'Exodus - Lesson 5.....The law

Read Exodus 19:1. How long after Israel left Egypt was it before they came to Mount Sinai? Look back earlier in Exodus and determine on what day was the Passover kept and the day they left Egypt?

Ans: The Passover was killed on the 14th, 'between the two evenings,' and eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, that night, Exodus 12:6-8. See also Numbers 9:11. Notice what this verse actually instructs: not only was the Passover to be killed on the 14th day, but the people were also 'EAT' unleavened bread, on the 14th day. The Jews today do not observe this! They only eat unleavened bread on the 15th day, whch is when they observe 'their' Passover. Unleavened bread was (and is today) not eaten by the Jews prior to the Passover ceremony. Thus when the Jews only observe their Passover at the beginning of the 15th day, it means that they also don?t eat any unleavened bread prior to the 15th.

7) Notice also Exodus 12:10, 'And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.' This verse very clearly implies that the people would still be in the same location in the morning! If God intended to take them out of their homes during the same night on which they ate the Passover, then they could not possibly have fulfilled this instruction -- to burn with fire anything that remained 'until the morning.' God?s instruction would not have made sense.

8) Notice also Exodus 12:11, 'And thus shall ye eat it; [with] your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it [is] the LORD?S Passover.' The Hebrew for 'in haste' is 'chippazown' and means 'in fear' or 'in trepidation' or 'in apprehension.' For a clear Scripture that refers to 'haste' see Genesis 18:6, 'And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead [it], and make cakes upon the hearth.' Abraham was very obviously 'in haste' -- the context makes this clear. In the next verse we see that Abraham 'ran' -- and this is at age 99 years! In this verse the one Hebrew word 'mahar' is used twice and is translated first as 'hastened' and then as 'make ready quickly.' This Hebrew word 'mahar' means to make haste. But the word 'chippazown' used in Exodus 12:11 refers more to the emotion of fear and apprehension. So Israel was to eat the Passover in an attitude of fear and apprehension of what would happen in the next few hours -- as God explains in the next verse, rather than eat 'in haste' so that they could then hit the road.

The verse also clearly says: 'it is the LORD?s Passover.' Now WHY is it 'GOD?s Passover'? God explains in the next two verses: 'For I will pass through the land of Egypt . . . and when I see the blood, I WILL PASS OVER YOU . . . .' So why did God call it 'Passover'? Because at that very time He would 'pass over' (i.e., spare from death) the Israelites.

Now here is the point:

IF Israel only killed the Passover lambs at the end of the 14th day and then roasted and ate them at the beginning of the 15th day -- THEN God would have 'passed over' them and killed the firstborn Egyptians on the 15th day! But if God only passed through the land of Egypt on the 15th day, then the 14th day is not the Passover of the LORD. The 14th day would, in fact, have no significance at all!

A very clear definition of the Passover is found in Exodus 12:27, 'That ye shall say, It [is] the sacrifice of the LORD?S Passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped.' The Passover is the night the death angel 'passed over' Israel. And Leviticus 23:5 states that the Passover is in the 14th day of the month. So the death angel MUST have passed through the land of Egypt on the 14th day. Therefore Israel also MUST have eaten the Passover on the 14th day.

9) Deuteronomy 16:1 shows that Israel left Egypt 'BY NIGHT.' Numbers 33:3 shows they left Egypt on 'THE MORROW AFTER THE PASSOVER.' The expression in the KJV 'ON THE MORROW after the Passover' does not mean morning, but the next DAY, the next 24-hour period following the Passover day. In Exodus 12:22, Moses instructed Israel plainly: '. . . and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning.' These three verses together make clear that Israel simply could not have left Egypt the same night that they had eaten the Passover.

The only way all three verses can be reconciled is for Israel to have eaten the Passover at the beginning of the 14th day, then stayed in their houses till the morning, then burned with fire whatever was left of the Passover, then spoiled the Egyptians whose firstborn had all been killed during the preceding night, then gathered their possessions together and ridding themselves of all leaven, then after sunset (therefore then the 15th day!) started to leave Egypt, walking all of that first night before stopping to rest. Their 'leaving' was exactly 24 hours after they killed and ate the Passover -- i.e. 'on the morrow after the Passover.'



2. Read Exodus 19:5-6. In Exodus 19:5 God mentions His Covenant. He has been revealing Himself to mankind through covenant revelations to Adam & Eve, Noah, Abraham, and to Moses. . What are some of the common elements of His covenant revelations? Are these revelations/requirements still in effect today?
Ans. God's Part of the Work Performance.

God will serve as God and Judge of all covenant work performance. Nothing can be done by Satan and his angels without God's permission, Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6.
Hear and give permission or reject Satan's requests to tempt the covenant people and all other such matters with regard to the nations, 1Ch 21:1; Job 1:6; 2:1; Luk 22:31-32; Rev 12:10; Dan 10:12-21.
Hear Satan's accusations against the covenant people, Rev 12:10.
Hear the intercessions of the covenant priests and the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:26-27,34; Heb 7:25) make decisions, command actions to be taken, and require the court of heaven to record all actions according to covenant stipulations, Psa 56:8; 139:16; Ecc 12:13-14; Dan 7:9-10; Mal 3:16; II Cor 5:10; Eph 1:4,11; Rev 11:18; 13:8; 20:11-15.
Reveal the excellences of His Person:
Through His Son, Joh 14:6-11: Col 2:9; Heb 1:3-12.
Through angels, Gen 3:24; Dan 7:9-10; Eze 1; 2Th 1:7-9.
Through men, Heb 11; 1Co 15:1-2,44-45; Jud 14-15.
Through nature, Gen 3:17-19; 6:17; 19; Exo 5-10.
Reveal exceeding sinfulness of sin, Rom 1:21-32; 7:8-25.
Reveal covenant information and knowledge, Phi 2:11; Luk 2:40,46-49; 4:22; Joh 5:19-20,30.
Insure that all covenant stipulations are precisely fulfilled. This means that God's counsel, purpose, and pleasure are infinitely fulfilled, all of which are included in the everlasting covenant before creation, Isa 46:9-11.
Visit, fellowship, and teach Adam and his descendants what they need to know, Gen 3:8-24; 4:1-16; 5:22; 6:9; Heb 11.
Protect them, accept their worship, bless them greatly as they kept the covenant and obeyed Him, but punish them severely according to their sins, Gen 4:1-7; 6.
Appoint family priests together with firstborn and birthright laws to govern governmental and societal interrelations, Gen 4:1-7; 25:5-6; 27:27-37. For family priests see Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Melchizedek, Job, his four friends, Jethro, and Balaam.
Instruct Abraham to instruct his faith descendants that they are a chosen race, appointed (elected, destined) to be prophets, priests, and kings, and a holy people above all the nations of the earth. Observe how this theme is enlarged throughout the Scriptures. A fact of major importance to be discerned and remembered is that Genesis is a 'book of beginnings.' Emphasis must be placed on the fact that much more is included in the early covenants than is written in the Scriptures, yet what is written is of major prophetic and symbolic significance: in Genesis the beginnings of major (cardinal) doctrines are rooted yet concealed from the eyes of careless souls -- the covenants, for instance, are so explicit, yet they have little significance as a cardinal throughout-the-Bible doctrine in contemporary theology.
For the covenant promises and other details, see the New Covenant at the end of this book.
Abraham's and His Descendant's Part of the Covenant Work Performance.
Love and worship God by seeking to know everything possible about Him and His covenants, Psa 119; 2Pe 1:1-11; Phi 3:7-11; Isa 1:1-6; Hos 4:6; Luk 19:41-44; Rev 3:17.
Love and worship God with animal sacrifices to portray the future death of Christ for covenant redemption, Gen 3:21; 4:1-7; Heb 11:4; Joh 1:29; 1Pe 1:18-20.
Love and worship God by faithfully performing all the covenant requirements, Gen 4:1-7; Jos 1:5-9.
Love and worship God by faithfully teaching and training the children in such a way as to maintain a clear knowledge and practice of covenant requirements, Gen 4:1-7; Deu 6:4-9.
Love and worship God by living a clean, separated, holy life.
Love and worship God by serving God with great diligence.
Love and worship God by meticulously doing God's work God's way.
Love and worship God with humility, kindness, and mercy toward everyone.
B. God's Command to Believe and Obey According to Covenant Requirements. By faith Abraham believed and obeyed God explicitly.

