Tag Archives: love

The Gracious God of the Old Testament

All of us know that our Father in Heaven is a gracious God, who loves us and has abundant mercy towards us. But through years of conditioning, many Christians have come to view the God of the Old Testament as a completely different person – a harsh judge with a fiery character. Now, almost all Christians believe that God does not change. But how does one angry-godexplain this change in character? They turn to the idea of “Dispensationalism” – an idea which first reared it’s head in the 1800’s through the views of John Nelson Darby. So the idea is that God had not revealed his “Gracious character” in the Old Testament age – but that it was only revealed after Messiah Yeshua (Jesus’ true name). This idea is also closely connected to thoughts of a certain “Marcion of Sinope” who lived as far back as 145AD. He is the first person recorded to have made a distinction between the God of the Old Testament and the New. Labelled as a heretic at the time, sadly, his thoughts do live on in the Church today.

Introducing you to the Gracious God of the Old Testament!
God does not change. In fact His name “YHVH” (pronounced Yehovah) means “I was” that “I was”, “I am” that “I am”, “I will be” that “I will be”. It is in His character not to change. He is our everlasting Heavenly Father who is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. So why is it that Christians view God in a different light when it comes to the Old Testament? Is there evidence that He, in fact was, Gracious at the time of the Old Testament similar to how He is seen today? I welcome you to read the abundant evidence in the Scriptures – Meet Our Gracious, loving, merciful God who was the same in the time of the Old Testament!

God has always been Gracious
Gen 6:8  
But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
2Ki 13:23  
And the LORD was gracious unto them, and had compassion on them, and had respect unto them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them, neither cast he them from his presence as yet.
Exo 33:19
 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
Exo 33:17  And the LORD said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.
Gen 39:21  But the LORD was with Joseph, and shewed him mercy, and gave him favour in the sight of the keeper of the prison.
2Sa 7:15  But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
2Sa 22:50,51 Therefore I will give thanks unto thee, O LORD, among the heathen, and I will sing praises unto thy name. He is the tower of salvation for his king: and sheweth mercy to his anointed, unto David, and to his seed for evermore.
1Ki 8:23  And he said, LORD God of Israel, there is no God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath, who keepest covenant and mercy with thy servants that walk before thee with all their heart:

God has always revealed Himself as a Gracious God
Exo 22:27  For that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I am gracious.
Exo 34:6,7 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
Hos 2:19  And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies.
Jer 9:24  But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.
Isa 54:8  In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer.
Exo 20:6  And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Jer 31:3  The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee. 

