Truth Magazine

By Frank Jamerson

When brethren are confused about whether Christ came to fulfill the law and prophets or to perpetuate them, it is time to get back to basics! Some are teaching that “Continuity of law is evident in Matthew 5:17,” and Jesus did not “dismantle the law and give a new one,” He only “took away the ceremonial aspects of the law.” My affirmation is that Jesus fulfilled the promises, the prophecies and the law, and all of it passed away. We can please God only by following the New Covenant revealed through Christ and ratified by his blood.

The Law and The Prophets

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one title will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:17-19).

Most of the material in this article is taken from a book written by James D. Bales in 1973, entitled: “Christ: The Fulfillment of The Law And The Prophets.” (It is out of print now. All quotations will be from this source.) When Jesus said he came “to fulfill the Law,” was he talking about the “moral law,” the “ceremonial law,” or all the Law? Those who contend that he came just to fulfill the “ceremonial law” have a problem with the context, for the next verses talk about murder, anger, lust, adultery, divorce, telling the truth, resisting evil, and loving your enemies (Matt. 5:21-48). Jesus also said that he came to “fulfill the Prophets.” Was he referring to some of the prophets, or all of them?

John said, “For the law was given through Moses” (John 1:17), and Paul said that the law given “four hundred and thirty years” after the promise was intended to last “till the seed should come” (Gal. 3:17, 19). Did God mean to say that “the ceremonial law was given till the seed should come”? Whatever Jesus affirmed about the Law, he also affirmed about the prophets in Matthew 5. If he meant that he would perpetuate the Law, it must also mean that he would perpetuate the prophets. Whatever “fulfillment” did for one it did for the other! (Jesus used the expression “law and prophets” to include the whole Old Testament system (Matt. 7:12; 22:40). The Hebrew writer said God “spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets” but “has in these last days spoken to us by His Son” (Deb. 1:1, 2). We are not to “hear” Moses or the prophets, but the Son of God!

Fulfill, Not Destroy

What is the difference between destroying and fulfilling? God told Moses he would “raise up for them a Prophet like you” (Deut. 18:18). When Jesus came, did he destroy that prophecy or fulfill it (Acts 3:22, 23)? Zechariah said that Jesus would rule both as a priest and a king on his throne (Zech. 6:13). When Jesus came, did he fulfill that prophecy, or destroy it? When the prophecies were fulfilled, what happened to them? “When one says that we are no longer under the law and the prophets, he is not saying that Jesus destroyed them by perpetuating them, but rather that he brought them to an end by fulfilling them” (20). “Christ did not come to annul the purpose of the law and the prophets. He did not bring them to naught by failing to fulfill them. He did not abolish them in the sense that one abolishes a promise by refusing to fulfill it. But he did bring the law and the prophets to an end by fulfilling them…. If Christ perpetuated one part of the law, he perpetuated all of the law, since none was to pass until all was fulfilled” (23, 24).

But, what about the prohibition against “breaking one of the least commandments” (Matt. 5:19)? First, would one of “the least” be moral or ceremonial? Jesus had just said that “one jot or one title will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled” (v. 18). Second, was Jesus saying that even the least commandments would continue after the law was fulfilled? No, he was saying that those who have the disposition, under either law, to ignore “the least commandments” do not have the right attitude toward God’s word. Paul said, “But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets” (Rom. 3:21). Just as surely as righteousness is through faith in Christ, the law and the prophets accomplished theft purpose, and though they have historical value, they “passed away.”

Moral and Ceremonial Law?

It is certainly true that some of God’s laws deal with moral conduct and others with ceremonial actions, but does the Bible teach that the ceremonial law passed away but the moral law remained? Look at a few verses in Romans and ask, “Which law is under discussion?” “For the Gen-tiles, who do not have the law …. (2:14). Is this moral or ceremonial law? The Jews “rested in the law” and had the advantage over Gentiles “because to them were committed the oracles of God” (2:17; 3:1, 2). Was it only the ceremonial law that gave the Jews advantage? Those who had received the law became “dead to the law through the body of Christ” (7:4). Now, “we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by …” (v. 6). Again, was this just the ceremonial law which had held them and to which they died? If so, why did Paul say, “I would have not known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, You shall not covet” (v. 7). His illustration of law is one of the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:17)!

