Did Jesus Correct Moses? by Mark Bullen Chps 12-21

12

The Everlasting Gospel

Just how many Gospels are there?  Some teach that there are different Gospels for different people and for different dispensations.  The careful student of Scripture without an ax to grind will find there is but one Gospel for all time, and for all people.  Being that the Bible is a progressive revelation, man’s ability to understand the mechanics of the Gospel has expanded with added revelation; but the mechanics have never changed.  Because man fell, God devised means so that his banished would not have to be eternally expelled from Him (2Sa 14:14).  When man fell, God had a choice:  He could execute the full penalty of the Law and destroy man; or He could graciously devise a plan to satisfy the Law, and provide a path of pardon and reconciliation.  God chose to provide a just and righteous program whereby man could be offered salvation — a narrow way that leads to eternal life – reconciled to God’s favor — restored to God’s family. 

This good news is the Gospel!  The one and only Gospel.  Nobody has been saved by any other Gospel.  This good news was first preached to Adam and Eve in Gen. 3:15 and demonstrated in Gen. 3:21.  The seed of the woman was promised to bruise the serpent’s head, and in order to cover the nakedness brought on by sin, God killed an innocent animal, and made coats for them.  This was a type of the atonement, a word which simply means “to cover”.

We have seen already that Cain and Abel understood the need for blood sacrifices in order to maintain a relationship with God and cover transgressions.   From the very beginning those who sought God did so with a blood sacrifice to atone (in type) for their sins.   God pardoning repentant sinners on the basis of Christ’s atonement has always been the Gospel, and always will be.

Did Adam and Eve or Cain and Abel understand how Jesus would die on the cross and rise again, etc. etc.?  Of course they didn’t; but they could still have faith in God’s gracious offer of pardon.  They could still repent and seek God with hope and assurance of complete future reconciliation.  This very point is what Paul is communicating in Hebrews 11 — that salvation by grace through faith, and not due to our own perfect record, has been the only way; and there has been no other Gospel.  Why do you think every illustration of salvation used by the writers of the New Testament is from Old Testament saints?  When the Apostle Paul wanted to illustrate saving faith to NT believers, he did so with people who were both under the Law of Moses and before the Law of Moses (Heb. 11).  When He wanted to illustrate “faith imputed for righteousness” to NT believers he wrote about Abraham’s faith being imputed to him for righteousness (before the Law), and David’s rejoicing in the same principle (under the Law) in Romans chapter four.   Did you know the New Testament declares that THE Gospel was preached to Abraham?

Did you know the Gospel was preached to the Children of Israel in the wilderness?  And that it was essentially the same Gospel preached to first century saints?

Did you know the gospel was preached to the people who died in the flood of Noah’s day?  These two passages are speaking of the same people.

The Spirit of Christ was preaching through Noah (2 Pet. 2:5) as it had through Enoch (Jude 14).  These men, as with all the OT saints, were preaching the same message that Paul preached.

Why should they repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance?  So they could be eligible for God’s gracious pardon based on Christ’s atonement.  This is the same message Isaiah preached:

Every time you see or hear of God’s gracious offer of pardon and reconciliation to the repentant sinner you are hearing the everlasting glad tidings or good news (Gospel) that we are not hopelessly condemned; but have hope in a merciful God’s amazing plan of redemption.  This message is offered to all mankind.

Adam Clarke To every creature which is under heaven]  A Hebraism for the whole human race, and particularly referring to the two grand divisions of mankind, the Jews and Gentiles; to both of these the Gospel had been preached, and to each, salvation by Christ had been equally offered.  And as none had been excluded from the offers of mercy, and Jesus Christ had tasted death for every man, and the Jews and Gentiles, in their great corporate capacity, had all been invited to believe the Gospel; therefore, the apostle concludes that the Gospel was preached to every creature under heaven, as being offered without restrictions or limitations to these two grand divisions of mankind, including the whole human race.

These two passages of Scripture prove that Paul considered the Gospel as being the message of God’s salvation to all men from the beginning to the end.  Just because you’ve figured out another aspect of this amazing Gospel; or just because you’ve lived in a time where more of the program was manifest; the great plan of God to offer salvation to mankind has not changed.

You say, well the Jews had to obey the ceremonies, etc.  Yes, because they lived during that part of God’s great unfolding plan; but the plan didn’t change.  They had to obey God to find grace in His sight just as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham …….and you!  They had a different test for their faith just as you have a unique race of faith to run (Heb.12); but were still saved by grace through faith.  Those who try to say Paul preached a different Gospel than Peter and Jesus are confused.   Paul and Peter both preached the Gospel of Christ to Jews first, and also to Gentiles.

The “you” that Peter is writing to are both Jews and Gentiles to whom Paul had also written.  They preached the same salvation through the longsuffering (grace) of God.

The everlasting Gospel is the good news that God isn’t just sending us all hopelessly to Hell; but has offered us a way to find mercy and pardon.  The way is simple on our end — “repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.”  On God’s end, the way is complex and multi-faceted.  Jesus made it all legal through His atoning death, and makes it applicable to us through His present Priesthood.  Everyone who has repented and put faith in God’s offered salvation has put faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Those who have not repented and gratefully made use of God’s provision have not obeyed the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

There is a strait gate to enter; and there is a narrow way to walk.  You must walk all the way to the end to find life.  Most won’t want or appreciate it — BUT IT IS WONDERFUL NEWS!  There is a way!  It is possible to be reconciled to God and saved from sin!  Don’t believe the false gospels which offer unrealistic unconditional security without any striving or sacrifice of your own.  Don’t complain that the true way is narrow; but thank God you are not hopelessly headed  for Hell, and that there is a narrow path that leads to eternal life!  Take it! 

13

Did Jesus correct or change Moses’ Law in the Sermon on the Mount?

The word “fulfill” in Matt 5:17 is the same as in Romans 8:4 — “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”  When you fulfill a type and shadow it loses relevance — Jesus fulfilled the role of the sacrificial Lamb — the natural lamb for sacrifice is now unnecessary.  However, when you fulfill a moral precept it remains relevant through eternity.  “Thou shalt not steal” will never lose its relevance, but must be fulfilled continually.

“Least” means disregarded.  If you call God’s commandment “least” and disregard it, so shall it happen to you on Judgment Day.  You cast God’s commandments behind your back, and you will be cast out of God’s kingdom.  Vs. 20 proves this to be the proper interpretation of Jesus’ words.

Look up “Kingdom of Heaven” in the New Testament Scriptures, and you will find it is synonymous with the “Kingdom of God” and refers to the realm of God’s rule from heaven.  You are either voluntarily in this realm under his Lordship or you are in the realm of Satan’s kingdom.   The Kingdom of Christ is the same as the kingdom of heaven and of God; and if you disregard God’s moral laws given through Moses, you will not enter Christ’s kingdom.  “Kingdom of heaven” is used in Matthew, but elsewhere it is “Kingdom of God”.  Compare Luke’s Gospel where “kingdom of God” is used instead of “kingdom of heaven” in parallel passages.

The point you cannot miss is this:  If you disregard one of the least commandments of God’s Law, and teach men so, you will be disregarded by God, and not enter His kingdom.  This proves that Jesus is only correcting men’s view of God’s Law; but not correcting God’s Law.  He compares the “righteousness” of the scribes and Pharisees with the true righteousness of the Law of God, which exceeded the interpretations and practices common among the Jews.

After vss. 17-20, Jesus proceeds to show the differences between what the Jews were living; and what the Law actually meant.  He is showing them what it means to exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.  Let’s look at the times Jesus compared the Jews teachings with His own interpretation of God’s Laws.

Vss. 21-26: Thou shalt not kill – The 6^th commandment

This means “thou shalt not murder or shed innocent blood.”  God commanded killing, but only by those who had proper jurisdiction and only upon principles of justice.  If the Jews thought that their interpersonal relationships were alright as long as they didn’t kill, they were greatly mistaken. Jesus gives them the spirit of God’s commandments, which includes “murder” in the heart.

When Jesus said, “By them of old time” He wasn’t seeking to correct Moses.   Even if Jesus said something that the law had also said, His correction has to do with the context and usage of that statement, which came from the interpreters, not from Moses. He was dealing with the common misconceptions about the Law.  Remember how God through Malachi rebuked them for being “partial” in the Law and causing many to stumble 400 years previous to this?

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary: “Nearly all who would translate “to the ancients” take the speaker of the words quoted to be Moses in the law; “the ancients” to be the people to whom Moses gave the law; and the intention of our Lord here to be to contrast His own teaching, more or less, with that of Moses; either as opposed to it–as some go the length of affirming–or at least as modifying, enlarging, elevating it. But who can reasonably imagine such a thing, just after the most solemn and emphatic proclamation of the perpetuity of the law, and the honor and glory in which it was to be held under the new economy? To us it seems as plain as possible that our Lord’s one object is to contrast the traditional perversions of the law with the true sense of it as expounded by Himself.” 