His people have always known that He is a Gracious God
2Ch 30:9  For if ye turn again unto the LORD, your brethren and your children shall find compassion before them that lead them captive, so that they shall come again into this land: for the LORD your God is gracious and merciful, and will not turn away his face from you, if ye return unto him.
Neh 9:17  And refused to obey, neither were mindful of thy wonders that thou didst among them; but hardened their necks, and in their rebellion appointed a captain to return to their bondage: but thou art a God ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and forsookest them not.
Neh 9:31  Nevertheless for thy great mercies’ sake thou didst not utterly consume them, nor forsake them; for thou art a gracious and merciful God.
Psa 86:15  But thou, O Lord, art a God full of compassion, and gracious, longsuffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth.
Psa 103:8  The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.
Psa 111:4  He hath made his wonderful works to be remembered: the LORD is gracious and full of compassion.
Psa 116:5  Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; yea, our God is merciful.
Psa 145:8,9  The LORD is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy. The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
Joe 2:13  And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil.
Jon 4:2  And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.
Mic 7:18  Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy.
Psa 86:5  For thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive; and plenteous in mercy unto all them that call upon thee.
Psa 36:7  How excellent is thy lovingkindness, O God! therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of thy wings.
Psa 69:16  Hear me, O LORD; for thy lovingkindness is good: turn unto me according to the multitude of thy tender mercies.
Psa 130:7  Let Israel hope in the LORD: for with the LORD there is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption.
Dan 9:18  O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name: for we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies.
Dan 9:9  To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against him;
Dan 9:4  And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments;
Lam 3:22,23 It is of the LORD’S mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not. They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness.
Isa 63:7  I will mention the lovingkindnesses of the LORD, and the praises of the LORD, according to all that the LORD hath bestowed on us, and the great goodness toward the house of Israel, which he hath bestowed on them according to his mercies, and according to the multitude of his lovingkindnesses.
1Ch 21:13  And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let me fall now into the hand of the LORD; for very great are his mercies: but let me not fall into the hand of man.
Mic 7:18  Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy.
Isa 30:19  For the people shall dwell in Zion at Jerusalem: thou shalt weep no more: he will be very gracious unto thee at the voice of thy cry; when he shall hear it, he will answer thee.
Psa 103:4  Who redeemeth thy life from destruction; who crowneth thee with lovingkindness and tender mercies;
Psa 119:132  Look thou upon me, and be merciful unto me, as thou usest to do unto those that love thy name.
Psa 119:156  Great are thy tender mercies, O LORD: quicken me according to thy judgments.
Psa 51:1  Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
Psa 84:11  For the LORD God is a sun and shield: the LORD will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly.
Num 14:18,19  The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.
Deu 5:10 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.
1Ch 16:34  O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever. 
2Ch 5:13  It came even to pass, as the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking the LORD; and when they lifted up their voice with the trumpets and cymbals and instruments of musick, and praised the LORD, saying, For he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever: that then the house was filled with a cloud, even the house of the LORD;
2Ch 7:3  And when all the children of Israel saw how the fire came down, and the glory of the LORD upon the house, they bowed themselves with their faces to the ground upon the pavement, and worshipped, and praised the LORD, saying, For he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever.
Psa 138:2  I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
Psa 130:7  Let Israel hope in the LORD: for with the LORD there is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption.
Psa 119:64  The earth, O LORD, is full of thy mercy: teach me thy statutes.
Psa 108:4  For thy mercy is great above the heavens: and thy truth reacheth unto the clouds.
Psa 107:31  Oh that men would praise the LORD for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men!
Psa 103:11  For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him.
Psa 94:18  When I said, My foot slippeth; thy mercy, O LORD, held me up.
Psa 86:5  For thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive; and plenteous in mercy unto all them that call upon thee.

His Graciousness endures forever
Psa 52:1  Why boastest thou thyself in mischief, O mighty man? the goodness of God endureth continually.
Psa 103:17  But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children’s children;
Psa 107:1  O give thanks unto the LORD, for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.
Psa 25:6  Remember, O LORD, thy tender mercies and thy lovingkindnesses; for they have been ever of old.
Jer 33:11  The voice of joy, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride, the voice of them that shall say, Praise the LORD of hosts: for the LORD is good; for his mercy endureth for ever: and of them that shall bring the sacrifice of praise into the house of the LORD. For I will cause to return the captivity of the land, as at the first, saith the LORD.
Jer 9:24  But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.
Isa 54:8  In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer.
Isa 54:10  For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the LORD that hath mercy on thee.
Deu 7:9  Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations; 
2Ch 20:21  And when he had consulted with the people, he appointed singers unto the LORD, and that should praise the beauty of holiness, as they went out before the army, and to say, Praise the LORD; for his mercy endureth for ever. 
Ezr 3:11  And they sang together by course in praising and giving thanks unto the LORD; because he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever toward Israel. And all the people shouted with a great shout, when they praised the LORD, because the foundation of the house of the LORD was laid.
Neh 13:22  And I commanded the Levites that they should cleanse themselves, and that they should come and keep the gates, to sanctify the sabbath day. Remember me, O my God, concerning this also, and spare me according to the greatness of thy mercy. 
Psa 118:1  O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: because his mercy endureth for ever.

Conclusion
Why list down so many verses? Why emphasize the fact that God has always been a loving, merciful, gracious Father? Because there is a gap in the mind of today’s Christian, between the Old Testament and the New. There is no such thing as a change of Character in God, that has happened or revealed itself throughout the past. He has always been a Judge. He has always been a jealous God. He has always been a loving God. He has always been a merciful God. He has always been a gracious God. And His character will not change. He is YHVH – The Everlasting, Unchanging – Praise be to Him!