II. COVENANT ACCEPTANCE BY ABRAHAM
AND HIS DESCENDANTS

Abraham accepted God's covenant offer by faith-obedience, and this was all done 'by grace through faith,' Heb 11:8. Abraham's initial faith was exemplary but there was a small problem: he took too many of his kinsmen with him and appeared to linger in Haran -- he was still not in the land to which God was leading him. So God gave him a second call or covenant offer which he accepted and obeyed again 'by grace through faith,' Gen 12.




3. Different schools of theology view these revelations differently. How do dispensationalist view these covenant revelations? How do covenant theologians view them?
A dispensationalist is one who believes that the Bible sets forth such distinctives and also sees a particular role and time for the Church as the body of Christ, as well as a unique future for Israel.

There are three essential factors to which a dispensation must adhere. First, it must possess a “particular way of God’s administering His rule.” This means that God has chosen to rule in different ways throughout history and that history can be divided up into times, or dispensations, that are defined by these particulars. It must be noted that dispensations, although they may cover a period of history, are not limited to such a period but are rather characterizations of the means by which God rules during that period. Second, “it must involve a particular responsibility for man.” Dispensationalists hold that man relates to God differently in each dispensation and that man is tested (and fails) each test. Third, each dispensation “must be characterized by divine revelation which has not been given before.” This means that the people of each dispensation are held to the revelation that they have been given, and not that which would come afterward.

Dispensationalists claim that their method of interpreting Scripture is that of a literal hermeneutic and claim that this is a distinctive of Dispensationalism. Specifically, in contrast to Covenant Theology, dispensationalists hold that the Covenantal system is not “forced to a grinding literalism in its Biblical interpretation.” The difference, they claim, is that Covenantal theologians do not take the normal meaning of words in Scripture, but on the contrary choose to allegorize some. This is inconsistent interpretation, they hold, compared to their own consistent literal approach. Elliott Johnson states three reasons why consistent literal interpretation is necessary: “1) because the Bible claims to be God’s communication to men through human writers; 2) because it provides a normative definition of verbal meanings; 3) because only a principle that forces the interpreter to consistently consider the text as the basis of the meaning can satisfy the priority of the Bible in formulating doctrine.” The literalness of dispensationalists’ methodology is carried into their treatment of not just the historical and narrative passages of Scripture, but all passages including prophecy related to Israel and the Kingdom of God. They assert that Covenant Theologians allegorize many of these prophetic passages. However, the question must be asked, “How does one determine which words are to be taken “literally-literally” and which are to be taken as a form of allegory?” Proponents of both systems hold that their method accurately answers this question. Additionally, it will be seen that Covenant theologians do not accept this distinction made by dispensationalists. One dispensationalist writer, although progressive, also agrees, stating,
an analysis of non-dispensational systems, however, reveals that their less-than-literal approach to Israel in the Old Testament prophecies does not really arise from an a priori spiritualistic or metaphorical hermeneutic. Rather, it is the result of their interpretation of the New Testament using the same grammatico-historical hermeneutic as that of dispensationalists.

This conclusion seems true of both systems, specifically, that both can be, and have been, accused of the end determining the means. Furthermore, it can be fairly said that all systems of interpretation employ a theological method to some degree or another. Ryrie, a leading dispensational proponent, accuses Covenant theologians of using a theological method as well as admits that dispensationalists are also accused of the same methodology. Therefore, it can be concluded that the issue of interpretation is significantly important to the debate, if not tantamount. Yet, semantics must be clarified if this issue is going to be fairly addressed by either side.
Another distinctive of Dispensationalism is the belief in a secret Rapture of the Church before the Tribulation. The secret Rapture is generally believed to occur before the Tribulation. Dispensational premillennialism bases this belief on promises that Paul made to the Thessalonians in his first letter to them (1:10, 5:9), that they (the Church) would avoid the wrath of God. Combined with these any other isolated texts is the doctrine of a Tribulation that is yet to come and then a literal 1000 year earthly millennial kingdom, which leads them to conclude that Jesus will return twice. The first time will be a secret rapture where he removes the Church (but not necessarily all the Elect, which will be explained later). There will be seven years of Tribulation and then Christ’s Second Coming with the Church followed by the literal 1000 year reign of Christ in his earthly kingdom. This first return, the Rapture, is known as Christ’s imminent return. By imminent, it is meant that the Rapture could occur at any time, without any necessary preceding event. The Second Coming, on the other hand, is not imminent according to Dispensationalists, because certain events do need to occur first. Of the three Greek words used for Second Coming in the New Testament (parousia, apocalupsis, and epiphaneia), Dispensationalists hold that those written in the context of imminence refer to the Rapture, and those written demanding a preceding sign refer to the Second Coming. Rather than seeing all three Greek words referring to one event, they hold that the three describe two. They argue that a “Failure to recognize this distinction and trying to see the Rapture and the Second Coming as a single event has forced certain writers into the dilemma of having a Second Coming that is imminent in some passages and not imminent in other passages.” Furthermore, those who hold this position also use Revelation 3:10 to support their argument. The promise is made to the church at Philadelphia, “Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth.” In order to use this verse, however, Dispensationalists must provide some explanation as to the imminence of the coming wrath for this literal church. This will be questioned in the final section. Although arguably not as significant as other issues pertaining to the differences between Dispensationalism and Covenant theology, the “Secret” Rapture is something that is unique to Dispensationalism and therefore must be given fair consideration and examination.

