Posted March 16, 2004

D_____ wrote:

Shalom, Mike –

Here are some responses to some of the points you made. I hope they make sense and you’re able to follow along.

First, you must understand that Jesus cannot and did not oppose the Torah. His teaching and life ministry was in complete harmony with the Torah (which means “instruction”, and not simply our traditional translation of “law” as some would believe).

Dear D_____,

Thank you for your time and concern. Being ‘under the law,’ is a serious spiritual condition, one we had better not take lightly. The more the light of the scripture is shed on this subject, the clearer it will become. What we ‘must understand’ is that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient… What we ‘must understand’ is that “the law [ Torah] was added,” to the already existing, but as yet unrevealed, unchanging ‘law of the Spirit’ (Rom 8:2). Here is the scripture:

Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law [ Torah], which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? [ Torah – Here it is. Here is the purpose for Torah. Here is how long it was ordained to endure.] It was added because of transgressions [ to the already existing, as yet unrevealed, never changing “Law of the Spirit”], [ only] till the seed should come [ and “after that faith is come we are no longer under the schoolmaster” of Torah – verse 25] to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

The law, Torah, was “added” only “TILL the seed [ Christ – Gal 3:16] should come.” Then what are we told becomes of the law? Does Paul say it is at that time utterly destroyed from the face of the earth? No, he does not. There will always be those who, generation by generation, need to be “brought to Christ.” Then and only then, “when faith is come [ meaning after we have been ‘dragged to Christ,’ ONLY THEN are we told that] we are no longer under a schoolmaster.”

So you see, according to the scriptures, Both [ the law and the new covenant – both the ‘old and the new wine’] are preserved (Luk 5:38).

You keep saying, “Jesus cannot and did not oppose the Torah,” but you don’t address the fact that Christ said that He and His disciples had done just that. It is Christ Himself, who tells us that He and His disciples did that which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests. You don’t address the fact that Christ admits that he and His disciples, as the priests in the temple, profane the sabbath, and are blameless. I am not guilty of saying that Christ did “that which is not lawful.” Those are the words of Christ concerning the actions of Himself and His disciples. I am not accusing Christ of “profaning the sabbath.” It is He who says that He and those who were with Him, like the priests in the temple, profane the sabbath, and are blameless. Here is the scripture:

Mat 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
Mat 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
Mat 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
Mat 12:4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
Mat 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
Mat 12:6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
Mat 12:7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. [ And why is He guiltless?]
Mat 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

And yet you ask:

How could he say that he came from the Father, if he declared the Words of the Father to be “outdated” or to be in opposition to his “new,” “better” way? He would surely be a false Messiah.

Not if Torah was only intended to rule “until the Seed should come” (Gal 3:19). Not if But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster (Gal 3:25). Under these conditions, Christ would have been a ‘false Messiah,’ ONLY if there had been no “reformation.”

Heb 9:10 Which [ Torah] stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them [ only] until the time of reformation.

The “new” is new. If it weren’t “new,” then Christ would not have called it “new.” “The NEW agrees not with the old” (Luk 5:36), and it is “better” or it would not replace the old.

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
1Jn 2:8 Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.

Did you catch that phrase, “true light?” True light is akin to “true bread from heaven.” The effect of the “true bread from heaven,” is to make the first ‘bread from heaven,’ “not that bread from heaven” (Joh 6:32).

Heb 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
Heb 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Christ and Paul were both right when they were contending with Judaizers:

Christ:

Luk 5:39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

Paul:

Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law [ Torah], or by the hearing of faith?
Gal 3:12 And the law [ Torah] is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Do you think this is a positive statement? It is not. It renders the Galatians “foolish.” They were not “foolish” because they were openly denying Christ. They were ‘foolish’ because they were denying what Christ taught. The Galatians were trying to “put new wine in old wine bottles.” The Galatians, like the Hebrews, could not believe that even just a “piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.” Like so many today, the Galatians thought they could retain the old covenant and still ‘be made perfect in the spirit.’ That is not possible. Here is how Paul frames this question:

Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Gal 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Paul actually contrasts “obeying the Truth” [ that Christ] with “the works of the law.”

But we cannot accept the fact that an all- knowing God would ever make a change for any reason. Does “I change not” equate to ‘I never make changes?’ If it does, then the earth would never have been created and none of us would be here to ask the question. Of course God makes changes, even though He Himself never changes.

It has been said that most of us, had we been in Abraham’s sandals, would have slain Isaac because the Lord had said to do it:

Gen 22:2 And he [ the Lord] said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

If Abraham had your understanding of “I change not,” then he would have said, “Get thee behind me Satan, are you trying to tell me that God’s Word has been ‘outdated?'” when the same unchanging Lord told him:

Gen 22:12 And he [ the same Lord] said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

You see Abraham, according to the new covenant is “the father of the faithful,” meaning, if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed (Gal 3:29). Abraham was able to adjust to the voice of the Lord for one reason; he “believed God” (Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6; Jas 2:23). Abraham, you see, lived 480 years before anything was “written and engraven in stones.” 480 years before Torah, the law … not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient… (1Ti 1:9).

Yes, I confess I believe that the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old (Luk 5:36)

What is the purpose of this parable of the new wine bottles and the new cloth, if it is not to back up the rest of Christ’s reformation of the law?

I also confess that scriptures like :

Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

And:

Deu 21:14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, [ Your wife] then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

And:

Exo 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he [ a mortally wounded slave, wounded at the hand of his owner] continue a day or two, he [ before he dies, the owner who inflicted the wound] shall not be punished: for he [ the slave] is his [ the owner’s] money.

… all have a certain “outdated” sound for those who are in the But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster (Gal 3:25) stage of their spiritual development.

Getting back to Christ and His disciples plucking the corn on the sabbath, why, if Christ were a practicing Jew, as you and all Christendom affirm, why didn’t He take this opportunity to explain that He was actually keeping Torah, instead of admitting to doing that “which was not lawful for Him?” Why does He not show respect for Torah instead of claiming, in this place is one greater than the temple? Why does He not take this opportunity to explain for us, and for all people of all time, that He is in reality, keeping Torah while failing to ‘prepare for the sabbath?’ Why does He instead admit to “profaning the sabbath?” Why not expound upon the proper understanding of Thou shalt do NO work therein, instead of simply telling us, The Son Of Man is Lord even of the sabbath day? It is as if He were deliberately trying to make a point, the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.

