Truth Magazine

That the churches described in the New Testament had a treasury made up of freewill offerings from the members is evident from several passages. Paul gave the same order to the churches of Galatia that he gave to the church at Corinth. “As I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also. On the first day of the week let each of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come” (1 Cor. 16:1-2).

This is the only passage which deals with a time when such a collection was to be made “on the first day of the week.” This regular practice would prevent having to suddenly gather what was needed when Paul arrived. What was “stored up” or “laid by” in store (KJV) constituted a treasury. From this fund the needs of saints at Jerusalem would be supplied. But while this passage is the only one which states a time for such storing up, it is not the only passage which instructs us as to how collected funds were used. Paul said he “took wages” of “other churches” to minister at Corinth (2 Cor. 11:8). Churches could not provide wages to Paul unless they had funds from which to do that. The church at Philippi “sent once and again” to supply Paul’s needs while he preached at Thessalonica (Phil. 4:15-16). Members of the church at Jerusalem sold property and laid the proceeds at the feet of the apostles for the care of those among them who were in need (Acts 4:32-37).

Does God Need Our Money?

The truth of the matter is that God does not need money. He owns the universe. But whatever God has required his people to do is for their own good. Jesus said “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). Giving, properly done, indicates a generous spirit which parallels the character of God. “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son” (John 3:16). Paul called giving a “grace bestowed” by God on those who practiced it. “Moreover brethren, we make known to you the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia” (2 Cor. 8:1, 6). Unselfish giving shows the depth of our affection. It springs not from compulsion but from the free will of the heart. In the case of relieving the afflicted it shows compassion. Liberality is the opposite of stinginess. God was not miserly in showering his blessings upon the human family, nor should we be in our giving. No, God does not need our money, but we need to give for our own good. In so doing we become partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4).

Giving Self First

Jesus said that in order to be his disciples we have to learn to “deny self” (Matt. 16:24). “Self-esteem” is the current rage. “I’m worth it” or “I’m number one” is heard again and again. Jesus emptied himself for us (Phil. 2:7). “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9). Jesus taught that the way to greatness in the kingdom was to become the servant of all. When a person surrenders all to the Lord, body, soul, spirit, talent, time, and wealth, then he fulfills what is meant by denying self. God accepts what we give only to the extent that he accepts us.

The Macedonians had learned this. “That in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded to the riches of their liberality. For I bear witness that according to their ability, yes, and beyond their ability, they were freely willing. Imploring us with much urgency that we would receive the gift and the fellowship of the ministering to the saints. And this they did, not as we had hoped, but first gave themselves to the Lord, and then to us by the will of God” (2 Cor. 8:1-5). Here were poor brethren who had so given themselves to the Lord that their giving was described as liberality and far beyond what anyone would have expected.

Notice that it was the grace of God when they gave. But it was also the grace of God when the Corinthians gave (vv. 6-7).

How much do I have to give? That is the wrong question. Remember it is called liberality. It is grace. Was God’s grace generous or stingy? It is called “freely” giving. If we “sow sparingly we shall also reap sparingly” while sowing “bountifully” results in reaping bountifully (2 Cor. 9:6). Giving must be according to purpose of heart and not grudgingly or of necessity (2 Cor. 9:7). It is the “cheerful giver that God loves. Do I have to give this? No, you don’t have to do it. You can refuse to give yourself to the Lord, shut up your heart against the needs of the saints and the lost who need to hear the gospel, spend all you have on yourself, and go on to Hell with the rest of the wicked. I have heard some say we ought to give until it hurts. I don’t believe it. Where is the grace, liberality, and freewill in that? No, what we need to do is give until it feels good.

All are not prospered equally. The Macedonians were poor. But they taught a great lesson and set a grand ex- ample, not only for the Corinthians, for all of us. If that won’t help us to decide how much to give, then the case is beyond help.

The subject of Christian fellowship has been an important issue for the twentieth century. The ecumenical movement of Protestant denominationalism changed those churches; instead of being denominations at war with one another, they accepted one another as Christians with different denominational heritages. The influence of this movement spilled over into the restoration heritage. The Murch-Witty discussion of the 1930s was a “unity-in-diversity” movement.

The conversion of Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett from sectarians who would not fellowship anyone except those baptized believers who opposed located preachers and colleges in which the Bible is taught was the beginning of a “unity-in-diversity” movement among the churches of Christ. That movement spilled over to influence the non-institutional churches in the early 1970s, taking about 100 younger preachers with it.

