn’t grow weary (Psalm 121:4). The word translated “rested” in the Hebrew is NUACH, meaning “rested, to be comforted, consoled, i.e. to be content or satisfied.” The creation was finished and all the host of them, therefore God ceased creating in contented satisfaction. That God did not stop working in an absolute sense is obvious for two reasons:
1. He constantly sustains all things, continuously by upholding the creation by the Word of His power. (Hebrews 1:3) and
2. Christ Himself declared, “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.” (John 5:17)  

The phrase “God rested” here in Genesis 2 refers to the contented rest of a job well done. The satisfaction derived from a goal achieved is emphasized here since the concept of God being idle is unscriptural. (Psalm 121:4) I believe the key to understanding God’s perspective on Sabbath is to meditate on what is meant by God resting on the seventh day. And the question: How do we enter into His rest which He offers throughout His Word?
As if to emphasize this question, Genesis 2:3 makes no comment concerning man’s obligation to take a rest day once a week. From Genesis 2 until the Exodus from Egypt, no hint is given that anyone observed a Sabbath. Exodus 16 is the first Biblical injunction where God commands the Israelites to the weekly Sabbath. Yet it may be added that the institution of Passover in Exodus 12 preceded a weekly Sabbath with a feast-day Sabbath. Deuteronomy 5:15 makes the link between man and his new obligation to take a Sabbath. Exodus 31:17 plainly declares the Sabbath to be a sign between the Lord and the children of Israel. Ezekiel 20 repeats this point with the Lord saying, “Moreover, I also gave them My Sabbaths, to be a sign between them and Me.” Yet Nehemiah chapter 9 is clear beyond argument. While fasting, in sackcloth, and with dust on their heads, the chief Levites cried out with a loud voice to the Lord their God...reciting the great deeds of God while praying, saying: “You showed signs and wonders against Pharaoh, against all his servants, and against all the people of his land. For You knew that they acted proudly against them. So You made a name for Yourself, as it is this day. And You divided the sea before them, so that they went through the midst of the sea on the dry land; and their persecutors You threw into the deep, as a stone into the mighty waters. Moreover You led them by day with a cloudy pillar, and by night with a pillar of fire, to give them light on the road which they should travel. You came down also on Mount Sinai, and spoke with them from heaven, and gave them just ordinances and true laws, good statutes and commandments. You made known to them your holy Sabbath and commanded them precepts, statutes and laws, by the hand of Moses Your servant.” (Nehemiah 9:10-14) Since they already knew of God resting on the seventh day, Moses could not have made known to them the Sabbath in a general way but made known to them now that they also were to rest on the seventh day. It does not say He made known to them the Sabbath again, as if they had forgotten, but now they would be participants.
Therefore, we may say assuredly by Scripture, men observed no weekly Sabbath until the Exodus. And, also, that at that time Sabbath was not made for mankind in general, but specifically to be a sign exclusively between the Lord and the children of Israel. Why is this important? Simply because, as it reads, the concept of God’s rest stood as a mysterious revelation unencumbered by any command to man to perform religious sacrifice. The yearning to return to the rest of His presence was the undiluted hope. Man had been forced by sin to leave his Paradise in Eden and went to work by the sweat of his brow. Knowing that somehow this seventh day was set apart as unique but which also remained open (no end as other days), man yearned for a rest from the curse of the ground. Early they understood the hope of the Messiah. For, as they recalled, God had given the prophetic warning to the Serpent: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.” (Genesis 3:15-16) Out of this, godly men looked to a rest, a true rest in the Messiah. Having no daily Sabbath but a prophetic promise, Noah was born. Noah’s father seems to believe his son may be the One. Genesis 5:28-29 tells of Lamech calling the name of his son Noah, which means rest. For he said, “This one will comfort (Hebrew Naw-kahm, translated “repent” in many places) us concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord has cursed.” To explain how Noah is a type of Christ would consume all our time and patience, but suffice it to say, the saved were all in Noah’s ark. The word translated “pitch” (#3722 kapparah) is everywhere else in the Old Testament rendered as atonement. The first man said to have found grace in the Lord’s eyes (6:8), whose name means Rest, saved the world in an ark covered with atonement. Yet the dove found no where to set her foot...until she returned with a symbol of peace in her mouth. The dove “remained”, however, on Christ Jesus our Lord, who was the true Rest; under His atoning blood, we are secured from the floods of ungodliness There was the first Adam and the second Adam: Jesus Christ. There was the first Noah, and the second Noah.
From the Exodus from Egypt until Christ Jesus, God commanded fleshly ordinances for a carnal people. Jesus reveals Himself as the One anticipated by all the prophets. Yet this was not revealed to some.

B. Matthew 11:25-12:1f : “At that time Jesus answered and said, ‘I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light. At that time Jesus went through the grain fields on the Sabbath...”  
  It seems almost impossible with Holy Spirit-filled prophets teaching through the centuries...but somehow, the Jews rejected and murdered the Just and Holy One. Sent by God to offer true rest from their enemies, rest from sin, and rest in God’s presence. This true rest was open from Genesis 2 on. For example, it was offered to those Jews in the wilderness, yet God promised in His anger, that they would not enter His rest. David also being a prophet, invites his people to the same. (Psalm 95) There’s that phrase again: “God’s Rest.” Isaiah said this: “Whom will he teach knowledge? And whom will he make to understand the message? Those just weaned from milk? Those just drawn from the breasts? For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little. For with stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to this people, to whom He said, ‘This is the rest with which You may cause the weary to rest’, and ‘This is the refreshing’; yet they would not hear. But the word of the Lord was to them, ‘Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little,’ that they might go and fall backward, and be broken and snared and caught.” (28:9-13)
So we see that truly all the promises are YES! in Christ Jesus our Lord (2 Corinthians 1:20). He is the hope of the ages (Jeremiah 14:8). He is the Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8). Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes (Romans 10:4). While all this is true, we still ask: How did Jesus Christ relate to the seventh-day Sabbath?
While it is true that Jesus of Nazareth frequently was found in the synagogue on the seventh-day Sabbath, He was there often being violently accused of breaking the Sabbath. The gospel writers plainly agree that Jesus did break the Sabbath (See John 5:16-18). Jesus defended Sabbath breaking in Matthew 12:5, claiming in verse 8 to be superior to the Sabbath. He does not include Sabbath-keeping in any of His lists of commandments to keep to inherit eternal life (for example, see Matthew 19:18-19). Jesus’ comment to His disciples to pray their flight from Judea not be on the Sabbath isn’t because He didn’t want them to desecrate the Sabbath, but for their traveling convenience. Other potential difficulties on His recommended prayer list included: winter, pregnancy, and nursing babies (see Matthew 24:19-20). Even today, long travel is still forbidden on the Sabbath among Jews. The Israeli airline, ELAL, nearly shuts down three days a week for fear of flying through a Sabbath time zone. If you are caught walking through orthodox communities, even today, on the Sabbath, you could be hurt by flying stones.
What are we to make of Jesus’ comment: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”? First, we have learned that the Sabbath wasn’t made for every man in the world, it was to be a sign between Israel and God (see Exodus 31 and Ezekiel 20). Secondly, it was not made for health in general since, as we have seen, the Sabbath wasn’t given to mankind in general and not even to Israel until the Exodus from Egypt. This would imply that God did not care for the health of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which is contrary to God’s intent to bless His people (see Genesis 6:8 and 12:1-2). Thirdly, the Sabbath was in part commanded to bless ex-slaves by a commanded rest. The Pharisees, however, had turned this day intended to be a blessing into a legalistic burden as if man were created to benefit the Sabbath and not the other way around. Nevertheless, consider this, if Jesus is our Passover Lamb...and we sprinkle His blood on the doorposts of our hearts daily through faith...then we keep the feast in a true sense every day. The Passover is a high-day Sabbath (Deuteronomy 16:8). Therefore, as we consider Jesus and the Sabbath, rigorous Sabbatarians must look elsewhere for a champion of their views (said the ISBE, Volume 4, page 2631.)

C. The apostles’ teachings emphasize Jesus being the center of all true religion. In fact, often the apostolic voice declares that it is either the Law of Moses or Jesus. “You who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.” (Galatians 5:4) In one of the clearest texts in the entire New Testament concerning the Christian’s relationship to the law and Sabbath, Colossians 2:13-17, we read ...
What is fascinating is a close look at the Acts of the Apostles. The word “Sabbath” is mentioned eight times, always in reference to seventh-day synagogue worship. But when we look for the Christian church’s pattern for worship, Acts 2:46-47 states they were “assembling daily with one accord” and that new believers were added daily. We are told in Hebrews to “exhort one another daily, while it is called ‘Today’.” (Hebrews 3:13) Acts 6:1 speaks of the church with their “daily distribution” for the needy. Obviously when some would work, they would attend as they could. Acts 20:7 seems to speak of such a practice. Notice the evening setting (the lamps). Also, there being no “Sabbath” implied here and no use of the term “the Lord’s Day.” Furthermore, it is noteworthy to observe that when the church convened to decide to what extent the law applied to the Gentiles, no mention is made of any Sabbath requirement (see Acts 15).
Revelation 1:10 is the only time the phrase “the Lord’s Day” is used in the New Testament (see passage below). The Expositor’s Bible Commentary makes this observation: “Since this is the only place in the New Testament where this expression is used, its identification is difficult...Some feel John was transported into the future day of the Lord, the prophetic day of God’s great judgment and the return of Christ.” (Volume 12, pg. 424, E. W. Ballinger) While it is true the identical phrase isn’t used anywhere else in the New Testament, “the Lord’s Day” sounds a lot like the Day of the Lord, or many similar expressions which always, always, refer to the return of Christ. And this second coming of Christ is precisely the focus of the Revelation. Furthermore, several verses sound very similar and may help determine the meaning of this phrase:

Revelation 1:10 “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day...”
Revelation 4:2 “Immediately I was in the Spirit; and beheld a throne set in heaven, and One 
  sat...”
Revelation 17:3 “So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman
  sitting...”
Revelation 21:10 “And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and 
showed me the great city...”