No. Jesus was the true Messiah, and his teachings (if we understand them properly) reflect this.

Amen! He went out of His way to prove that he had come to reform a “carnal commandment.”

Heb 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment [ Torah], but after the power of an endless life.

What proved Christ’s Messiahship is the fact that He fulfilled all the prophecies about Himself.

Not the least of these prophecies is the one which predicted that He was to be ‘like Moses.’ Moses was a great reformer. Before Moses any Israelite could erect an altar anywhere and offer an offering to God. After Moses this became a sin.

Deu 12:13 Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place that thou seest:

Deu 12:14 But in the place which the LORD shall choose in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, and there thou shalt do all that I command thee.

Before Moses there was no weekly sabbath, no Passover, nor any other holy day. There was no tabernacle, no priesthood, and no structured, sacrificial system, as outlined in Leviticus. There was certainly no tithing system before Moses.

Rom 5:13 (For until the law [ Moses] sin [ against the unchanging, yet unrevealed “law of the Spirit”] was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses [ the period when “there is no law.”], even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression [ a ‘transgression is an ‘imputable,’ sin], who is the figure of him [ Christ] that was to come.

Adam prefigured Christ inasmuch as his actions would affect “all” without their consent. Our fabled ‘free will’ was not a factor in our being created “in Adam.” Neither will it have any part in our salvation from death. Once again, the first is always the ‘shadow.’ Yes, even though it was God Himself who made the “first Adam … in His image,” the ‘first Adam’ was only a type of “the true” ‘image of God.’ So it is with Torah. Torah is only a shadow and a type! Again, yes indeed! The first Adam, “in the image of God,” is in Christ “outdated!”

Heb 10:1 For the law [ Torah] having a shadow of good things to come [ Christ and the new covenant], and not the very image of the things…”
1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in [ the first ‘outdated’] Adam all die, even so in Christ [ the second Adam] shall all be made alive.

And again:

Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

The entire volume of scripture declares that God “worketh all things After The Counsel of His Own Will.” (Eph 1:11). For more on this subject read the paper by this name on the web page.

Now just as Christ is prefigured by that which has the exact opposite effect, so the “law of the Spirit of life” is prefigured by that which has the exact opposite effect. Torah is called “the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones” (2Co 3:7).

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Notice the contrast:

Torah	Christ’s New Covenant
2Co 3:7 The ministration of death, written and engraven in stones 1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient	Joh 5:34 These things I say, that ye might be saved.
Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law [ Torah]? It was added [ parenthetically] because of transgressions [ of the already existing, “hidden” “law of the Spirit,” which Christ came to reveal], [ only] till the seed [ Christ] should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.	Joh 6:63 The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
2Co 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones [ Torah], was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:	2Co 3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
2Co 3:9 (A) For if the ministration of condemnation [ Torah] be glory	2Co 3:9 (B) Much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
2Co 3:10 (A) For even that which was made glorious [ Torah]	2Co 3:10 (B) Had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
2Co 3:11 (A) For if that which is done away [ Torah – For those who have been brought to Christ] was glorious	2Co 3:11 (B) Much more that which remaineth is glorious. Luk 21:33 My words shall not pass away.
Rom 5:20 Moreover the law [ Torah] entered, that the offence might abound.	Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Deu 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.	2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament … of the spirit … the spirit giveth life. Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away [ after we have been brought to Christ]

I realize it seems impossible to you D_____, but “that which was made glorious” is a direct reference to the old covenant, to Torah. The Holy Spirit says it “has no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excels,” that is by reason of Mat 5-7 as compared to Exo 20-23.

One thing you have to remember is that, at Sinai, the Torah (instruction) was given to a Redeemed People (Israel). They were given with grace and love. (Just read Exodus and Deuteronomy to verify this.)

Sure, in type and shadow, just as they were fed with ‘bread from heaven.’ Here is the scripture:

Joh 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ

Yet you say Israel was already ‘redeemed’ and given ‘grace.’

You see, there is only type and shadow in the old covenant.

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

That is why we have statements like this all through the new covenant:

Col 1:6 Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:

As opposed, yes opposed to the ‘typical,’ ‘grace,’ of:

Exo 33:16 “For wherein shall it be known here that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight?”

The typical ‘grace’ Israel received while in the typical wilderness is just as typical as the typical “bread from heaven they received while in the typical wilderness :

Joh 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

Joh 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

Yes, Israel was ‘redeemed’ and brought out of Egypt. Here is what the scripture says about that:

Exo 33:16 For wherein shall it be known here that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight? is it not in that thou goest with us? so shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth.

God ‘going with us,’ and ‘Christ in you,’ are two quite distinct experiences.

What is your point about ‘grace,’ and ‘redemption,’ in the old covenant? Is this supposed to add something to, For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ (Joh 1:17)? Israel’s redemption and grace in God’s sight was not the reality of redemption. It was “typical of us.” Here is the scripture:

1Co 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;1Co 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses [ Torah] in the cloud and in the sea;

1Co 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

1Co 10:5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

1Co 10:6 Now these things were our examples [ Gk. – tupos – typical], to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

1Co 10:7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.

1Co 10:8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.

1Co 10:9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

1Co 10:10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.

1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

Do you see those two English words ‘examples’ and ‘ensamples?’ They are both translated from one Greek word, and that Greek word is ‘tupos.’ The entire history of “Israel according to the flesh” happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world [ Greek – aion – age] are come. ” “They are written for our admonition,” because they are ‘types of us.’ ‘Types’ are not realities. “Thou goest with us” does not excel “Christ in you, the hope of glory.” It bears repeating: “ALL these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.” And for what purpose?

Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

This is a “mystery,” a secret, “hidden,” but not revealed in Torah until “the time of reformation.” And even then it took many years before this “mystery,” this secret, could be accepted by those who were under Torah.

Joh 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Let’s go back to the ‘bread from heaven’ to make this point. According to Torah the manna was “bread from heaven.”

Exo 16:4 Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no.
Exo 16:5 And it shall come to pass, that on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they bring in; and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily.

We have seen that Christ thought very little of “preparing on the sixth day.” He and His disciples did that “which was not lawful” (Mat 12:1-5). But look at what He has to say about manna being ‘bread from heaven:’

Joh 6:31 Our [ the multitude that followed Christ] fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
Joh 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

You see, “The True Bread from Heaven” is not the ‘typical’ ‘tupos’ ‘bread from heaven.’ “The bread of God is He which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.” This is the “true bread from heaven.” How does He accomplish ‘giving life unto the world?’

