Christ And The Law

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Posted March 16, 2004

Hi G____,

I have just read your Two Pillars Of The New Covenant. I was pleased with your ability to see clearly that we cannot mix the teachings of the old covenant with the teachings of the new. That is rare enough, but you also understand that our changed life is no more of ourselves than our faith is of ourselves. Seeing that the old covenant is ‘fading away’ and, at the same time, being able to see that another ‘law’ is replacing it is refreshing for someone like me, who was once so ensconced in the teachings of A. E. Knoch, only to discover that the ‘absolutely no law of any kind, two administration,’ teachings of Mr. Knoch are just as deceptive as the ‘once in grace always in grace’ teachings of much of Protestantism. I attended many Concordant Conferences over several years with great enthusiasm, until I heard a sermon by one of their leading speakers stating that “the words of Christ are not for us.” Those words were the beginning of the end of my Concordant experience. You are espousing that same message in this article. Before I attempt to deal with the teaching that the life and words of Christ, while He was in the flesh, are not to be followed by His followers, I want to quote you, in regards to the attitude that you admit that we should have as growing children in the family of God.

I don’t pretend to know everything about Christ any more than I believe you do. As you say, “There is so much more to talk about.” I can honestly say that I feel that there is more to learn about Christ today, than I was aware of about 5 years ago when I first started realizing that A. E. Knoch was not the great scholar that I had always thought he was. As you so rightly say, “The hearts of children without fear are full of the desire to love, to learn, to grow, to explore, to mature, to enjoy the rich life found in Christ…” As I know you are already aware, while we are to have the “desire to love,” each other, we are also to have a “love of the truth.” (2Th 2:10 – And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.) A ‘love of the Truth’ necessitates that we “love one another” because Christ is “The Truth.”

It is with this love that I am taking the time to write this e- mail. I have been hearing of you for many years as a sort of maverick in the Concordant circles. I now see why, and I appreciate your gift for independent thought. Independent of the doctrines of men, yet dependent on the sure Truth of scripture. If I did not feel that you were sincere in your search for The Truth (Christ), I wouldn’t be wasting time with this communication.

As I mentioned in an earlier e- mail, your tape of Lewis Abbott was the only thing that ever got my 85 year old father to see the truth about the word ‘aion.’ For that I will always be grateful for your service. I hope now that you do not consider me to be “thinking more of myself than I ought to think” to be of some service to you. I am not attempting to critique your paper because I agreed with 90% of it. But I believe that the remaining 10% is critical to our ability to relate to Him who we both agree is Truth.

You make this statement:

Christ had no intention of “perfectly fulfilling … the Mosaic Law.”

Does Mat 5:32 – But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery – agree with 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…? Show me anything resembling Mat 5:32 in the old covenant. Christ is right here teaching contrary to Moses, whom you say he did not teach against. Here is a little more of what Moses had to say about divorce:

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.

“Some uncleanness” is not referring to either fornication nor adultery. The penalty for both of those sins after marriage was death. Under Moses, one could indeed ‘put away his wife for any reason’ “if you find no delight in her.”

Christ’s disciples, being familiar with the law of Moses, had this response when they heard this incredible teaching for the first time:

Mat 19:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

Christ is right here teaching contrary to the ‘law of Moses.’

Does “Love your enemy” agree with “hate your enemy?” Christ is here, teaching against the ‘law of Moses.’ Does “Swear not at all” agree with Deu 10:20 – “Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.” Christ is here, again, teaching against the ‘law of Moses.’ Does Mat 5:38 – “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” – agree with 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.” Christ is here, also, teaching against the ‘law of Moses.’

Though Christ was not even a Levite, much less a priest, He admits that, just like the priests, He too, could “profane the sabbath [ and yet be] guiltless.” He was not fleeing from king Saul, yet He admits that in plucking the ears of corn, on the sabbath day, He too, was “doing that which is not lawful:”

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?

Does Christ deny that He had broken the law? No, He affirms it. ‘As David did, so I and my disciples are doing that which is unlawful.’ Does He deny ‘profaning the sabbath?’ No, He actually points out that He too is doing exactly as “the priests in the temple … on the sabbath day.” And what then is the reason He gives for His blatant disregard for the ‘law of Moses?’ Here is the only reason He gives:

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. Christ is right here teaching contrary to the ‘law of Moses.’