When Jesus says, “…but I say”, He is saying, “But The Word of God says…”.  He is preaching the spirit or “original intent” of the Law — if you don’t have the right spirit or intent, then you are not fulfilling the righteousness of the law.  If you just rest in the “letter” and ignore the spirit or intent of any law, you are missing the point. Obviously anyone who obeys the spirit of the Law will also be obeying the letter of that law.  The spirit of the law says, “If you don’t have a right relationship with your fellow man, don’t even come and offer a gift to God until you have made it right”.  God will not have a relationship with you, nor accept your gift until you have a right relationship with your brother.  Keep your heart and life right, and then God will accept your gift.

Vs. 27-28 Thou shalt not commit adultery — the Seventh Commandment

Not just the outward act, but the attitude and spirit are prohibited.  Living by the spirit and righteousness of the Law prohibits adultery in the heart, and the abuse of Deut. 24:1-4.  What God commanded Moses in Deut. 24 was to protect the purity of the home and marriage, not destroy it.  What God commanded Moses was the very best thing to do under the circumstances.  Under the same circumstances it is still the best thing to do.

Unjust divorce and evil desires both violate the spirit of the seventh commandment.  The exception clause that Jesus gives in Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 is a clarification of Moses’ exception given for “some uncleanness” (Deut. 24:1-4) which means a “matter of nakedness”. The word “uncleanness” is the Hebrew term `Ervah (#6172 – Strong’s); and literally means, “nakedness”, or “something shameful or repulsive”.  `Ervah is translated 51 times as “nakedness” in the Old Covenant, once as “shame”, and once as “uncleanness”.

Jesus, opposing the Jew’s abuse in making divorce lawful for “every cause”, brings back the original intent of the Law — divorce and remarriage only when the marriage covenant has been duly violated by some type of immorality.  Jesus did not say, “from now on it will be this way”; but is telling them the crime committed when they abuse what God and Moses intended.  The Jews were abusing Deut. 24:1-4 in a terrible way according to Josephus, their own historian:

Clarke: That the Jewish priesthood was exceedingly corrupt in the time of the apostle, and that they were so long before, is fully evident from the sacred writings and from Josephus.  The high-priesthood was a matter of commerce, and was bought and sold like other commodities.  Of this Josephus gives many instances. …They were guilty of adultery by unjust divorces, Mt 19:9.  Their polygamy was scandalous: even their rabbins, when they came to any place, would exclaim, Who will be my wife for a day?

They assumed that as long as they went through the proper paper-work of marriage and divorce it was all lawful.

Remember what Malachi said?

Malachi 2:16  — God hates men putting away their wives unjustly so they can marry another one.

Malachi 3:1-6 — Messiah will preach against adulterers & “I am the Lord, I change not” 

Malachi 4:4 “Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.” 

Do you believe God is consistent?

Have you ever asked yourself the reason God inserted, “I am the Lord, I change not”?  It relates back to the statement, “And I will come near to you to judgment” at the beginning of the same verse.  The Jews were acting as though God was far off, and not really involved — listen to Malachi 2:17,

Mal. 2:17 Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment? 

God, through Malachi, is rebuking them for questioning whether God really means what He says and whether He is truly a God of judgment.  His answer to them is that He will come near to them in judgment in the person of the Messiah and they will find that He means what He has said, andHAS NOT CHANGED! 

Jesus was to preach against adulterers — not just what the Jews thought was adultery, but what the true spirit of the Law called adultery.  Jesus’ teaching was not contrary to the Law. The God, who never changes, commanded them to keep it in the same message where he tells of the Messiah preaching against adulterers!  What the Law taught could not have been called adultery by the Messiah — the Word in the flesh.  The Jews never accused Jesus of contradicting Moses’ Law; and Jesus expressly declared that He was not seeking to destroy Moses’ Law, but fulfill or confirm it.

Jesus uses the word “porneia”, as the only legitimate reason for allowing divorce.  This includes immorality of many sorts: Moral perversion, incest, homosexuality, prostitution, adultery, bestiality, etc.   He seems to say that the only “matter of nakedness” that God accepts as a sufficient ground for divorce is moral or sexual impurity which would fall under the classification of fornication and therefore be a breach of the marriage covenant.   God definitely would not accept “every cause” like the Jews settled for as their interpretation of the “matter of nakedness”.   Thus Jesus is giving the original intent of God’s Law, and vindicating Moses.   In our day we use the same Greek word to speak of matters of nakedness when we speak of “pornography” — from the Greek “porneia”.

The early Christians did not believe that Jesus was correcting Moses; but early Gnostic heretics did believe and teach this.  Listen to Tertullian as he argues this point against Marcion (a heretic).  Tertullian (160-230 AD), a Gentile Christian, who is faulted with being radically strict in the area of marriage, said this of the words of Christ when contending with Marcion (a heretic who taught the creator was an evil God, and not the Father of Jesus):

“But, observe, if this Christ be yours when he teaches contrary to Moses and the Creator, on the same principle must He be mine if I can show that His teaching is not contrary to them.  I maintain, then, that there was a condition in the prohibition which he now made of divorce; the case supposed being, that a man put away his wife for the express purpose of marrying another.  His words are: “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, also committeth adultery,” — “put away,” that is, for the reason wherefore a woman ought not to be dismissed, that another wife may be obtained.  For he who marries a woman who is unlawfully put away is as much of an adulterer as the man who marries one who is undivorced.  Permanent is the marriage which is not rightly dissolved; to marry, therefore, whilst matrimony is undissolved, is to commit adultery.  Since, therefore, His prohibition of divorce was a conditional one, He did not prohibit absolutely; and what He did not absolutely forbid, that He permitted on some occasions, when there is an absence of the cause why He gave the prohibition.  In very deed His teaching is not contrary to Moses, whose precept he partially defends, I will not say confirms.  If, however, you deny that divorce is in any way permitted by Christ, how is it that you on your side destroy marriage, not uniting man and woman, nor admitting to the sacrament of baptism and of the eucharist those who have been united in marriage anywhere else, unless they should agree together to repudiate the fruit of their marriage, and so the very Creator Himself? Well, then, what is a husband to do in your sect, if his wife commit adultery? Shall he keep her? But your own apostle, you know, does not permit “the members of Christ to be joined to a harlot.” Divorce, therefore, when justly deserved, has even in Christ a defender.  So that Moses for the future must be considered as being confirmed by Him, since he allows divorce in the same sense as Christ does, if any unchastity should occur in the wife.  For in the Gospel of Matthew he says, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.” …The Creator, however, except on account of adultery, does not put asunder what He Himself joined together….He prohibits divorce when He will have the marriage inviolable; he permits divorce when the marriage is spotted with unfaithfulness.” Tertullian 3.404,405

Neither Jesus nor the apostles taught anything about marriage that was contrary to Moses’ Law.  When noble Bereans searched the scripture, they didn’t find Jesus a heretic, but found him consistent with God’s Holy Inspired Word.

Vss. 33-37 – This is a clarification of the 3^rd commandment — the reverent use of God’s name.

At this point some people really think they can prove that Jesus is correcting and changing the commandments of God in the Old Covenant; but it can be shown that this is again, not the case; but that Jesus is clarifying the Law.

Jesus came to preach against false swearers — the Sermon on the Mount is vindicating the Moral Law — preaching the Spirit and righteousness of the Law against the abuse of the letter of the Law.  Jesus never taught against lawful swearing; but against man’s innovations.

Malachi says Jesus would preach against those who swore contrary to the Law — false swearers or unlawful swearers.  Did Jesus then come to preach against lawful swearers or unlawful swearers?  It seems clear to me that Jesus is saying, “Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself (Don’t take God’s name in vain by perjuring yourself), but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths; but I say unto you beyond this to not use any vain or man-made oaths, such as swearing by heaven; for it is God’s throne: nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.  Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst make one hair white or black…etc.”   Or more simply, “Ye have heard by them of old time not to perjure yourself; but I say beyond that don’t use any common oaths such as swearing by heaven…etc.”

He declares that simply performing the promise of man-made oaths was not enough, but that we should not use them at all — “Swear not at all with man-made oaths”.  This is consistent with Malachi and the immutability of God.  The interpretation that says Jesus corrected the Law makes Malachi a liar, and destroys God’s immutability.  Jesus says, “let your communication be…” — He is speaking about their common conversations, and not about the special and sacred use of lawful swearing as used in the New Testament inspired Scriptures several times as we will demonstrate.  Malachi’s prophecy demands that Jesus was not rebuking lawful oaths, but unlawful ones.

Do you understand that if Jesus is speaking against lawful swearing commanded by God, that He is also calling God or Himself evil?  Jesus said,“But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” If Jesus is including lawful swearing as commanded by God, which is more than “Yea, yea” and “Nay, nay”, then He is calling Himself evil, because He inspired the OT Law, and that is where lawful swearing came from!

The Jews were notorious for their swearing in common conversation with many different oaths which they saw as more or less binding.  It was a system of “lawful lying” depending upon what oath they used.  We can see this in Peter’s life when he became angry.

Matthew 26:72 And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.

Matthew 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.