Let’s take a brief look at the book of Galatians. “Man is not justified by the works of the law . . . for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified” (2:16). Which law does Paul mean? Was flesh justified by the moral law but not by the ceremonial? “Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” (3:2). Did they receive the Spirit by the moral law, but not the ceremonial? “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse . . . But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for the just shall live by faith” (vv. 10, 11). Again, did the Galatians live by the moral law given through Moses? “For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise” (v.18). Was the inheritance by the moral, but not the ceremonial law? “What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator” (v. 19). Was it just the ceremonial law that was given through angels by the hand of a mediator? “Before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law” (v. 23). Again, which law? (Romans 7:6, 7 identifies the law under which they had been “held” as the one that forbad coveting!) “There-fore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ . . . but after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor” (vv. 23-25). Unless the law is “the faith which would afterward be revealed,” we are not under it!

Notice one passage in Hebrews. “Anyone who rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses” (Heb. 10:28). Does Moses’ law include the moral law? (See Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:1-6.) The writer, in this context, contrasts Moses’ law with trampling “the Son of God underfoot,” and counting “the blood of the covenant” by which we are sanctified a common thing (Heb. 10:29). No, we are not under the law of Moses, either the moral or ceremonial part, but under the covenant that was dedicated by the blood of Jesus Christ (Heb. 9:16-18). (Take your concordance and read every use of “law” in Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews and ask the question  Is it moral or ceremonial? This will show the folly of the “one covenant” theorists who claim that them are “two laws” [moral and ceremonial]).

James Bales concluded: “Where is the moral law found revealed in its fullness? It is found in Christ, in the New Covenant. We do not have the authority to go to the Old Testament, select something which we would like to be an eternal principle (which he calls moral law), and bind it on God’s people today. We cannot know that it is an eternal principle unless it is also found in the New Testament” (69). This harmonizes with the Hebrew writer’s contrast between the things “spoken through angels” (cp. Gal. 3:19) and the things that “fast began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard him” (Heb. 2:2, 3).

Those who deny that the whole law passed away have the impossible task of determining which of the Old Testament laws to bring over. Is the prohibition against eating blood (Lev. 17:10, 11), moral or ceremonial? (Some who believe the moral laws of Moses are binding are teaching that prohibition against eating blood was removed, so it must be “ceremonial”!) Is giving your wife a certificate of divorce and sending her away (Deut. 24:1-4), moral or ceremonial? (Some advocates of an unchanging moral law contend that this is still God’s law; others say it is not so!) God gave David his “master’s wives” (2 Sam. 12:8). Is polygamy moral or ceremonial? (One advocate of this theory says he does not know.) What about concubines (2 Sam. 5:13)? What about a brother taking his deceased brother’s wife (Deut. 25:5)? Is this part of the moral or the ceremonial law? Was it moral for Ezra to tell God’s people to put away their wives that they did not have a right to marry (Ezra 10:3, 4), or is this part of the ceremonial law that has been taken away? Must we examine every law in the Old Testament and agree on whether it is moral or ceremonial before we know what we should do under the law of Christ? Such is unscriptural and impossible!

Conclusion

The blood of Christ did not ratify the promise to Abraham. It was in effect for two thousand years before it was fulfilled. The blood of Christ did not ratify the First Covenant. It was ratified by the blood of animals (Exod. 24:7, 8; Heb. 9:19), was fulfilled and passed away. Every time we observe the Lord’s supper, we are reminded, “this cup is the new covenant in My blood” (1 Cor. 11:25). “The fact that there are similar principles in both Covenants, does not mean that we obey these because they are in the law of Moses … Moses was inspired of God to reveal the Old Covenant to Israel, but God speaks to us today through his Son (Heb. 1:1, 2). We obey these principles not because they are in the law of Moses, but because God has placed them in the NEW Covenant” (74). Amen!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 16 p. 6-8
August 21, 1997

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:9-11).

When Paul tells us that “such were some of you,” he tells us something about several people. He tells something about some of the Christians at Corinth  their past and their present. He tells something about those who converted these people. He tells something about the brethren who were willing to receive these people.