Advertisements

Do men have authority over women according to the Scriptures?

silentMany Christians believe that the Bible proves women should be subordinate to men. These ideas have gone so far, as to obstruct women from serving God as leaders in some Christian Congregations, and even to be completely silent in others. Are these claims true? Does God treat women differently to men? Has He given authority over women, to the men? In this study, we will put these ideas to the test against God’s Word and try to uncover what our Heavenly Father thinks of the matter.

This study is broken down into the following sections:
1. Adam & Eve – God gives the husband authority over his wife
2. Husband & Wife – Dynamics of the marriage relationship
3. The Daughter falls under the authority of her father
4. Are women subordinate to men in anyway?
5. Women’s equal position according to the Scriptures
6. Questions regarding the writings of Paul
7. Conclusion


1. Adam & Eve – God gives the husband authority over his wife

Gen 1:27 records “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them”. According to the above passage, God created the male and female, both in His image. When Adam was created, he contained Eve also in himself, as we read in Gen 5:2 “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created”. After Adam & Eve sinned, God punished Eve’s disobedience, by making the husband have authority over her, as seen in Gen 3:16  “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

The misunderstanding lies here. God did not allow all men to have authority over all women. But all husbands had authority over their own wives. (Please note: This does not mean that the Husband can act as he pleases, within the partnership of marriage. We will look into these dynamics in the next section of this study). Man has no authority over woman, until they enter into the covenant of marriage which was established by God in Creation.


2. Husband & Wife – Dynamics of the marriage relationship

As God had ordained in the beginning, a wife is under the headship of the husband, as we read in Eph 5:23 “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body”. This does not mean that the husband has complete power over his wife to do as he pleases, or that the wife is supposed to be a servant unto the husband. Husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies (Eph 5:28  So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself), to the extent that they would even sacrifice their lives to save the life of their wives. (Eph 5:25  Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it). Both husband and wife should respect one another (1Co 7:3  Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband) knowing that they are bonded to each other till their death (1Co 7:4  The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife). 

In the relationship of marriage, according to God’s Law, the husband has authority to approve or revoke a bond or vow made by the wife (Num 30:13,14 Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void. But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them). This shows us that the wife has freedom to make personal decisions such as oaths or vows of her own, as long as the husband is in agreement with it.


3. The Daughter falls under the authority of her Father

Much like the wife is under the headship of the husband, a daughter who is still living under the Father’s roof, is also living under the authority of her father & mother.

Even though a daughter was under the headship of the parents, she could still accept or reject even a possible suitor that was set before her. We see such an instance in the case of Rebekah, when she was asked whether she would choose to go with Abraham’s Servant (Gen 24:57,58 And they said, We will call the damsel, and enquire at her mouth. And they called Rebekah, and said unto her, Wilt thou go with this man? And she said, I will go).

A daughter was given posessions from her father at the time of marriage, and it was possible for the daughter even to demand an increase of such property, as seen with Achsah – daughter of Caleb who asked that the springs be added to the land she received (Jdg 1:14-15 And it came to pass, when she came to him, that she moved him to ask of her father a field: and she lighted from off her ass; and Caleb said unto her, What wilt thou? And she said unto him, Give me a blessing: for thou hast given me a south land; give me also springs of water. And Caleb gave her the upper springs and the nether springs).

According to God’s Law, a father has authority to approve or revoke a bond or vow made by the daughter as we see in Num 30:3-5 “If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father’s house in her youth; And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the LORD shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her”.

Even though the father had authority over a young daughter who lived under his roof, she was never forced into anything. The children had their freedom, but the father was considered the head of the house, having the ability to make final decisions for the whole families’ benefit.


4. Are women subordinate to men in anyway?

As per section 2 & 3, we see that the Husband has authority over his wife, and that the Father has authority over his daughter. Other than in these relationships, a woman is not different to a man in God’s eyes in anyway. What we must understand is, that male and female are born equal before God. In the family relationship, a daughter as well as a son, is under the headship of the parents. When and if they leave the house of their parents as independent individuals, they are bound or subordinate to no one.