Obviously Peter at this time had slipped back into his old ways, and wasn’t calling GOD to witness, but some other common Jewish oath — the kind Jesus is forbidding.  What oath do you suppose Peter used to convince them that he was telling the truth and didn’t know Jesus?

What the Law commanded can be seen in the following verses:

Ex 22:11 Then shall an oath of the LORD be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good. 

De 6:13 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name. 

De 10:20 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name. 

Albert Barnes on Matt 5:33-37:  “An oath is a solemn affirmation, or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed, and imprecating his vengeance, and renouncing his favour, if what is affirmed is false. A false oath is called perjury; or, as in this place, forswearing.

It appears, however, from this passage, as well as from the ancient writings of the Jewish Rabbins, that while they professedly adhered to the law, they had introduced a number of oaths in common conversation, and oaths which they by no means considered as binding. For example, they would swear by the temple, by the head, by heaven, by the earth. So long as they kept from swearing by the name Jehovah, and so long as they observed the oaths publicly taken, they seemed to consider all others as allowable, and allowedly broken. This is the abuse which Christ wished to correct. It was the practice of swearing in common conversation, and especially swearing by created things. To do this, he said that they were mistaken in their views of the sacredness of such oaths. They were very closely connected with God; and to trifle with them was a species of trifling with God. Heaven is his throne; the earth his footstool; Jerusalem his peculiar abode; the head was made by him, and was so much under his control, that we could not make one hair white or black. To swear by these things, therefore, was to treat irreverently objects created by God; and could not be without guilt

Our Saviour here evidently had no reference to judicial oaths, or oaths taken in a court of justice. It was merely the foolish and wicked habit of swearing in private conversation; of swearing on every occasion, and by everything, that he condemned. This he does condemn in a most unqualified manner. He himself, however, did not refuse to take an oath in a court of law, Mt 26:63,64. So Paul often called God to witness his sincerity, which is all that is meant by an oath. See Ro 1:9; 9:1; Ga 1:20; Heb 6:16. Oaths were, moreover, prescribed in the law of Moses, and Christ did not come to repeal those laws. See Ex 22:11; Le 5:1; Nu 5:19 De 29:12,14.”

William Burkitt:  “Here our Lord prescribes a proper mean and remedy for shunning the occasion and danger of rash swearing; and that is, by using and accustoming ourselves in conversation to a true simplicity and constant plainness of speech; either affirming or denying, according to the nature of the thing; letting oaths alone till we are called to them upon great occasions, for ending strife between man and man.”

Adam  Clarke  Men verily swear by the greater]  “One who has greater authority; who can take cognizance of the obligation, and punish the breach of it.    

An oath for confirmation]  “This observation teaches us,” says Dr. Macknight, “that both promissory oaths concerning things lawful and in our power, and oaths for the confirmation of things doubtful, when required by proper authority, and taken religiously, are allowable under the Gospel.”

John Wesley on Vs. 16.  “Men generally swear by him who is infinitely greater than themselves, and an oath for confirmation, to confirm what is promised or asserted, usually puts an end to all contradiction. This shows that an oath taken in a religious manner is lawful even under the gospel: otherwise the apostle would never have mentioned it with so much honour, as a proper means to confirm the truth.”

Jas 5:12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation. 

John Wesley V. 12.  ‘Swear not-However provoked. The Jews were notoriously guilty of common swearing, though not so much by God himself as by some of his creatures.  The apostle here particularly forbids these oaths, as well as all swearing in common conversation. It is very observable, how solemnly the apostle introduces this command:

n above all things, swear not-As if he had said, Whatever you forget, do not forget this.  This abundantly demonstrates the horrible iniquity of the crime.  But he does not forbid the taking a solemn oath before a magistrate.

n Let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay-Use no higher asseverations in common discourse; and let your word stand firm.  Whatever ye say, take care to make it good.”

JFB Com: But above all– “as swearing is utterly alien to the Christian meek “endurance” just recommended.    swear not–through impatience, to which trials may tempt you (Jas 5:10,11). In contrast to this stands the proper use of the tongue, Jas 5:13. James here refers to Mt 5:34, &c.

n let your yea be yea “Do not use oaths in your everyday conversation, but let a simple affirmative or denial be deemed enough to establish your word.”

God Swearing:  You can be sure that Jesus isn’t condemning that which God not only commanded, but exemplified.

Jesus was made priest by God swearing an oath:

Jesus was made High Priest of the New Covenant by an oath — the very oath of God himself, and therefore you can be sure Jesus was not teaching that this type of an oath was evil.

Jesus answered under oath when on trial

Burkitt: “Yea, farther observe, That as Christ answered directly and plainly at his trial, so he did not refuse to answer upon oath; I adjure thee by the living God, says the judge of the court, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ; that is, I require thee to answer this question upon oath; for adjuring a person, or requiring him to answer upon oath, was the manner of swearing among the Jews. Now to this adjuration our Saviour answered plainly and directly, I am,

Hence learn, That swearing before a magistrate, upon a just and great occasion, is lawful; if Christ in the fifth of St. Matthew forbid all oaths, then here his practice was contrary to his own doctrine; but it is evident that Christ answered the magistrate upon oath, and so may we.”

Clarke: I adjure thee by the living God]  “I put thee to thy oath.  To this solemn adjuration Christ immediately replies, because he is now called on, in the name of God, to bear another testimony to the truth.”

A. T. Robertson: “So Caiaphas put Jesus on oath in order to make him incriminate himself, a thing unlawful in Jewish jurisprudence. He had failed to secure any accusation against Jesus that would stand at all. But Jesus did not refuse to answer under solemn oath, clearly showing that he was not thinking of oaths in courts of justice when he prohibited profanity.”

Paul’s Swearing:  You can be sure that Paul understood Jesus better than you or anyone today.   If Paul was in the practice of swearing according to the Law of God, then we can know this is not what Jesus or James was condemning.  Here are nine examples of Paul’s swearing.

1. Gal. 1:20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. 

Barnes: Verse 20.  Behold, before God, I lie not. “This is an oath, or a solemn appeal to God. See Note, Ro 9:1. The design of this oath here is to prevent all suspicion of falsehood.

2. Rom. 9:1  I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,  

Clarke:  Verse 1.  I say the truth in Christ, I lie not]  “This is one of the most solemn oaths any man can possibly take.  He appeals to Christ as the searcher of hearts that he tells the truth; asserts that his conscience was free from all guile in this matter, and that the Holy Ghost bore him testimony that what he said was true. Hence we find that the testimony of a man’s own conscience, and the testimony of the Holy Ghost, are two distinct things, and that the apostle had both at the same time.”

3. 2 Cor. 1:23 Moreover I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you I came not as yet unto Corinth.  

Barnes: The phrase, “I call God for a record upon my soul,” is, in the Greek, “I call God for a witness against my soul.” It is a solemn oath, or appeal to God; and implies, that if he did not in that case declare the truth, he desired that God would be a witness against him, and would punish him accordingly. The reason why he made this solemn appeal to God, was the importance of his vindicating his own character before the church, from the charges which had been brought against him.”

Wesley:  V. 23.  I call God for a record upon my soul-“Was not St. Paul now speaking by the Spirit?  And can a more solemn oath be conceived?  Who then can imagine that Christ ever designed to forbid all swearing?”

Burkitt:  “Here observe the apostle’s manner of speech, it is by way of adjuration:  I call God to record upon my soul, &c. The words are an assertory and execratory oath, wherein God is called to witness the truth of what he said.

Learn hence, That it is lawful for Christians under the gospel to swear upon a necessary and great occasion.”

4. Php 1:8 For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ. 

Barnes  Verse 8.  For God is my record. “My witness; I can solemnly appeal to him.”

5. Romans 1:9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers; 

Burkitt:  “Observe, 2. That because the apostle was yet a stranger to them, had never seen them, and it was impossible for them to know the outgoings of his heart toward them, he solemnly appeals to the heart-searching God, calls him to witness how affectionately he loved them, and how frequently he prayed for them; God is my witness.  The words have the force, if not the form of an oath, and teach us, that it is unquestionably lawful in important affairs to swear, to appeal to God, and call him to be a witness of what we either say or do.  We find St. Paul did it often, and our Saviour himself did not refuse to answer upon oath, when solemnly adjured.

Observe, 3. How the apostle swears by God, not by the creatures, which is the swearing condemned by our Saviour and by St. James, Mt 5:1-48 and Jas 5:1-20.”

6. 1 Thess. 2:5   For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know, nor a cloke of covetousness; God is witness: 

Barnes: God is witness. “This is a solemn appeal to God for the truth of what he had said. He refers not only to their own observation, but he calls God himself to witness his sincerity. God knew the truth in the case. There could have been no imposing on him; and the appeal, therefore, is to one who was intimately acquainted with the truth. Learn hence,

(1.) that it is right, on important occasions, to appeal to God for the truth of what we say.

(2.) We should always so live that we can properly make such an appeal to him.”

Robertson:  “Paul feels so strongly his innocence of this charge that he calls God as witness as in 2Co 1:23; Ro 9:1; Php 1:8, a solemn oath for his own veracity.”

7. 2 Cor. 11:10 As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia. 