Someone had made pro-found changes. When Paul said, “such were some of you,” he means that they were no longer “fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners.” They had been cleaned up. They had been forgiven and no longer practiced their former sins. The adulterers (married or unmarried) who had been committing adultery no longer did. The homosexual was no longer a homosexual because he no longer practiced homosexuality. The drunkard was no longer such because he did not still get drunk. The fornicator had quit his fornication. One apparently did not quit his fornication or else he took it up after becoming a Christian. Paul told the Corinthians what they needed to do about him (1 Cor. 5:11-13).

Someone had convened these people. Some one was willing to reach out to these people with the gospel. It is one thing to boldly preach against the fornication, adultery, homosexuality, drunkenness and such like, warning that such “will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.” It is another thing to be willing to take the time and expend the effort to teach a fornicator, a homosexual, a thief, or a drunkard. Could our problem be that really, deep down in our hearts, we would prefer not to have people with such unsavory backgrounds as members of the church where we attend? We had rather reach those folks across the street who are well-respected people in the community or that nice couple who would not really have to make too many changes in their life-style. But that woman down the street who entertains men regularly, would not make “us a good member.” Nor would that man we see staggering home almost every week-end. Nor would that fellow that everybody in town knows to be “gay.” Nor would that woman who has been married five times and presently living with a man who is not her husband (cf. John 4:17, 18). No, they would not be “good members” without changes in their hearts and life styles, but, should we assume that the gospel will not touch their hearts and change their lives without even trying to approach them with it?

If someone had not been willing to reach out to these people at Corinth, Paul would have had to say “such are” instead of “such were.” The gospel is not just for those good neighbors who only need some minor doctrinal or moral adjustments  it is also for those who are steeped in the vilest of sins.

Someone had received these people. They were part of the local “church of God which is at Corinth.” Not only had someone reached out to convert these people, after they were converted the brethren at Corinth had received them into their fellowship. Notice Paul said, “such were some of you.” This means that not all the brethren had such vile backgrounds. Yet, they were willing to receive those who had been of such unsavory character. Today, if we are not careful, those of us who have been given a proper Christian upbringing may become rather smug and self-righteous, finding it hard to accept with open arms those who were formally of such “low character.” Oh, we give lip service to the power of the gospel to save sinners  all sinners  but still find it hard to unconditionally accept those with backgrounds described by Paul in our text  even after it can be said “such were some of you.” This writer has known preachers to get in trouble with congregations for their efforts to study with and convert such “low life.” After the studies produced results, these brethren let it be known that they had rather not have people with such backgrounds as members. No matter that the gospel had reached them, changed their hearts and lives and lifted them to a higher plane  the fine cultured (?) brethren with good backgrounds (at least in their own eyes) could not bring themselves to fully accept them as members of the congregation. They are often allowed to be members but not really “received” because their every move is watched for any signs of their former life that might be used to discredit them and those who were willing to reach out to convert them.

Brethren, we all need to remember that “while we were still sinners” that Christ died for us. He died for every man  regardless of his previous record. When any person will hear and obey the gospel of Christ the Lord will save him.

Let us not forget that we were ourselves sinners  some guilty of the same sins listed in the text, while some did things not considered as vile by good people but all guilty! The same grace that saved us will save any sinner. The Lord accepted us when we turned from our sins and obeyed his terms of pardon. The Lord will accept the fornicator, the homosexual, or the drunk when he turns from his sin and obeys. We need to reach out and try to convert them. When they are converted, we had best not only accept them, but accept them with the joy that befits rejoicing over one who was lost and is found. (Read Luke 15.) Our Lord said for us to preach the gospel to “every creature” (Mark 16:15). Let us not pick and choose our creatures, let us try to reach every creature possible regardless of his background. Who is wise enough to know, in advance, who will or will not be changed by the gospel?

Guardian of Truth XLI: 16 p. 12-13
August 21, 1997

By Jarrod Jacobs

Just a few weeks ago, my wife and I were in the doctor’s office to hear our baby’s heart beat for the first time. What an exciting time, it was great! A few minutes later, as the doctor discussed how strong the heart was, she began talking about our next visit. She said that during that visit it would be possible to take a blood test and determine what, if any, birth defects or tendencies were prevalent. Understand, she said the test was not 100% accurate. She said that if we wanted, we could discuss termination.

Termination? Yes, she was talking about the termination of this baby whose heart beat we had just heard. Can you imagine such? When we said “no” to the very idea of killing our child, the doctor said, “Well, you won’t need that test, then.”