When a woman enters the covenant of marriage, she willingly enters a relationship, in which the wife places herself under the headship of her husband. The husband as the head of the family unit has the authority, but is also responsible to head the family according to God’s Word.

This was the fault of Adam. Adam had chosen to listen to his wife, rather than be obedient to God. (Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life). When a Husband becomes a father, his responsibilities and authority extends to his children as well.

To put it in another way, this is how the headship/authority of relationships work
Our Heavenly Father

Father (Husband)

Mother (Wife)

Son/Daughter

When we accept Messiah’s sacrifice and receive God’s grace, all of us enter into a relationship where we place God over our lives. When a woman enters into a marriage covenant, she accepts the husband to have authority over her life. When they become parents, the children given to them by God are also under their authority, till the child chooses and is able, to leave their parents care.

The Father(husand), Mother(wife) & Son/daughter are all under the authority of God. The Mother(wife) & Son/daughter are under the authority of the Father(husand). The sons and daughters are all under the authority of their Father & Mother. These are the dynamics of the relationships God has created.

A woman and a man independent from each other, is not subordinate to one or the other in any way. Paul was correct to say “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” in Gal 3:28.


5. Women’s equal position according to the Scriptures

Let’s review both the Old and New Testament writings to see how Women were perceived both by people and God.

A. There were many prophetesses mentioned in both the Old Testament and the New Testament showing us that there was no gender preference to become a Prophet of God.

Exo 15:20  And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.
2Ki 22:14  So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college;) and they communed with her.
Isa 8:3  And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.
Luk 2:36  And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;
Act 21:8,9  And the next day we that were of Paul’s company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.
Act 2:17,18 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:  (Quoted from Joel 2:28,29)

B. A woman could not only serve in the capacity of Prophet, but also of Judge, as seen with Deborah, who judged Israel – in the time of judges, when there was no King among the people of Israel.

Jdg 4:4  And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.

C. A daughter would inherit the possessions of the father if they had no brothers, as seen with the daughters of Zelophehad.

Num 27:4-8 Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father. And Moses brought their cause before the LORD. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father’s brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.

D. There were women who founded cities, as seen with Sherah – a daughter of Ephraim.

1Ch 7:24  And his daughter was Sherah, who built Bethhoron the nether, and the upper, and Uzzensherah.

E. Women and Men were both equally welcome to learn and be part of the congregation and to serve

Deu 31:12  Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law:
Neh 8:2  And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.
Act 5:14  And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.
Act 17:12  Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
Act 18:26  And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
Rom 16:1  I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant(G1249 – διάκονος
diakonos – Deacon) of the church which is at Cenchrea:
Num 6:2  Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD:


6. Questions regarding the writings of Paul

Many of the misunderstandings regarding this topic stem from the writings of Paul, as in many other cases. It is partly because of translation issues as well. Wherever “woman” is mentioned, if it should be translated “wife”, it would make quite a big difference. As you will see below, this is just the case. Most of the misunderstood teachings/sayings of Paul which are quoted by people as to prove women are subordinate to men, are speaking exclusively about husbands and wives, and not about male and female individuals.

Misunderstood verse 1: 1Co 14:34,35 Let your women(G1135-Gooney-wife) keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands(G435-anayr-husband) at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

The Corinthian church, to which these words were written, had many issues that Paul was worried about. One of these issues were that they were disorderly, as seen by his instructions in Chapter 14. Reading the above verse, most jump to the conclusion of “women should be silent in the church”. But reading it in context, we see that this has to do with wives and not all women – and not all wives even, as this was directed at an unruly congregation with many divisions(11:18), disputes(1:11), sinfulness(5:1), legal petitions(6:1) and such controversies. The verse itself proves that this instruction is not directed at women, but at wives, as Paul asks that “they ask their husbands at home” – “they” referring to the women spoken before, which should ideally be translated “wives”.