Clarke:  Verse 10.   “As the truth of Christ is in me]  estin alhyeia cristou en emoi.  The truth of Christ is in me.  That is: I speak as becomes a Christian man, and as influenced by the Gospel of Christ.  It is a solemn form of asseveration, if not to be considered in the sense of an oath.”

Barnes:  Verse 10.  As the truth of Christ is in me. “That is, I solemnly declare this as in the presence of Christ. As I am a Christian man; as I feel bound to declare the truth; and as I must answer to Christ. It is a solemn form of asseveration, equal to an oath. See Barnes for Ro 9:1. Comp. 1Ti 2:7.”

8. 2 Cor. 11:31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not. 

Clarke:  Verse 31.   The God and Father of our Lord]  “Here is a very solemn asseveration; an appeal to the ever blessed God for the truth of what he asserts.  It is something similar to his asseveration or oath in ver. 10 of this chapter; {2Co 11:10} see also Ro 9:5, and Ga 1:20.  And from these and several other places we learn that the apostle thought it right thus to confirm his assertions on these particular occasions.  But here is nothing to countenance profane swearing, or taking the name of God in vain, as many do in exclamations, when surprised, or on hearing something unexpected, &c.; and as others do who, conscious of their own falsity, endeavour to gain credit by appeals to God for the truth of what they say.  St. Paul’s appeal to God is in the same spirit as his most earnest prayer.  This solemn appeal the apostle makes in reference to what he mentions in the following verses.  This was a fact not yet generally known.”

Barnes:   Verse 31.  The God and Father, etc. “Paul was accustomed to make solemn appeals to God for the truth of what he said, especially when it was likely to be called in question. See 2Co 11:10. Comp. Ro 9:1.

…This passage proves that an appeal to God on great occasions is not improper; it proves also that it should be done with profound veneration.”

A.T. Robertson  I am not lying (ou pseudomai). The list seems so absurd and foolish that Paul takes solemn oath about it (cf. 2Co 1:23). For the doxology see Ro 1:25; 9:5.”

9.  1 Tim. 2:7  Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.  

Barnes:  I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not. “That is, by Christ; or I solemnly appeal to Christ–a form of an oath. See Barnes for Ro 9:1. Paul makes a solemn declaration similar to this in regard to his call to the apostleship, in Ga 1:20. For the reasons why he did it, See Barnes for Ga 1:20. It is probable that there were those in Ephesus who denied that he could be an apostle, and hence his solemn declaration affirming it.”

Holy angels swearing in Revelation:

Barnes:   Verse 5.  And the angel which I saw stand, etc. Re 10:2. “That is, John saw him standing in this posture when he made the oath which he proceeds to record.

 Lifted up his hand to heaven. The usual attitude in taking an oath, as if one called heaven to witness. See Ge 14:22; De 32:40 Eze 20:5-6. Compare Barnes on “Da 12:7”.

I am sure the apostles understood Jesus’ words better than any today; and what is righteous for angels, apostles, and God, cannot be sin for saints if used in the same sense.

If you understand the style or method of Jesus’ speaking, you can see that “Swear not at all” would be equal to “Take no thought for your life”,which obviously needs qualifying statements; “Take no thought for the morrow”, which needs qualifying statements; “Judge not,” which must be taken in context with the qualifying statements; and “Resist not evil” which needs qualifying statements.   Jesus always gave those qualifying statements, so the people who were listening to Him were not confused. 

In what Jesus said of swearing, “neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: 35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black” are the qualifying statements used by Jesus and James; and they do not forbid what the Law of God commands — swearing by God in a holy and reverent way.  Consider the following:

Where is it written?

This will yet be fulfilled.  So, again we see that everything must be understood in the context of Jesus’ purpose of clearing misconceptions about God’s Law and showing its purity and excellence.  Interpreting the Bible in a way that produces a contradiction or sets God against himself is error and misinterpretation!  This is what the Gnostics did, and as it was then called heresy, it is still heresy now.

In the matter of an “eye for an eye” Jesus is correcting a misconception that arose due to a wrong application of God’s Law.  This command was given to the magistrates and judges as part of the just process of law.  It was never intended to be a principle for interpersonal relationships as the Jews were using it!  How do we know this is the case Jesus is dealing with?

1.      The command is given in Moses’ Law as part of the civil law to judges in the course of their duty.

2.      Jesus is speaking about interpersonal relationships, because His words, “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” has never applied to the magistrates on duty who “bear not the sword in vain”.  Rulers are commanded to punish the evil and reward the good.  If they resist not evil men, they are violating God’s design expressed by Paul in Romans 13.  Jesus is therefore showing that “eye for an eye” was being misapplied.

Clarke on Ex. 21:22  “This is the earliest account we have of the lex talionis, or law of like for like, which afterwards prevailed among the Greeks and Romans.  Among the latter, it constituted a part of the twelve tables, so famous in antiquity; but the punishment was afterwards changed to a pecuniary fine, to be levied at the discretion of the praetor.  It prevails less or more in most civilized countries, and is fully acted upon in the canon law, in reference to all calumniators: Calumniator, si in accusatione defecerit, talionem recipiat.  “If the calumniator fail in the proof of his accusation, let him suffer the same punishment which he wished to have inflicted upon the man whom he falsely accused.” Nothing, however, of this kind was left to private revenge; the magistrate awarded the punishment when the fact was proved, otherwise the lex talionis would have utterly destroyed the peace of society, and have sown the seeds of hatred, revenge, and all uncharitableness.”

Clarke on Matt 5:38   “It seems that the Jews had made this law (the execution of which belonged to the civil magistrate) a ground for authorizing private resentments, and all the excesses committed by a vindictive spirit. Revenge was often carried to the utmost extremity, and more evil returned than what had been received.  This is often the case among those who are called Christians.”

Jesus’ examples had to do with personal insult, not an attack on one’s life.  This does not forbid self-defense or defending the weak when life is at stake.  This is the spirit of the Law, and self defense or defending the weak was never condemned in the O.T.; it was actually expected.

It is clear that the damsel was expected to “resist evil” and defend herself; and if she cried, God expected the person who heard her to deliver her.   Has this changed?  No, of course not.  This has not changed, and Jesus is not condemning this type of resisting evil.  He is not speaking contrary to God’s perfect Law.  If Jesus or the apostles had heard a damsel cry, they would have delivered her or they would have been sinning against the “righteousness of the Law of God”.  See Proverbs 24:11:

For Jesus to be the perfect Lamb of God without sin, He would have had to fulfill this part of God’s righteousness as well, and NEVER taught anything contrary to it.

What was Jesus teaching?

n KEEP RANK: Stay within the bounds of jurisdiction and righteousness — no matter how unjust the situation.  Every police officer and soldier knows they cannot avenge themselves with their own hand or retaliate against personal insult; but must keep rank, and only do what is within the realms of their duty and jurisdiction.  Christians are ambassadors on duty at all times, and we must respond according to our vocation, not our personal feelings.

n Don’t stoop to the level of those opposing you!  Seek only righteousness even in conflict or litigation.  Show that you are not motivated by selfish and evil motives.  If you have trespassed, and the judge awards the other person your coat as payment, give him also your cloke to show you are truly sorry and truly want to make it right — “Pay more than you are required by law” to show your desire to heal the breach you caused.

n Be prepared to help, serve, and give with an unselfish spirit when it can be done to the glory of God.  Don’t keep score; but serve and help willingly.  This is opposite the Jewish misconception of using “eye for eye” as a guide to personal relationships.

The Word “compel” refers to the government’s practice of “commandeering” service for government’s causes. This is referring to government and military service.  There are those who take the “resist not evil” teaching to an extreme which says a Christian can never serve in the government or military; but this verse could be taken to the opposite extreme to show they can and must serve when asked in whatever the military does — even to the second mile!  Extremes are dangerous things, and Christians cannot afford to be so rash with Jesus’ words.  The following commentary sums it up nicely.

Liberty Bible Commentary:  “In ancient times government agents were in a position to compel forced service upon a subjugated people.  A Roman soldier, for example, could compel a Jewish native to carry his armor or materials for one mile, in order to relieve the soldier.  Jesus now states that if someone compels you to walk a mile, go with him twain.  The believer is to be willing to “go the extra mile”.  Doing double our duty not only proves the loyalty and faithfulness of our cooperation to human authority, but likewise proves the spiritual intention of our heart.  It also provides an opportunity of conviction in order to witness effectively out of our life message.  It would have been foolish for the believer of Jesus’ day to reluctantly go only a mile with a Roman official and then attempt to share the gospel with him.  By going the second mile he proved the innermost intention of his heart.”

Jesus had no problem with military and government service as a principle.  Was it serving two masters?   No!  Was it compromising with evil?  No!  Jesus was telling his disciples that if a Roman soldier commandeered their service for the extent the law allowed, they should render more service than required for a testimony.  Jesus would have done what He was teaching others to do.

Matt 5:43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 

Did the Law of God teach the Jews this hateful attitude?