The “unity-in-diversity” movement is storming the camp of the institutional churches. F. Lagard Smith describes the move toward fellowshipping those in denominational churches as a “quiet revolution” that is a “clear and present danger” (Who Is My Brother? 16, 17). That movement asserts that there are Christians in all denominations with whom we should have “unity-in-diversity.”

In the 1997 Promise Keepers rally in Washington, D.C., Max Lucada called on Christians to quit building walls between denominations, but to let those walls come down. Mike Cope delivered a series of lessons at the Highland Church of Christ in Abilene, TX entitled “Christians Only — Not the Only Christians.” One of his lessons that has been frequently quoted is reprinted in Wineskins (III:3, April/May 1997). In this lesson, he explained how he came to the realization that there were Christians in all denominations. He argued from Romans 14-15 that we should have unity with one another in spite of our important doctrinal and moral differences. He closed by expressing his desire for the time when he could exchange pulpits with a local Baptist preacher. A significant number of the liberal churches of Christ are moving into the mainstream of Protestant denominationalism, recognizing as Christians those who profess faith in Christ without regard to whether or not one has been baptized.

What beliefs must be changed to have fellowship with the denominations? Let me suggest several changes that have to occur before one is ready to extend fellowship to those in denominations:

1. One must believe that one can be saved without water baptism. One cannot speak of “Christian fellowship” with those in the denominations unless he believes that they are Christians. The New Testament teaches that one becomes a Christian when he obeys the gospel. The obedience of faith includes repentance of one’s sins and immersion in water for the remission of one’s sins. Most groups will admit that one must repent of his sins in order to be saved (Luke 13:3; Acts

2:38; 17:30; 2 Pet. 3:9), but most Protestant denominations reject the idea that water baptism is essential to salvation. The Scriptures describe the purpose of water baptism in the following words:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned (Mark 16:16).

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38).

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16).

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ  (1 Pet. 3:21).

When one is baptized, his spiritual state changes. He ceases being an alien from the commonwealth of Israel and becomes a fellow-citizen with the saints in the kingdom of God; he ceases being outside of Christ and without hope to being in Christ with the one blessed hope; he changes from a sinner to a saint, an unbeliever to a believer, one who rejects Christ to a disciple of Christ.

In as much as the denominations teach that one can be saved without being baptized, they have not taught men how to become Christians. The denominational plan of salvation through faith only is contrary to divine revela- tion (Jas. 2:24). Those who call for Christian fellowship with those who teach salvation by “faith only” must give up their belief that one must be baptized in water in order to have the forgiveness of his sin, to enter the kingdom of God, and to be in Christ.

2. One must believe that one’s salvation is not effected by the worship that he offers. The Lord has always revealed how he wishes to be worshiped. If there were no Bible pat- tern for worship, the sin of idolatry could not exist (Gal. 5:20). The fact is that God has revealed in both the Old and New Testaments that only that worship which is offered according to the revealed pattern is pleasing to him.

God rejected the worship of Cain because it was not offered “by faith” (Gen. 4; Heb. 11:4). He rejected the worship of Nadab and Abihu because they brought “strange fire” which God had not commanded (Lev. 10:1-2). The worship of Saul was rejected because it was not offered by God’s designated priests (1 Sam. 15). The worship that Jeroboam I set up in Bethel and Dan was a sin (1 Kings 12:25-32). Jesus taught that true worship must be offered to the Father in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24).

The divine pattern for worship includes these five items: (a) the weekly observance of the Lord’s supper (Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:17-34); (b) Prayer (1 Cor. 14:15; Acts 2:42); (c) Congregation singing (1 Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16); (d) A contribution taken on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1-2); (e) The preaching of apostolic doctrine (Acts 2:42; 20:7).

The denominations have departed from the worship revealed in the New Testament in a variety of ways. Rather than having congregational singing, they use choirs and other professional (or semi-professional) singing groups that entertain the assembly (accompanied by clapping to show their approval of the entertainment). The singing is accompanied by mechanical instruments of music and instrumental solos. The Lord’s supper is not observed on the first day of every week, but once a month, once every six months, or once a year, sometimes in conjunction with a special foot washing service. Prayer may be offered in the name of Mary (as in Roman Catholicism). Contributions are taken at every service without regard to which day of the week it is and usually several contributions per service. The preaching that is done is usually woefully thin in Scripture, consisting more of heart-warming stories and anecdotes. In addition to the changes in revealed worship, most churches will also allow theatrical performances, speeches by prominent political figures on political issues (such as Jesse Jackson speaking in Black Baptist Churches), and many such like things.

However, if one is going to extend fellowship to the denominations, he must accept that these departures from revealed worship do not endanger the souls of men or break fellowship with the saints.

