Mike,

You make some good points that cause me to think, and I like that.

“We do not [ even now] make void the law through faith, yea, we establish the law…[ to] bring us to Christ [ faith], but AFTER that faith is come WE ARE NO LONGER UNDER THE SCHOOLMASTER.”

This was a good quote that I had missed, thanks. Now the key to me here is faith. What is our faith in? The resurrection of Jesus. Without the shedding of his blood, his suffering, death, and resurrection, our faith would be in vain. Therefore the schoolmaster was there until Acts (and partially through Acts). We could not enter into the new covenant until his death. Is that correct?

I actually read or heard somewhere that Jesus kept the law perfectly (as intended by God), and I believe he did…

… I think Jesus was showing how the law was good and how it was meant to be kept if we were able. This doesn’t take away from the overall point of the paper which is great, needed and a must read.

If Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath as He points out, then how can He break it?

I know this is going to sound strange but just because the Bible says he broke the sabbath, doesn’t mean he broke the sabbath. How? Well, could the Lord of the sabbath break it? Could the Son of God blaspheme by claiming to be the “Son of God?” (or that God is his Father?). So in the Pharisees eyes he broke it and blasphemed… but did he really?

Why would Jesus teach people to do something unlawful? (break the law) Or why would he tell those he healed to do as the law of Moses instructs you and show yourself to the priest if he were teaching people to keep the new covenant law and to break the old law? What he taught was lawful, actually it was perfectly lawful, the way the law was intended to be kept. (see Mat 8:4, Mar 1:44, Mar 7:5-14, Mar 12 all versus Luk 2:22, Luk 5:14).

In Mar 7:7 Jesus complains about commandments of men… these were the perverted laws of moses changed by the Pharisees and compare Mar 7:9 where he speaks of the commandments of God… could these be the laws of Moses as they were intended? In vs. 10 he gives an example. He goes on to show the intent of the law and how they perverted the intent through tradition (a big problem in the church today which you so very well point out).

All of Mar 12 is a great example of someone who “gets it”. Here is a man who understands the intent and conveys his understanding to Jesus. Jesus commends him for his understanding, he does not tell him that he has it all wrong and should be “breaking the law”. He tells him he is not far from the kingdom because righteousness could not come through the law or through anything he could do, but this would only be revealed after Jesus’s death and resurrection.

You make a good point in the parables about wineskins and clothes but I think there was another point. The point was that people were doing something looking forward to Him and those who had Him didn’t need to look forward to Him because he was already there. I can’t base my understanding of this issue on one possible interpretation of a parable especially in light of the scriptures pointed to above.

I don’t see his teachings as breaking the law but an explanation of how one was supposed to interpret correctly and therefore keep the law thus fulfilling its requirements. Again please don’t read into my comments above as me thinking we are under the law today for righteousness. I’m convinced by Paul’s writings that that isn’t the case.

I agree with the premise of the article and strongly believe in its importance to lead people out of legalism and error. While this is the major point of agreement I think you went a little beyond what was necessary and Biblical to prove your point which will open the message up to unnecessary criticism.

For example. We agree that Jesus kept the law perfectly. You contend that he only had to do so when he became sin or something to that effect. I read over Mat 5 and parallel passages and I find Jesus teaching those under the law at the time how the law was meant for them to be kept as opposed to how the Pharisees had added to the regulations of the strict written code. There are too many instances where Jesus told Lepers to do as the law instructed to argue that he was teaching through disobedience to the law.

Now that being said, people incorrectly assume because the Gospels are part of the NT that the New Covenant commandments are to be found in these teachings. Paul makes it clear enough as you point out so well that this is not the case. The New Covenant didn’t come into existence until Jesus died and everyone around before his death were under the law.

He says he didn’t come to abolish the law and the prophets (the whole OT, not just the 10 commandments or the Mosaic law) and that no part of it would be done away with until all was fulfilled (heaven and earth passing away). Now, is the law and prophets abolished? No. Timothy says all scripture (he could only be talking about the OT since cannon took place much later or through the spirit speaking of the OT and NT) is good for…. So all is not completed until Jesus returns. Fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets does not require us to be under law. It is simply the culmination of what the entire OT points to. Jesus is the answer to the question asked by the entire OT and thus fulfills it.