Then in the very next verse, He goes straight into the temple and heals a man on the sabbath day and compares that to pulling a sheep out of a ditch on the sabbath day. Later He even tells a man to ‘take up his bed and walk’ on the sabbath day. Does the Holy Spirit tell us, as it does concerning the true Father of Christ, that the Jews ” supposed that he had broken the sabbath?” No, it informs us beyond any doubt: 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 5:18). Every thing Christ did or taught either superseded or contradicted the law of Moses. Had Christ said that He was the son of God?:

Joh 8:18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

Joh 8:19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

Had Christ really broken the sabbath?:

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?

No, contrary to you and all of Christendom, Christ was not made our perfect sacrifice by “keeping the law of Moses perfectly.” Had He done so, He would have been unfit as our sacrifice because 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, 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 [ the doctrine of Christ] (1Ti 1:9-10). This “sound doctrine is elsewhere called wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ (1Ti 6:3).

2Ti 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words [ the words of Christ], which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

Christ was “a righteous man” in spite of His flesh. Being “a righteous man” was what qualified Him as our savior. True righteousness is what the law was “added” to.

Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added [ to the already existing character of the never changing God] because of transgressions [ transgressions of an already existing, never changing, law], [ only] till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

God and Christ truly “change not.” Christ could not possibly come to earth and be something He really wasn’t. He is, was and always will be truly righteous.

Am I denying that Christ had not submitted Himself to the rituals of his ‘under- the- law’ Jewish parents? Of course not. But it is abundantly clear that Christ was not subject to the law of Moses in His fleshly ministry. Christ was oblivious to the law of Moses, and it cost Him his life. As my Jewish friend told me, “Christ was a criminal who died for his crimes.”

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.

Look at how brazen Christ was when it came to the law. Right after miraculously feeding the multitudes, they followed Him across the lake looking for another free meal. Notice this exchange between Christ and the multitude who followed Him:

Joh 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

Joh 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

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, 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.

Joh 6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Had the multitude misquoted the scripture? Absolutely not:

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.

Neh 9:15 And gavest them bread from heaven for their hunger…

How does Christ respond to this accurate quote from the law?:

Joh 6:32 … Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

Christ is right here teaching contrary to the ‘law of Moses.’

Apparently Christ thought that the law and the prophets were [ ONLY] until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, [ which had little in common with the law] and every man presseth into it (Luk 16:16).

Christ was under the impression that the law was given by Moses, but [ as opposed to that] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ (Joh 1:17).

What does this scripture say for Christ’s impression of the ‘law,’ which we are to believe that He “never taught against” and “kept perfectly?” Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. Christ spent a great deal of His ministry teaching against the “fading away” ‘law of Moses.’

Again, you say:

I most definitely do pattern my life after the life of Christ in the flesh. I just fall far short. What does Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ (1Co 11:1) mean? Is this some Christ who is setting Paul an example from heaven?

Are we to believe that when Christ said, For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you (Joh 13:15), that He was simply establishing a Christian ritual? That is exactly what teaching that Christ’s life in the flesh was not an example for us would have you believe. Oh, that we all could come anywhere near Christ’s selfless life in the flesh.

‘But,’ it is always quoted, ‘Christ was made under the law’ as if that fact restricted his life to obeying that law.  It obviously did no such thing.

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.

Being “made under the law” has nothing to do with how Christ lived His life while He was in the flesh. It has simply to do with being “made of a woman.” That is why Paul can still say years later that the law was [ is and will be] our schoolmaster to bring us [ all men of all time] to Christ.

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 were [ all, you, me and ‘all’] kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Paul is addressing these word to Gentiles. Gentiles are “under the law before faith comes.” The definite article is seldom found beside the word ‘law.’ This is because the ‘law of Moses,’ though given by God is simply a “carnal commandment,” for a carnal nation (Heb 7:16) Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

According to these verses and many others, “all under sin” are “under law.” This gives ‘law’ the capacity to stop “every mouth” (both Gentile and Jew) that … all the world may become guilty before God. Not just the Jews, but “all the world,” of all time.

Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law [ under sin]: that every mouth [ in the world for all time] may be stopped, and all the world [ not just Jews] may become guilty before God.

How can Paul make such sweeping statements? Because he understood clearly from the “words of our Lord,”

1Ti 1:8 But we know that the law 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.

Once again, the real ‘Truth’ was that Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. The ‘bread from heaven’ of Moses, also known as ‘Torah,’ is not ‘the true bread from heaven.’ We would do well to realize that even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps [ while He was in the flesh] (1Pe 2:21).

Have I ‘added to the word’ by bracketing in ‘while He was in the flesh?’

Were the words and works of Christ while He was in the flesh really not for us today? Is that really what is meant by 2Co 5:16 … though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

Let’s not exchange opinions; what saith the scriptures?