It is obvious that many wives at Corinth were acting contrary to what God had ordained, and were not subjecting themselves to their husbands, engaging themselves in divisions, disputes and the like, mentioned above. This is why Paul spoke in such harsh words asking them to subject themselves to their husbands and voice their concerns at home rather than in the presence of the congregation, as to be seen respectful. (The word translated as “Woman” in the above verse is a Greek word called “Gooney” which means “wife” as seen in this example:- 1Co 7:34  There is difference also between a wife(G1135-Gooney) and a virgin(G3933-parthenos).

Misunderstood verse 2: 1Ti 2:11-14 Let the woman(G1135-Gooney-wife) learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman(G1135-Gooney-wife) to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man(G435-anayr-husband), but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

In Paul’s letter to Timothy, he speaks of authority again between “woman” and “man” as seen in our English Translations. In the original Greek text, the word “Woman” reads as “Gooney” which means “wife”, and the word “Man” reads “Anayr” which means “Husband” as seen in 1Cor 14:35 discussed above. Further proof that Paul’s whole discourse is on the husband-wife relationship, can be seen in the next verse, where he explains this concept of authority by connecting it to Adam & Eve, who were husband and wife.

The usurping of authority over a husband, by his wife is what this instruction is all about. As discussed before, when Adam sinned against God, he did so by listening and putting the words of his wife before God’s word. It is absurd to think that just because Eve was deceived, that all women can be deceived. Instead, it is my belief that Paul was instructing Timothy on how the congregation should operate – where no wife would try to act authoritative over their husbands, trying to teach the man the right way (This is not to say, that wives could guide husbands from a wrong path towards the light. The context of this particular verse is that a husband who is already righteous and obedient to God’s word should not be subjected to correction by a wife who “thinks” she is right, especially in front of the congregation). It is likely, that Paul is speaking of a case which Timothy had brought to his attention, of a particular woman who was exacting authority over the husband in one of the congregations he was part of.


 

7. Conclusion

I hope that you have seen adequate proof to understand that women are not subordinate to men, and that men carry no authority over women. Throughout the Scriptures, women are given equal importance to men, having been viewed and treated by God the same. From creation itself, God gave authority over a wife to her husband, as seen with Adam & Eve. Even though authority over the wife was handed to the husband, it was more of a responsibility than a power. The husband was to guide his family with the help of the wife, while focusing on God who had authority over all.

The only authority a man would carry over a woman, would be in the covenant of marriage and in the parental bond between a father and daughter. Two independent male and female individuals would always be equal in front of God’s eyes and it should be no different when it comes to our own principals.

Even the misunderstood verses of Paul, which are regarded as saying “all women should be silent in the churches” refer only to some wives who were misusing the freedom they had, by putting their husbands to shame in front of their congregations. Most of these verses have even been translated incorrectly, as “woman” should read as “wife”, and “man” should read “husband”, leading to a lot of confusion.

The sum of all that was discussed is this: If you are a man, you have no authority over women. If you are a husband, you carry authority over your wife. If you are a father, you are the head of your whole family. When you are given authority over a wife or child, you are responsible for all that they do. You are to guide all who are under your wings towards God, all the while remembering that you yourself is under the headship of Messiah and our Heavenly Father. Just because a wife or daughter is under the headship of husband or father, does not mean that they should act as servants. They are to help and guide the husband/father, while the husband/father is to take care of them and do all that he can to steer them towards God Almighty.

My prayer is that all Christian men, start looking at their fellow sisters as equals, not looking down on them or restricting them from serving God, to their full extent. We must change our personal attitudes and the traditions handed down through generations of misguided teachings, towards the Word of God, and how God perceives the same situations – thereby serving and obeying God, to our best ability.

Does the Old Testament teach us to love our enemies, or hate them?

SermonAs Christians, all of us have read or heard the famous “Sermon on the Mount” and have most probably read Christ’s teaching on “Loving our enemies as well as our neighbor”. All of us know of “Loving ones Enemy” as a New Testament teaching. So much so, that many believe that the Old Testament taught one to “love ones neighbor” but “hate ones enemy”, while Christ taught that one should love the enemy just like the neighbor. But it is interesting to note that this was not a new teaching, as we see this idea that our Messiah taught clearly stated in the Old Testament.