I know I’ve asked a lot of questions and I thank you for sticking with me. I’ll try to focus in on a few of these so I can come to a better understanding as we have time during this discussion.

Thanks

G____

Hi G_____,

I do not mean to offend you, but you make several statements in this letter that are not true. For example, you make this statement:

“We agree that Jesus kept the law perfectly.”

I go to great lengths to point out that, “He not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God” (Joh 5:18).

When the spirit wants to say ‘They thought He had…’ it does that as when ‘they supposed him to be the son of Joseph.’

Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

The spirit does no such thing here, because it would have been inappropriate. Christ “had broken the sabbath” repeatedly and had told others to do so. “Take up thy bed and walk.” This was totally unnecessary except that Christ had to show us that He “is Lord of the sabbath…[ and] greater than the temple.”

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.
Mat 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Now there is no denying that the Pharisees had added to the law, but this is not a case of adding to the law. I cover this thoroughly in the paper. Go back and read it. I give the scriptures in the Old Testament that prohibit gathering manna or sticks on the sabbath. A man was stoned to death for gathering sticks and the manna bred worms. You were to prepare your sabbath foods “on the sixth day.” Christ blatantly violated this injunction of Moses’ law which Christ had given to Moses. Christ was reforming the law. He is our NEW high priest:

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

Next you say this:

… People incorrectly assume because the Gospels are part of the NT that the New Covenant commandments are to be found in these teachings. Paul makes it clear enough as you point out so well that this is not the case. The New Covenant didn’t come into existence until Jesus died and everyone around before his death were under the law.

“We do not [ even now] make void the law through faith, yea, we establish the law…[ to] bring us to Christ [ faith], but AFTER that faith is come WE ARE NO LONGER UNDERTHESCHOOLMASTER.”

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added [ parenthetically,”till the Seed should come”] because of transgressions [ not of promises but of an already existing, unchanging law that was being transgressed by all men. but it was “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.
Gal 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
Gal 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we [ all men of every generation since Christ] were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our [ all men of every generation since Christ] 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.

There it is. Mat 5-7 “agrees not with the old.”

Luk 5:36 And he spake also a parable unto them; 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.
Luk 5:39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

Christ spoke these words to “the disciples of John and of the Pharisees.” Why to them? Here is why:

Mat 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

The prophets and the law refer to the OT scriptures, not the law of Moses in particular.

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

What does this verse have to say for ‘grace and truth.’ before Christ? Like manna it was only in type ‘grace and truth.’

Joh 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
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 [ concerning this ‘as it is written scripture], Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

Once again, Christ contradicts what He Himself had told Moses:

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.

Until you come to see that everything physical is only typical or ‘type’, you will never understand anything Christ had to say! We are told this right here in this same chapter of John:

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

As “foolish ” as it seems to the carnal mind, God has chosen to speak to His elect ‘in code.’ A lamb is not a physical lamb, bread is not physical bread, old garments are not physical old garments, wine is not wine, “an outward Jew is not a Jew,” outward circumcision is not circumcision, outward Gentiles are not Gentiles, physical fornication is nowhere nearly as serious in God’s eyes as is spiritual fornication, and outward sabbath keeping is not “entering into that rest [ Christ].” Whoever continues to keep a one- in- seven physical ritual called ‘sabbath keeping’ is bearing witness against himself that he has reserved six days to himself to do his own works. In Christ we “cease from our own works. The physical sabbath was a shadow of Christ just a much as a slain lamb. Christ has “fulfilled” both shadows, and we “by [ keeping] the letter … transgress the law.”

Rom 2:27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

Where is the scripture that told Paul that the “everlasting sign of the covenant between God and Abraham and his descendants” had been fulfilled? I will tell you where Paul got that revelation. He got it from Christ himself:

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

Has one jot or Tittle passed from the law? What was “the law” that he spoke of here? Why would he speak of a jot or tittle if he were not speaking of written commands (these sayings we are reading in Mat 5 were not written at the time when Jesus was speaking… neither was any of the NT). He is speaking of the Law of Moses and the commands therein. He then proceeds to correctly interpret the commands. He is saying here that one must keep all the commandments to get to heaven (something Paul agrees with), but later, we find that we can’t and because of his grace don’t have to.