1Ti 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

1Ti 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

1Ti 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

Exactly which “words of our Lord Jesus Christ” is Paul referring to? It is without question “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (Joh 6:63). Is this speaking of a Christ that only Paul had the opportunity to know at some time that Paul doesn’t even bother to tell us about? No, the “wholesome words” of which Paul is speaking are the very words we can all read in the gospels.

You go on to say:

There is but one “gospel.”  (Php 1:27) Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the [ singular] gospel. If Peter had been commissioned to preach a different gospel than Paul, then Paul would have been way out of line when he reprimanded Peter for his hypocrisy just before the Act 15 conference:

Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the [ singular] gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Gal 2:15 We [ Peter and Paul] who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man [ circumcised or uncircumcised] is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we [ Peter and Paul] have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh [ not even Peter’s Jewish flesh] be justified.

It is true that the apostles called by Christ were not as spiritually mature as Paul at the beginning. They were slow to realize that their Lord was as free from the law as He actually was. The original 12 apostles may have been slow to get beyond the letter, ‘the letter’ being the law of Moses, but it was never because their Lord had taught them to remain faithful to the letter. Here is what He really taught them. It reveals His attitude toward the ‘law of Moses’ the whole time He was carrying out His earthly ministry:

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

Are we to believe that this is simply more of Torah? No, the many things that Christ is referring to here are more of such things as we find in Mat 5, 6 and 7. Things like we find in the epistles of Paul. Yet Paul’s “gospel of pure grace” was the exact same ‘grace’ spoken of by Peter ten times in his short epistles:

1Pe 5:12 By Silvanus [ Silas, Paul’s assistant when he was not in prison], a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.

It is the same grace spoken of by James:

Jas 4:6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Does this sound like James is advocating living by Torah? Are we actually being asked to believe that there are two kinds of ‘grace?’ There is but one ‘grace,’ and it is defined for us:

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, [ circumcised and uncircumcised]

Tit 2:12 Teaching [ Greek- paideuo– same Greek word generally translated ‘chasten’] us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

This Greek word ‘paideuo,’ translated ‘teaching’ here, is the same word translated ‘chastened’ in:

1Co 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

1Co 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

And again in:

Heb 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son [ circumcised or uncircumcised] whom he receiveth.

So ‘grace’ is not a dead noun, but a very active verb in the life of a growing and maturing son of God.

All ‘judgment’ is therefore, in the long run, ‘grace.’

1Co 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

1Co 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

The ‘condemnation,’ referred to here is simply a later, less desirable ‘judgment;’ the ‘great white throne judgment.’

Now when we read:

Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.

We can read this and understand that grace will chasten us more than sin can rule us. God will not be defeated by sin. “Grace chastens us to forsake ungodliness…” Even those who attempt to “turn the grace of God into lasciviousness” (Jdg 4) will succumb eventually to the loving, chastening ‘grace’ of God. The lake of fire is therefore the single greatest act of ‘grace’ in the history of the world.

Isa 33:14 The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?

Isa 33:15 He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil;

While the world is teaching that it is the evil people who ‘dwell in everlasting burnings,’ the scriptures reveal that it is those who are comfortable in the fire who will be used to bring in the latter harvest.

Israel “according to the flesh” will not be saved until all Gentiles are saved.

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Then, and only then, will the physical nation of Israel, who Paul calls “Jerusalem which now is and is in bondage with her children,” “the son of the bondwoman [ who shall] not be made heir with the son of the freewoman;” then and only then will Israel be restored back to a proper relationship with God:

Ezekiel 16:55 When thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former estate, then thou and thy daughters shall return to your former estate.

Our God is a consuming fire, (Heb 12:29), and we will be like Him.

1Jn 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

You continue:

(Which Christ had spent His entire ministry teaching against)

To which I say ‘amen.” But when you say:

Amen, “Our pattern is in Him according to the Spirit.” But according to your doctrine you are apparently unaware that the words that I have spoken unto you [ while I am here in the flesh] THEY ARE SPIRIT AND THEY ARE LIFE (Joh 6:63).

Exactly what part of the life of Christ in the flesh is it that we should not follow? Should we not now “become all things to all men that we might by all means save some?” Is this not exactly what Christ was doing while he was living among Jews who were under the law?

To which I say Amen and amen.