Each time John is carried away by the Spirit into a vision of a future event. The Lord’s Day, as described in Revelation with heavenly signs, earthly catastrophes, is in the future.  
By God’s Spirit, an apostle anticipated a problem in this area between Jewish and Gentile Christians. He wrote: “Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things...One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day observes it to the Lord, and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it...But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? (KJV - “set at naught thy brother”) For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.”(Romans 14:1, 5-6f, 10) If the New Testament teaches that Christians should esteem one day above another, how could Paul tell us to each make up our own minds? Rather, he would say that some do not observe the day and they are sinning! Therefore, in this very area of regarding or esteeming days, the inspired apostle basically says, “Don’t judge!” Even so, the apostle seems a little judgmental himself when he said, “But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.” (Galatians 4:9-11) (cf. Hebrews 9:8-10)

“A person will be free from the Old Covenant only in as much as he is truly walking in the New Covenant.” If this evaluation is correct concerning the teachings of Christ and his apostles, then those Christians who immediately follow them should speak the same way. While not infallible, these early Christian leaders give us a snapshot of early beliefs.

Early Church Teaching:

I. Ignatius (Bishop of Antioch, pupil of apostle John, died 117 AD) “If therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observe the Sabbaths...” (chapter 9) “Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner and rejoice in days of idleness...But let everyone of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner...”

II. Irenaeus (Bishop of Lyons, probable assistant to Polycarp, disciple of John, lived 120-202 AD)
(Speaking of the Sabbath) “These things were given for a sign...Sabbaths taught that we should continue day by day in God’s service...When God had repudiated sacrifices and burnt offerings and oblations, so also did he the new moons (holy days), the Sabbaths, and the feast days and all the rest of the services accompanying these...”

III. Justin Martyr (beheaded for Christ in Rome, taught Christ clearly opposed Marcian heresies, confounded the Jews, lived 100-165 AD) “The new law requires you to keep a perpetual Sabbath, and you, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious, not discerning why this has been commanded...The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances...(but) if (there is) any adulterer, let him repent; then he has kept the sweet and true Sabbaths of God.” (Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 12)

These teachings are not selected out of many other opposing views - these voices represent the only view of the first two hundred years AD.

Anabaptist Teaching:

I. Menno Simons Anabaptists were accused of being Sabbath breakers according to the writings of Menno Simons. In response to this, Menno stated: “(Anabaptists) keep and sanctify the Lord’s Sabbath (which is now no longer literal but spiritual, and never terminating with the true Christians) not by wearing fine clothes, not by carousing, drinking, vanity, and idleness as the unthinking world does on its external Sabbath and holy days, but by the fear of God, by a clean conscience and unblameable life, in love to God and their neighbors (which is true religion), keeping and sanctifying (the Sabbath) to the Lord eternally.” The editor noted: “In agreement with the Christian Church of the first few centuries, Menno does not associate the Lord’s Day with the Jewish Sabbath.” (The Works of Menno Simons, p. 679-680, Herald Press)  

Why quote Menno Simons? Not because he is infallible or because all Anabaptists should walk lock step with the early leaders, but his opinion is worth considering because he was a man greatly used of God. Would you consider Menno to be less than a Christian for his view on the Sabbath? Would Menno Simons be disfellowshipped at your church for his view? Would you let your children be taught by him in a Sunday School class? His writings and views permeate Anabaptist literature. His sentiments are translated the same in both editions of his works.

II. George Brunk (The Sword and the Trumpet, October 1931) “There is no commandment for Christians to keep the Sabbath - no warning against breaking it. In the New Testament, we have at various places long lists of transgressions, but Sabbath-breaking is never among them. Why? Evidently because the law and penalty on the point were done away... The whole (Old) covenant was done away and an entirely new and better one given (Hebrews 13). Even if only ceremonies had been done away, the Sabbath would have gone. For a Sabbath day is a ceremony as certainly as a Sabbath year is one.”  
Yet, in all fairness, he does argue for a Lord’s Day observance instead.

It has been said by the vile atheist Voltaire that if the church could be separated from its Sabbath, it would fail (I say vile for good reason). I would ask you - what does an atheist know about the power of Christ’s church? No church has been more powerful in Christ than the early church. We need to remember that Tertullian was the first to suggest Christians refrain from work on Sunday, and that was in 200 AD (See Separated Unto God, J. C. Wenger, p. 286). The early church did not fail without a Sabbath, it had Christ. Those radical Anabaptists had no literal Sabbath yet swept Europe with the truth of the gospel. Surely they were a successful church, as God measures success. Who will say the early Anabaptists failed?
You might be asking yourself: If Jesus’ teachings are so clear, and the testimony of the early church so unified, how did we get to Sabbath keeping again? The simple answer is - Step by step.

I. Tertullian - Latin writer; first to suggest a day off on the first day of the week.
II. Constantine - (321 AD) declared the “venerable day of the sun” to be an official Sabbath in honor of the Son of God.
III. Puritans - (1595 AD) Nicholas Bound published the book “The True Doctrine of the Sabbath”. He demanded this day of rest be enforced by law. Over the next 100 years, more than 100 books were published endorsing this position.

In John’s gospel, chapter 9:16, we read that some of the Pharisees said of Jesus: “This Man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath.” The hatred in the Jews hearts drove them finally to murder the holy and just One.
To those who have been raised with a life-long emphasis on the Lord’s Day/ Sunday Sabbath, I realize this is so different from what you’ve been taught. There are those who reverently esteem one day above another. I now believe that just because a person regards the first day as special, it does not necessarily mean that he allows himself self-indulgence on Monday. For my part, I desire the Sabbath war to be over. For those of us who regard every day alike, please be patient with us as we seek to serve the Lord in honor daily as you do. Let each person be fully convinced in his own mind. Whatever is not of faith is sin. Each one of us shall stand before God to give an account of himself.
While my view may seem radical at first...it is, I believe, in harmony with the Old Testament principle of “God’s Rest”; in harmony with Jesus’ teaching, the apostles’ doctrine, the early church’s revelation, and the Anabaptist’s gospel. I commend you to the Word of God.  
Finally, I believe we should meet together as the body of Christ deems best. Whether it be daily as the Early Church, or three times a week as some do, let us pray that we can stir up to love and good works “all the more as we see the day approaching.”


Of Binding and Loosing...