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that [ gives life]; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Torah is not “the words that I speak unto you”. The ‘manna from heaven’ could not “give life unto the world.” That ‘manna’ of Torah was typical. Never once in Torah do we read ‘Obey these words and you will have life everlasting.’ Moses could never have said to Israel “the words that I have spoken unto you they are Spirit and they are life” simply because “the law [ Torah] is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient” (1Ti 1:9). It is a “ministration of death.”

2Co 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: [ because it was only ‘typical,’ glory]
2Co 3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

You say that Jesus brought love, where the Torah brought condemnation. You site several “contradictions” that you believe verify your claims. If we use this same system of comparison, we will see that Jesus didn’t bring love or even grace. But, according to your method, he brought about a greater condemnation. Here are some comparisons:

Torah	Christ
Honor your father and mother.	You must HATE your father and mother.
Messiah will bring peace.	“I came not to send peace, but a sword.”
Only those who physically kill are murderers.	If you even hate your brother, you are a murderer.
Adulterers are only those who are physically.	I am condemned as an adulterer, even in my heart.

These are only three, but the example could go on. It’s just a way to set one idea against another, no matter what your theological persuasion.

First of all, I am not the author of the phrase “ministration of condemnation.” The Author of that phrase is the Holy Spirit of God via the pen of the apostle Paul:

2Co 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation [ Torah] be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness [ New Covenant] exceed in glory.

Then you say: “If we use the same system of comparison … It’s just a way to set one idea against another … according to your method (that would be my method), He brought about greater condemnation.” ‘According to my method?’ Let’s see what Christ had to say about the effect of His words:

Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall no t come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light [ Christ and His New Covenant] is come into the world, and men loved darkness [‘shadows,’ Torah – Heb.10:1] rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth [ the words of Christ as opposed to the law] cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

It is revealing indeed that at the very moment that Saul of Tarsus was “making havoc of the church,” and slaughtering the true ‘people of God,’ at that very moment he could still rightly claim:

Php 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

So yes, if you reject the “words of Christ” as opposed to Torah, He definitely does bring ‘greater condemnation.’

But I have quoted nothing but the scriptures to demonstrate that:

Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law [ Torah], shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was [ is and always will be, generation by generation] our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster [ Torah].

Paul here is saying nothing more or less than Christ when he answered the disciples of John the baptist and the disciples of the Pharisees:

Luk 5:36 And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment [ the words of Christ, the new covenant] upon an old [ Torah]; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old
Luk 5:37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles [ trying to make Mat. 5-7 agree with Torah] ; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.
Luk 5:38 But new wine must be put into new bottles [ because they have very little in common]; and both are preserved [ To do what they are both designed to do – (Rom 3:31) Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. And yet, it is still true, (Gal 3:25) But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. Both are preserved. “The law [ will always] bring us to Christ, [ at which point] we are no longer under the schoolmaster.”]

Knowing how hard it is for the flesh to understand the things of the Spirit, Christ could safely predict that:

Luk 5:39 No man … having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old [ Torah] is better.

So it is to this day.

As we have quoted above, Torah forbade the Israelites to offer an offering or to keep the festivals anywhere but in Jerusalem. ‘The True Bread from Heaven’ told the Samaritan ‘woman at the well,’ contrary to Torah:

Joh 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Joh 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we [ Christ and those in Him] know what we worship: for salvation is of the [ inward- Rom 2:27-28] Jews.
Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. [“The law is not of faith” (Gal 3:12) and “without faith it is impossible to please God”( Heb. 11:6)].

These statements are contrary to the teachings of Torah. I will believe Christ.

The main reason this theological dichotomy exists is because of the caricature we have created of the religion of Moses and the Prophets, as well as of Jesus and his disciples. We believe incorrectly that we understand the Judaisms of the Bible. However, our perception of Judaism is merely a silhouette of the Catholicism of the Middle Ages painted upon the Jews.

The main reason this theological dichotomy exists is because we fail to understand that Christ is what fulfilled every ‘jot and tittle’ of the law. The main reason this dichotomy exists is that we have thought that “these least commandments” of Mat 5:19 refers to Torah, when the very next verses make it clear that they refer to Christ’s new commandments: “You have heard it said of old [ Torah] … but I say unto you… [ New Covenant]” six times in a row! The word of Christ during His earthly ministry “agrees not with the old” because ‘the old was a “carnal commandment” God gave Moses for the carnal nation of Israel. “The law is not made for a righteous [ nation].” We simply do not appreciate this ‘dichotomy,’ because we do not want to believe that it was God, in the person of Christ Himself, who created Adam of corruptible dust, shapen in sinful nakedness (Psa. 51:5). Adam and Eve were as naked as the Laodicean church even before they ever ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It was Eve’s lust which she had by her God- given earthy, naked nature that caused her to succumb to the serpent’s tempting words. It was only after they had eaten that they became aware of their already corruptible, naked, sinful condition; the condition in which God Himself had created them. It was their pre- existing earthy, corruptible, naked condition that assured that they would eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, as God had intended and had already prepared a sacrifice to cover. This is what causes all the confusion in the Church today. Refusing to accept the truth of :

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
Isa 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

The church refuses to acknowledge that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” (Rom 9:16). Read ‘After The Counsel of His Own Will’ on this web page.

We cannot accept this dichotomy, because we do not believe:

Rom 8:20 For the creature was made [ created] subject to vanity, not willingly [ not because he used his fabled free, uncaused, will], but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope…

So it is with Torah. Speaking of Torah, Paul says:

Rom 7:7 I had not known sin, but by the law [ Torah]: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Paul tells us:

2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began…
Tit 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

And again we are told:

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him [ the beast], whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

All these scriptures tell us that God’s plan does not depend upon the will of man. “It is not of him that wills,” (Rom 9:16), rather it is:

Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope.