Let’s look into the idea of “loving your enemy” and the origins of this teaching written in the Old Testament Scriptures.

Exo 23:4,5  If thou meet thine enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.
Pro 25:21  If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:
Pro 24:17  Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:
Pro 29:10  The bloodthirsty hate the upright: but the just seek his soul.

The above verses of Scripture, show how God commands through Moses that everyone should love & help ones enemy not even permitting an enemy to fall into loss. God’s Word is clear that we should not turn away from providing for our enemies in need, and not even be glad when he or she is in trouble. We should even seek to bring him/her to the free Salvation our Heavenly Father provides.

But what was Yeshua(Jesus’ true name) referring to when he said “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy”? Some read Mat 5:43 and conclude that Yeshua is talking about an “old teaching” written in the Old Testament. But nowhere in the Old Testament would we be able to find such a teaching of “hating your enemy”.

Context of the teachings at the Sermon on the Mount
The “you have heard” – “but I say to you” teachings of Messiah start off at Mat 5:21. One needs to read only a few verses before, to understand the context of His teaching.

Mat 5:17-20  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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. 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. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

So what is the context of His teaching, of “you have heard” – “but I say to you”? Notice the Scribes and the Pharisees mentioned just before His teaching. Notice how He says that whoever breaks the least of the Commandments or “teach” men to break them will be least in God’s Kingdom. Yeshua was talking about the Scribes & Pharisees of His day, who had taught a perverted version of God’s Word/Scripture (Old Testament). We have studied all about the teachings of the Pharisees in depth, in a previous post. But it is sufficient to say that Pharisees were going against God’s Word by their own “Traditions” also known as the “Oral Law”. Yeshua was teaching the crowds that had gathered around at His feet, that “they had heard” (from the teachers of their time – who were the Scribes and Pharisees) it being said “you shall love your neighbour, and hate your enemy”. But Yeshua was teaching them the proper Old Testament idea of “Loving even ones enemy”.

Conclusion
The “Sermon on the Mount”, just like all of Yeshua’s other teachings were rooted in God’s Word. He never spoke of Himself, but all that was the Word of God (Joh 7:16,17, 14:24). “Loving ones neighbor” was directly from the Scriptures (Lev 19:18) just as “Loving ones Enemy”. We should stop being biased against the Old Testament Scriptures and start reading it without preconceived notions, so that we can see it for what it is – God’s Word, which was confirmed by, and through, Yeshua – our Messiah.

Old Covenant abolished by New Covenant? Part II – Does the Book of Hebrews prove that the Old Covenant is no more

In the 1st Part of this study, we studied all the Covenants mentioned in the Bible and checked what is commonly known as the “Old Covenant” & “New Covenant” as well. We saw that their was evidence in the Scriptures to say that these Covenants were Everlasting. (If you have not read the 1st Part of this study, please start there for a better understanding of this complex subject we are trying to address).

This post is dedicated to studying the book of Hebrews. Specifically, the claim that some make, saying that the book of Hebrews is clear proof that the “Old Covenant” is done away with and that it is decaying and vanishing away, as seen in Heb 8:13.

Before we proceed any further, I would like to ask you to keep an open mind. Do not approach this article thinking “here’s another person trying to get us to follow traditions and Laws”. You are more than welcome to disagree with me. But I humbly ask you, not to disagree with Scripture. Test everything written in this article. See whether everything falls into place. Remember that there can be no disagreements between the Biblical Authors. There can be no conflict between two verses in the Bible, when taken in CONTEXT.