Have you ever been to a prayer meeting where some Christian will either "bind" some spiritual power or "loose" a blessing of some sort? Have you ever gotten the impression that "binding and loosing" is the "key" to spiritual victory? The funny thing is that generations of past Christians also have employed their understanding of the "keys" found in Matthew 16. The Roman Catholic magisterium declared as bound upon all Christians any dogma they uttered concerning morals and doctrine citing the "keys" as justification. Some conservative Mennonite conferences adopted a form of Catholic practice as they bestowed similar power upon bishops and confessions. If a local church leadership pronounced some practice in a doctrinal statement or confession it was a sin to disobey it. They had the power to declare local practice as good as Scripture believing "Heaven" would follow their lead. Charismatic Pentecostals use the power to bind and loose in yet another, no less troubling way. Their interpretation gives all believers power to manipulate spiritual forces, both good and evil, controlling the destinies of both individuals and even entire geographical areas. So while binding and loosing today takes a novel form in Charismatic circles, actually the use and misuse of Matthew 16 and 18 are almost as old as the Christian Church herself. 
It is an oft repeated truism that if a Biblical passage is either obscure or difficult, it provides fertile ground for 'creative' interpretations to be 'discovered'. This certainly would include the two statements in Matthew's Gospel- Matthew 16:19 and 18:15-18. (See below) 
1. "(Jesus) said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 
Simon Peter answered and said,” You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 
Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 
And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Mt. 16 
2."Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 
But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that 'by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.' 
And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. 
Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Mt. 18
Let me quickly note, one's understanding of what Jesus' means when He gives Peter the "keys" is crucial to properly understanding the bestowal of the binding power. That much is immediately obvious. If the reader adopts the Roman view of Peter's personal supremacy over the early church, the "keys" must be papal power. If your interpretation puts Peter as a type of all believers applying the "key" of the good confession "you are the Christ" then the power must be universal to all believers. Before we get over our theological heads, let me make a simple point which all but the Greek lexicographer has missed. If my reader will permit, since this subject is of crucial importance, please allow me a somewhat lengthy quote from one Greek scholar, Boyce W. Blackwelder in his book Light from the Greek New Testament. Of binding and loosing he writes: "Misunderstanding in much of Christendom has long been associated with Jesus' words about binding and loosing in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18. The participles in those passages have been traditionally rendered as though they were simple futures, viz., "shall be bound...shall be loosed" (King James, English Revised, American Standard, Revised Standard, Confraternity; same idea in Weymouth, Moffatt, Montgomery, Goodspeed, and others). But these participles are not simple future verbs. They are future perfect passive participles, and in light of this, the translation of Matthew 16:19 would go like this: "I will give you [singular] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, but whatever you may bind [deseis, aorist active subjunctive] on earth shall have been bound [estai dedemenon, periphrastic future perfect passive] in heaven, and whatever you may loose [luseis, aorist active subjunctive] on earth shall have been loosed [estai lelumenon, periphrastic future perfect passive] in heaven." Likewise the translation of Matthew 18:18 is: "Verily I say to you [plural personal pronoun], whatsoever you may bind [desete, aorist active subjunctive] upon earth shall have been bound [estai dedemena, periphrastic future perfect passive] in heaven and whatsoever you may loose [lusete, aorist active subjunctive] upon earth shall have been loosed [estai lelumena, periphrastic future perfect passive] in heaven.” Thus Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 are seen to be in harmony with the general tenor of the New Testament which nowhere teaches sacerdotalism[priestly power to forgive sins] "Binding" and "loosing" are used metaphorically of course, in the passages, meaning "prohibiting" and "permitting." All that is proclaimed by the ministry and church must be based on the Lord's authority. Professor Mantey has pointed out that Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 were rendered incorrectly in the Latin Vulgate Version by Jerome about A.D. 400. Concerning this regrettable error, Dr. Mantey adds: "No doubt millions of people have been mislead....." {Quote from Light from the Greek New Testament, Boyce W. Blackwelder. Pages 74 and 75. 1958. Warner Press} 
In case you got lost in all the Greek stuff, the main point is that the phrasing actually should be past tense. In other words, Peter (or whoever he represents) must be sure that whatever you bind (or prohibit) must only be that which is already bound in heaven, and, whatever you loose (permit) must be that which heaven has previously permitted. English versions which get it correct are the Amplified Bible, Williams, and the Updated New American Standard Bible. The famous Greek Text Nestle-Aland 21st Edition also notes the corrective. For those super scholars out there, you may also want to review remarks made on this passage in Kittel’s Theological Dictionary, Volume 2, and page 60. As you can see even without training in the Greek language, the proper tense isn't unknown just unevenly translated. This aspect of translation from Greek to English is a difficult one. As the preface to the New American Standard Bible states: "A careful distinction has been made in the treatment of the Greek aorist tense (usually translated in the English past, 'He did')..." Unfortunately, such careful distinctions haven't always been applied uniformly in our numerous English translations. Therefore as a result, some very questionable doctrines have been devised based on a misleading English translation. 
Forget the Greek for just a second. Peter takes his new found position (see Matthew 16:16 - 23), and uses it against Jesus' mission. Peter takes Jesus aside and begins to rebuke Him! "Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to you." Literally, in the Greek, it has more of a divine pronouncement tone: "(Not so!) May God be merciful to You!" Here it seems Peter also has misunderstood his power. He acts as if he can speak into his Lord's life and dictate the path He should follow. If Peter indeed has received such divine power this is the perfect opportunity to use it. But, happily, it doesn't work or Jesus would have skipped the cross and we'd be dead in our sins. Peter didn't receive power to bind the actions of Jesus (or anyone) and have heaven say, 'Amen'. Instead he earns himself the ultimate rebuke: "(Jesus) turned and said to Peter, 'Get behind Me, Satan. You are an offence to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men." Matthew 16:23 No man, including Peter, can bind or loose anything on earth which Heaven hasn't ordained. Heaven's the Head, we're the tail. 
Since the tense is a past tense, let's apply this to the Charismatic interpretation. First, whatever you "bind" must be something already previously bound in heaven. Out goes binding Satan, that doesn't happen until Revelation 20, where we read: 
"Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 
He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 
and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while." Unless you are part of the a-millennial school of eschatology, binding Satan will have to wait until the great chain is deployed by this incredible angel. Remember, "Whatever you bind on earth, must already have been bound in heaven." And as the Williams Bible comments: "Things in a state of having been already forbidden." 
But wait; is Jesus bestowing power on Peter to bind demons or loose spirits? Not in this verse. The context speaks nothing of demons, angels, or principalities. Check the context in Matthew 18:18. Is this speaking of binding spiritual powers? Geographical demonic principalities? No, the context is applying church discipline upon an erring brother. Using this "binding" to manipulate spirits is a clear example of a verse being used out of its context if there ever was one. If spiritual warfare was intended it should have been located near Jesus' talk on Satan falling from heaven. Or, while He was casting out a demon somewhere. 
This seems the perfect place for a brief comment on Matthew 12:29 "Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? And then he will spoil his house." Isn't this Biblical proof? Let's think this one through together. The Pharisees confronted Jesus as casting out demons by the prince of demons. The Lord Jesus in defense responds with this parable of home invasion. We learn that if a thief wants to invade a house to steal the owner's stuff he must first "bind"(tie up) the strongman (home owner) and then he can plunder his goods. Jesus here claims to be the thief who having invaded Satan's home has bound him in order to steal his "goods"(the people who are oppressed by the devil's evil). Curiously, in Luke's account of the same parable Jesus this time has the invader not "binding" the strongman but is simply is stronger than him. 
"But when a stronger than he comes upon him and overcomes him, he takes from him all his armor in which he trusted, and divides his spoils." (11:22) Here no binding is needed, only superior strength. If this parable is given to lend support to prayer warriors in "binding" devilish spirits, then why the change in the book of Luke? Maybe spiritual victory can be had simply by being stronger than the powers we confront? Wrong answer. We're taking this parable where it was never intended to go. This is simply a parable about Jesus overcoming Satan. The tying up the homeowner or simply being stronger than him makes Jesus' point complete claiming He is despoiling Satan of his dominion. This is a parable and as such shouldn't be over stretched and taken overly literal as if we are being some super secret key to spiritual victory over territorial principalities and powers. There is no hint that Christians should employ some proper prayer declarations in this or any New Testament passage. Sadly, such practices have more in common with some forms of witchcraft than Christianity. 
In some circles, prayers are liberally adorned with the petitioner declaring this spirit bound or another loosed. Hardly a prayer is uttered without such declarations. And why not? If this spiritual tool is indeed key to Jesus Himself plundering Satan's realm, and He gave Peter (or whoever he represents) the power to bind or loose, wouldn't we be foolish not to utilize such a potent weapon? 
Let me ask a straight forward question.... If such binding and/or loosing is so key to spiritual success, why, in all the recorded apostolic prayers in the New Testament, don't we find one example of any binding or loosing prayers? Didn't anyone know how to defeat principalities and evil powers in the early church? Listen to Peter's prayer: "Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, who by the mouth of Your servant David have said: 'Why did the nations rage, and the people plot vain things? The kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ.' For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. 
Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, 
by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus." 
And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness." (Acts 4:24ff) If 'binding and loosing' spirits is the key to victory, why isn't there even one recorded New Testament prayer employing this "key" insight? Notice in the above prayer Peter fails to bind anything! Indeed, we see just the opposite. Peter first declares what he learned the hard way when he tried to 'loose' Jesus from His earthy mission. God's divine purpose rules. Even so, Peter does ask if God won't keep a special eye on the threats directed toward the apostles. He asks God to grant boldness to speak. He also requests that God do miracles through Jesus' name. One thing is sure; Peter doesn’t shoot pronouncements into the heavenlies to pull down air-born principalities. Peter states the Lord is in charge, even including the rebellious world rulers. 
Today's Charismatic 'binding and loosing' of spiritual powers finds no legitimate support in Scripture. When Jesus told Peter "whatever you bind must be that which is already bound in Heaven" He was forever limiting the church from binding on believers new practices not required first by Heaven itself. Herein lays the actual purpose of the binding and loosing passages. This limitation on Peter (church leaders?) in Matthew 16:19 and then on the entire church in Matthew 18:18, fits each context perfectly. Think about this. Imagine how much conflict could have been avoided if every church leader, every congregation bound themselves to teach only that which is positively taught by our New Testament. Church history is rife with extra-biblical revelations and teachings which drive deadly wedges between fellow believers. Bind upon other Christians only that which is already bound in Heaven, loose fellow Christians only from teachings Christ sets us free from. Reject teachings which seek to bind upon believers the latest "word" that is uttered from Roman pope, Mormon apostle, Charismatic prophet, or Evangelical preacher. And especially refuse to adopt so-called "binding and loosing techniques" which have more in common with voodoo shamans than our blessed Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen. 