So Adam was “made subject to vanity” deliberately, by God Himself through Christ, “predestined” to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He never ‘fell’ as the Adversary wants us to believe. He was “made subject to vanity,” he was “naked,” the scriptural type of sinfulness, he was made of “dust,” the scriptural type of corruption. Adam was made all of this from the maker’s hand. And just as “before faith comes,” we must be “kept under sin … kept under the law,” so Adam had to first be “kept under sin.” He and Eve had to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, also created by God, before they could even become aware of how God had made them. To put it in the words of the apostle, he “would not have known sin [ realized that he had been created naked, “not willingly but by reason of Him who created the same in hope”] but by the law” (Rom 7:7). In other words, had he not first eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Paul would not have known sin. We can never come to God except through law [ Torah]. Then, and only then, will we understand:

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [ Torah] is the knowledge of sin.

Now we can understand what Paul means when he says:

Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Just as the first Adam, the typical Adam is replaced by Christ, so ‘the tree of knowledge of good and evil, typifies Torah, and must be replaced by the “new commandments of ‘the Tree Of Life,’ which is also Christ. As Christ puts it, even a “piece that is taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.”

You ask if I believe that and “eye for an eye” is still in effect. Yes, I do. You however, seem to think it is retaliation. However, this is not what this passage is about. It is about something called “restitution.” In the passage you site (Exo 21:24-25), you skipped over the part right before that (vs. 22) that says:

“If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.”

And you also left out the part right after that (vs 26-27) which says:

“And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.”

This is why context is so important. If the concept of “eye for eye” and “tooth for tooth” meant what we believe they mean, why don’t these passages that are spelling out this concept view it as such? Why doesn’t Scripture say:

This “idol of your heart,” your determination to put the new wine into the old bottles, has so blurred your vision that you cannot even read your own Torah and understand what it is saying. Let’s read this section of Torah and see who it is who is really “skipping over” certain hard to explain verses:

Exo 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.[ Is this restitution?]
Exo 21:18 And if [ free Israelite] men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:
Exo 21:19 If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit [ This means he doesn’t have to die in retribution]: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him [ the free man he injured] to be thoroughly healed. [ This is restitution. He can make restitution only if the man doesn’t die. If he does die, then: Exo 21:12 “He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.” This is retribution]
Exo 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid [ You see the contrast Torah makes here; a slave is not worth as much as a fellow citizen.], with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. [ Not put to death as he would have been had this man been a fellow citizen]
Exo 21:21 Notwithstanding, i f he [ the slave] continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. [ outdated? Yes!]
Exo 21:22 If [ free Israelite] men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow [ she isn’t permanently injured; she doesn’t die]: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. [ Yes, restitution! But let’s not skip the next verse]
Exo 21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, [ “If any mischief follow,” is an entirely different circumstance than one that could be rectified with restitution. “If any mischief follow,” means that the woman either died or lost an eye, tooth, hand or foot, or was permanently scarred by burning. These injuries, inflicted on a fellow citizen, require retribution not restitution, according to Torah]
Exo 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Exo 21:25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Exo 21:26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, [ See the difference? There is no eye for an eye in the case of a slave; the slave is simply given his freedom] or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake.

“And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall have his own eye gouged out as punishment.” ???? The point is that it doesn’t. The concept of “eye for eye” is restitution.

Oh, but it does for a fellow citizen. Only in the case of a mere slave is restitution acceptable. Don’t expect to get by with simple restitution if you injure a fellow citizen who is not your personal property.

“He shall have his own eye gouged out as punishment,” is exactly what is called for when “[ free] men strive with [ free] men.” Without further comment I give you Torah:

Deu 19:18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his [ free citizen] brother;
Deu 19:19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
Deu 19:20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.
Deu 19:21 And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

That is Torah for what is to be done when a free Israelite male injures another, his equal.

You shall do unto him as he had thought to have done unto his brother … thine eye shall not pity but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. This is retribution. It is not restitution. Restitution was only for injustice inflicted on a slave. Are we to believe that what is really being said here is “Then he shall restore unto his brother as he had thought to have done unto his brother?” No, he has sought to injure a brother, his equal, and according to Torah, the penalty is equal retribution. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you just doesn’t follow such an interpretation. Yet you go on to say:

It instills within us the value that if we hurt someone or damage their property, then we owe them some type of restitution on the same scale as the offense (whether it were intentional or otherwise).

Only if we hurt a slave. If the slave takes a couple of days before he dies, then we don’t even have to worry about restitution.

Exo 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he [ the slave] continue a day or two, he [ the owner of the slave] shall not be punished: for he [ the slave] is his [ the owners] money.

Verses like that one and this:

Deu 21:14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her [ your wife], then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

These verses almost make your youth minister look like a considerate man.

To follow Deu 19:16-21 would instill a fear of retribution. Were the Pharisees looking for ‘restitution’ from the woman caught in adultery? Why did Christ, if He had such a high regard for Torah, not say ‘Bring in the man you caught her with, and let’s get this stoning under way as Torah requires?’ Here is Torah:

Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Is this a call for restitution? And How does Christ explain the proper way to understand Torah here? You are not arguing with me; the words that are bothering you are the words of Christ and Paul:

Joh 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. [ Where are these words to be found in Torah?]
Joh 8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
Joh 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
Joh 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
Joh 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. [ Does this sound like Torah? I think this is ‘new wine ‘ and ‘new cloth.’]

You continue:

How many who call themselves Christians today have that value? When, as a teenager, my youth pastor ruined the paint on my truck and nearly did the same with my tires, did he offer to make it right? Of course not. Being divorced from God’s instructions, our subjectivity is all that matters.

Following Torah might have helped you, D_____, but it would not have given your youth pastor what he really needed and what is lacking in Torah. What is lacking in Torah is a change in the heart. “The law is not made for a righteous man” (1 Ti.1:9). What is lacking in Torah is the Spirit of Christ. Had Your youth pastor had the Spirit of Christ, he would not have needed Torah because he would have, from the heart, “done unto you as he would have had you to do unto him” (Mat 7:12 and Luk 6:31). When it comes to the hypocrisy of Christianity, you will get no argument from me. But ‘do unto others as you would have them to do unto you,’ is better than anything you will find in Torah. Torah is written for those with “hardened hearts.” “If you find no delight in her … If he live a day or two you won’t even be punished.” These are Gods laws alright, but they “are not made for a righteous man but for the lawless and disobedient” (1Ti 1 9), “because of the hardness of your hearts” (Mat 19:8).

When Jesus says, “You have heard it said…” He is not referring to a quotation of the Law (even though the wording might overlap). He is referring to the common interpretation of a specific statement of the Law. If He were referring to the actual Law, He would do so as He does in other places by saying “It is written…” He is not saying “My Law is greater” in any sense, because He is not dealing with the Law at all, but with the common interpretation of it.

