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 Cor. 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 judgement 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 judgement. 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 (Houb) 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”. Don A. Childs 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 judgement 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. Don A. Childs 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 judgements 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! God bless you, Don A. Childs