"....learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.” 1st Corinthians 4:6b (New KJV)


Sinners in the Hands of an Angry Church: Toxic Christianity or Crucified by Christians


What would you say is the negative image of Christianity? Jerry Falwell? PTL? Finger-pointing judgmentalism? Do you know what the number one reason given by men as to why they no longer attend church anywhere? Most of the time, it is because they have been hurt or offended by someone in the church.  
Christ Jesus was criticized by the religious leaders of His day. They called Him, “the friend of sinners.” They meant it as a put-down. Today we think of it as a token of divine love. Jesus informed His critical contemporaries that: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance” (Mark 2:17). Today, Christ lives and works through His body, the Church. For we “are his flesh and bones” (Ephesians 5:30). He still calls the sin-sick sinners to His healing, wounded side. His wounds are our life. “Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually” (1 Corinthians 12:27). We bear in our body the marks of the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus (Galatians 6:17). So, the sick still come. , in long, pathetic lines of half-dead, diseased victims of Satan’s plague. They stand at the door of the Christ’s Church, the truly redeemed, and beg for asylum and comfort. They, as the ill-fated traveler, have been beaten and robbed and left for dead along the road. The religious pass by on the other side lest they be defiled. As they unlovingly warn in Isaiah 65:5 saying, “Do not come near me, I am holier than you.” And they very well may be. They, if healed and cleansed, made it unto the Great Physician but what of your brother or sister? Have their wounds been cleaned? Have their cuts been bound up? Have they yet lifted their faces from the dirt and helped to your donkey and brought to the inn? Yes, they are sick. Sin sick. And yes, they may be unclean and contagious. So were you. “And such were some of you” (1 Corinthian 6:10).
When Ebola breaks out in central Africa, the local health care workers leave their posts. Hospitals are abandoned, leaving nothing of itself but a skeleton staff. Yet there is a team of experts that fly in, set up specially equipped laboratories, wearing special suits. They risk their lives, treat the victims and stop the epidemic every time. Do you know who they are? The Center for Disease Control (CDC) from Atlanta, Georgia. How can they be so bold? So aggressive? So successful? Because greater is their knowledge and skill than the power of the Ebola virus that stalks in the night. We pray God continues blessing them with such knowledge and ability. But what about sin in the church? Sin sickness is the Ebola of the soul. How does the church respond? It is said that the church is the only army that shoots its own wounded! Do we believe that greater is He who is in us, than he who is in the world? Or will we flee as Kenyan health-care workers do, leaving Satan’s victims to fend for themselves?
What I’m urging is for us to show mercy and kindness. Satan lurks about as a roaring lion, seeking who he may devour. Each of us may be overcome by a temptation. We may, for a time, be caught in a deadly web of deceit. Sin’s infectious bite may sink its viral teeth into our flesh and begin eating our everlasting soul. Will we surround our fallen comrades with spiritual healthcare, gently nursing our diseased friend back to health? Or will we drive the pathetic, sin-sick soul out, lest they work as diseased leaven corrupting our own health? Yes, some need to be quarantined if all curative methods fail and contagion is spread. How quick we are to call for gloves, masks and quarantine signs. Jesus used the illustration of a fig tree in a vineyard. Something was bad wrong with this fig tree. Planted well, apparently well cared for, it still failed to bear figs in the normal fashion. Listen to this parable in Luke 13:6-9:

6 The Parable of the Barren Fig Tree He also spoke this parable: "A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. 
7 Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, 'Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?' 
8 But he answered and said to him, 'Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it. 
9 And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.'"   NKJV


“Three years I’ve come looking.” The owner of the vineyard expects fruit from his tree. Let me ask you a question? Have you been a Christian for more than 3 years? “Let it alone this year also.” This was said by the keeper, the gardener, the one who tended the plant. His attempted cure was to dig around it (disturb it) and fertilize it. How many say in essence, “Don’t give me that junk!” Do you use fertilizer? Are you a restoration worker? Or do you just walk around with an ax? Do you say, “We are going to ax you to leave?” Galatians 6:1 says, “You who are spiritual restore such a one in the spirit of meekness.” The word for restore in Galatians 6:1 is katartizo, which is the same word used in Matthew 4:21 and Mark 1:19 in reference to mending fishing nets. So it means to mend, heal, restore. In Matthew 7:5, the Lord admonishes those who want to fix someone else’s problem to “take the log out of your own eye, AND THEN you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” Have you been able to bear figs; to mend or restore yourself? (1 Timothy 4:12-16 and Ezra 7:10) There has been precious little inspirational teaching in the church, but plenty of shortsighted correction. This is true of some earthly fathers, me included! (James 5:19-20) Think of yourself – have you been able to transform yourself? Anyone else? (2 Timothy 2:24-26)
The word “quarrel” is a military Greek term for hand-to-hand combat. The United States Coast Guard, when they are warning a boat about entering U.S. waters will shoot a warning shot across the bow of the vessel. If this action were taken against a similarly armed vessel, this might be taken as a prelude to war. The fundamental weakness within the church is that we don’t know how to love our brothers through their difficult times of failure. We should not be ready to go to battle with words, but be gentle and kind with persuasive talk that we might be teachers who “convince, exhort, rebuke with all longsuffering and doctrine.” (1 Timothy 4:2) We are so much like the older brother in the parable of the prodigal. Listen to him: “This son of yours has come, the one who has devoured your livelihood with harlots…” He didn’t say “my brother”, but “this son of yours.” Then he made his accusation: “he has devoured your livelihood…” Did the older son attend the reunion party? No, he was angry, Jesus says, and would not go in. Why not? Was he worried about his piece of the pie? Maybe. Worried about his father’s honor? Maybe he was worried about his own honor or possibly what the neighbors might think. Maybe he was jealous of his brother getting a double blessing! But what caused the father to overlook ALL these factors? L-O-V-E. “Love covers a multitude of sins” but “hatred stirs up strife.” Let’s give the New Testament a quick overview. Mercy is mentioned 59 times. The Gospels are filled with calls to patient mercy for others in the face of the judgmental, exacting, merciless, condemning, self-righteous Pharisees. The woman caught in adultery. A man carrying his bed roll on the Sabbath. Harvesting grain on the Sabbath. The parable of the two debtors. One didn’t have the foresight to forgive his fellow, remember? The older brother of the prodigal, not to mention his father’s unbelievably shameless love. The woman who was forgiven as she wiped Jesus’ feet with her hair despite the scandal it caused – “if this man were really a prophet, he would know what manner of woman is touching Him” thought the “blind” Pharisee. Jesus said this then and He still pleads today with the church: “Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” Not “sacrifice”, i.e. fasting but “this is God’s chosen fast…”  
This is how the Message Bible records Romans 2.
Stephen said, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” (Acts 7:60)
Jesus said, “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.” (Luke 23:34)
James said, “Mercy triumphs over judgment.” (James 2:13b) (The word “judgment” or “judgments” is used 73 times.)
Paul said, “Love suffers long and is kind…love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.” (1 Corinthians 13:4-8a)
Love brought Jesus from heaven to the cross. Love took a nail, endured the whip, the mocking, the torment of rejection, and death to earn the right to say, “I love you.” Are you ready to follow Jesus and lay down your life? To pray, “Father, forgive them,” and mean it? That’s what it really means to follow Jesus! Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy!  
So, will it be “Sinners in the hands of an angry church OR a merciful church? Here are some further questions for you to consider:
1. Whom did Jesus associate with?
2. Where did He go?
3. What made Jesus so attractive and effective with worldly people?
4. How was Jesus received by the religious?
5. Why did Jesus do what He did?
6. Is Jesus our pattern to model ourselves by? (1 John 2:5-6)

We stand aloof from the world because ‘we do not want to get involved in its hurt or dirt.’” John Stott in “Christ the Controversialist”


Our Journey to Obeying I Corinthians 11


Occasionally, a chronicle of one’s personal, spiritual journey can be beneficial to others. While humbling to tell, it can be encouraging to others to hear of the baby steps fellow Christians make. This paper is a combination of both personal testimony and Scriptural investigation. The topic isn’t even considered worthy of serious study in most Christian circles. Yet this Biblical teaching is found in a New Testament letter which today is both popular and timely. The letter is 1 Corinthians, and the topic is the headship veiling of chapter 11.
Embarrassing as it is to admit, I believe I can safely say I’ve held to almost every possible interpretation. The only consolation to this is the fact that, while ignorant, I was at least honest. It is important to remember to be sympathetic to those who dismiss the headship veiling as unimportant. In today’s Christian circles, this text is almost completely ignored or mishandled.  
(1) R. C. Sproul (2) has chided today’s expositors for engaging in eisegesis of the worst kind as regards 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. (R. C. Sproul’s comments are contained in Appendix A.)
In my opinion, the modern Christian is insulated from even beginning to consider this teaching by various erroneous assumptions. For me personally, it was a misunderstanding of the very words of Jesus. Christ stood as a road block to further investigation. The unwarranted assumption was simply this: Jesus’ message stands in opposition to any consideration of externals; especially in regards to clothing issues. A few of those misunderstood statements would include:
1) “Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life...nor about your body, what you 
  will put on.” (Matthew 7:25)
  2) “Do not judge according to appearance...” (John 7:24a)
3) “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. (Matthew 23:27)
4) “Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.” (Matthew 23:26)

These verses are used to derail the discussion even before it gets started. In the early days of my Christian walk, I would have simply brushed aside the entire issue with a pious cliché, “Let’s not major on the minors.” Yet, now I believe that such cavalier dismissal of Scripture is wrong for the following reasons:
  1) It is Scripture we are doing away with, not some extra-Biblical writing. (Recall 
  2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
  doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God
  may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”)
  2) Peter and Paul both deal with the externals: of clothing, etc. If they were lead by the
  Holy Spirit to address these matters, are we more “spiritual” now than even the apostles  
  themselves?
  3) Church history shows that Christians for hundreds of years in different lands accepted 
  this Scripture as applicable. Can we really assume they misunderstood, and we are so  
  much wiser?  
(1) Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Reformed Theological Seminary
(2) Knowing Scripture, p. 110, R. C. Sproul, I.V.P.