Arguably, the most significant distinction between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology is each one’s view of Israel and the Church. Dispensationalists hold that Israel and the Church are two separate spiritual bodies. The Church did not exist before the time recorded in Acts, and after its birth, Israel still exists as a separate spiritual body. By Israel, it is not meant simply a literal, physical nation, but the Israeli people of God. This distinction is made unique partly because of the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the saints who lived between the Day of Pentecost and the Rapture of the Church (this is the secret rapture, not the resurrection of the dead). According to this, one can understand such a statement by Renald Showers: “Saints who died before the day of Pentecost and people who become saved after the Rapture of the Church are never part of the Church.” The Church, according to Dispensationalists, is “a distinctive group of saints who live during one particular period of history.” This distinction between the Church and Israel is tied particularly to the terminology, “Body of Christ.” It was completely a mystery to Old Testament Saints, according to Dispensationalists, and was not revealed in any way until Christ came. Ryrie, criticizing the notion that the Church includes Old Testament saints, refers to Ephesians 2:15-16, where Paul wrote, “he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.” Ryrie states, “That was not done before the cross; therefore, it is clear that the new man, the one body, was not in existence in the Old Testament times.” This new equality that exists between Jews and Gentiles is what makes the Church unique from the body of Old Testament saints in addition to the indwelling of Christ in the life of the believer. According to Dispensational theology, both bodies are on different paths, headed in the same direction, but are not created or destined for the same purpose. The Church Age, say Dispensationalists, is a parenthesis, as they call it, in God’s redemptive history. Throughout the changes in Dispensationalism over the past 100+ years, this distinction remains as the most significant. However, not all present day Dispensationalists maintain this distinction.

Within Covenant Theology, individuals may maintain any of the following eschatological views: Historic Premillennialism, Amillennialism, or Postmillennialism, as opposed to the Dispensational system which allows for Dispensational Premillennialism only. Within the three systems linked to Covenant Theology, the secret rapture of the church is not an element. There is only one Second Coming, not two. The two resurrections mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6 refer to the resurrection of the individual soul from death and secondly, the resurrection of the body to eternal life, according to Covenant Theologians. Note that Revelation 20:6 states “Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such, the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ.” This description is descriptive of all believers, not simply a certain group within a specific period of time. “The rest of the dead do not live until the thousand years has ended. But then the general resurrection occurs, which involves all people and includes both body and soul (Rev. 20:11-15).” Not only will there not be a secret rapture according to Covenant Theologians, but present-day believers need not fear of going through the Tribulation either. Particularly thought provoking is the consideration of Matthew 24:34, where Christ states that the present generation would not pass away until all that he had promised in the Olivet Discourse regarding the Tribulation had occurred. Many with the Covenantal perspective believe that this much of this prophecy was fulfilled in the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies.
As was stated previously, the most significant distinction between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology is each one’s view of the relationship between Israel and the Church. As opposed to this view, Covenant Theologians view a unity between them. Although Dispensationalists claim that the Church is not mentioned in the Old Testament, many passages in the Old Testament that refer to Israel are used of the Church in the New Testament, including Exodus 19:5-6 in 1 Peter 2:9, Jeremiah 24:7 in 2 Corinthians 6:16, Jeremiah 31:31-34 in Luke 22:20, and Leviticus 19:2 in 1 Peter 1:15 to name a few. Mathison provides further clarification by explaining that one must distinguish between the nation of Israel (all Israeli nationals) and the True Israel, or Old Testament saints. The nation of Israel included believers and unbelievers, as does the visible church today. The latter was the spiritual body, the people of God, the Elect. It is that group, when Covenant Theologians refer to Israel, which maintains a unity with the Church (the True Church). In other words, God’s people are his people now and always. He does not have two groups of people, on two different tracks, or in two different spiritual spheres. Whereby the New Testament believer looks back (historically speaking) to Christ in faith, the Old Testament believer looked forward in faith to the promise of the Messiah to come. If one can understand the biblical doctrine of Election, then one can understand this unity that Covenant Theologians claim exists between Israel and the Church. Just as God will reject Gentiles who have refused Christ, so He will also reject Jews who have refused Christ. Romans 11 paints a clear portrait of unity which Covenant theologians hold exists between Israel and the Church. “God does not plant a brand new tree. He does not break off believing Jews and believing Gentiles from their respective trees and graft them into a third, new tree, all the while maintaining the unbelieving Jewish tree.” This grafting idea in Romans 11 is made clearer when one does not see the Church as simply a “straight-line continuation of Israel,” but rather sees the Church in light of Christ’s fulfillment of all that the Old Testament held in promise. Inasmuch as Israel had fallen short of God’s standard, Christ fully met the standard (2 Cor. 1:20). If this notion of unity is true, and if it exists only and completely because of Christ’s fulfillment, then the New Testament believer should, upon discovery of this truth, have an expanding worship of God because of who he is and what he has done in Christ to make us “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29).


4. In Exodus 19:6 God mentions a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. What was Israel's response? Did they keep their promise? Did Israel ever become this? Was this a conditional or unconditional promise?



There are three things that God has chosen Israel to be: His 'special treasure.' A Kingdom of priests to God. A Holy Nation.

1) Special treasure: (lit. 'possession'--often a particularly valued one), Dt. 7:6 (cf. 14:2). For you are a people holy to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the peoples that are on the face of the earth. God has chosen Israel to be 'His' in a way that no one else is. All the earth is God's (Ex 19:5), but Israel is especially His. Malachi 3:16-17 expresses this ('jewels'=possession). (Note the connection between covenant, sonship, and worship in this passage.)

2) Israel is also to be a kingdom of priests: The people of God as a whole are called to worship before the priests are set aside to devote themselves to the ministry of the tabernacle. The principle of the priesthood of all believers is found here. Israel is to be a kingdom of priests. As the son of God, Israel has a priestly function. He is to mediate the blessings of God to the nations. Abrahamic blessing mixed multitude out of Egypt Caleb, Rahab, Ruth, Naaman. This is reflected throughout the prophets (esp Isaiah) as Israel becomes the source of blessing for all mankind. 3) Israel is therefore to be a holy nation. The nation is set apart for the service of God. If they are God's possession--his special treasure--then they are, in fact, holy. And now they must live as that holy nation that God has constituted them to be.

But, for Israel to be God's possession, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, there are conditions: 'if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant.'

The New Testament also uses this passage to speak to those who are in Christ.

The word 'God's possession' or 'special treasure' (periousios from the LXX) is used in the New Testament only once: Titus 2:14--2:11. For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men, 2:12 training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world, 2:13 awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

We who are in Christ have been constituted a peculiar people (to use the old KJV). We are his own special treasure. All three images: possession, kingdom of priests and holy nation are found in 1 Peter 2. 1 Peter 2:4-10 Peter is blending together images from Isaiah 40, Psalm 118, and Hosea (all of which utilize the Exodus theme). And the language of verse 9 can refer only to Exodus 19, because no other Old Testament passage refers to the people of God as a priesthood. So Peter uses the call to Israel as a call to us. But notice the difference: Israel is called to be a kingdom of priests. You are declared to be a royal priesthood. What is the difference? 1 Peter 2:7: 'Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, the stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone, and a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense. They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.'