3. Teaching the doctrines of men does not affect one’s salvation. The early apostles were absolutely charged with preaching the gospel of Christ, without addition or omission. The early apostles were to teach what “I (Jesus) have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20). They were to teach “apostolic doctrine” (Acts 2:42). They were charged not to teach any other doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3). Timothy was charged to give attention to his doctrine in order to save himself and those that hear him (1 Tim. 4:16). Peter commanded that one speak as the oracles of Christ (1 Pet. 4:11). John told men not to transgress the doctrine of Christ and warned those who did that they did not have fellowship with God (2 John 9-11). Jesus warned of the danger of teaching for one’s doctrine the commandments of men saying,

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. . . . But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch (Matt. 15:8-9, 13-14).

Many such like Scriptures can be offered in support of the same truth. Those who depart from revealed revelation are guilty of sin and in danger of eternal damnation.

To have an on-going fellowship with the denominations of men, one must reject this concept. He must be willing to accept that water baptism is not essential for salvation, can be administered by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, and can be administered to unbelieving infants. He must tolerate the doctrine that says God predestined some to eternal life and others to eternal damnation without regard to anything foreseen in what man does. He must tolerate the Catholic doctrine about the Virgin Mary. He must not draw lines of fellowship over the doctrine of babies inheriting the guilt and sinful nature of Adam. He must tolerate those who deny the inspiration of the Bible, the virgin birth, and the resurrection of Jesus, for Protestant churches contain those holding these various positions.

Conclusion

To fellowship those in Protestant and Catholic denominations, one must give up his belief in what the Bible teaches. He must give his belief that water baptism is essential for salvation, that there is a pattern of New Testament worship, and that it makes a difference what one believes and practices. One cannot maintain purity of faith and extend the hands of fellowship to those who deny the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

By Larry Ray Hafley

If military might made a nation great, the Assyrian and Roman empires would never have fallen. If scientific education made a nation great, Nazi Germany would have ruled the world. If vast natural resources made a nation great, the former Soviet Union would be flourishing. If money made a nation great, the oil rich nation of Saudi Arabia would be strong.

The United States has all of the above measures of strength in abundance. Do those items make us a great nation? No. They only make us a country rich in the symbols and accouterments of material wealth, worldly wisdom, and physical power. They are not standards of real worth, or of true value.

You are already ahead of me, for you know what makes a nation great; you know what gives it genuine force and stability. “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34).

Now, apply the same rule to the church. What makes a church great in the sight of the Lord? Is it money? No, Laodicea evidently had that, but they were “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked” (Rev. 3:17). An urbane, sophisticated, educated membership may comprise an ignorant congregation (1 Cor. 3:18-21). Thus, we may safely say, “Righteousness exalteth God’s ‘holy nation,’ the church, but sin is a reproach to any congregation” (cf. 1 Pet. 2:5, 9). (If you doubt that conclusion, see Paul’s judgment of the Corinthians — 1 Cor. 3:1-3.)

Next, attach these principles to yourself, an individual. What makes a person great in the sight of God Almighty? Is it power, prestige, position, or prominence? Absolutely not! See Luke 12:15-21; 16:19-31; 18:1-14. Remember, “not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called” (1 Cor. 1:26). Thus, we may certainly say,  “Righteousness exalteth an individual, but sin is a reproach to any person.”

If either a nation or a church is going to be exalted, if they are going to be great, their individual members must be pure, holy, and righteous. Neither the nation nor the church can be exalted if you and I are not righteous before God. That is a sobering thought. One thing is for sure — if we want a great nation, and if we want to be part of a good church, we know where to start.

By Frank Jamerson

The apostle Paul said: “For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai . . .(the other from) the Jerusalem above” (Gal. 4:24). That should be sufficient to prove that there is more than one covenant, but further study will show that there are many covenants mentioned in the Bible, and though fellowship with God was always available to men, all were not under the same covenant.