The emphasis is on “till all be fulfilled,” Not ’till heaven and earth pass.’ That is why ’till all be fulfilled,’ is last. That is why the verses be for and the verses immediately after this statement are nowhere to be found in the ‘law of Moses.’ Christ was careful never to call ‘the law’ anything other than “the law of Moses.” He never once referred to it as ‘the law of God.’ Christ knew better and he taught Paul and eventually all of His apostles that “The law [ of Moses] is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless…”

1Ti 1:9 … 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,
Gal 3:12 And the law is not of faith:
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Yes, the new covenant teachings are indeed to be found in the mouth of the great Reformer Himself right there in all four of the gospels! Christ not one time referred to anything ‘added’ by the Pharisees and scribes when he said “You have heard that it hath been said by them of old time…” He always quoted from or paraphrased the law itself.

Now the points below cause me problems that I have to harmonize. Where Jesus “clarified” eye for an eye with turn the other cheek is the best evidence I see that supports what you are saying. On this I must agree there is seemingly no consistency with the Law of Moses. Here He is showing a better way. I’ll have to study on this more because if the golden rule is in the Law of Moses then this is an example of how the golden rule was the second greatest of all the commandments… and it was, so it must be. Thus this (first and) second greatest commandment will “reinterpret” all the commandments of Moses and that is exactly what Jesus was showing. See Mark Ch 12.

Again, so we are clear and so you don’t have to drive this particular point home with me… I don’t believe we should be under the law and I know righteousness cannot come through the law or anything else we can do. Also, again, help me with the creature and Adam thing in Rom 8.

Christ admitted to “profaning the sabbath and doing that which it is not lawful for Him to do.” That was His answer to His accusers. He was not even attempting to tell them that He was actually keeping Moses. He was demonstrating what He taught everywhere else: “The new agreeth not with the old.” But just as He prophesied at that time, so it has been ever since:

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

The law of Moses will always be more palatable to the flesh, because that is what it is for. It “is made… for the lawless.” It will always be easier to “Not commit adultery,” than it will ever be to “not [ even] look on a woman to lust after her in your heart.”

It will always be more appealing to the flesh to administer its own justice, ‘an eye for an eye,’ than to “resist not evil [ and] turn the other cheek” etc., etc. How obvious it is that “the new agrees not with the old.” What Christianity doesn’t realize is that it is still under the law, just as the Corinthians, Galatians and Hebrews.

Gal 4:1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
Gal 4:2 But is under tutors and governors [ the schoolmaster of 3:24] until the time appointed of the father.

According to Christ, the “few chosen” will not tolerate remaining “under tutors governors” while the “many called” are still tolerating it.

I hope you can see that “the heir as long as he is a child,’ [ still under the schoolmaster, still under tutors and governors] is no better than a bond servant, a slave to the passions of his sins. This is truly who the law of Moses is for.

Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, 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.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if ye [ be] Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise
Gal 4:1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
Gal 4:2 But is under tutors and governors [ the schoolmaster of verse 24] until the time appointed of the father.
Gal 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world [ the law made for the lawless, 1Ti 1:9]:

God has never intended that “many called” Christians understand this subject. It is only to be understood by the elect. All but the elect are still “under the law.”

I have given you the scriptures that plainly state that this was the “time of reformation.” Reformations take time:

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

Christ started with one of the most revered laws of Moses; the sabbath. Why could they not bear these “many things?” Because a reformation that takes “Circumcise all your males on the eighth day. This shall be a sign between Me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout your generations,” and turns it into “Circumcision is nothing…” takes decades for even the great apostle Peter to accept. It is not “keeping the law” perfectly to say “Pick up your bed” on the sabbath. This point is driven home when Christ admits that he and his disciples as “David and those who were with him, did that which it was not lawfu l for [ them] to do.” And he admitted that He and his disciples, not one of which was descended from Aaron, as “the priests profane the sabbath and are blameless.”

Ask yourself, is this any language to use if you are trying to tell the world that you, as the perfect, spotless Lamb of God, had to keep the law of Moses perfectly. To do so requires hating your enemy and requiring an eye for an eye and swearing by God’s name only and divorcing your wife “if you find no delight in her.” Christ taught against all of these laws, and he also “profaned the sabbath and yet He was guiltless. He was not “guiltless” because He had “not broken the sabbath” as you say. He was guiltless because he had kept the “law of Christ” (Gal 6:2), the “perfect law of liberty” (Jas 2:12), the “law of the spirit” (Rom 8:2), etc. etc. perfectly. He “broke the sabbath,” did “that which was not lawful for Him to do,” profaned the sabbath,” taught the exact opposite of many Old Covenant commandments besides demonstrating that he had “profaned the sabbath. And yet, in spite of all this undeniable teaching and actions, you are still asking me:

If Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath as He points out, then how can He break it?