What has happened to the conditions? What has happened to the 'if you obey and keep my covenant'? We must hear this call as the Father calling his Son to obey him. Israel is the son of God, and so is called to succeed where Adam failed. It is a call to perfect, perpetual obedience. And as such, it is a call that we can obey no better than Israel did! In this way we need to see Christ as the true Israel. He is the Son who obeyed his Father perfectly. He is the kingdom of God in Himself. He is the priest who offers the perfect sacrifice and intercession for his people. He is the holy nation in himself. He is all that Israel was supposed to be! Jesus Christ is the Son come to maturity. All that was promised to Israel has been fulfilled in Christ. Therefore, those who believe in Him partake of his royal priesthood. All who trust in Him become, by virtue of His obedience, a holy nation.

Therefore we must live holy lives. Not so that we might become something we are not, but so that we may simply be who we are.

Now remember, all of this language about becoming a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, was spoken to Israel in the context of establishing a covenant, and preparing for worship (the ratification and renewal of the covenant).

In verse 7-8, Israel accepts the covenant that God has established. Note this: the terms of the covenant are non-negotiable. God has established his covenant with its conditions and requirements, blessings and curses. And by the grace of God, Israel accepts the covenant. Here we see sovereignty and responsibility working itself out. God does not force Israel to accept his covenant. He graciously redeems Israel from slavery, provides all that they need in the wilderness, and still leaves his people free to answer as they choose. (Now it has become plain that left to themselves, they would return to Egypt, but God grants them the grace to accept his covenant) Now they must prepare to meet this God who has brought them to himself!

So what does Israel being brought to Sinai on eagles' wings teach us about our worship? Remember who you are. Remember where you are! Let's go back to Hebrews 12, because while Hebrews 12 shows us a contrast between Sinai and the heavenly Zion it also makes a connection. Too often we stop reading at v24 and fail to see what the author of Hebrews is saying: Hebrews 12:18-29. Yes, the glory that has been revealed in Christ is far greater than the glory of Moses. But Hebrews also points out that the fiery mountain of Sinai, was only a dim reflection of God himself. 'For our God is a consuming fire.' Our worship has greater glory than Moses' worship at Sinai. Therefore there is also a greater warning. If God struck down those who did not heed the law, how much greater his wrath against those who reject the gospel! If refusing the earthly voice of God through Moses brought judgment, how much greater will be the judgment against those who refuse the heavenly voice of God in Christ! When we enter worship, we are entering a place of judgment, because we are entering the place where God dwells ('to God the Judge of all'). But God's judgment toward us who are in Christ is 'come, beloved' (v24) because Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant, whose blood of sprinkling speaks better things than that of Abel, has himself brought us to God. You have been brought into the very courts of heaven. You have come to the heavenly Jerusalem. You participate in something Moses and David and Isaiah could only dream of. Something they could only dimly imagine.

See that you do not refuse Him who speaks! Hebrews 12 is all about spiritual discipline. It is all about how God chastens and corrects us as sons, so that we will walk in the right way. It is fitting, therefore, that Hebrews uses the example of Sinai, because God was testing his son in the wilderness. God was teaching Israel the way in which he should go, and tested him to see if he would walk in that way. And now God is testing you--you who have come to the heavenly Mountain.

Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. For our God is a consuming fire.



5. Read 1 Peter 2:9. What is its relationship to Exodus 19:6? Who is 1 Peter 2:9 referring to?

God’s original goal for Israel was that they be a nation of priests. priest acts as a intermediary between God or divine things and human beings. Thus if Israel was to be a nation of priests, for whom were they to act as intermediaries? Well, here we have that intention for Israel to be a light for the nations (see my devotional on this here) as is so eloquently and repeated expressed in Isaiah (chapters 40-66), and it’s expressed in doubtlessly very early literature. Israel as a witness to the nations and as a priesthood was not a late afterthought on God’s part.

From a Christian perspective, there is a fulfillment of God’s desire from Exodus 19 in the priesthood of all believers, this fulfillment being expressed explicitly in 2 Peter 2:9.

If you read Hebrews carefully, and look at the structure of the tabernacle and its services equally carefully, I think you will come to the conclusion that much of the sanctuary service symbolizes the separation from God rather well. Starting in Exodus 19, immediately after we have the expression of God’s desire, we have the expression of fear. The people don’t want to be that close to God because they are afraid. They aren’t ready for that close of contact.


In Biblical history, this separation begins with Exodus 19 when the Isralites are afraid of hearing the voice of God from Mt. Sinai. They are invited to be a holy nation and a kingdom of priests, but they prefer to have a safer distance. In the New Testament, this theme is picked up in 1 Peter 2:9 in which Christians are referenced in the same terms.
6. Moses receives the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai. List them. Are they still in effect? Read Matthew 5:17-18. Has this happened yet?

Ans: ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'



Yes its still in effect. Christ came not to bring any new way of righteousness and salvation into the world, but to fulfil that in deed which was shadowed by the figures of the Law: by delivering men through grace from the curse of the Law; and moreover to teach the true use of obedience which the Law appointed, and to grave in our hearts the force of obedience.' On the dominant word 'fulfil,’ Matthew Henry pertinently pointed out, 'The Gospel is ‘The time of reformation’ (Heb. 9:10)—not the repeal of the Law, but the amendment of it.



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' (v. 18). In these words our Lord affirmed the perpetuity of the Law, insisting that it should never be abrogated. The grass withereth and the flower fadeth, but the Word of God endureth for ever: the Old Testament as much as the New, the Law as truly as the Gospel. The 'verily I say unto you' was the solemn asseveration of the Amen, the faithful and true Witness. Everything in the Law must be fulfilled: not only its prefigurations and prophecies, but its precepts and penalty: fulfilled, first, personally and vicariously, by and upon the Surety; fulfilled, second and evangelically, in and by His people; and fulfilled, third, in the doom of the wicked, who shall experience its awful curse for ever and ever. Instead of Christ’s being opposed to the Law of God, He came here to magnify it and render it honorable (Isa. 42:21); and rather than His teachings being subversive thereof, they confirmed and enforced it.

'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' (v. 19). This afforded proof of what Christ had declared in verses 17 and 18, for the language He here employed manifestly implies the perpetual and inflexible obligation of the Law throughout the entire course of the kingdom of heaven—this Christian era. Not only so, but the words of Christ in this verse make unmistakably clear the inestimable value which He placed upon the Divine commandments, and which esteem He would strictly require and exact from all who taught in His name: His disapproval falling on the one who slighted the least of the Law’s requirements, and His approval resting on each who by his example and teaching honored the same.

'Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,' namely the 'jot and tittle' of the previous verse—the smallest part of the Law. Weigh carefully the word we have placed in italics: it denotes two things. First, Christ is here illustrating or exemplifying what He had so expressly affirmed in the previous verses and insists that instead of encouraging His followers to disregard the Divine Law He upheld its claims in the most certain manner, for the King Himself would frown upon any of His officers who dared to disesteem its smallest requirements. Second, Christ drew an obvious conclusion from what He had laid down in the foregoing. If the Master Himself came not to destroy the Law but rather to fulfil it, then it manifestly followed that His servants too must keep the commandments and teach others to do the same. It is in this way the ministers of Christ are to be identified: by their following the example which He has left them.

Let us take notice of how what immediately follows the 'therefore' clinches the interpretation we gave of the 'destroy' and the disputed but simple 'fulfil' of verse 17. To 'destroy' the Prophets would he to deny their validity, to repudiate their inspiration, to annul their authority, so that they would then possess no binding power on the people of God. In like manner, to 'destroy' the Law is not simply to break it by transgression, but also to abolish it: it is such a destruction as would rob it of all virtue and power so that it would be no law at all. This is why the Lord added, 'break one of these commandments and teach men so.' The order is significantly the same in both verses: 'destroy . . . fulfil' (v. 17), 'break.. . do and teach them' (v. 19).

Let us further observe how the contents of this verse establish the definition we gave of 'the law' in the preceding verses—a matter on which there has been some difference of opinion among the commentators. We pointed out that, while it is clear from the later parts of the Sermon that Christ alluded principal1y to the moral law, yet in view of the circumstances under which this Discourse was delivered and in view of Christ’s allusion to the 'jot and tittle' of the Law, the ceremonial and judicial aspects of it must not be excluded. Throughout this passage 'the law' is to be understood in its widest latitude, as embracing the Mosaic Law. This is clear from our Lord’s reference to 'one of these least commandments,' for surely we cannot think of the Ten Commandments in such a connection; for they one and all belong to the fundamental statutes of the kingdom


7. Investigate the opinions of prominent Dispensationalist and Covenant Theologians on the relevance of the Ten Commandments to the New Testament believer and give a comparison.



Ans; Dispensationalism's Error

Dispensationalists, for example, abound among fundamentalist Christians but are much rarer among studious evangelicals. They have always held that God had more than one way of salvation—one for the Jew and another for the Gentile. This school of thought, popularized by the Scofield Bible, contrasts the dispensation of law (Sinai to the Cross) with the dispensation of grace (beyond the Cross). Very few Bible scholars today hold such a position, but it surfaces whenever the issue of Christian obedience is under review.

Obedience to the Nine

In gospel ranks at the present time, there are some of our friends (we do not use that term loosely), offering an explanation of the covenants that, in practical terms, leads to obedience to nine commandments of the Decalogue, but not to that one which is central, the longest, and solely prefaced by 'remember.' It's an exaggeration to say that such are nine-tenths under law and one tenth under grace, but it's an understandable criticism.

Truth and Error Are Close

The issue is of great importance, and it must be remembered, as we consider it, that truth and error often lie close together. It is clear that the New Testament opposes legalism of all types, yet it is just as certainly supportive of the testing truth delivered by Jesus on his last night on earth. Love to him is always accompanied by obedience to his commandments. (John 14:15). Scripture is neither legalistic nor antinomian. Legalism is perversion of the legal, but the legal element is prominent in both Testaments, and particularly so in the teachings of Jesus and Paul. Without the legal aspect, the doctrine of the Cross becomes hollow. (See Romans 3:25. Especially study and compare Galatians 5:6; 6:15; and 1 Corinthians 7:19.)

Sinai, the Point of Controversy

Because the covenant of Sinai has most to say about law, it becomes the focal point of controversy. Galatians condemns in no uncertain terms all those who endeavor to earn salvation by slavish fulfillment of the precepts of the Sinaitic covenant; and 2 Corinthians 3 emphasizes that, without faith in Christ, both the Sinaitic covenant and the new (renewed) become a ministration of condemnation and death. Hebrews 8 joyously announces that the old national covenant, with its necessary limitations, has been displaced by the new covenant sealed at the Cross.

Covenantal Agreement

The majority of evangelical scholars teach today, in essence, what the Reformers of the sixteenth century wrote regarding the covenants. Except for the divine-human encounter before the Fall (often called 'the covenant of works' or 'the covenant of Life'), all biblical covenants between God and man were revelations of grace and mirrored the plan of salvation. (Hebrews 13:8,20,21; Psalms 105:5-11.)[1] These scholars see the covenants (including that of Sinai), as merciful, unilateral arrangements whereby the promise might be offered and experienced, 'I will be your God, and you shall be my people' (cf. Jeremiah 11:4; 24:7; 30:22; 32:38; Ezekiel 11:20; 14:11; 36:28; 37:23; Zechariah 8:8; Leviticus 26:12; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Revelation 21:3).

Legal Versus Legalistic

Legal elements are found in the covenant (including the new covenant), but we must surely distinguish between what is legal and what is legalistic, as surely as we distinguish between what is rational and what is rationalistic. In his book The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, Leon Morris writes:

The Old Testament consistently thinks of a God who works by the method of law. This is not the conception of one or two writers but is found everywhere in the Old Testament, and is attested by a variety of conceptions, many being taken straight from forensic practices. Among the heathen, the deity was thought of as above the law, with nothing but the dictates of his own desires to limit him. According to his behavior, he was completely unpredictable, and while he made demands on his worshippers for obedience and service, there were few if any ethical implications of this service, and none of a logically necessary kind. Far otherwise was it with the God of the Hebrews.

Yahweh and law went well together. The Old Testament consistently thinks of a God who works by the method of law. Thus, as we approach the question of the use of justification in the Old Testament, we are dealing not with an isolated conception which appears briefly now and then, but with an idea of law which runs through and through the ancient Scriptures. (p. 258)

Condemnation or Correction?

But does not the book of Galatians condemn the old covenant as leading to bondage? Yes, but as with all of Scripture, context, both literary and historical, is essential to correct understanding. Galatians was written to people who believed that Gentiles had first to become Jews before they could be Christians—i.e., they had to be circumcised and be in harmony with contemporary Jewish life-style (unclean foods not permissible; to eat with the heathen not allowable, etc.) Paul opposed this with great vigor.

Law Is Not a Synonym for the Decalogue

There are other things which must be kept in mind when studying Galatians. The term 'law' here usually means the entire Jewish system. (The word is NOT a synonym for the Decalogue.) It can also mean the writings of Moses (see 4:21, 22). Second, the reference to circumcision 13 times in this letter shows the location of the storm center. Circumcision was originally given by God to be a sign and seal of righteousness by faith. Paul says precisely that in Romans 4:11. But the Jews turned the sign of the gospel into a badge of legalism—and they did likewise with the entire covenant. (See Romans 9:30 to 10:4.)