Clarke: “The Jews thought themselves authorized to kill any Jew who apostatized; and, though they could not do injury to the Gentiles, in whose country they sojourned, yet they were bound to suffer them to perish, if they saw them in danger of death.  Hear their own words: “A Jew sees a Gentile fall into the sea, let him by no means lift him out; for it is written, Thou shalt not rise up against the blood of thy neighbour:-but this is not thy neighbour.”  Maimon.  This shows that by neighbour they understood a Jew; one who was of the same blood and religion with themselves.”

God had told them not to make a league with any of the nations of Canaan, but destroy them. This was an act of God’s judicial decree, not a command for personal hate; and did not include all non-Jews.

God had commanded them to keep themselves separate from sinners — This He also commands us.  This is not hate of the person, but hate of their sinful way; and while trying to reach them, keeping your own self clean.

Does this justify a haughty, hateful spirit??   Of course it doesn’t.  God expected the nation of Israel to be a light to the World and keep themselves clean; but not to be hateful to the lost or heathen man.  Had they obeyed God’s Laws they would have been representing God to the world around them; instead, God says they profaned His name among the heathen (Ezekiel 36).

Did the O.T. teach the principle of loving our fellow man, even when he was an enemy to us?  Yes, God hasn’t changed, evolved, or improved.

Have you ever noticed that when the apostle Paul is teaching these principles in Romans 12 that he quotes the Old Testament as his authority on the subject?  Listen!  This can only mean Paul is speaking in the same context and spirit as the Old Testament Scriptures! 

The Jews were to love their fellow men, and testify the truth of God for the salvation of their souls.  Christians are to love people in general, and strive to bring them to the truth.  This is the teaching Jesus gives; not that we should allow a criminal intruder to molest our wife and daughter just because we are to “love our enemies”.  This is foolishness, and proves the foolish extremes that men go to when they ignore solid Bible principles for interpreting Jesus’ words.

God so loved the world…while we were enemies!  (Romans 5:10, Col 1:21)  This means He pitied our blindness and certain destruction; and He made a way for us to escape; but he does not compromise right or capitulate to evil.  God has priorities in His love, and so must we.  Loving our enemies doesn’t demand they be first priority over loving our families, neighbors, etc.  We are to “wish for their salvation” like God does; but Jesus wept over Jerusalem while condemning them to desolation!

Can you love, while defending yourself or keeping peace and order?  Yes, it is the same principle as a parent loving the child they are spanking.  What if you are the Sheriff and your son becomes a criminal?  You love your son, but you must do your duty and bring him to justice.  What if you are the judge and your son commits murder?  You love your son, but you must do your duty.  The same applies to a Christian loving his enemy, yet doing his duty in the realm of his jurisdiction.

Did Jesus correct Moses and the Law of God in The Sermon On The Mount?  No! Of course He didn’t.  He cleared the Law of misinterpretations and man’s corruptions.  Jesus consistently sided with Moses against the apostate Jews and consistently upheld the Scriptures as inspired, valid, and necessary.

14

What about 2 Corinthians 3:6-16?

Some interpret this passage to mean that the Old Covenant was death, while the New Covenant is life; but that is not the point.  The contrast is between “the letter, that by itself killeth” with the “spiritual meaning, which if followed gives life”.  Many Jews rested in the letter of the law without the spiritual understanding; and this only condemned them as it could not save them.  The New Covenant IS the spiritual meaning and fulfillment of the Old Covenant.  Jesus taught the spirit of the Law and spiritually fulfilled the law by making a true atonement.  Let’s read the passage with some helps.

Notice, we are contrasting letter and spirit, not just New Covenant and Old — because the New Covenant is the spiritual meaning and fulfillment of the Old.  Paul has said nothing about the Old Covenant yet; but speaks of a new covenant, and then about “letter” and “spirit”. When Paul says here, “new covenant” he is not saying, “New Testament Scriptures”.  The new covenant was not just new Scriptures, but a new understanding and arrangement built upon the existing Scriptures.  Our Bibles would do better to call the OT Scriptures “Scriptures before Christ” and the NT Scriptures, “Scriptures after Christ”.  We should call the Scriptures of our New Testament, “Explanation of the New Covenant”.  The word covenant is an agreement or arrangement of relationship conditions between us and God.  The Day of Pentecost was actually the commemoration day of the Jews meeting with God on Sinai, 50 days after the Passover in Egypt.  On Sinai 3000 offenders died so the nation could continue in covenant with God.  At Pentecost 3000 were added to a remnant in covenant with God, and the nation that rejected Christ was cast out of a covenant relationship with God.  God is now working with a remnant who obey Him, and has rejected the nation who would not obey Him — But it is the same God with the same character and morals.

What is new is this covenant is not God or His ways, morals, or judgments. What is new is the arrangement for our relationship with Him.  Since Jesus came and made the real and final atonement, we have a new High Priest, a new sacrifice with eternal merit, a heavenly tabernacle, etc.  The New Covenant is the completion and fulfillment of the purpose of the Old Covenant.  The Old Covenant was full of types and shadows to introduce us to Christ, so we could understand the New Covenant arrangement.  The Moral “letter” is still part of the New Covenant, but it is the spiritual fulfillment of this that brings life — Romans 8:1-13

If the giving of the letter on Sinai, which condemns, was glorious; how much more the giving of the spiritual meaning and fulfillment of such, which brings justification through Christ’s atonement, exceed in glory.  Here again is the word righteousness dikaiosunhv, which would be better understood if translated justification. 

The Law was a condemning plumb-line plus blood sacrifices to appease God’s wrath on sin — The spiritual fulfillment is our regeneration, the sacrifice and priesthood of Christ, and our justification through Him. Life is not in the mere observance of the ceremonial letter, but in the understanding of the spiritual meaning and walking by faith in it.

The “Ministration of death” was that plumb-line and continual animal sacrifices — lots of blood and condemnation.  God was showing the price of sin — the “sinfulness of sin” to prepare a people for the Messiah.  God wanted people to appreciate Jesus when He came and understand what He had accomplished.  The Law was our schoolmaster to teach us about Jesus, so we could find life in Him.  Before someone can appreciate the Gospel, they must feel the condemnation of the Law.  The Gospel is not good news to the un-convicted sinner; but when the spotlight of the Law condemns them to hell (Romans 7), they then can appreciate the Gospel’s offer of salvation through Christ (Romans 8).

There can be no repentance, justification, pardon, etc. if there is no moral Law as a foundation.  The Law is a vital part of the Gospel, and it is the Law of God’s Kingdom.  The Gospel is God’s plan to pardon and redeem us since we broke His Law and brought upon ourselves the sentence of death.  Before we can appreciate this we must know the Law we broke and understand the sentence of death upon us.  Our repentance is our re-commitment to God’s Law, and our agreement with this Law against our sin.  Once we are pardoned, we are to live under God’s moral law and strive to obey it — this is holiness.

Vss. 12-17 show that we are talking about reading Moses’ Law without the spiritual understanding, which will come when the heart turns to God and recognizes Christ for what He is. They had no spiritual life because of hard and blind hearts walking in dead religion — “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof” (2 Tim. 3:5).

Don’t miss this:  The Christian Jews were still under Moses’ Law while in the New Covenant (Acts 15, 21); and the righteousness of Moses’ Law was still to be fulfilled in every Christian Gentile under the New Covenant (Rom. 8:4).  Being in the New Covenant did not mean the complete removal of the components of the Old Covenant; but rather a new spiritual arrangement and understanding of these components.  God didn’t do away with priesthood, but replaced the order of Aaron with the order of Melchisedec (Heb 5-7).   God didn’t throw away his moral precepts, but wrote them on our hearts by the Holy Ghost.  God stopped the continual blood sacrifices; but accepted the blood sacrifice of His Son as the eternal replacement.  The true tabernacle in heaven has replaced the copy on earth, etc.

We can “rest” in the letter of the New Covenant, just as they did in the Old, to our own condemnation.  Paul had just stated in 2 Cor. 2:15 “For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: 16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?”  The preaching of the gospel can also minister death if received by a hard and impenitent heart which rejects the spiritual understanding of the letter of the Gospel.

Adam Clarke on 2 Cor. 3:6  “The apostle does not mean here, as some have imagined, that he states himself to be a minister of the New Covenant, in opposition to the Old; and that it is the Old Covenant that kills, and the New that gives life; but that the New Covenant gives the proper meaning of the Old; for the Old Covenant had its letter and its spirit, its literal and its spiritual meaning.  The law was founded on the very supposition of the Gospel; and all its sacrifices, types, and ceremonies refer to the Gospel.  The Jews rested in the letter, which not only afforded no means of life, but killed, by condemning every transgressor to death.  They did not look at the spirit; did not endeavour to find out the spiritual meaning; and therefore they rejected Christ, who was the end of the law for justification; and so for redemption from death to every one that believes.  The new covenant set all these spiritual things at once before their eyes, and showed them the end, object, and design of the law; and thus the apostles who preached it were ministers of that Spirit which gives life.