“Wording might overlap?” The wording is often identical! If Christ is not here to make a change in the law, why then does He make this statement?:

Joh 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. Christ was careful that “His words,” should never be confused with Torah.

Every time Christ said ‘you have heard it said by them of old time’, He is talking specifically about Torah. Here they are in Torah:

1. Christ – Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

   Torah – Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

   Exo 21:12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

    

2. Christ – Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:Torah – Exo 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery

    

3. Christ – Mat 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:Torah – Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [ it] in her hand, and send her out of his house.

    

4. Christ – Mat 5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear [ swear falsely] thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:Torah – Deu 6:13 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name. [ outdated?]

   Lev 19:12 And ye shall not swear by my name falsely [ Forswear thyself], neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

    

5. Christ – Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:Torah – Deu 19:21 And thine eye shall not pity; [ but] life [ shall go] for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

    

6. Christ – Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.Torah – Lev 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people [ only], but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

   Deu 7:2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them [ thine enemy] before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

There they are. Every time Christ said, ‘you have heard that it hath been said by them of old time.’ Do you still insist that “When Jesus says, ‘You have heard it said…’ He is not referring to a quotation of the Law (even though the wording might overlap)?”

Christ is referring to nothing but the plain teachings of Torah. Christ utterly despised the things that had been added to the law, and wasted not one word arguing such nonsense. But in His so- called ‘sermon on the mount,’ He goes to great length to make it clear that He is here on this earth to introduce a “new commandment,” and a “new covenant.” Christ wants it made clear that:

Luk 5:36 No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.
Luk 5:37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.
Luk 5:38 But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.

Christ was well aware that change is not something that men do well, and He ended this parable about the introduction of His new covenant and its teachings with this solemn warning:

Luk 5:39 No man also having drunk old [ covenant] wine, straightway desireth new [ covenant]: for he saith, The old is better.

And yet you continue:

Thus we have the example of the “eye for eye” that you sited. What does this mean? First we must assess who Jesus is talking to. Is he talking to the Offender, or the Offended? The Torah addresses the Offender. Jesus addresses the Offended. The Torah says that the Offender must make restitution. Jesus says that although the Torah makes provision for the Offended, they should not demand the restitution. Restitution rests on the shoulders of the Offender, not the Offended.

This paragraph displays how an ” idol of the heart” will blind us to truth. What you failed to assess was whether Torah was speaking of a fellow citizen or a slave. If a man kill or injures a mere slave he simply loses “his money” if the slave dies. If he survives, he has to give him his freedom as restitution. Not so for injuries and death inflicted upon a fellow freeman, a fellow Israelite. In that case the penalty was:

Exo 21:12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
Deu 19:19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother:
Deu 19:21 And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

There is no room for restitution except in the case of the abuse of a slave, and even then restitution is only “if no mischief follow.”

Show me once, D_____, where the teachings of Christ are ever concerned with distinctions between slave and slave owners. No, that was only in the “old, fading away, vanishing, hath no glory, nailed to the cross, abolished , disannulled, carnal commandment, old cloth and old wine bottle,” Torah. If all those phrases and descriptions taken from both Paul and Christ do not get the point across that a “better covenant,” with a “new commandment,” and a new “high priest” is on the scene, then truly the locusts out of the smoke of the bottomless pit have “darkened the light of the sun.”

I have no doubt that men will always ‘prefer the old,’ but I am equally convinced that “the new agrees not with the old.”

You continue:

You also do not take seriously the words of Jesus when he says that he did not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them. Of course, when we have the liberty to subjectively interpret Scripture on a random basis, we don’t have to deal with topics like this. However, if we look at the Hebrew use (because Jesus was a Hebrew, of course) of the phrase Jesus uses when He talks about “abolishing” and “fulfilling” we will find a very clear understanding of what is about to happen in His teaching. When two rabbis would discuss Scripture, they would each give their interpretation. If one thought the other had an extremely erroneous interpretation of a particular Scripture, he would say that the other was “abolishing” Scripture by his interpretation, because his interpretation did injustice to it. If the accused rabbi held to his interpretation, and sincerely believed that his understanding validated the Scripture, and helped it to be understood properly, he would say that he was not “abolishing” Scripture, but “fulfilling” it. Thus the words of Jesus become a lot clearer: Not only did He come to change them, but to bring their proper interpretation.

This is all very interesting, but it has absolutely no application to a rabbi who makes statements like “I am greater than the temple,” and “I am Lord also of the sabbath.” Christ never once in His entire ministry uttered the words “The original intent of Torah is…” He did say, “Moses, for the hardness of your hearts…” That is the original intent of Torah.

Did Christ fulfill the prophecies concerning His first coming? Of course he did! Are we to continue to prophecy the first coming of Christ? Of course not. To use Christ’s own words, “it is finished.” Has Christ fulfilled the entire sacrificial system? Yes He has. Are we to continue to sacrifice? Should we continue to sacrifice animals to celebrate Christ’s sacrifice? Of course not. Is Christ our circumcision? Yes, we are now “circumcised without hands.” Should we continue to circumcise with hands? No.

And the verse you accuse me of ignoring is:

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

In the next verse Christ makes this statement:

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Do you see that? “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Obviously, Jesus Christ IS every jot and every tittle of the law, and in His sacrifice He has fulfilled it all. So if we do not sacrifice animals or circumcise, why do we “observe days months times and years?” And why do we yet submit ourselves to ordinances which tell us “touch not taste not handle not.”

Col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world[“the law is not made for a righteous man bot for the lawless”], why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Col 2:21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; [ All contained in the “fading away … waxing old … old covenant”]
Col 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of [ for the lawless] men?

For a complete treatment of all the verses on this subject, read ‘The Law of Moses Versus The Law of The Spirit.’

If your understanding of Mat 5:18 is correct, then all these outdated “laws for the lawless and the disobedient,” all these carnal commandments allowing for human slavery, polygamy, divorce of one’s wives, but not one’s husbands, legalized retribution of the grossest forms, all the 613 carnal commandments of the “fading away … waxing old … old covenant, Torah, would be the law “till heaven and earth pass.”