4) That which we relegate to the “minor” commandments may be more essential than we 
  realize. If we could see as the Good Shepherd sees, we might adjust our thinking.  
  (Matthew 5:19; Isaiah 55:8-9)
None of the aforementioned, of course, proves that 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is to be obeyed literally today, but it does begin to make the way clear to an open-hearted study. Put in the plainest terms - all Scripture is worthy of serious study, is it not? Admittedly, there was a time in our own Christian walk when ANY discussion of externals of this nature would have immediately been branded as “Pharisaical.” Now, while the way may seem clear to begin a serious study, usually another smoke bomb is dropped into the discussion. In verses two and sixteen, two similar words are used (varying according to translation) namely, “tradition” and “custom” (KJV - “ordinances”). Here an unwarranted assumption is made again. I made this assumption for years. The erroneous thought is this: tradition and custom are always in opposition to Jesus Christ’s own teaching. I’ve heard these words pronounced with a snarl in the voice: “Tradition! Ha!” “Custom! Right!” Inferred in this is that Jesus hated tradition (Matthew 15) and hates it still, and that whenever we read the word ‘tradition’ or ‘custom’, it is always man-made and never used positively. This, of course, is not what the New Testament shows. Two examples will be sufficient concerning the word ‘tradition’:
A) “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15) (Gk: #3682 Strong‘s)
B) “But we command you brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.” (2 Thessalonians 3:6) (Gk: #3682 Strong‘s)
This word pronounced par-ad’-os-is used here in Thessalonians is the same used by our Lord Jesus in Matthew 15. The Greek lexicons define it as: “transmission i.e. (concretely) a precept, ordinance.” (Strong’s, p. 1072); “That which is delivered, the substance of teaching.” (Thayer’s Greek/English Lexicon, p. 481); “What is transmitted in the way of teaching, precept, doctrine.” (Analytical Lexicon, p. 302). Simply put, the word tradition isn’t a bad word, contrary to my earlier belief. It can be used with reference to man’s teaching or God’s - depending on the context. Kittel’s sums it up very well with this comment: “For Paul, Christian teaching is tradition, and he demands that churches should keep to it since salvation depends on it.” (Kittel’s Theological Dictionary, Volume 2, p. 172)
The situation concerning the word “custom” is very similar. We assumed that “custom” was man-made ordinances. Yet, simply put, the Greek word used here means “usage, habit.” (We’ll deal at length with what the actual cultural context was in Corinth a little later.) Suffice it to say, custom isn’t a bad word either, at least in this context. On the matter of custom in general, one short quote is helpful: “All we have for sure is the text on the pages of the Bible! God wrote it for us, to us and preserved it as we have it today. No information external to the text about the presumed cultural influence on the Apostle Paul’s attitude toward women, worship or anything else can be known with certainty. Therefore, it may never be used to negate, deny, or change the plain and direct meaning of the words of the text.” (Reformed Witness Magazine, March 1992) The thorough treatment of the cultural context will come later. It is my belief that modern evangelical Christians have made void the commandment of God concerning the headship veiling in conformity to our customs. It isn’t that the apostle spoke as influenced by his culture but the culture of pseudo-equality twists our minds!
Surely, after all this, the way is clear for a serious look at the text. “But,” we’re told, “this precept (1 Corinthians 11:1-16) is only mentioned once; therefore it must not be all that important. After all, by the mouth of two or three witnesses, every charge must be established, right?” Do we believe that if we can’t find two or three verses on any given subject, then it really doesn’t matter? Two items come to mind as I consider such a claim:
A) Melchizedek - Are things only important when they are mentioned a lot? If 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 isn’t valuable, then neither is Melchizedek. But in Hebrews 7:4 we read: “Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils.” While he is hardly referenced, he is greater than Abraham! (Hebrews 7:7) *
  B) Baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is only mentioned once in the New Testament. Could this be not important?  
C) The mark of the beast: 666 - Not important? Well, this is mentioned once in Revelation 13! Can we safely disregard the warning in this Scripture? After all, it is mentioned only once. Items may appear to be more important or less important because of the number of citations, but this is not a Scriptural way to make such an evaluation.
It is regularly maintained that the headship teaching was a problem peculiar to Christians in Corinth. This is what I thought for a long time. And for a long time, I had no motivation to look any further. But as I looked again, this theory began to unravel as well.  
The first question is: Did Corinthian women have a problem with their observance (or should I say their non-observance) of the headship veiling? Consider 1 Corinthians 11:2: “Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.” Can we say from this, contrary to verse two, that they didn’t keep the traditions? Nevertheless, Paul does proceed to say immediately following his commendation, “But I would have you know that...” It appears they were obeying, but ignorantly. If the Corinthian women did wear the covering, Paul very well could have been led by the Holy Spirit’s illumination rather than local conditions at Corinth. We do know the letter wasn’t written just to the Corinthian church - see 1 Corinthians 1:2: “To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.” (See also the custom mentioned in Colossians 4:16 of sharing letters: “Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.”)
Also 1 Corinthians 11:16 uses the phrase “neither do the churches of God”; possibly indicating this teaching wasn’t unique to Corinth. (On this point, the Wycliffe Commentary [Moody Publishing], agrees and adds similar points as well.) Besides all this, Paul himself cites no special Corinthian situation anywhere in his teaching. A portion of the Wycliffe Commentary may be helpful at this point: “It should be noted; however, that each of the reasons given for the wearing of the veil is taken from permanent facts lasting as long as the present earthly economy. Paul did carry his point, for early church history bears witness that in Rome, Antioch and Africa, the custom became the norm.” (Wycliffe Commentary, 1962, Moody Press) We also know the “custom” extended eventually to all Christian communities until quite recently. If this teaching was originally intended to be merely a local response to a unique problem, the entire early church misunderstood! For early drawings show Christian women wearing “...a close fitting headdress while men have their hair short (and also presumably uncovered). Tertullian and Chrysostom testify that these injunctions of Paul prevailed in the churches.” (Vincent’s Word Studies, Volume III, 
p. 787)
As you can see, there is a lot of work that needs to be done just to get to the text, but now that we’ve cleared some debris, we can move on to the first real argument which I believe makes any sense. The view maintains that the hair is the covering. Obviously this can’t just be hair since then the men would need to shave their heads.  

* The actual references to Melchizedek include Genesis 14; Psalm 110; and Hebrews 7
What is being proposed is that women ought to have long hair, and this is what Paul intended. This is maintained despite the fact that the entire early church interpreted Paul as teaching a cloth veiling over the hair! (See previous quotes)
We are simply being asked to believe that when the church adopted a cloth veil, they did so contrary to the true teaching of Paul. This seems unlikely for several reasons:
1) This “misunderstanding” would have continued during the time Paul was still alive and able to correct them. Not only doesn’t Paul correct them even up to the day of his execution, but no one else even questions this so-called erroneous practice.
2) This “misunderstanding” would have been believed even though they had the great advantage of being native Greek speakers. Our modern scholars, twice removed from the Greek language, are better interpreters than the original readers? This is hard to believe. (John Calvin found this impossible to believe.) *
3) Supplying the words “long hair” wherever the word “covering” or “covered” is used results in confusion. Try this yourself. Not to mention, why use the cryptic “covering” when all you intend is long hair?
4) The strength of the hair = covering view is verse fifteen. However, (and native Greek speakers would have caught this) the Greek word for covering in verse fifteen is a completely different Greek word from those which proceed it. This disconnects verse fifteen from the proceeding in the sense that one is speaking of the natural hair, the other a veil.
5) The statement given in verse fifteen is that the hair is given “for” a covering. Some would understand this as “instead of” a covering, namely, a cloth veil. Yet when we understand the context of 1 Corinthians 11, we see that the inspired apostle is referring to the natural to illuminate the spiritual. The hair is the natural which should lead us to conclude a cloth veil is fitting. Therefore, we would like to submit the meaning “similar to” in replacement of “for” or “instead of”. (See for confirmation Appendix B) This would further weaken the “hair is the covering” position. Many evangelicals will pay lip service to the position that the hair is the covering. Don’t assume anyone is truly convinced this is so. Some specific questions, as outlined above, will create cracks in the facade of this theological house of cards.
Needless to say, I once lived in this shaky house. I once believed Jesus didn’t care about externals until His Spirit through His inspired apostles challenged me to look again. I thought whenever the words “tradition” or “custom” were used; it was man-made and therefore nonessential. I had learned that Corinthian women were being given a local solution to a local problem, not applicable to the church at large. Honestly, these positions were held to simply because on the surface they seemed reasonable. It is easy to be an expert at a glance. Yet God’s Word deserves more than a casual glance. In this, 1 Corinthians 8:2 speaks volumes: “And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know.”  
This verse reminds me of another one of my little arguments against literally observing any of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. Verse sixteen says, “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” Here I understood that if anyone didn’t want to go along with the head-covering and was argumentative, Paul was saying, “Forget the whole thing.” While this understanding seems plausible at first glance, various observations indicate this isn’t correct.