Every institution has its letter as well as its spirit, as every word must refer to something of which it is the sign or significator.  The Gospel has both its letter and its spirit; and multitudes of professing Christians, by resting in the LETTER, receive not the life which it is calculated to impart.  Water, in baptism, is the letter that points out the purification of the soul; they who rest in this letter are without this purification; and dying in that state they die eternally.  Bread and wine in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, are the letter; the atoning efficacy of the death of Jesus, and the grace communicated by this to the soul of a believer, are the spirit.  Multitudes rest in this letter, simply receiving these symbols, without reference to the atonement, or to their guilt; and thus lose the benefit of the atonement and the salvation of their souls.  The whole Christian life is comprehended by our Lord under the letter, Follow me. Does not any one see that a man, taking up this letter only, and following Christ through Judea, Galilee, Samaria, &c., to the city, temple, villages, seacoast, mountains, &c., fulfilled no part of the spirit; and might, with all this following, lose his soul?  Whereas the SPIRIT, viz. receive my doctrine, believe my sayings, look by faith for the fulfillment of my promises, imitate my example, would necessarily lead him to life eternal.  It may be safely asserted that the Jews, in no period of their history, ever rested more in the letter of their law than the vast majority of Christians are doing in the letter of the Gospel.  Unto multitudes of Christians Christ may truly say: Ye will not come unto me that ye may have life.”

The Letter simply sets forth order and obligation to worship in spirit and truth — to acknowledge this without performance is self condemning.  Observing the Lord’s Supper without the heart it requires is more condemning than not knowing to do it; because the person going through the motions is acknowledging their obligation and accountability for what it means.   With baptism also, resting in the letter is self-condemning.  To go through the motions without the heart and spirit of the matter is mockery and brings no life.

So, again we see that this Scripture is consistent with our position.  The Jews in Acts 21, who after believing in Jesus were zealous of the Law, reveal to us that, after the heart turns to the Lord and the veil is removed, the Law becomes more glorious.  The spiritual understanding of the Law makes it come alive; and the spiritual fulfillment of the Ceremonial Law is the very atonement of Christ that saves us.  Originally the New Covenant included submission to Moses’ Law and a proper appreciation for it in the light of Christ being the Messiah and the Lamb of God.  The Old Covenant being ended doesn’t mean all the components of the covenant are ended.  The New Covenant is a new arrangement which includes much of the old components.  The New Covenant is updated with Christ’s fulfillment of the ceremonial laws; but we are still in a covenant with the same God — He hasn’t changed.  His manifestations of Himself, i.e. His opinions, judgments, moral standards, etc., have been consistent.

15

What about Romans 6:14?

Some teach from passages like Romans 6:14 that: we are saved by grace; but the Old Covenant saints were saved by works.  This is not the case, as every example given in the New Covenant of salvation by grace through faith was from an Old Covenant person — read Hebrews 11.  Paul tells us in Galatians that the gospel was preached to Abraham; and in Hebrews 4 we are told it was preached to Israel.  The Gospel is simply the good news that we are not hopelessly awaiting a court date in which God’s law is going to condemn us to hell for our transgressions; but that God has devised means of atonement whereby we can be pardoned, and received back again into full citizenship and son-ship.

Nobody has ever been justified before God through Moses’ Law alone (Rom. 3:20).  The blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin (Heb. 10:4).  Everyone who has ever been justified has been justified by faith in God’s redemption plan through Christ.  This plan is offered over and over in the Old Covenant — and the spiritual ones understood.

Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law (Facing God’s Law in court), but under grace (Facing God with Jesus as your Savior). 15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 

The Law of Moses, the schoolmaster, taught man that God had a plumb-line (Moral Law) which showed we were crooked; and so we had to run to the tabernacle where through offerings and sacrifices we could find grace when we failed.  BUT, if we were not striving to live up to the plumb-line, we were not eligible for the offer of grace through sacrifices.  The Law taught us this because this is the very arrangement now in Christ’s kingdom.  If you are not striving to walk in the light, you are not eligible for Christ’s priesthood and salvation thereby.  (I John 1:7-9)

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (see also Heb. 2:1-3; 12:25)

If we can still SIN while we are under Grace, and SIN is the transgression of the Law (I John 3:4); then we are still under obligation to God’s Moral Law while under Grace.  The blessing is that we don’t have to have a forensic justification through a perfect record or self atonement (which is impossible). We must strive to fulfill the righteousness of the Law of God, but when we fail, we have an advocate in Christ Jesus, who through his sacrifice and priesthood allows us to get up, get clean, and get going again!  This is what it means to be under GRACE and not simply under LAW.

Justification through the Law of Moses apart from Christ’s atonement was a Jewish misconception – it was never the truth.  We are justified through following “the faith of Christ” – not Christ’s personal faith, but his teaching –  “the faith once delivered to the saints”.

Christ is the goal and aim of the Law’s teaching about justification (having a righteous standing before God). The Law only atoned for sins in type, and God forgave on “credit” until Jesus could pay the debt; and thereby justify God’s forgiveness and forbearance with man’s sin in the Old Covenant.

Jesus paid the debt, and justified God’s pardoning us on credit.  THUS, the gospel of salvation through Christ is seen every time pardon is offered or given in the Old Testament.  THUS the gospel of salvation by grace is the only salvation offered in the O.T.  Here is one example

If this were salvation by works there would be no mention of forgiveness, cleansing, pardon, etc. Notice repentance and obedience are necessary to receive the grace of cleansing and pardon.

16

Who Was Saved by works?

We’ve already covered this to some degree, so I’ll keep this section short.  No fallen man has ever been saved by their works.  Salvation by works means “self – atonement” or “perfect obedience”, which needs no atonement.  If you don’t have a perfect record of righteousness before God through perfect obedience or self – atonement, then you have no hope of being saved by “works” according to the Bible definition.  If keeping Moses Law atoned for sins, so Jesus didn’t need to die, then you could be saved and counted righteous by the deeds of the Law (Gal. 2:21); but the Bible declares that all have sinned, and the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin; so the sacrifice of Jesus as a sin offering to make atonement for sin, was the only option that propitiated God.

Works of repentance and obedience to Christ are necessary to make one eligible to receive the benefits of the atonement of Christ; but this is not salvation by works. The term “works” is determined by the context, and is generally used differently by Paul in his epistles than by James in his.  While James speaks of obedience to Christ, being “doers of the word”, or “exercising faith” when using the word “works”; Paul is speaking of self-atonement through the Ceremonial Law or being sinless when using the word “works”.  One of the “works” (James) is necessary for salvation, while the other “works” (Paul) is impossible and therefore cannot save us.  That is why Paul says we are saved by faith and not works; while James says, “faith without works is dead”.

Did OT Israelites all believe they were saved by works?

Though some fell into the error of assuming God would accept them or was indebted to them simply because they were circumcised children of Abraham; the spiritual Israelites knew that their salvation was grace and not their just reward.

Job acknowledging the need for a redeemer to save him reveals that he well knew he could not save himself or atone for his own sins.

This statement reveals these people knew that their reconciliation with God was due to means graciously devised by him whereby we could be pardoned and not expelled eternally.  They obviously knew they could not remedy the situation by themselves.

I could fill this book with quotes from the OT concerning salvation by grace through faith.   Paul, when illustrating Salvation by Faith,  uses Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, ……all the way to us. When James speaks of justification by a “faith that works” he goes back to Abraham and Rahab.  In Romans, when Paul wants to illustrate our faith being imputed to us for righteousness, he speaks of Abraham and David.  Why?  Because we are all saved by the same principle: God imputes a living, obeying, faith to us for righteousness (justification) through Christ’s atonement.

This is the same way you must be saved.  You must strive to fulfill the righteousness of the Law through the Spirit, and follow the conditions of the covenant you are in so the atonement is applied to you for sins committed.  This is the only way you can have a relationship with the Father!

What is salvation by works?

We’ve already covered this, so I’ll keep this section short.  Salvation by works means “self – atonement” or “perfect obedience”, which needs no atonement.  If you don’t have a perfect record of righteousness before God through perfect obedience or self – atonement, then you have no hope of being saved by “works” according to the Bible definition.  If keeping Moses Law atoned for sins, so Jesus didn’t need to die, then you could be saved and counted righteous by the deeds of the Law (Gal. 2:21); but the Bible declares that all have sinned, and the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin; so the sacrifice of Jesus as a sin offering to make atonement for sin, was the only option that propitiated God.

Works of repentance and obedience to Christ are necessary to make one eligible to receive the benefits of the atonement of Christ; but this is not salvation by works. The term “works” is determined by the context, and is generally used differently by Paul in his epistles than by James in his.  While James speaks of obedience to Christ, being “doers of the word”, or “exercising faith” when using the word “works”; Paul is speaking of self-atonement through the Ceremonial Law or being sinless when using the word “works”.  One of the “works” (James) is necessary for salvation, while the other “works” (Paul) is impossible and therefore cannot save us.  That is why Paul says we are saved by faith and not works; while James says, “faith without works is dead”.

What is Legalism?