Now notice this stern warning that comes in the very next verse:

Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

It is at this exact point that Christ begins his assault on the teachings of Torah. And His assaults are not ‘the least commandments in Torah. They are in reality the very heart and core of Torah. Will Christ be “the least in the kingdom of heaven,” because He taught against the greatest commandments of Torah? I don’t think so.

Joh 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

It should be becoming obvious that ALL the requirements of Torah, every jot and tittle, are fulfilled in Christ. It should be obvious that when Christ talks about not teaching against “one of these least commandments,” He is talking about His own commandments which He is in the middle of giving when He makes this statement. He is talking about the commandments he gives in the ‘sermon on the mount.’

Thus, when Scripture speaks of murder, some of the Pharisees would limit this to the actual, physical slaughter of a person. Jesus explains that God’s original intent for giving such a command was that it would not even be in our hearts, because what is in the heart eventually is expressed outwardly whether in word or deed. He declares His interpretation of this Scripture as the “final word” in the matter. All of the subsequent teachings can be viewed accordingly.

The original intent of Torah was “for the hardness of your hearts” (Mat 19:8), and “that the offence might abound” (Rom 5:20). You talk about “putting new cloth on an old garment!” But you are not alone, D_____. Many Christians, not understanding that “think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets,” means that Christ came to explain them better, just as you do. What Christ really means is that the law will always be our “schoolmaster to bring us to Christ … but after that faith is come we are no longer under a [ law] schoolmaster” (Gal 3:25). This is how “Old wine is put in old bottles and both are preserved.” Show me; I want to see where Christ “explains that God’s original intent for giving such a command was that it would not even be in our hearts, because what is in the heart eventually is expressed outwardly whether in word or in deed!” Here is Torah: He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death (Exo 21:12). Paul gives you the truth, if you can receive it: The law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient… (1Ti 1:9).

Show me where Christ “declares His interpretation of this scripture as the final word in the matter!” Christ did not interpret Torah. When will this world accept the fact that Torah “is not for a righteous man?” When will this world ever admit that Christ came with a “new commandment?”

Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

Agape is nowhere to be found in Torah!

1Jn 2:8 Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness [“Shadows” of Torah] is past, and the true light [ not the typical light of Torah] now shineth.
Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things…

A shadow is the absence of the “true light. ” That “shadow,” is Torah!

If you can back up your claim that Christ came to properly interpret Torah and to give us Torah’s “original intent, I will post it on my web page with an apology to all my readers for my heretical teachings. Just take the time to do as I have done and line by line give the scriptures that show how Christ explains the original intent of Torah to be His words.

“But I say unto you…” is not “explaining original intent.” “But I say unto you” are the words of a reformer. They are the words Moses spoke when he said ‘you used to offer offering where ever you were, as you do this day. But I say unto you be careful not to do that any longer. From now on you must come to the priest, at the tabernacle.’ Christ Himself tells us that the ‘original intent of Torah was for “the hardness of your hearts Moses [ Torah] suffered you to write a bill of divorcement…” That was the “original intent” of Torah. That is why Torah provides no punishment for the murder of a slave “if he continue a day or two”:

Exo 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
Exo 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Paul tells us that the original intent of the law was “the law entered, that the offence might abound” (Rom 5:20). He also tells us that the original and the present intent of the law is “to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” (Gal 3:24 ). He then goes on to tell us:

Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

We are not now under the fabled “original intent ” of the schoolmaster. The entire message of the book of Galatians is to warn us against remaining “under tutors and governors,” under Torah (Gal 4:1).

When Paul says that “Christ is the end of the law…” (Rom 10:4), we need to understand this properly. The Greek word for “end” here is “telos.” It is the word from which we get the word “telescope.” While it can have the meaning of “end” in the sense of a “cessation” of something, most of the time in the New Testament it means the “end” in the sense of the “goal” or “end product.” This is what Paul is trying to communicate: Messiah is not the termination of the Law, but the “goal” of the Law “for righteousness to everyone that believeth.” This fits perfectly with what he says about growing up “into him who is the Head, that is, Christ.” (Eph 4:15).

There is much Truth in what you say here D_____. When we “grow up into Him who is the Head,” we “are no longer under a schoolmaster.” So what do we do with a “schoolmaster who has done a good job up to the point that we personally, no longer need his assistance? Do we shoot him dead just because he is no longer of any value to us personally? No, a thousand times no! We “establish the law” (Rom 3:31). We now let the law continue to do for others what it has been doing so faithfully ever since the death and resurrection of Christ. We let it bring others to Christ. Then they too, will be “no longer under a school master.”

According to Gal 4:1, ‘growing up’ means coming out from under the tutor and governor that Torah is.

Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin [ under the ‘elements of the world,’ “not made for a righteous man”Torah], that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law [ Torah, hard to believe isn’t it? ‘Under the law,’ is being equated with “concluded all under sin”], shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Also, you have made very anti- Semitic comments that “… the law of Moses was for a carnal, Christ- rejecting Israel.” You will never be able to reconcile Torah and grace until you remember Rom 11, in which Paul specifically warns us:

“If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!” (Rom 11:17-24, NIV)

This is exactly what you have done with your boasting. It seems that in your criticism of the “Pharisees,” you have become the one who prayed, “God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are…”

So I am “anti- Semitic?” Are you actually saying that Israel did not reject their Messiah? Are you actually telling me that if I say that Israel rejected their that I am “anti- semetic?” Let’s see what Christ and the apostles say about that:

Joh 5:16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
Joh 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
Joh 7:1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.
Joh 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Joh 11:8 His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee; and goest thou thither again?
Joh 18:12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,
Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Joh 19:7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
Act 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye [ men of Isreal] have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Act 3:13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.
Act 10:39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
Act 14:2 But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren.
Act 26:21 For these causes t he Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.
Php 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.

Wow! I’m almost afraid to even quote this next one, but it is scripture, regardless of what church leaders think:

1Th 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
1Th 2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
1Th 2:16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

And all I said was, ‘Christ rejecting.’ And I am “anti- Semitic.” Was Paul ‘anti- Semitic?’ Is this verse above “very anti- Emetic?”

As Mel Gibson told Diane Sawyer, “I saw Schindler’s List, and I’m not anti- German.”