* “Should anyone now object that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says it is not, for it (the hair) is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it.”
(John Calvin Commentaries, Translated from the Latin 1848)

A) First, it strikes me as unlikely that the apostle would argue forcefully for the headship veiling, bringing in creation facts and even angels, then say, “But never mind if you don’t like it.” This really doesn’t make much sense.  
B) If the phrase “we have no such custom” is non-negotiable, then the illogical theory may be inescapable. But the Greek word translated “such” is translated “other” in several English translations. While this may seem confusing, keep in mind prepositions are very flexible. Their context often determines their meaning. The phrase “we have no other custom” completely changes the meaning, but is translated thusly in the New International Version, Moffatt, Revised Standard Version, Williams, Good News Bible, Phillips and the Amplified Bible. This is not a textural matter but a translation challenge. The word is too flexible to hang a conclusion on. Early Christians didn’t argue and obeyed.
Let us now return to the strongest argument against the headship veiling. We are told that the Corinthian Christian women were modeling the inappropriate practice of Corinthian prostitutes. Fairly representative of such a view is a footnote in the Life Application Bible: “We need to read it in the context of the situation in Corinth...For a woman to uncover her head in public was a sign of loose morals...Paul was saying that in the Corinthian culture, Christian women should keep their hair long...” (New Living Translation, Life Application Bible, p. 1818) Did Paul really write a concession to Corinthian culture? Could the very one who wrote “Do not be conformed to this world...” (Romans 12:2) really have let the Corinthian customs press him into their mold? Even more troubling is the thought that if Paul wrote teachings in the Corinthian letter based not on God’s infallible Spirit, but on human judgments, what else is cultural? 1  
Both Appendix A and B cover aspects of the cultural arguments, and I would urge you to read both. Briefly I want to explain what the actual situation was in both Jewish and Greek cultures. This hopefully will answer the question: Does 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 reflect the culture of that time?  
Our discussion has centered on the head-covering for women. Yet equally innovative for a Jewish man was Paul’s inspired teaching in 11:4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.” Jewish men covered their heads when entering prayer settings (see Exodus 29:6; Leviticus 16:4) and still do. First Corinthians 11:4 isn’t traditional Jewish teaching. Greek prostitutes for sure didn’t cover their heads, this is true. But what isn’t said is that Greek women, as well as their men folk, in general didn’t cover their heads while praying. So the head-covering isn’t in conformity to Greek practice. This brought the Tyndale Commentary to conclude: “Christians adopted a distinctive practice of their own.” (Volume 7, p.152) Another quote is helpful: “(Paul’s) teaching in 1 Corinthians goes far beyond the cultural conditions affecting the Corinthian church. Indeed it was applicable also to other first century churches (1 Corinthians 11:16b) and to God’s people at any time. 2
Still, although all this was true, I could hardly believe that in all my Christian experience, no one had seen any of this. How could the truth be so obscure?  
What I discovered next truly surprised me. In a commentary dated 1916, I read: “To this day, the universal custom in Christian places of worship, of women being covered and men uncovered and the increasing revolt against the acknowledgment of the subordination of women to men, etc...” (Layman Commentary, 1916, p. 106)  

1 Various groups are willing to help us in our search. The Metropolitan Community Church suggests Paul’s prohibition of homosexuality was a similar reaction to the Corinthian temple prostitution cult.  
2 For an excellent treatment of the Jewish and Grecian practices, see Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 10, pp. 254-257)  

Was the head-covering still common practice in 1916? Apparently so. In 1928, Charles Erdman’s Commentary contained these comments: “It is interesting to observe that while the habit of covering the head in public worship is but a trivial custom which obtained in the days of Paul, it is still almost universally observed among Christians. Its real meaning is little understood. Its true significance is almost forgotten. However, the important principle it once represented is everywhere questioned or rejected in the alleged interest of the rights and liberties of women.”
It is surprising to realize that the veiling has been removed so recently. In the end, the covering was quarantined to public worship. Yet John Calvin’s observations demonstrate this too was a recent deterioration: “...women should not go out in public with uncovered heads.” (Calvin’s Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 10, Section 29)*  
Even here we got tripped up into believing the veiling was properly suited to the church service alone. “After all,” I reasoned, “where do we pray and prophecy?” At church. What happened as we deepened our understanding of what constitutes true “church”? Is true “church” only that which happens on Sunday in the “house of God”? Little by little, it dawned on us that we were always members of the church and that anytime we shared Jesus and prayed, this was as much “having church” as any other time. Home Bible studies were surely church (see Acts 16:13). In the grocery store witnessing to searching souls was church. We would slip into church over and over using the head-covering like a convertible top on a rainy day. Up and down it would go until the foolishness of this finally settled in.  
Overlooked in all this was that our text doesn’t say it is just about praying or prophesying. The focus was more on the demonstration of God’s created order. “God-Christ-Man-Woman.” This doesn’t need to be demonstrated just in church. And, “because of the angels” (11:10) doesn’t seem to imply church settings only, unless angels only go to church and not to the home studies, or grocery store or the beach. Angels minister to us wherever we are. (See Hebrews 1:12; 13:2; Luke 22:43; 2 Kings 6:17)
Do you recall the tale of Gulliver’s travels? After a ship wreck, a solitary man is washed ashore on a strange island. He awakens to find himself tied down by hundreds of miniature ropes and surrounded by hundreds of miniature people. This, of course, is a fantastic fable, far-fetched in the extreme. Yet, this picture accurately illustrates the way I feel God dealt with us as He laid reason after reason over our minds, bringing us into conformity to His will. As in Gulliver’s story, at any time he could have lifted himself up, broke free of the Lilliputians’ constraints; so can any of us resist the Holy Spirit’s leading. In the case of the miniature Lilliputians, they were too small to control Gulliver, but in the Holy Spirit’s case, it isn’t that He isn’t able to forcibly tie us down, but that He is unwilling.
As you can see from this paper, there are specific, Scriptural, reasonable arguments that may be submitted in favor of the headship veiling. More important, however, is our personal willingness to submit to God’s inspired Word. Bible experts are everywhere offering their counsel. Yet there remains but one Wonderful Counselor: Jesus Christ our Lord. The Jews, expert as they were in God’s law, murdered the holy and just one. As it is written, “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God for themselves...” (Luke 7:30a) I trust you will not make the same mistake.  

God bless you,
Don and Lauren Childs

John Calvin lived from 1509 to 1564.

Appendix A

Widely respected Bible teacher R. C. Sproul’s comments from the book, “Knowing Scripture”: “Some very subtle means of relativizing the text occur when we read into the text cultural considerations that ought not to be there. For example, with respect to the hair-covering issue in Corinth, numerous commentators on the Epistle point out that the local sign of the prostitute in Corinth was the uncovered head. Therefore, the argument runs, the reason why Paul wanted women to cover their heads was to avoid a scandalous appearance of Christian women in the external guise of prostitutes. 
What is wrong with this kind of speculation? The basic problem here is that our reconstructed knowledge of first-century Corinth has led us to supply Paul with a rationale that is foreign to the one he gives himself. In a word, we are not only putting words into the apostle’s mouth, but we are ignoring the words that are there. If Paul merely told women in Corinth to cover their heads and have no rationale for such instruction, we would be strongly inclined to supply it via our cultural knowledge. In this case, however, Paul provides a rationale which is based on an appeal to creation not to the custom of Corinthian harlots. We must be careful not to let our zeal for knowledge of the culture obscure what is actually said. To subordinate Paul’s stated reason to our speculatively conceived reason is to slander the apostle and turn exegesis into eisegesis.
3. The creation ordinances are indicators of the transcultural principle. If any biblical principles transcend local customary limits, they are the appeals drawn from creation. Appeals to creation ordinances reflect stipulations a covenant God makes with man qua man. The laws of creation are not given to man as Hebrew or man as Christian or man as Corinthian, but are rooted in basic human responsibility to God. To set principles of creation aside as mere local custom is the worst kind of relativizing and dehistoricizing of the biblical content.”
(Knowing Scripture, p. 110-111; R. C. Sproul, professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Reformed Theological Seminary.)
Appendix B

Are There Cultural Aspects of the Bible?
(and, thereby, Portions of Scripture Not Applicable for Today?)  
Gil Rugh 4-24-88

“As we approach the Scriptures and interpret it, we interpret it in a literal or normal way according to the rules of grammar in light of the historical setting in which it was given by God. We need to be very careful we don’t write-off portions of the Word saying, ‘That was cultural.’ Because everything in the Word of God was cultural...it was written within the culture within which it was given. So the cultural arguments simply become an excuse [for some] to reject whatever portion of the Word of God that does not fit with what (they and) the world are doing in this area today. The Word of God transcends culture. What is important here is that it is God giving these instructions. Some say, ‘Well, these portions simply reflect the cultural practices of that period of time.’ That is a denial of the inspiration of Scripture.” (Taken from: “Family Fitness: Equal But Different”; Biblical Discernment Ministries)

Titus 1:9 - “...holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.”