Legalism is a form of salvation by works.  Legalism is the Judaizer’s attempt to bring Gentile believers under the Ceremonial Law and circumcision – basically undoing what God and the apostles established through Cornelius and the decision in Acts 15.  Here are the Legalists:

The Legalists are not those who say we must obey Jesus or the moral laws of God; but those who say that the atonement of Jesus and following the faith of Christ (the faith once delivered…) is not enough by itself.  They would declare that circumcision and the Ceremonial Law is still necessary for salvation.   What these legalists were demanding was the proper mode of operation in the churches for the first twelve years after Pentecost, but God opened the doors to the Gentiles through Peter in the case of Cornelius (Acts 10) and thus changed the program.  Some Jews did not want to accept this, and kept preaching Judaism to the Gentile Christians.  They implied that these converts were incomplete in their salvation unless they came under the ceremonial laws.  Paul refuted this and declared that they were complete in following Christ Jesus.

It is very important to understand which epistles are refuting Judaizers/legalists, and which are refuting Gnostics.  The Gnostics used Paul’s epistles, which speak of salvation by grace without the Ceremonial Law, to say that our performance doesn’t affect our position in Christ.  How did they get this from Paul’s epistles?  Well, like many today, when Paul said “law” they assumed it meant all laws or rules of conduct.  They failed to see that “law” is determined by context, and that Paul only declared the Gentiles to be free from the covenant obligations in the ceremonial laws, not from obedience to God’s moral laws of holiness and righteousness — and not from obedience to Christ or His apostles.  The epistles of James and John countered these heretical misconceptions of the Gnostics to declare plainly that our performance/obedience does affect our position with God.  When Paul told Timothy to get the church in order by laying down certain rules, he was not being a legalist.

For Timothy to enforce these principles by deliberate “do’s and don’ts” was not legalism either.  Our obedience to Christ and his apostles is necessary for our salvation; because we will not be eligible for Christ’s atonement if we are rebellious.  However, thinking that asceticism, circumcision, ceremonies and rituals are means of atoning for our own sins or helping Jesus atone for our sins is a form of salvation by works or “legalism”.  Atoning for my sins or helping Jesus atone for my sins is impossible and wrong thinking; but repenting and obeying Jesus, so He will apply His atonement to me, and be my High Priest/Savior is true and right thinking.  Jesus is the “author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him” (Heb. 5:9).  Where does that leave those who don’t?

17

What does Luke 16:16 mean?

It is obvious to the student of Scripture that the law and the prophets were the sole teachers and pointed forward until John came in the role of Elijah as the forerunner of the Messiah.  Look in the last book of the Old Covenant; and then go to the last chapter; and you’ll see that the role of John the Baptist (Elijah) is what is spoken of as the next step in God’s program.

Adam Clarke The law and the prophets were until John] “The law and the prophets continued to be the sole teachers till John came, who first began to proclaim the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and now, he who wishes to be made a partaker of the blessings of that kingdom must rush speedily into it; as there will be but a short time before an utter destruction shall fall upon this ungodly race. They who wish to be saved must imitate those who take a city by storm-rush into it, without delay, as the Romans are about to do into Jerusalem.”

     “They were the instructors concerning the Christ who was to come, till John came and showed that all the predictions of the one, and the types and ceremonies of the other were now about to be fully and finally accomplished; for Christ was now revealed.”

Jesus is making note that since John’s preaching concerning the kingdom of God, men are pressing into it, and must press vigorously or “violently” to enter the strait and narrow gate.  Up until this time being a Jew was “going with the flow”; but now it will be “swimming upstream against the flow” to enter the kingdom of God as proclaimed by John and Christ because the religious authorities were standing against it.  This in no way changes the fact that God’s Moral Law is eternal and always relevant; and when the circumstances are the same, the application will always be the same.  It is clear from the following passage that Christians were obligated to fulfill the moral laws of God, here called the “law of liberty”, the “word”, the “royal law”, and the “Scriptures”.  The same God that commanded the Moral Law commanded the Gospel.  They run together in perfect harmony.  By following the Spirit, we fulfill the righteousness of the Law, which is obeying the gospel.  The gospel is simply the good news that all who repent and reconcile with God by a humble return to His Law and Lordship have hope of pardon through the grace of Christ’s atonement.

Notice that being “doers of the Word” and “obeying the Law of God” is the same in James’ mind.  God’s Law is the way to freedom, but sin brings debt.  Jesus, in the “Lord’s Prayer” said, “forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors”.  Jesus also said, “Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin”.  Jesus and James are speaking of sin as transgression of God’s Moral Law.  Obeying God is liberty from sin’s snare; and this is not only a New Testament concept; but was understood in the Old Testament.  Liberty is being delivered from the quick-sand of sin and walking on the firm path of God’s commandments.

18

What about Polygamy?

Some believe that God allowing polygamy in the OT, but not allowing it in the NT is a sure sign that Jesus spoke contrary to the Law.

Let’s look at where the Law of God taught and commanded polygamy:                                                .  That’s right!  He didn’t.  What does the Law teach us about polygamy?

First, it teaches us that God took only one rib and made only one woman for Adam.  Then God made the declaration that they two should become one flesh.  This should be all that needs to be said to show God’s will.  The Law also tells us where polygamy started.

Polygamy came from the corrupt line of Cain.  The first time we see this in the godly line is when Sarah initiated it between her maid, Hagar, and Abraham since she was childless.  It was not in faith, but in unbelief; and has caused innumerable problems — It is the source of the conflict between the Jews and Arabs to this day.  The next time is when Laban cheats Jacob and this ends with Jacob marrying two sisters — something the Law of Moses later forbade (Lev. 18:18)

These bad examples led to the practice, and when God brought the people out of Egypt, they had been affected by the pagan environment they were in. God chose wisely not to abruptly stop this situation, but to regulate it.   The Law gave regulations for those who chose this route; but it never commended it as a righteous choice.  God patiently chose to allow it under the circumstances; but the Law makes it clear that it was not the original intent of God. God even commanded for kings not to multiply wives and gold (Deut. 17:17); but then He patiently tolerated it.  He allowed them to walk in their carnal stupidity and reap the natural consequences in order to prove the wisdom of His instructions.

Why did God patiently tolerate it when He did not tolerate other things?  Only those rich enough to care for more than one wife had more; and as long as they were justly taken care of, they were possibly better off than if desolate.  These wives helped populate and build the nation of Israel, which cause was worthy of consideration.  Sometimes a man took two wives because his first was barren, and he wanted an heir to preserve his name in Israel.  This same issue validated the Levirate marriage as well (Deut. 25:5). These issues ceased to be as important once the Messiah came and set up the church. The overall testimony of polygamous marriages shows that God’s original plan was superior.  Here are God’s wise regulations while this was allowed.

Ex 21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money. 

The wife had recourse to the authorities and could divorce if the man took another wife and diminished her care.

In the New Testament God calls us back to His original intent for all his creation where possible.  I say, “where possible”, because when a man came to Christ with two wives, he was “grandfathered” in to the church, not told to divorce.  This man could not, however, be a church leader because they did not want polygamy to be set up as an example before the church.

With these wise and patient steps, monogamy was restored and polygamy ceased in the faithful Christian churches.  God expects more from Christians because they have been given more light.

19

What about Musical Instruments?

Here is an issue where some would declare that God has changed his mind; but a careful study reveals that God has been very gracious in accepting man’s show of affection; but still wants to raise us to new spiritual heights.  New Covenant worship is uniquely “spiritual”, rather than“ceremonial” or “carnal”.   We don’t really know how the Jews played their instruments, what the tune or beat was, etc.  It seems the spiritual climate where God chose to establish the church was one that did not employ the ancient instrumental worship of the Jews; but we are told that the synagogues just had prayer, reading, and singing or “chanting”.  The worship with musical instruments seems to be confined to Temple worship, and was not a part of synagogue worship.  The Psalms which recommend this type of worship are speaking of Temple worship.

Jesus and His apostles set up the church after the pattern of the synagogue and the Temple was destroyed.  This seems to indicate that since the Temple is gone, and we are following the pattern of the synagogue, we should continue the church’s worship after the way the apostles started it.  Just as all other parts of the Ceremonial Law that required the temple are now done away, so it seems that temple worship with musical instruments was also done away.

Did Jesus imply that worship would change?

The woman of Samaria knew that when the Messiah came, He would explain hard issues and answer hard questions.  In the matter of worship He clearly says there is going to be a change from a more ceremonial worship to a more spiritual worship.  Jesus and the disciples worshipped by prayer and singing hymns without any trace of musical instruments or dances.  Here are the positive commands in the New Covenant:

I have nothing personal against musical instruments; but believe the church should continue to follow the pattern Jesus set.  Children who are taught to play instruments are in great danger of becoming “performers” rather than “worshippers”.   They practice and practice for the eyes and ears of men.  Most people won’t even bother with the hard work and time involved in learning an instrument if they cannot perform for someone.  If I let my little girl labor and toil and learn to play the piano, then every time the grandparents or others visit there will be the temptation to say, “Show them what you’ve learned”.  Then the little girl’s labor is rewarded by what?  By performing and hearing the “O that is so nice” response of the audience.  And how is it that you show your skill on an instrument?  By playing slow and reverent?  NO, but by playing fast.  I’ve seen the fruit of all this first hand, and believe that acapella worship is more pleasing to God; and attended with less danger.