Galatians Is Often Misunderstood

The best commentators have pointed out that Galatians 4 is frequently misunderstood, and that any deprecation of the Old Covenant, as God intended it, is unjust. See Luther's famous commentary, and Calvin's Institutes, book 2, chapters 10 and 11. Best of all, see Patrick Fairbairn's Typology of Scripture, vol. 2, pp. 154 ff.

Abraham Personifies the Problem Galatians shows that when Abraham tried to fulfill the promises of God by relying on his own weak human nature, he personified the problem to be repeated by the bulk of his descendants. Let us never judge the divine intention by human weakness and perversion. The devout John Flavel wrote on this topic as follows:

The law is excellently described, Gal. 4, in that allegory of Hagar and Sarah, the figures of the two covenants. Hagar in her first and proper station was but a serviceable handmaid to Sarah, as the law is a schoolmaster to Christ; but when Hagar the handmaid is taken into Sarah's bed, and brings forth children that aspire to the inheritance, then saith the Scripture, Cast out the bond-woman, with her son. So it is here, take the law in its primary use, as God designed it, as a handmaid to Christ and the promise, so it is consistent with them; but if we marry this handmaid, and espouse it as a covenant of works, then we are bound to it for life, Rom. 7, and must have nothing to do with Christ. The believers of the Old Testament had true apprehensions of the true end and use of the law, which directed them to Christ, and so they became the children of the free-woman. The carnal Jews trusted to the works of the law for righteousness, and so became children of the bond-woman. Whole Works, 7th ed., 1772, vol. 2, p. 432 (cited by Roderick Campbell, Israel and the New Covenant, p. 49)

Not Under Law As a Covenant

The New Testament is emphatic that Christians are not 'under law,'—any kind of law, including the laws of the Sermon on the Mount—as a covenant. To use law-keeping as a method of salvation is to fall from grace. The law in its condemning power has been abolished. Any commandment, including those of the New Testament, pursued diligently yet apart from faith in Christ, becomes a ministry of death. See Colossians 2:14 and 2 Corinthians 3; Ephesians 2:8, 9; and Galatians 5:2-4.

What then, in essence, should we know about the covenants?

1. The words translated 'covenant' in the Old and New Testaments, when applied to divine human relationships, mean an arrangement—a synonym for the plan of salvation.

2. The God-initiated covenants after the Fall were unilateral—they were NOT agreements between the people and God. God made the terms, the promises, the stipulations, the warnings. All the people had to do was accept and loyally respond.

All the Covenants Are Essentially the Same

3. All the Scriptural covenants between God and man, Genesis 3:15, the Noahic, the Abrahamic, the Sinaitic, the Davidic, the New—in essence were the same, though the emphases were different, according to the historical situation. For example, all stressed grace, and all stressed that the natural response to grace was loyalty and obedience. What is known as the 'Old' Covenant was but an extension of the Abrahamic covenant which in principle is still in force. (See Exodus 2:24; 3:6-10; 6:5; 32:13, 14; Galatians 3:29; Romans 4:11, 13, 16; and Psalms 105:6-11.) At Sinai, because the people had their moral consciousness darkened by the centuries of idolatry in Egypt, God particularly stressed the aspect of law. See Galatians 3:19-25. Furthermore, the promise of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 is emphatic that the experience of the forgiveness of sins results in the writing of God's law in the hearts of the faithful.

4. The promise is the same in all the covenants: 'I will be your God, and you shall be my people.' And the response of believers is the same—willing, glad obedience.

5. The New Covenant is the flower of which all preceding post-Fall covenants are the seed. Here, grace and the gift of the indwelling Spirit are fully unveiled in the God-man mediator, showing the one way of salvation for all.

Different Signs and Seals

6. The sign and seal of the Adamic covenant was the seventh-day Sabbath; that of the Noahic covenant was the rainbow; and that of the Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants circumcision (without ignoring the previous signs and seals). The added signs and seals of the New Covenant are baptism (which has replaced circumcision as a more adequate parable of the gospel), and the Lord's Supper, but again without rejecting the signs and seals of the earlier covenants. Thus our Lord's sufferings begin in a garden towards the close of the sixth day of the week, and his work of re-creation is declared complete by the cry, 'It is finished,' at the very moment synagogues throughout the land were reading Genesis 2:1-3 and echoing the same victorious cry of accomplishment. He then rested through the whole of the Sabbath day. See also the use of the rainbow in the Bible's closing book.

Not Essential for Salvation

These signs and seals of the covenants are not essential for salvation but they are important aids to faith. Each of them is a sensory parable pointing to the heart of the gospel. The rainbow reminds us that the Cross and all God's dealings combine justice and mercy as the rainbow unites sunshine and rain. The Sabbath points to our constant rest of conscience in Christ as we trust in his finished work of redemption which is actually a re-creation. Circumcision points to the cutting away of the flesh, accomplished by the moving of the Holy Spirit. Baptism replaces the national symbol and acts out the death and resurrection, not only of Christ, but of each believer. As for the Lord's Supper, its meaning is explained in John 6:47-51. Does the Sabbath Seal Have Lasting Relevance for Christians? There has been continuing controversy in all ages over the signs and seals of the covenants. Denominations have disagreed on the mode of baptism (triune, sprinkling, or immersion). There has also been disagreement in the manner of observing the Lord's Supper. The cup has been withheld for centuries from the laity in the largest section of Christendom. Argument has continued over the words of the institution—'This is my body,' and 'This is my blood of the covenant. Are the words to be taken literally or are they symbolic? (this argumentation has lasted for centuries). And the rest day has had no rest, although until the birth of the industrial age almost all Christians agreed that one day in seven should be kept holy.

Disagreement Over the Day

Most of the Church's leaders in all ages have agreed on the necessity of a day of Sabbath rest and worship each week, though not all have agreed on which day.[2] Moody said, 'When the Sabbath goes, the church goes. When the Church goes, the family goes. When the family goes, the nation goes.' And Calvin wrote, 'É if it [the rest day] were abolished, the Church would be in imminent danger of immediate convulsion and ruin' (Institutes, II: viii). Karl Barth, who gives much space in his Church Dogmatics to the fourth commandment, and who wrote of its 'decisive material significance,' 'radical importance,' and the 'almost monstrous range of this law,' quoted de Quervain approvingly, 'Where the holy day becomes a day of man, society and humanity wither away and the demons rule É (Church Dogmatics, III: p. 53).'

Why Not Keep Every Day Holy?

A tiny minority have dropped the seals and signs altogether. The Salvation Army does not practice the Lord's Supper, and the Society of Friends (Quakers) see no value in outward forms. Some take the same attitude to the fourth commandment, though claiming they keep every day holy. Such a claim, of course, is utter nonsense, for how can every day be kept separate (when'to sanctify' means 'keep distinct or separate'). Almost everybody works at secular employment most days of the week. God planned such human occupation from the beginning of time. Work and rest are the appointed rhythm for humans, and God appointed us rest in order for us to worship. The group that sees all days as equal believes it honors Christ by ignoring the day of which He declared himself Lord—that day which he said 'was made for man,' thus decking it with undying freshness.