What a crazy world we live in where in one breath we discuss how exciting it is to hear an unborn child’s heart beat, and in the next breath discuss the termination (killing) of this same baby. It hurts just to think about it.

As I thought about the conversation at the doctor’s office, I couldn’t help but think about what an “easy” society we live in. What do I mean? I mean that if we don’t like something, we get rid of it. We have every-thing handed to us almost instantly, and if it is not to our satisfaction, then we dispose of it. Now this may be fine when dealing with something inanimate, or things of that nature, but I wonder how many young couples before us made the decision after hearing the heart beat, that if they found the tendency for problems they would go ahead and dispose of the human life they had made.

Please understand, I didn’t have to hear my unborn child’s heartbeat to make my decision. I just can’t under-stand how after hearing that strong, sound, steady heartbeat, that people could turn around and say, “kill it.”

Though some say that the Bible doesn’t address such a modem topic as abortion, and whether or not an unborn baby is a human life, I am here to tell you, that it does!

And Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren: and the Lord was entreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the Lord. And the Lord said unto her, two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels (body, NKJV, NASB); and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb (Gen. 25:21-24).

I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonder-fully made; Wonderful are Thy works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book they were all written, The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them (Ps. 139:14-16, NASB).

Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations (Jer. 1:4-5).

And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy (Luke 1:39-44).

These four short readings should be enough to convince the honest and true heart that abortion is the unlawful taking of another human life! There are other passages we could offer as well that would solidify the point we are making, but in conclusion, let us ask ourselves a few questions.

Questions:

1. Seeing that these men were inspired of God to write what they did (2 Pet. 1:20-21), doesn’t it make sense that God is showing us that babies are live, human children though they are not yet born?

2. Isn’t it interesting that Dr. Luke (Col. 4:14) chose “babe” to describe John rather than “unviable tissue mass,” or “fetus,” or “embryo”? A study of history tells us that these people knew all about abortion procedures and the like. In fact, they were more consistent than we are, for they considered a baby “aborted” if they left him to die and be eaten by wolves in his infancy. At least today, those who are pro-abortion will balk if a newborn dies due to the parents’ neglect.

3. Before ultrasound, God knew Jeremiah and had set him apart (“sanctified,” Jer. 1:4-5). What if God has such plans for those yet unborn today, and we “opt” for “termination”?

4. What if Eve and Mary, the mother of Jesus were pro-abortion?

Guardian of Truth XLI: 16 p. 16-17
August 21, 1997

By Donnie V. Rader

Brother Harry Lewis, moderator for John Welch in the O’Neal-Welch Debate, has objected to a statement I made about him in my recent article reviewing the book form of this debate. I wrote,

On the third night when Tom gave a quote from Herman Black on how to identify a modernist, John’s moderator called a point of order, went to the platform, called for charts and proceeded to answer Tom O’Neal (pp. 55-56). Few, if any, had seen that happen in debate.

Brother Lewis has two objections: (1) He did not call for charts, but a chart. (2) He was not answering Tom O’Neal, but merely raising a point of order. I concede to his first objection and apologize to brother Lewis. He did only call for one chart. I did not intentionally misrepresent the case. To the second objection, I fail to see that I have misrepresented the case. I grant that brother Lewis was making a point of order. However, to many of us there, it seemed that he went beyond his role as a moderator to respond to what he thought was a misrepresentation Tom had made of John. For any reader who desires to see for himself, I suggest getting the video or audio tapes or either of the printed books (Tom and John both have published the debate in book form). I have not tried to misrepresent brother Lewis in any fashion.

(Editor’s Note: I have had two or three conversations with brother Lewis with respect to his feeling that he has been misrepresented. He states that what he was trying to object to was the continued use of a quotation from brother Welch in which he said that Jesus was just a man. Included in brother Lewis’ point of order were the following words: “I’m objecting to the use of the word just. We had an apology made, a retraction made. It was passed out today in the open forum.” Later in commenting on brother Welch’s statement, he said, “Here’s the ‘J’ word that we’ve been talking about. I have acknowledged from the very beginning of this controversy that my statement that Jesus was just (there’s the word) just a man was poorly worded at best.” Obviously men were disagreed about the point of order, but we have no desire to intentionally misrepresent anyone.)

Guardian of Truth XLI: 16 p. 25
August 21, 1997