Why would Jesus teach people to do something unlawful? (break the law), or why would he tell those he healed to do as the law of Moses instructs and show themselves to the priest if he were teaching people to keep the new covenant law and to break the old law?

To whom was Christ revealing His new covenant?

Mat 5:1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
Mat 5:2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

He did not reveal His new covenant to the multitudes. He actually “gave them ears that could not hear and eyes that could not see, lest they should be converted …” If Christ knew and told His disciples that even they could not yet bear all the “many” changes He still had “to tell you,” why would He ever expect the blinded multitudes to keep His new covenant laws? He never expected that. Yet He made it crystal clear that He had no intention of mixing the two covenants:

Luk 5:36 And he spake also a parable unto them; 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.
Luk 5:39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

If Christ’s own words “The new agrees not with the old” do not tell you that Christ’s new covenant, love your enemy does not agree with “destroy everything that breaths,” I certainly have no illusions of doing what He is not doing. If you want to believe that Christ was talking about the law of Moses when he said…

Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these [ Christ’s commandments which He is in the middle of telling “His disciples”] 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.

If you think that means that Christ had to keep the law of Moses perfectly, since heaven and earth are still here, then you still do not understand that it is the law of Moses that is still to this day what brings us to Christ. It was never destroyed. It is still to this day to be kept in an old carnal wine skin, and to this very day old garments are still not to be mended by the new covenant law of Christ. They are to be kept separated, “and BOTH are preserved.” “The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” is not a statement that was true 2000 years ago. It is a statement that is true today, and will be true tomorrow for anyone for whom “faith is not yet come.”

The fact that most confused Christians do not consider themselves to be under the law does not change the fact that they are “before faith comes.” And faith does not come when most confused babes in Christ think it comes. Even after “accepting Christ as their Savior’ most Christians, just as the Galatianss and the Hebrews, continue to attempt to keep a law that was meant only “for the lawless.” That certainly leaves out our Savior wouldn’t you say?

1Ti 1:9 Knowing 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,

Had Christ kept the weekly Sabbath, then He would have had to be “unholy and profane.” By admitting that He had “profaned the sabbath and was instead “Lord of the sabbath, He is now qualified to be our spotless perfect sacrificial lamb, because just like the lamb itself, He is our rest, our ‘sabbath.’

Heb 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us [ today] of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
Heb 4:11 Let us labour [ even as Christ] therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The promise is Christ. He “fulfilled” all and everything before “heaven and earth passed away.” And besides that fact of history the law is still “preserved” in its old wine skins and old garments for the purpose of bringing us to Christ.

As Peter so eloquently pointed out “neither we nor our fathers could keep the law.” It has never been kept. That was not why it was given. Here is why it was given: “To bring us to Christ” (Gal. 3:24), and…

Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
Rom 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness [ of ‘Christ in us, keeping the ‘law of Christ’] unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Think about all these scriptures. Satan comes as an angel of light. One of those beams of that false ‘light’ is believing that keeping the law of Moses was a requirement to make Christ “perfect.” Consider this one last conclusive statement about what the law does not do:

Heb 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Do you still think it was for Christ? Should Paul have put ‘Except for our perfect and spotless Savior?’ I believe you are sincere in your search. Don’t allow false doctrine to overshadow God’s plain Words, regardless of who or how many subscribe to that falsehood. It was the ‘law of Christ’ that perfected Christ just as it perfects us all. Had Christ kept any other law, He would have been lawless. Breaking the law of Moses was not lawlessness. Keeping it is. Just look what it is producing in the Middle East, and in all the world, throughout the history of mankind.

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

It was given “so that the offense might abound.” That is why Christ had to break it and tell the adulterous woman:

Joh 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Here is the law which you say Christ kept perfectly:

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

Do you still believe “that Jesus kept the law perfectly (as intended by God)?”

Mike