According to “Quick Verse” there are 292 uses of the word “covenant,” fifteen uses of “everlasting covenant,” two of “perpetual covenant,” and there are many other covenants not specifically so called. The word covenant is defined as: “between nations: a treaty, alliance of friend- ship; between individuals: a pledge or agreement   . . . between God and man: a covenant accompanied by signs, sacrifices, and a solemn oath that sealed the relationship with promises of blessings for keeping the covenant and curses for breaking it” (Theological Workbook of the O.T. I:128). W.E. Vine says the word may refer to “a promise, or undertaking, human or divine . . . an agreement, a mutual undertaking, between God and Israel —  see Deut. 29 and 30 (described as a ‘commandment,’ Heb. 7:18, cp. ver. 22).” Hebrews 7 says “there is an annul- ling of the former commandment . . . for the law made nothing perfect . . . (and) Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant” (vv. 18, 19, 22). Here the law of Moses is called the former commandment that was weak, and is contrasted to the better covenant given through Christ. Thayer says: “a disposition, arrangement, of any sort, which one wishes to be valid . . . we find in the N.T. two distinct covenants spoken of (Gal. 4:24), viz. the Mosaic and the Christian . . . diatheke is used in 2 Cor. 3:14, of the sacred books of the O.T.” (136, 137). A covenant may refer to a promise, or a purpose of God. God’s eternal purpose (salvation of man in Christ, Eph. 1:3-11) has never changed, but a covenant may also refer to instructions, or law. Moses said, God “declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform,” and that covenant included the Ten Commandments (Deut. 4:13; 5:2, 3).

God was in relationship (or covenant) with Adam and Eve, but their relationship was severed because they violated his instructions (or covenant). Hosea said Israel “like Adam, transgressed the covenant” (Hos. 6:7, NASV). Circumcision was both a “covenant” (a command of God) and a “sign of the covenant” (the special relationship) between God and Abraham (Gen. 17:9-11). It was also included in the covenant God made with Israel (Lev. 12:3), thus, a sign of a special relationship between God and one nation, but it was also a law (Acts 7:8; Gal. 5:3). The Sabbath was a sign of God’s special agreement with Israel (Exod. 31:16, 17). It was also part of “His covenant . . . the Ten Commandments” (Deut. 4:13, 23), or “the law of commandments” (Exod. 24:12; Deut. 4:44).

When Hilkiah “found the Book of the Law of the Lord given by Moses” (2 Chron. 34:14), King Josiah, “made a covenant (agreement) before the Lord, to follow the Lord, and to keep His commandments and His testimonies and His statutes with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of the covenant that were written in this book” (v. 31). The “words of the covenant” were read in “the book of the law.” Covenant here refers to the revelation of God’s will, his law. There are many covenants, and more than a half dozen called “everlasting,” but my assignment is to discuss the two major covenants — the Old and the New (2 Cor. 3:6, 14), the First and the Second (Heb. 8:7), the one given through Moses (John 1:17; Gal. 3:19) and the one given through Christ (Heb. 8:6). We will affirm that God predicted the passing of the first covenant before it was given, at the very time it was given and while it was in effect.

Before The Old Covenant Was Given

Long before the Old Covenant was given, God gave a picture of its demise. While the promise to Abram was waiting to be fulfilled, Sarai suggested that her husband go into Hagar and bear children (Gen. 16:2). After Isaac was born, Sarah told Abraham to “cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son” (Gen. 21:10).

Paul said those who “desire to be under the law” (of Moses), need to hear what the law said. Then he referred to this story and said “which things are symbolic. For these are two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai (represents bondage of the law) . . . but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all . . . So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free” (Gal. 4:21- 26, 31). If the covenant that was given on Mount Sinai is still binding, we are still children of the bondwoman!

At the Time the Old Covenant was Given

When God gave the Old Covenant, Moses came down from the Mount, and “did not know that the skin of his face shone,” and the children of Israel “were afraid to come near him.” He called them to him and “gave them as commandments all that the Lord had spoken with him on Mount Sinai. And when Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil on his face” (Exod. 34:29-33).

The Holy Spirit used the passing of the glory on Moses’ face as figurative of the “ministry of death, written and en- graven on stone” passing away (2 Cor. 3:7). The concealing of the fading of the glory was symbolic of the fact that some whose “minds were hardened” still did not see that the Old Covenant had passed away. “For to this day, when they read the Old Covenant, the same veil remains unlifted” (v. 14, RSV). Paul said God “made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant” (v. 7). The Old Covenant was glorious, but the New is more glorious! The Old “passed away,” the New “remains”!

God never intended for the law given through Moses to be permanent. Paul said it “was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made” (Gal. 3:19). Like Ishmael, when the promised Seed came, it was “cast out.” It served its purpose as a tutor (or bus driver) to “bring us to Christ,” but after “faith,” (or “the faith”) came, we are “no longer under the tutor” (Gal. 3:23- 25). Paul was not talking about “Judaizing of the law,” but the basic purpose of the Old Covenant. It served its purpose, and is still valuable (Rom. 15:4), but as surely as “the faith” has come, we are “no longer under the tutor.”