There are two reasons for doing things:  To glorify God or to gratify self.   This will determine which way you go in life, and whether you are perfecting holiness in the fear of God or doing everything  that pleases you.   If Christ prefers worship without instruments for His church, then that is what I want in the church and in my personal life.   If Christ prefers something for His church, why would I want something different in my home?

The churches were patterned after the synagogues where they had no musical instruments; and the early Christian churches rejected musical instruments in worship.  I found an interesting article from Thy Word is Truth website, and felt it was worthy of posting here:

“Acapella means “as in the chapel.” The music of the church was acapella for centuries. The first organ was introduced in worship by Pope Vitalian I some 670 years after Christ. When it threatened the division of the Catholic church it was removed. However some 130 years later it was again introduced, this time successfully though there was still some opposition. The Greek Catholic Church refused it and still refuses it.  Martin Luther rejected the organ as an “ensign of Baal.”  John Calvin said of the organ in worship (things had not yet reached the orchestra stage), “It is no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of tapers or revival of the other shadows of the law. The Roman Catholics borrowed it from the Jews.”  John Wesley, when asked about the use of the organ in worship, brusquely replied, “I have no objection to the organ in our chapels provided it is neither seen nor heard.”  Adam Clarke, a great Methodist commentator and a contemporary of John Wesley, said, “I am an old man and an old minister, and I here declare that I have never known instrumental music to be productive of any good in the worship of God, and have reason to believe that it has been productive of much evil. Music, as a science, I esteem and admire, but instruments of music in the house of God I abominate and abhor. This is the abuse of music, and I here register my protest against all such corruptions in the worship of that Infinite Spirit who requires His followers to worship Him in spirit and in truth.”  Charles Spurgeon was perhaps the greatest Baptist preacher who ever lived. He preached for twenty years in the Metropolitan Baptist Tabernacle of London, England to 10,000 people every Sunday. The mechanical instrument never entered the tabernacle of Spurgeon. When asked why he did not use the organ in worship, he cited 1 Cor. 14:15: “I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the understanding also.” He added, “I would as soon pray to God with machinery as to sing to God with machinery.”

Bob Williams in a scholarly article, Origins of Christian Worship, shares the following:

“A significant difference is seen between the dramatic worship exhibited in the temple (both the first and the second) and the restrained and subdued gatherings in the synagogues. While the focus in the temple seemed to be mainly upon exuberant worship and praise through sacrifice and music (both vocal and instrumental), it seems that the main focus in the synagogues was not so much upon public worship, but rather upon instruction in the Law. The worship of the synagogues was apparently limited to recitation of prayer, chanting of the Psalms, and Bible reading and instruction… While it has been suggested by a few that the early Christians may have reintroduced a form of melodious singing similar to that found previously in the temple, the vast majority of scholars state that the music of Christian worship was limited to the same plain chant as had been used in synagogue worship, and that it would be several centuries before the introduction of choral melody and/or four-part harmony (or reintroduction, if indeed temple singing was similar to modern day church singing)…It appears that the manner of worship seen in the early church was originally just a continuation of what the Jews had been doing for the previous 500 years (adding only the agape feast and Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week). This was followed by further gradual changes and variations, but the basic fundamental aspects of historical worship (music, prayer, instruction, Lord’s Supper) remained constant. Perhaps this is close to what Jesus had in mind when He stated that worship would not remain confined to specific places, but should always be done in spirit and in truth (John 4:21-24).”

In Heaven — God’s Temple — we again see musical instruments in group worship being used.  This may just be symbolic, as many other things in the book of Revelation are.  It is worthy of note that only harps (very mild instruments) are seen in Heaven.  Harp music would certainly be more fitting for Heaven than what people usually play on other instruments.

Maybe due to abuse, God stopped the instrumental worship providentially, but will allow it again when we are fully sanctified in Heaven.  God seems to be displeased with how the Jews later used musical instruments and the tendency to use them for carnal entertainment.

20

What about Old Covenant Fancy Dress, Jewelry, and the Pursuit of Riches?

Due to the fact that many see some obvious differences between what is commanded to NT believers and what was tolerated in the OT; it is important to explain why this is so.  There is definitely a difference between what God taught or commanded, and what He tolerated or permitted.   The greater the light and understanding one has been given, the more God expects of them. When God shines more light, He expects a greater spirituality.

God tolerated carnal practices among the Jews in matters of fancy dress, wearing jewelry, seeking riches, etc.; but these were not His ultimate goals for them.  He was dealing with a nation of people who were not all mature and Spirit filled.  His promises to them were earthly temporal types of the heavenly spiritual riches and possessions promised to us in the NT.  The Israelites were promised earthly inheritance and riches if they obeyed God’s Law.  The Spiritual Israelites understood this was only a type of something heavenly in the future.  Jesus calls NT saints to forsake the hopes of the earthly kingdom and its riches; and to pursue the heavenly kingdom with its riches.

In the New Covenant, with Spirit filled saints composing the body of Christ/Church, God has commanded a higher spiritual walk that seeks eternal riches, spiritual blessings, humble pursuits, and a counter culture of spirituality and holiness.  We have much greater light and understanding, so more spirituality is expected of us.  Are we living up to the light we have received, or seeking to live on a lower level?

The apostles clearly forbid Christians wearing that which exalts and focuses on the temporal, sensual, carnal, and prideful appetites of this world.

 God does not want our “adorning” or “decorating”  of ourselves to be with jewels, clothes, ribbons, bows, etc.; but he wants our “adorning” to be spiritual attitudes and actions.   This was not made as clear in the OT; but is very clear in the NT.   God expects more from those who have the Holy Spirit indwelling them and the example and teachings of Christ, than those who didn’t.

Jesus taught us to not lay up treasure upon earth, but to lay up treasure in Heaven.  He said it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter heaven.  Some spiritual Jews understood this:  Read Hebrews 11; and also consider the lives of the prophets like Elisha with his rebuke of Gehazi:

Spiritual Israelites understood that though God promised prosperity to the nation when they obeyed His laws, the prosperity in itself was dangerous to their spiritual life, and could cause them to trust in their riches rather than God.  God still blesses nations and communities with prosperity when they obey His Word; but the emphasis in the NT is on the Spiritual life and inheritance.

When Jacob needed God’s help and wanted his family to get right with God, he commanded them to get rid of their strange gods and they also took off their ear rings and buried them all under a tree.

When God was angry with Israel, He commanded them to put off their Jewelry and humble themselves while He decided what to do with them.

It is clear from the “whole counsel of God” that He has tolerated many things; but those who love Him and seek to please Him can see that there is another way that He prefers.  I want to walk this way.

The New Covenant does not contradict the morality of God’s Law, but clarifies it, shines more light on it, and gives more power to fulfill it.  What God desired from man from the beginning should be more and more fulfilled as we grow in grace and walk in the same Spirit that inspired the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation.

21

How is Divorce different from Polygamy, Jewelry, etc.?

Some will think we are not being consistent.  They will say that God’s dealing with divorce is the same as God’s dealing with polygamy, jewelry and the other issues we’ve shown are different now from the OT allowances.  However there is a big difference.  Deut. 24:1-4 was God’s instructions for what to do when immoral conduct violated the marriage covenant.  God never gave positive instruction where the solution to the problem was polygamy, wearing jewelry, fancy clothes, and pursuing riches.  The only time polygamy was given as a solution was in the levirate marriage which only applied to Israel as a nation until Messiah came.  These things were tolerated with restrictions placed on them to keep them from becoming too harmful; but they were never positively commanded as a righteous way to solve a problem like Deut. 24:1-4.  We can do without polygamy, jewelry, fancy clothes, etc; but when sin violates the marriage covenant, we still need to know what to do.  The judgment of God is still valid, as there have not been any other instructions given that supersede and replace Deut. 24:1-4.  The instructions given in the New Testament are consistent with the Law, not contrary to it, because they are based on the Law.  Jesus was answering questions about the Law when He gave His instruction.  Paul based his instructions on the Law (Romans 7 and I Cor. 7).

Our book, “What The Bible Really Teaches About Divorce And Remarriage” deals more fully with the details.  You can order your copy from booksellers online, or contact us.

Whatever issue arises where there seems to be a difference between the New Testament and the Old; we need to keep in mind that God never changes, and Jesus is the “Word” of God from Genesis to Revelation.  Jesus inspired the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation; and He is the same yesterday, today and forever.  Erroneous dispensationalism, easy believism, unconditional eternal security (once saved, always saved), and many other heretical teachings, would be cleared up if people could only understand God’s consistent flow of light from Genesis to Revelation.   Extreme teachings that pit the New Testament Scriptures against the Old; and pit the teachings of Jesus against Moses’ Law are not only dangerous and sinful, but also misrepresent God’s grace, justice, and wisdom.

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 

We invite sincere questions and will strive to answer them.

Living Faith Christian Fellowship

27216 Ingel Rd. Brookfield, MO

Pastor Mark Bullen