My first paper on ‘the law’ was entitled ‘The Spirit of The Law of the New Covenant.’ After collecting and burning those, I rewrote that paper and entitled the new paper ‘The Law Of Moses Versus The Law Of The Spirit.’ This is a lengthy paper, but it deals with the subject of the ‘Law’ in detail, clarifying how Paul can say that the Law is done away with [katargeo] in 2Co 3 and still say in Rom 3:31 that we do not make void [katargeo] the law. When the old wine is kept in the old bottles, it brings us to Christ. At that point, we are no longer under the Law, and we live by the new wine. This way, both are preserved.

I know you are familiar with Ezekiel 14 and “idols of the heart.” God tells us there:

Ezekiel 14:7 For every one of the house of Israel, or of the stranger that sojourneth in Israel, which separateth himself from me, and setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to a prophet [ or the scripture] to enquire of him concerning me; I the LORD will answer him by myself:

Ezekiel 14:8 And I will set my face against that man, and will make him a sign and a proverb, and I will cut him off from the midst of my people; and ye shall know that I [ am] the LORD. Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

I do not for one minute believe this is speaking of you. But anything we commit to writing is hard to recant for most of us.  I know whereof I speak because I wrote a 100+ page paper 4 years ago, saying that the law of Moses had been written on our hearts in the new covenant. I received a letter from a woman in Michigan pointing out that the “change in the priesthood” had eliminated the old priesthood and the same chapter of Hebrews says that the “carnal commandment” had also been “disannulled.” I was challenged to reconsider my “idol of the heart” and call every one I had given that paper to at our conference in Mobile, and apologize for misleading them and ask them to burn that heretical paper. The New covenant, as you do seem to comprehend, “is not according to the old.” To attempt to make it so is exactly what Christ warned “the disciples of John and of the Pharisees” was the equivalent of putting new cloth on an old garment and new wine in old bottles.”

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?

Then Christ proceeds to tell them about the cloth and the bottles.

Christ very accurately warned No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better (Luk 5:39). So it is to this day.

When Paul says Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law (Rom 3:31), he is simply affirming the words of Christ: they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved (Mat 9:17). Law will always be needed ‘for the lawless’, and it will always bring us to Christ. But after that part of our walk is achieved, “we are no longer under a schoolmaster,” and if we insist on staying “under tutors and governors”, we will forever be no better than a bondservant, still under the law and incapable of claiming the adoption (Gk.- mature sons) rightful inheritance “the son of the freewoman” (Gal 4 ).

So what exactly is Paul’s point when he tells us Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more (2Co 5:16)?

Once again we ought not to speculate. We are given the reason in the following verses:

2Co 5:17 Therefore [ since “henceforth know we him no more after the flesh”] if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by[ a resurrected] Jesus Christ [ with a spiritual body], and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

2Co 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Christ was not “made to be sin” by hanging on the cross. Christ hung on the cross because He was “Made of a woman, made under the law” Gal 4:4 ” But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.”

Christ was like all flesh, ‘made of a woman’, shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me (Psa 51:5). This is how Christ was “made to be sin for us.” This is why, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.  Christ certainly never sinned while He was in the flesh, but that had nothing to do with keeping the law Moses. It had everything to do with keeping the “law of the Spirit if life.” It had everything to do with the fact that It is the spirit that quickeneth [ gives life]; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you [ while I am here in the flesh], they are spirit, and they are life (Joh 6:63). Coming the “second time without sin,” is simply another way of saying, “henceforth know we Him no more [ after the flesh].”

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin [ not ‘made of a woman’] unto salvation.

The reason God gave Moses both a sin offering and a transgression offering was to show us that we need an offering for our transgression that we do, but we also need an offering for what we are, the way we were made, that is ‘of the dust of the earth’ and ‘naked.’ Adam could say with David: Behold, I was shapen in iniquity [ naked]; and in sin [ nakedness] did my [ Father] conceive me (Psa 51:5).

Rev 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

Gen 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Is there not a spiritual parallel between Adam and Eve, before their temptation, and the Church of Laodicea?

I hope you can see that I am not the least bit interested in trying to make you see anything that “my father which is in heaven hath [ not] revealed … unto you”

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

I am fully convinced that all truth we ever learn comes only by divine revelation. The voice or the writings of some messenger may be used to convey the thought, but the Truth is comprehended only by divine revelation: ” flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

In the same Spirit of love that I hope to hear back from you, I am compelled to point out that according to my E- Sword, the words ‘ten commandments’ appear in the scriptures three different times:

Exo 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

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.

Deu 10:4 And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me.

This is all meant simply as edification which I hope you would do also for me.

In the love of Christ, your brother,

Mike Vinson

Other related posts