While the Old Covenant Was In Effect

God, through Jeremiah said: “I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah — not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt (cf. 2 Chron. 5:10), My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord . . . for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more” (Jer. 31:31-34).

Those who advocate one covenant assert that this was fulfilled (simply “renewed”) in the restoration from Babylonian captivity and again under Christ. It is true that the basic principles stated, existed under the first covenant (the law of Moses), just as many of the things in the first covenant existed before Mount Sinai, but that does not prove that the new covenant was established upon the return from Babylon.

The prophecy of Jeremiah is quoted twice in the book of Hebrews. After the first quotation (Heb. 8:8-12), the writer concluded: “In that He says, A New Covenant, He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (v. 13). Before the New Covenant could come into existence the first had to become obsolete, or vanish away. When Jeremiah prophesied a New Covenant it implied that the current one would become old and obsolete. Jim McGuiggan commented: “Hebrews 8:13 doesn’t say the old covenant was ‘becoming old.’ It specifically says ‘In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made (perfect tense denoting completed action with results continuing in the present — the first covenant stands ‘having been made old’)” (The Reign of God 91). The first covenant became obsolete, not “renewed,” and the new was given! If the New Covenant was given during the post-exile period, why did Haggai exhort the people to keep the word that the Lord covenanted with them when they “came out of Egypt” instead of when they came out of Babylon (Hag. 2:5)? Ezra told those who had returned, and married foreign wives, to “put away all these wives and those who have been born to them.” Is this part of the New Covenant? Should we tell those who marry “foreign wives” (or those not in the covenant), to put them away? Ezra said “let it be done according to the law” — not ac- cording to the New Covenant (Ezra 10:2, 3; Deut. 7:3)! The Old Covenant was given through Moses to one nation (Deut. 5:2, 3). The New Covenant was given through Christ to the whole world (Mal. 3:1; Matt. 28:18-20).

Jeremiah 31 is quoted again in Hebrews 10:16, 17. The writer then concludes: “Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin” (v. 18). If the remission of sins that Jeremiah prophesied was fulfilled in the post-exile period, why did Malachi condemn the Jews for not sacrificing the proper animals? Did animal sacrifices cease during the post-exile period? (There was a sense in which sins were forgiven under the Old Covenant, when people offered animal sacrifices [Lev. 17:11], but this is not what Jeremiah prophesied. The Hebrew writer said the law “can never with those same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect . . . For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins . . . for the law made nothing perfect . . . God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us” [Heb. 10:1, 4; 7:19; 11:40]. Christ died “for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant” [Heb. 9:15], not because they had been forgiven!)

When Jesus died on the cross, he “broke down the middle wall of division between us, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace” (Eph. 2:14, 15). The law, having been given to the Jew and not the Gentile (Deut. 5:2, 3; Rom. 2:14; 3:1, 2), brought enmity, but it was taken away and a New Covenant made with the Jew first (as Jeremiah prophesied), and then the Gentile (Rom. 1:16). Yes, many of the principles in the Old are repeated, but it is a New Covenant.

The Blood of Animals Versus the Blood of Christ

“Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said, All that the Lord has said we will do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said Behold, the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you according to all these words” (Exod. 24:7, 8). The Hebrew writer tells us that the first covenant was not “dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you” (Heb. 9:19, 20). This “blood of the covenant” was “blood of calves and goats,” not the blood of Christ! Though Jesus died for the transgressions under the first covenant (Heb. 9:15), he did not dedicate that covenant with his blood. His covenant went into effect when the appointed sacrifice was made — his death (Heb. 9:15-17). A man who “rejected Moses’ law” is contrasted with one who “counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing” (Heb. 10:28, 29).

Conclusion

Many teachings found in the Old Covenant are also found in the New, but the Old was dedicated with the blood of animals, and the New with the blood of Christ. Understanding this basic biblical distinction frees us from the impossible task of determining whether every practice in the Old Covenant is moral, or ceremonial — which is an accommodative human distinction. When Paul told the Romans, “you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ” (his death), he included the law that said “thou shalt not covet” (Rom. 7:4, 7). To the Corinthians, he said “the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones” passed away (2 Cor. 3:6-11). Both of these passages contain what is called “moral law,” but we died to it, and it passed away! We grant that many moral principles have not changed. Some before Sinai were incorporated into the Old Covenant, and some in the Old Covenant were incorporated into the New Covenant, but if it is not in the New Covenant, it has not been dedicated by the blood of Christ. What God spoke “through angels proved steadfast” (Heb. 2:2; Gal. 3:19), but “the great salvation” was “first spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him” (Heb. 2:3). Let us hear Christ!