.Attention: Christian!

False teaching is robbing you of the true treasure of your faith. There are four lies that you have been taught. Many Christian leaders believe that if these four are accepted great success would come to Christ's Church. Yet, we will show, according to Scripture, that not only are they lies, but they lead believers to sure spiritual ruin. 
These four lies are:
1. The claim that Christian meeting places are the house of God, and that God in someway dwells especially in this place....FALSE!
2. The claim that God has set over each local congregation a pastor or priest, who, when followed obediently, will cause the church to thrive....FALSE!
3. The claim that tithing is required of Christians and the closer Christians comply the greater the success....FALSE!
4. The claim that Sunday is the Lord's Sabbath. We are assured that when men pause a day per week to sanctify this day, their spirituality will be enhanced....FALSE!
ALL FALSE to God's Holy Word. Worse than false: ANTICHRIST! Teachings pretending to be from Christ, representing Christ, all the while contradicting Christ's express teaching.
"Prove it!" one may say. Then, consider well, dear reader.
1) House of God
You've heard it was said in the Old Testament, "You shall worship only in the place the Lord chooses to make His name abide." (Deuteronomy 12:11, 2 Chronicles 32:12) and, "Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship." (John 4:20), but Jesus said, "The hour is coming and now is, when the true worshippers will neither worship the Father in Jerusalem (nor any other special place but everywhere) in Spirit and truth." (John 4:21-23, in part)
2) Elite Clergy Class? (Matthew 20:20-28) 
You've heard it said to those of old, "The priests alone shall approach the Lord and not all the people." (Numbers 18:22-23) but Jesus declares all believers to be kings and priests offering themselves as living sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God, which is our reasonable service. (Revelation 1:6; 1 Peter 2:9; Romans 12:1) 
3) Tithe Required?
You've heard it was said to those of old, "You shall surely tithe of your increase to the Lord." (Malachi 3:8f) but Jesus commands, "Whosoever of you does not forsake ALL that he has cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:33)
4) Holy Days or Holy Lives?
You've heard it was said to those in the old law, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." (Exodus 20:8) but Jesus says, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself , and take up his cross daily, and follow Me." (Luke 9:23)
Notice carefully the contrast demonstrated:
Q. Will we go to worship God at His house or are we, as God's temples, moving tabernacles of continuous worship? (Acts 7:48; 1 Corinthians 3:16)
Q. Will we exalt a pastor or priest to fulfill our spiritual duties or will we take our responsibility as Christ's holy priesthood, each of us individually? (1 Peter 2:5; 1 Samuel 8:19)
Q. Will we give proportionately out of our excess to God's Kingdom or will we offer ourselves totally as a living sacrifice? (Hebrews 13:13-15)
The bottom line? You, Christian, are the New Covenant Temple, Priest and Sacrifice. Consistent with the Old Testament type of Moses' temple, which offered sacrifice every hour, every day, every week of the year; so do we place ourselves on the altar of God's service moment by moment.
~ WE DO NOT GO TO THE HOUSE OF GOD; WE ARE THE HOUSE OF GOD.
~ WE DO NOT NEED MEN TO SEEK GOD ON OUR BEHALF, FOR THE NEW COVENANT TEACHES, "THEY ALL SHALL BE TAUGHT BY GOD." (John 6:45; Jeremiah 31:31ff; 1 John 2:27)
~ TO BE BEGUILED INTO BELIEVING THAT GIVING TEN PERCENT, A TITHE, OF YOUR INCOME SOMEHOW MEETS GOD'S MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS IS TO STRIP THE POWER OF CHRIST'S OWN WORDS AND EXAMPLE WHEN HE SIMPLY SAID, "FOLLOW ME." (1 John 2:5-6)





Ten Commandments Part One



I ask a simple question: Do the 10 Commandments still apply today? The very question is usually immediately dismissed as unthinkable. Others have insinuated that evil lurks behind even asking such a question. But what I discovered in my Bible stunned me both in its clarity and simplicity. For those who doubt their time is well spent even reading any thing past this short introduction......let me lay out in three easy Bible passages showing what I discovered. If these do not intrigue you then please feel free move on to something more helpful. 

  First, here's what I had heard for years in just about every church I'd ever attended. It goes something like this: While the law of God through Moses was canceled at the cross with its civil and ceremonial aspects, the moral aspects of the Old Covenant (the 10 Commandments) can never be canceled because they reflect God's eternal moral law. Therefore in harmony with this belief, whenever the New Testament refers to the Old Testament 'law' as canceled, this excludes the 10 commandments. And, it is clear as glass that in the vast majority of times the old law is referred to the '10' are not specifically mentioned. This fact has allowed an argument from silence. "It doesn't say expressly that the '10' are included in the 'law' which is done away with so they could be an exception." True. For example: Luke 16:16

 "The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it." Does this canceled 'law' include the '10'? Doesn't say. If you have accepted that the Mosaic Law can be divided into three divisions: civil, ceremonial, and moral then maybe it can be argued that the moral aspect is excluded. (Note: Keep in mind that the terms 'civil, ceremonial, and moral' are not found in Scripture as such) What I thought was that if a Bible passage could be discovered that did specifically mention the '10' as canceled then that would prove the exception idea false. (Why I had my suspicions the three divisions of the law was an error will follow later)

  As I said, there are three Bible passages which say the law is done away with and include the 10 Commandments.

1. 2 Corinthians 3:7ff

 "But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 
For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. 
For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. 
For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious. 
Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech —  unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. 
But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament..." Two quick questions: Can the phrase 'written and engraved on stones' refer to anything other than the 10 Commandments? Does this passage say they are part of that which is "passing away"?

2. Romans 7:1ff 

"Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law (what law?) has dominion over a man as long as he lives? 
For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law (what law?) to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 
So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. 
Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another — to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. 
For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 
But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. 
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, 'You shall not covet.'" 

Quick question.....if the above refers to "Do not commit adultery." by inference and "Do not covet." expressly, what part of the "law" is being spoken of- moral, civil, or ceremonial?

3. Hebrews 8:13-9:4

"In that He says, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. 
Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary. 
For a tabernacle was prepared: the first part, in which was the lampstand, the table, and the showbread, which is called the sanctuary; 
and behind the second veil, the part of the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of All, 
which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron's rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant..." 

Question: Does the Bible include or exclude the 10 commandments in the description of those items which comprise the first (Old) covenant? Does the Bible exclude or include the '10' in that which is said to be obsolete?

  Obviously, we have discovered three Biblical passages which do include the 10 commandments in what, the new Testament says, is obsolete. Is it therefore possible then that those New Testament passages which do not expressly mention the '10' in the law do actually include them? (See Colossians 2:14 and Ephesians 2:15 especially!) Maybe....

  Here's what amazes me about this entire study. Do you think these Bible verses would cause a reassessment of the whole idea that the 10 Commandments are eternal? Not that I can see! Instead, new arguments have been presented citing other reasons why the '10' are still eternal. But I thought the reason why the 'law was canceled' proof texts didn't work was because they didn't specifically mention the '10'? Well, well, well.....very interesting!

  Now these other reasons are being suggested as proving the '10' are eternal. But wait just a minute...before we skip along and forget all we've heard thus far, what's the answer? How can the '10' be specifically included in that which is said to be obsolete? So far four answers have been offered (I'll let you judge their validity) 1. Its not that simple 2. This is a false light (that is, doesn't actually say what it appears to be saying) 3. Wiser scholars than you believe the '10' are eternal, and 4. God's moral character does not change therefore his moral law cannot change.

  Let me express how I feel at this point. During my Christian walk, my elder 'fathers' in the faith rebuked me for suggesting the '10' were vanished. The Bible passages I gave were dismissed out of hand because they failed to specifically reference the '10'. Now that I find verses which do.....well.....nothing changes. At least no one can now say that the New Testament doesn't specifically say that the stone tablets (the 10 Commandments) are obsolete, dead, and vanished away because you've seen it for yourself that it does. If, that is, you base your beliefs on what the Bible says. 