You, in your frustration and determination to defend your heart’s idol, accuse me of being ‘anti- semetic.’ You also accuse me of self- righteousness: “It seems that in your criticism of the ‘Pharisees,’ you have become the one who prayed, ‘God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are…'” I impute no such motives to you, D_____. That is because I am aware of the Truth of Matt. 13:11-15. I only want you to see what Christ actually taught so you will not be sucked into the false teaching of the fallen Christian Churches, whether Catholic and Protestant or Independent. They are all “Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots and of abominations of the earth.” God calls His people “out of Babylon.” The “few chosen,” are chosen out of the “many called.” They are told to “come out her my people.”

Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Mat 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

Mat 13:15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Mat 13:16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

Mat 13:17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them [ because they are not in Torah].

The only one among God’s called- out people who can hear the words of Christ are they to whom “it is given… to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them [ those ‘people of God’ who are called but not chosen] it is not given.“

The only thing gained by denying that it was God’s own nation, that rejected and crucified Christ, is to deny that it will be God’s own people today who will yet reject the words of Christ.

Joh 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they [ the religious world] have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also

Joh 15:18 If [ they] hate you, ye know that [ they] hated me before [ they] hated you.

The persecution of those who bring the truth of God’s word, never has, and never will come primarily, from any who are not claiming to be His people.

Joh 16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues [ not mosques]: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever [ God’ own Christian people] killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

Rev 11:8 And their dead bodies [ God’s own witnesses] shall lie in the street of the great city [ God’s own people], which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

Rev 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews [ spiritual, inward Jews-Rom 2:28-29], and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

“The great city … where also our Lord was crucified” and “the synagogues” are both symbols of those who claim to be the followers of Christ but are in reality a ‘Harlot or a daughter harlot.’

Luk 13:33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of [ spiritual] Jerusalem.

Christ, who knows the future, has already told us: Mat 10:36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own [ spiritual] household.

So I expect nothing less if I am true to the words of Christ. But His words will judge me in that day, and He knows the anguish I feel for the Jews who are living in a war zone. He knows how I long for the day when it will no longer be that way. He knows my heart, and I do not need to fear what others may think or say of me, so long as I remain faithful to His word.

Lastly, while a debate is fun, it is not productive until one of the parties involved are willing to objectively re- examine the evidences. Since your entire theology is based on subjectivity (i. e. your “spirit”), and not upon the foundation of Scripture (God’s plumbline), there is no point in continuing a nonproductive dialogue that is contingent solely upon opinion. You are enjoying breaking God’s laws, and are teaching others to do the same (another thing Jesus specifically warns us about–Mat 18:6, Mar 9:42, Luk 17:2). I’ll be praying for mercy on your behalf.

You are right about one thing, D_____, so long as it is just “one of the parties involved [ that needs] to objectively re- examine the evidences,” truly “there is no point in continuing a nonproductive dialogue that is contingent solely upon opinion.” I have been diligent to let the scriptures do my talking for me. But when you say “one of the parties,” you of course, mean me. And it is my “subjectivity” that is “not upon the foundation of scripture.” And I am “enjoying breaking God’s laws and teaching others to do the same.”

And yet you say of me, “You have become the one who prayed, ‘God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are…'” I only hope that your “prayers for mercy on my behalf” are for more mercy than Torah would have shown to the woman caught in the very act of adultery. I do truly thank you for your prayers.

D_____, Paul says that your teachings have you still ‘under tutors and governors, and no more than a slave to the elements of this world.’ He tells you plainly that the law you so admire is “not made for a righteous man” and “is not of faith” and is “waxing old and fading away.” I hope all these verses put together will help you to see that “the new agrees not with the old.”

In His service,

Mike

Hi D_____,

Thank you for reading my material and taking the time to write me about it. It would really help if you would let me know exactly what I said that violates the scriptures. You quote me Psa.119:160 as if you actually believe that we should still exact an eye for an eye.

Exo 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Exo 21:25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

There is what you are referring to as “God’s Law of which the Psalmist says ‘All Your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal’ (Psa 119:160).”

Now if “all your righteous laws are eternal,” is referring to ‘Torah,’ then why does Christ come along and nullify these plain words of Torah?

Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:[ Moses- Torah – Old Covenant]

Mat 5:39 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. [ Jesus Christ – New Covenant].

This blatant contradiction of Torah typifies Christ’s entire ministry. It cost Him His life. Can you imagine Christ coming today and standing in the middle of Jerusalem and telling the people there, “love your enemies … resist not evil … all who take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Mat 5:38-44 and 26:52). I personally can’t imagine Him saying that to our Christian Republican National Party, with our Christian president without being run out of town. Christ kingdom is truly “not of this world.” Torah

The nation of Israel and the Arabs both subscribe to the teaching of Torah, ‘an eye for an eye.’ It is plain for the whole world to see where that teaching is getting them. What is Paul referring to when he says:

2Co 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

What is it that was ‘engraven in stones?’

Can you imagine Christ returning today, to Jerusalem, and teaching, “love your enemy, resist not evil, all who take the sword shall perish with the sword.” Why I cannot imagine our Christian Republican National Party and it’s Christian president putting up with such teachings. Truly Christ’s kingdom, is “not of this world.”

Torah, on the other hand, is for this world;”hate you enemy and an eye for an eye”

Here is what Christ, through the apostle Paul, tells us is the proper place and function of Torah:

1Ti 1:5 Now the end of the commandment [ of Mat 5-7] is charity out of a pure heart, and of a goodconscience and [ of] faith unfeigned:

1Ti 1:6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;

1Ti 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law [ Torah]; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

1Ti 1:8 But we know that the law [ Torah] is good, if a man use it lawfully;

1Ti 1:9 Knowing this [ Meaning this], that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine [ defined as “the words of our Lord Jesus Christ” in 1Ti 6:3]

1Ti 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words [ this word ‘wholesome’ is the same Greek word ‘hugiaino‘ – 5198- translated ‘sound’ in the verse quoted above], even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

When the apostles refer to ‘sound doctrine,’ or ‘wholesome words,’ they are not referring to Torah. They are referring to “the words of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth [ gives life]; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Christ did not speak Torah. If he had, then Moses would never have been inspired to say:

Deu 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken.

You have quoted Psa. 119:160. It is generally agreed by those who realize that Christ did not have a king James Bible, that the ‘from the beginning’ part of this verse is better translated ‘the sum.’ Most modern versions have corrected this verse to read: (Psa 119:160) The sum of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting (NASB).

Do you really believe that when God gave Moses Torah, that He considered it to be the ‘sum of His word?’ Here is the same thought just a few chapters later:

Psa 139:17 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!