The Sabbath In a Sense Brought the Cross

Campbell Morgan pointed out that Christ risked his life and ministry to reform Sabbath observance. Who cleans the barnacles from a sinking ship or cleans up an old shed before burning it? From a human point of view, Christ went to the Cross because he opposed the pharisaical traditions which made the Sabbath (called 'a delight,' or 'a luxury,' in Isaiah 58), a burden. See Matthew 12:14 and Luke 6:7, 11.

Two Honorable Institutions

Only two institutions in the Bible are called 'honorable'—the Sabbath and marriage. See Isaiah 58:13 and Hebrews 13:4. Strange that now many would dishonor it. What greater blessing, apart from the Gospel, could there be than the gift of 52 Spring days, 52 mini-Edens, every year, during which all secular duties and cares are relinquished. It will be of interest to some to learn that the most recent scholarly discussion on these themes, representing a variety of denominations, admits that Christ observed the seventh-day Sabbath—and so did the early Church. See From Sabbath to Lord's Day, edited by D. A. Carson, pp. 345-346, 365. This volume denies there was ever any transfer from the seventh day to the first. See pp. 346-347.

The Issue is Worship

We would emphasize that this matter is viewed in a false light when it is set forth as an issue of days only. Rather, the issue is worship. Worship is the primary duty of all rational creatures, and the declared will of God in this regard is sacrosanct. There is nothing more important than giving God his place. Perhaps it is not without significance that the first time the Sabbath is referred to by name in Scripture (Exodus 16), it is set forth as a test. See Exodus 16:4 ff (NIV and other versions).

Reality Never Displaces Observance

Let it be carefully observed that the reality in experience never displaces or makes void the necessity for observing the symbol, sign or seal, any more than the bending of our wills in submission ends our kneeling to pray. Marriage, according to Paul, symbolizes the relationship between Christ and his church, but this does not abolish marriage now the reality symbolized has come. It should never be forgotten by men and women who live in the body that spirit without form dies, while form without spirit is already dead.

Is the Gospel the True Center?

What charges are then being made against those who take the views here set forth? It is said, and I quote: ' the gospel is not the only true CENTER of their working agenda it is a false gospel—creating a wall that keeps them divided/separated from other genuine Biblical Christians.'

The position is declared to be a 'false Christ,' looming much larger than the true Christ.

Are These Accusations Fair?

Strong accusations indeed, and not really reflective of the true Christian quality of those who utter them. So we are compelled to ask rhetorically, 'Did Adam and Eve in their sinless days deny the grace of God because they kept in mind His will concerning the Tree of knowledge? Did David reject the grace of God when he took seriously the divine commandment against touching the sacred ark? Was Joshua guilty of legalism because he took seriously the command against touching the things of Babylon and Jericho? When Paul in the second half of most of his epistles stresses obedience, has he lapsed and fallen from grace? Most of all, did Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, which has much more admonition than promise, forget his own gospel? Let the reader decide.

Promise AND Law

As for us, we will remember what most Christians since the Reformation have believed: in the law of God we find His will, and in the promises, we find his gospel.

This 'New' Commandment Is Very Old

Critics of our position are quick to say that love has replaced law, and that the only commandment now to be kept in mind as a guide is Christ's new commandment. We will take the last first and, in doing so, discover that the apostle John declares that the 'new' commandment is really an old one and existed from the beginning. 1 John 2:3-11; 4:19-5:3; Leviticus 19:18; and Deuteronomy 6:5 enshrine the 'new' commandment, and some of these verses are about three and a half thousand years old.

Love Is a Rule, Not a Motive As for the other contention that love is now the Christian's only rule, we would remind our friends of the wise words of Horatius Bonar:

Love is not a rule, but a motive. Love does not tell me what to do; it tells me how to do it. Love constrains me to do the will of the Beloved One; but to know what the will is, I must go elsewhere. The law of our God is the will of the Beloved One, and were that expression of his will withdrawn, love would be utterly in the dark; it would not know what to do. It might say, I love my Master, and I love his service, and I want to do his bidding, but I must know the rules of his house, that I may know how to serve him. Love without law to guide its impulses would be the parent of will-worship and confusion, as surely as terror and self-righteousness, unless upon the supposition of an inward miraculous illumination, as an equivalent for law. Love goes to the law to learn the divine will, and love delights in the law, as the exponent of that will; and he who says that a believing man has nothing more to do with law, save to shun it as an old enemy, might as well say that he has nothing to do with the will of God. For the divine law and the divine will are substantially one, the former being the outward manifestation of the latter. God's Way of Holiness, pp. 77-78.

The Law Is Holy, Just, and Good

The New Testament is emphatic that faith does not make void the law (Rom 3:31). It is equally emphatic that the moral law, rightly used in the light of Christ and his apostles, is 'holy, just, and good,' and 'spiritual,' and to be fulfilled by every believer. (See Romans 7:12, 14; 8:4.) The first verses of Ephesians 6 take it for granted that all Christians, not only knew the Decalogue as a guide for conduct, but also knew the order of its commands. 1 Timothy 1:8-10 refers to both tables of the law from Sinai, and declares them 'good.' Whenever the Hebrew and Greek words for 'testimony' are used in connection with the sanctuary, they always refer to the Decalogue. And in the Bible's last book, they are seen again in glory as the foundation of the divine government. See Revelation 15:5.

Two Law Error

It is true that many have erred in affirming that the New Testament teaches that the Old had two laws—one moral and the other ceremonial. Such a statement would be false, but the intent is true—the one law of Israel contained both moral and ceremonial elements, the former being distinguished by God himself in speaking and writing it. Almost all church creeds have affirmed this reality, and so have the majority of Christian theologians over the centuries. It should be remembered that one can destroy a house without destroying the sunshine that has illuminated it. Likewise, the house of the Torah has gone, but not the light which illumined it—the light of pure morality. Thus Jesus could quote both Leviticus 19:18 and Deuteronomy 6:5 as mandatory.

The Hinges of the Law

The Decalogue gives us a clue by putting its only two positive commandments at its center—the hinges of the two tables. These, the fourth and fifth commandments, point back to the two institutions that preceded sin—the Sabbath and marriage. Whatever was human duty before the Fall remains so in principle for all ages. On the other hand, whatever came in by law to typify the remedy for the Fall came to its end when that remedy—Christ and his Cross—appeared, just as a shadow of a tree ceases at the root of the tree. Must we cringe if these age-long convictions of the everlasting gospel threaten to create a barrier between us and other Christians? Must we hasten to teach infant sprinkling instead of baptism by immersion, eternal torture in hell fire, rather than the destruction of the willfully wicked, and the secret rapture with all its oddities?