 1 Cor 4:6

 "Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other." Next.....what of this secondary argument about God's character requiring an eternal moral law?
NKJV


Ten Commandments Part Two



Have you ever talked to one of Jehovah's Witnesses? Frustrating isn't it? Why is it this way? Possibly you have tried to prove Jesus is God by showing them verse after verse saying Jesus is God. It made no impact, right? Why is that? Simply put, they have a larger, overarching theory about who Jesus is and they misunderstand what you are trying to prove with your chapter-in-verse stuff. I think this is sort of what's happening in our '10 Commandments are eternal' situation. We've seen the verses (in part one) conclusively showing that the '10' are specifically included in that Old Covenant which is declared obsolete. Thus far no one has even tried to explain how that which is said to be eternal should be included in the obsolete stuff. OK
  I think the verses don't make any impact because a bigger theological mindset exists which under gird the "eternal moral law" theory. I say the "theological mindset" because here we are in the area where ideas are introduced which, strictly speaking, cannot be expressly found in Scripture. An example of this are the terms such as: moral, civil, and ceremonial as pertains to Mosaic law. Also, the idea that God's unchanging moral character demands an eternal, moral law is more an example of theological reasoning than an appeal to any specific Biblical passage. (Although the Bible does say God doesn't change) This is similar in concept to the J.W.'s larger, overarching theory. Please don't misunderstand. Its not wrong to have a larger concept concerning how the nature of God could impact this topic. Its just that anyone's big theological picture should be built from the ground up from specific Biblical passages, rather than imposing from the top down some overarching theory into which all verses must fit.  

  Be that as it may, a fellow blogger- Drew Ayers (http://drews2centsforyou.wordpress.com/) has been kind enough to diagram a series of propositions in the following: 1. “God is an unchanging and eternal Being” 2. "Since God’s Being is unchangeable, His character and morals are also unchangeable” 3. "God's moral law reflects His being and character and therefore is also unchangeable." And if I may add a 4th- "The 10 Commandments summarize and reflect this unchanging moral law and is therefore the eternal expression of God's character."

  As maybe you now can appreciate, if who God is, is linked together with what He commands then one must find some unifying, eternal law code which transcends the diverse covenants (and their changing laws) which dot the Biblical landscape. I guess the 10 Commandments were chosen as the most likely Biblical moral code to bridge the ages. But eternal moral laws are eternal, right? Therefore, I think this would require that the 10 Commandments actually were given to Adam in the garden? Believe it or not, this is exactly what people teach! (Actually, from eternity past to eternity future is the proper definition of eternal for which reason 7th Day Adventists teach the Sabbath will be obeyed in heaven, but I digress) However, can the Bible prove whether or not Adam was given the 10 Commandments?  

  Early on I was chided for citing verses which did not expressly say the obsolete law included the '10'? Therefore, let me kindly request the same. Can anyone now offer express passages stating the '10' were given to Adam? The reason I ask is because if I do have specific passages which say the '10' were given through Moses, not Adam, shouldn't that make a difference? Better than that, these verses actually are specific enough to tell us some of the specific laws included, so we can compare them with the '10' list!! 

  As an opening thought, consider what Moses himself said about the covenant of the ten words: 

Deut 5:1ff

     "And Moses called all Israel, and said to them: 'Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your hearing today, that you may learn them and be careful to observe them. 
     The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 
     The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive. 
     The Lord talked with you face to face on the mountain from the midst of the fire. 
      I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the Lord; for you were afraid because of the fire, and you did not go up the mountain. He said: 
     I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 
     You shall have no other gods before Me. 
     'You shall not make for yourself a carved image — any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. 
     You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain. 
     Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you.  Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. 
     And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. 
     Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, that your days may be long, and that it may be well with you in the land which the Lord your God is giving you. 
     You shall not murder. 
     You shall not commit adultery. 
     You shall not steal. 
     You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. 
     You shall not covet your neighbor's wife; and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, his male servant, his female servant, his ox, his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.' 
     These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly, in the mountain from the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and He added no more. And He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me." 

  Scripture declares that the covenant preeminently featured the '10'. To say the covenant isn't the '10' is to deny the obvious. To say the '10' were given to the fathers before this, contradicts the plain statement above. To say the fathers earlier had them as eternal moral law and would have been judged accordingly but weren't "covenanted" under them is to quibble over phrasing. Consider Nehemiah 9:12-14

"Moreover You (Lord) led them by day with a cloudy pillar, and by night with a pillar of fire, to give them light on the road which they should travel. You came down also on Mount Sinai, and spoke with them from heaven, and gave them just ordinances and true laws, good statutes and commandments. You made known to them Your holy Sabbath, and commanded them precepts, statutes and laws, by the hand of Moses Your servant." This instance recounted in Nehemiah by the Levitical priests in worship, tells us not only that the "law" was given by the hand of Moses but specifically mentions the Sabbath! The Sabbath is in the dead center of the 10 Commandments. Easy question: How can the '10' be given to Adam if God's word says the law, even the Sabbath, was given though Moses?  

Aso, consider if the Sabbath was given to Adam then its command applies to all of mankind. But what about Ezekiel 20:10-12 & 19-20
"Therefore I made them go out of the land of Egypt and brought them into the wilderness. 
And I gave them My statutes and showed them My judgments,'which, if a man does, he shall live by them.'  
Moreover I also gave them My Sabbaths, to be a sign between them and Me, that they might know that I am the Lord who sanctifies them..... 
I am the Lord your God: Walk in My statutes, keep My judgments, and do them; 
hallow My Sabbaths, and they will be a sign between Me and you, that you may know that I am the Lord your God.' 

  Another easy question: How can the Sabbath be a special designating sign or token of God's unique, special relationship between God and Israel, if Sabbath is an eternal moral law applicable to all mankind? Answer: It can't! 

  Finally, take a good hard look at the Sabbath passages in Genesis 2. Does God command, imply, or hint to Adam that he is to take a Sabbath in any way? He is in the Garden of Eden, for heaven's sake! Even after sin, does God instruct Adam in any Sabbath? Is there any mention of Sabbath anywhere to anyone prior to Moses?

  Whatever theological value we are to give to the affirmations concerning the continuity between God's moral character and God's moral law, those ascribing to such a theory may want to look some where other than the '10' for their evidence. Nevertheless, next I will take a closer look at the claim that since God is unchangeable so must His law also be.



.Why So Many Denominations?

"Why are there so many Christian denominations?" Simple answer: sin. But to be more specific....in the 9th Century AD, the eastern portion of Christianity got in a huge squabble with the western section over the appropriate use of icons. Icons are visual representations of certain persons of status within Christianity. Neither wing believed in worshiping such icons but a fear arose among some clerics of the eastern (or Orthodox) branch that 3 dimensional representations could tend toward misleading the uninformed to idol worship. The western (or Roman) group acknowledged the danger but felt the spiritual benefit was worth the risk. Furthermore, around this time a more serious dispute arose when the Roman church declared the Roman See (i.e. Pope) as supreme over all the church- both east and west. These issues could not be resolved easily so they separated. Who was right? Which position was more Biblical? Could the Orthodox simply fold into the Roman church? The east used Greek in its entire liturgy, the west Latin. The east now forbade the use of statues in worship, the west endorsed it. This split has continued until this day although many rapprochements have diminished former animosities. In Europe beginning in the 1400's, voices began to question Rome's interpretation of communion. These protesters gradually but consistently established a foothold in academia. The Bible escaped the scholar's Latin and began to be published in the vernacular. As it is well said: "Erasmus bore the egg that Luther hatched." What is meant by this is the Roman Catholic scholar Erasmus created the climate friendly to questioning Roman authority, whereas Roman Franciscan monk Martin Luther broadcast these the questions into the ears of the common man. Could the Roman Pope issue time off from purgatory if one donated to the construction costs of the much needed and beautiful St. Peter's? Luther openly doubted this. Remember, Luther was a German first and the Pope's "donation" was being taken out of Germany into Roman coffers. The common man was being manipulated, Luther believed, into funding a monument to Rome's decadence. This was hardly all of Luther's objections. 95 other protests were nailed to the 'door' of the church in Wittenberg, Germany. He was tried, excommunicated, and threatened with a heretics burning. The Lutheran Church was formed as Germany withdrew from the Roman system altogether. This episode became the catalyst for yet other schisms outside of Germany. A wave of independent national churches began springing up through out Europe. Fueling this popular reformation was the ever present desire to rebel against all forms of oppression, perceived or real. However, few doubt that there was in existence a growing aspiration to reform Christ’s church after the model of the early church. Most Christian denominations trace their beginnings to the time of the Reformation. This explains in brief the basic history as to how most divisions of Christianity began. It does not account for the formation of more recent off-shoots such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh - day Adventist, Christian Science, Unity School of Christianity, Scientology, or Mormonism. Mormonism demonstrates the ease at which new denominations can be formed. Joseph Smith claims to have found ancient golden tablets on which God told him all other denominations are wrong and to start his own. It can’t get any easier than that. In conclusion, the various Christian denominations exist today because humans are fallible…fallible in their comprehension of Scripture and desperately lacking in the grace to simply get along with each other. In short...because of sin. One course of action would put an end to this tragic situation immediately....all of us must return unquestioningly to the bosom of the Roman Catholic Church. Are you not willing to conform? That's why there are denominations.