It is this “unto Him you shall hearken;” it is this “sum of thy word” and not just past parts of it, that gives legitimacy to the ministry of Christ.

You ask this question:

I really believe that the negative view of the Laws of God comes from our English connotation of the word “law.” In Hebrew the word is “Torah” and means “instruction.” How can we ever say that God’s instructions are “outdated?”

The last thing in the world I want to do is to offend you, but I would like for you to tell me how I should apply this part of the “instructions of Torah?”:

Deu 21:14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her [ my wife], then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

If I had not “humbled her,” according to Torah I would be perfectly within my rights to sell her like any other of my possessions. Under Torah women were little more than cattle. Under Torah a man could divorce his wife “if [ he] have no delight in her.” Nowhere were women ever once allowed to divorce or sell their husbands under the ‘instructions of Torah.’

Do you see why the Pharisees asked Christ if a man could put away his wife “for any reason?” It was because unlike most Christians who are defending Torah as if it were “the sum of Thy Word,” the Pharisees were very familiar with the teachings of Torah and were well aware that Christ was constantly teaching against them. Show me the words “except for fornication” anywhere in the “instructions of Torah.” Very little of what Christ taught is to be found in Torah.

But that is because ‘Truth’ is not defined as “the sum [ the total] of thy word.” You see it was Moses himself who gave Israel God’s “law of a carnal commandment” and foretold the day of another great reformer “like unto me:”

Deu 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

Those words, “law of a carnal commandment” are taken from Hebrews chapter seven which deals with “a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof” (verse 18). So Christ, the reformer, comes and “changes, the law: ” After all, it was only meant to last “until the time of reformation.”

Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them [ only] until the time of reformation.

Christ is that reformation.

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed [ reformed], there is made of necessity a change [ reformation] also of the law.

Here are just a few of those changes:

Torah	Christ
Hate your enemy.	Love your enemy.
Do not kill your brother.	If you even hate your brother, you are a murderer.
Eye for an eye.	Resist not evil.
If you find no delight in her…	Except for fornication…
Don’t commit adultery.	Don’t look on a woman to lust after her.
Swear by my name.	Swear not at all.
Bear no burden on the Sabbath day.	Take up thy bed and walk.
On the sixth day, prepare for the seventh.	I, as the priests, can “profane the sabbath.”
Circumcise all males on the eighth day.	Circumcision is that of the heart.
Israelite “according to the flesh.”	If ye be in Christ, then are ye Abraham’s seed.
Gentiles are aliens from Israel.	Gentiles are now fellow citizens in the commonwealth of Israel.

You ask this question:

How can we ever say that God’s instructions are “outdated?” And how could we ever say that Christ “deliberately violated” the Laws of God? This would make Him totally inadequate for our salvation, as He would have been a lawbreaker. This would immediately make Him a sinner. Therefore He would not be the Spotless Lamb, but a blemished offering that would be totally unacceptable to the Father. There is also no evidence anywhere in Scripture that Christ violated any of the Law.

If Christ had kept the “carnal ordinances” of Torah, He would have been unfit to be our “spotless Lamb.” Was Christ a “righteous man?” Of course, He was. And what are we told of Torah? The law [ Torah] is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers (1Ti 1:9).

We are told that I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed (Mal. 3:6). Then Paul informs us:

Rom 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Verse 13 tells us that “there was no law … until the law [ of Moses].” Verse 15 then tells us, Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses [ the period when “there was no law yet given”], even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Yet we are told that the pre- flood world was so lawless that God had to destroy “all in whose nostrils was the breath of life.”

If no law had been given, “sin is not imputed when there is no law,” how could men have been considered lawless? Paul answers that question:

Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law [ Torah]? It was added [ to the already existing law of God that Changes not, but only until the ‘times of reformation’ ] because of transgressions[ because man is totally incapable of’ loving his enemy’ without Christ in him. So a ‘carnal commandment,’ for a carnal nation was, ‘for the hardness of their hearts,’ ‘added,’ only], till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

As Christ told Peter, “Flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto you, but my Father which is in heaven,” so it is with you and with me, D_____. All truth comes only by divine revelation. I will convince you of nothing. You will convince me of nothing. Only the Word of God can convince anyone of anything.

You ask, “Why would the Written Word be contrary to the Word Made Flesh?” Once you understand that Christ is the great reformer prophesied of by no less than Moses himself, then you can understand that “the written Word” is “The scriptures… they which testify of me” (Joh 5:39). Then you will understand how Christ could so blatantly contradict the scripture just accurately quoted to Him by “the multitudes” who had followed Him across the Sea of Galilee:

Joh 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. [ Accurately quoted from both Ex. 16:4 and Neh. 9:15.]

Joh 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

Christ is right here contradicting the ‘law of Moses,’ Torah. Torah says manna was ‘bread from heaven;’ Christ say it is “not that bread from heaven.”

You say:

I know that you’ve built quite a bit of teaching around this premise, and to even think about a different perspective now would seem like spiritual suicide … but the Holy Spirit can always heal those whose wineskins have burst due to the new wine if we are willing.

This parable was spoken specifically to “the disciples of John and of the Pharisees”:

Mar 2:18 And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast: and they come and say unto him, Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?

Luk 16:16 The law and the prophets were [ only] until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Based on these scriptures, who really is it that is guilty of “putting new wine into old wine bottles or new cloth on an old garment?”

If the old wine of the old covenant is allowed to continue to do its job of “bringing us to Christ” only “until faith comes,” at which time “we are no longer under the [ Torah] schoolmaster,” then and only then can we say with Christ:

Luk 5:37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.

Luk 5:38 But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.

But notice, the warning with which Christ concludes this parable:

Luk 5:39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old [ Torah] is better.

So it is unto this day. Despite all the absolutely carnal ordinances (hate your enemy, if you find no delight in her, an eye for an eye, etc.), Christianity still prefers the old wine.

I will let you close for me, D_____,

Instead of harping on you [ it’s a little late for that, but…], I’ll just pray that the Father would begin to reveal Himself to you in His fulness [ Christ the reformer] as you continue to seek His face. Keep the faith, and remember that all is based on how we love one another and that the world sees that love working through us. May you be richly blessed.

Love really is far more important than doctrine. Thank you for your concern, D_____.

In His love,

Mike Vinson