Absence of the Moral Law Brings Chaos

We believe the warning of Roderick Campbell rings true. See if you think so too.

The absence of the basic Moral law would bring chaos, anarchy, or death, into every realm of rational being. On the other hand, if there were no law there would be no sin, hence no sinners, and no room for Grace. If there were no sin, there would be no Saviour, no redemption, and no gospel message.

Thus we read, 'But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound; that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal death by Jesus Christ our Lord' (Romans 5:20,21).

Grace is that golden stream, that river of the water of life, which always flows in the channel of Law, out from the fountain of the immeasurable love of God.

Without a conscience within and an objective Moral Law without, mankind would revert to a condition lower than the brute creation. The earth becomes a garden or a desert, a paradise or a hell, according as men perform, or fail to perform, the just demands of the righteous Moral Law. A stable order among men can be maintained only when it is based upon a conviction that, above the level of life on earth, and above the physical creation, there exists a supreme Moral Governor of the world. Israel and the New Covenant, pp. 42, 43



8. The Bible uses the word 'law' in a number of ways. Discuss at least three ways (or meanings) about how the word Law is used in the Bible.
Ans:In Acts 7:38 the Old Testament law received on Mount Sinai is referred to as the living oracles.

Another term often used in the New Testament for the Old Testament Scripture is the law. On the principle that the most authoritative part gives its name to the whole, sometimes the expression the law refers to the entire Old Testament. Under this principle and because the whole of the Old Testament is authoritative as God’s Word of instruction to men, Jesus quoted from Psalm 82 in John 10:34 and referred to it as the law. In John 12:34, the multitudes answered Jesus and said, “We have heard out of the law that the Christ is to remain forever.” Here again the law is used of the entire Old Testament for the passages in mind included other portions like Psalm 110:4, Isaiah 9:7, and Ezekiel 37:25, and the first five books of Moses.



“Law” (torah) occurs twenty-five times. In the broad sense it refers to any “instruction” flowing from the revelation of God as the basis for life and action. In the narrow sense it denotes the Law of Moses, whether the Pentateuch, the priestly law, or the Deuteronomic law


9. Earlier we mentioned that Moses was a type of Christ in the act of a deliverer. Many Bible scholars compare Jesus' Sermon on the Mount with Moses on Mount Sinai. In Matthew chapters 5-7 you will find a number of situations that are similar to Moses on Mount Sinai. Do you think Jesus is expanding the laws against murder and adultery or just amplifying them (hyperbole)? Has He changed the Ten Commandments (adultery & murder) are was it is just a warning of progression from mind to action?



Ans. The teachings of Jesus of Nazareth are revolutionary—not because He annulled the laws God revealed, but because He expanded them, showing their spiritual intent.

Notice one example in Matthew 5:27-28: “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

The immoral act of committing adultery is defined as a sin by the Seventh Commandment (Exodus 20:14). Yet the literal wording of that commandment—the letter of that law (2 Corinthians 3:5-6)—does not fully reflect God’s intent. Jesus showed that the spirit of the law—its spiritual intent—is much broader than the letter and encompasses even our thoughts toward others. Lustful thoughts, He taught, are mental, emotional and spiritual adultery and are contrary to a basic principle of His will—loving our neighbor as we love ourselves (Matthew 22:39).

Similarly, Christ expanded the intent of the Sixth Commandment, which prohibits murder (Exodus 20:13). “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder’ ? and ‘whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire” (Matthew 5:21-22, New Revised Standard Version). Jesus explained that uncontrolled or unjustified anger can break the spirit of the Sixth Commandment.

He continued: “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ But I say to you, do not swear at all . . . But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one” (verses 33-37).

Jesus’ teaching about oaths illustrates another aspect of applying the spirit of the law rather than just the letter of such biblical commands. In this example the spiritual principle underlying the law demands that those who serve God should be truthful in everything they say. They should not have to be required to swear an oath before their words can be regarded as honest and factual. Therefore the commandment telling us not to “bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16) should mean far more to us than only being required to tell the truth if we are under an oath. Jesus made the New Testament application of this command even more demanding by saying, “Do not swear at all.”



10. Read Leviticus 26:1-12. God speaks of a people to whom He is their God, they are His people and He will dwell with them. Was this a conditional or unconditional relationship? Who are the people of God today? How does He identify (mark) His people? Who will be the people of God in the future when Jesus comes again?

Ans: This chapter contains a general enforcement of all the laws given by Moses; by promises of reward in case of obedience, on the one hand; and threatenings of punishment for disobedience, on the other. While Israel maintained a national regard to God's worship, sabbaths, and sanctuary, and did not turn aside to idolatry, the Lord engaged to continue to them temporal mercies and religious advantages. These great and precious promises, though they relate chiefly to the life which now is, were typical of the spiritual blessings made sure by the covenant of grace to all believers, through Christ. 1. Plenty and abundance of the fruits of the earth. Every good and perfect gift must be expected from above, from the Father of lights. 2. Peace under the Divine protection. Those dwell in safety, that dwell in God. 3. Victory and success in their wars. It is all one with the Lord to save by many or by few. 4. The increase of their people. The gospel church shall be fruitful. 5. The favour of God, which is the fountain of all Good. 6. Tokens of his presence in and by his ordinances. The way to have God's ordinances fixed among us, is to cleave closely to them. 7. The grace of the covenant. All covenant blessings are summed up in the covenant relation, I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and they are all grounded upon their redemption. Having purchased them, God would own them, and never cast them off till they cast him off.

The People of God is the Land of Israel. Factors that were involved in God's selection of Israel are:

His instructions to mankind, as a whole, had been challenged by a united rebellion of the people against Him at Babel (Genesis 11:1-9), and He then forcibly confounded their languages and divided them into distinct nations.
His promise of a coming Redeemer to reconcile a lost world to Himself required that God should become man some day and He would thus have to be born into a particular nation and people.

Such a nation would have to be prepared, both by divine revelation and national experience, to be the nation through which the Savior would come.
All of the nations formed as a result of the judgment at Babel were already in rebellion against God and unsuitable for this purpose.
God, therefore, chose one man, Abraham, to establish a new nation through which 'all families of the earth would be blessed.'
Not only are the people of Israel special and God's chosen people, but the land is also special. In Deuteronomy 11:12, we read, 'It is a land the LORD your God cares for; the eyes of the LORD your God are continually on it from the beginning of the year to its end.' God is working out Israel's salvation from the time of the Old Testament. He desired the Messiah to appear there, and that the church would be formed there. God recognizes as His children those who receive Jesus, for Jesus enables us to become children of God. John 1:12-13 .When a person receives Christ, Jesus' blood enables him or her to become heirs to the covenant of promise and part of God's community. Ephesians 2:12-13. God chooses to reveal Himself to us today through His Son (His own Words).



The seventh 'trumpet', what Paul termed 'the last trumpet' (I Corinthians 15:52), is marked by the return of Jesus Christ and the resurrection of the faithful.