All of the pieces in the puzzle needs to fit perfectly. We cannot force pieces of the puzzle to fit where we want it to. It needs to be in perfect harmony to all the pieces around it, giving us a complete picture. We have all been taught by someone or the other where these pieces of the puzzle fit. Personally, for a long time, I did not question the placement. I knew some of the pieces and their placements did not make sense. But I thought, others knew best. I thought who am I to question the placement which has been this way for centuries, approved and taught by great men and women of God. But some of the time, you can come across verses that go against your beliefs and doctrines. Now, some people, like I was before, have the ability to just read over these lines and not even notice them. I was like Paul (but not even 1% as knowledgeable as he was), on my way to Damascus, with my understanding and belief of the Word. All of us need Yeshua to open our eyes. All of us need the guidance of God’s Spirit. No one person, including me, has the whole puzzle figured out. All of us are learning. If you have and open mind to look at the puzzle again, let us proceed.

The Book of Hebrews has caused a lot of misunderstandings and confusion in Christianity.(Actually, it is not the fault of the Book or the Author of Hebrews. It is our fault for not reading it carefully, in complete synchrony with all of the other Scriptures and not giving heed to Peter’s warning in 2Peter 3:16 about taking Scripture out of context). As I was studying this complex Subject myself, I came across an Article, that is clearly in alignment with God’s Word. I believe that I could not do a better job of my own regarding the Book of Hebrews, without losing out on key points mentioned in this article. Given below, is this Article written by Jon Sherman from 119 Ministries.

Hebrews 7:12-18; 8:6-13 – Does the Better Covenant Equal a New High Priesthood or God Abolishing His Law?
by Jon Sherman
Hb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Hb 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

Hb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Hb 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

So what do these verses mean? Can we take four verses out of this letter and build a solid doctrine? Does this mean that God did away with His own law that scripture stated to be perfect, good, and just (Psalm 19:7, James 1:25, Proverbs 4:2, Romans 7:12, Romans 7:16, 1 Timothy 1:8)? Are we to abolish the Law of God in our faith (Romans 3:31)? Did God somehow make an already perfect law according to His own standards even better by changing the commandments, or as some say, by abolishing them?

Or perhaps did He improve the covenant by simply removing the imperfect human element from the priestly system and inserted Yeshua (Jesus) as the new perfect High Priest thus leaving all of God’s perfect law completely intact? Those are our only two choices. Both positions can not co-exist without conflict. We must test all of this to Scripture, to determine if Hebrews teaches that God took His perfect law and made perfect better, or if God simply replaced an imperfect High Priesthood with a perfect High Priesthood to improve the covenant.

Hebrews is a letter, and as with any letter, it serves a specific point and purpose by answering a specific issue to the intended audience. To properly answer the questions outlined above it seems to make sense to start at the beginning of the letter (instead of the middle) to build context as we arrive to the verses of contention.

Every letter ever written in the history of man was written to be read from beginning to the end. No letter in the history of man was ever written with the assumption that someone will read the letter a couple of translations and hundreds of years later and then decide to pull a few sentences out of it to build a theological doctrine. Obviously that would be quite absurd. Yet is that not what we do? The following will extract the main points out of each chapter to begin forming the foundation and context of the letter. Please consider reading the whole chapters and ensure that you agree to the summary points being made below.

Chapter Main Points

Chapter 1
1) We learn that Yeshua (Jesus) is now better than the angels. Thus the context already seems to be built around our Lord and Savior.

Chapter 2
1) Yeshua (Jesus), was initially made lower than the angels and He then prevailed over sin and death.

Chapter 3
1) Yeshua (Jesus) is now our High Priest. He was worthy, whereas the previous human priestly administration (Levitical Priesthood) was disobedient and imperfect. The context is forming quickly and is becoming clearer.

Chapter 4
1) The author of Hebrews begins to cite examples of how men were imperfect in the Levitical priesthood and then details the resulting consequences. Like those coming out of Egypt (3:11), disobedience could forfeit our still pending rest in Him(4:6, 11). Some confuse chapter 4 and conclude that we are already in God’s rest. If all of chapter 3 and 4 are read it is quickly understood that we enter God’s rest at the end of the race and we should strive to enter it in obedience and faithfulness. Thus the case is built for a perfect High Priesthood that will lead us in the straight and narrow and not fall into the problems that plagued the priesthoods of the past.

2) Yeshua (Jesus), our new High Priest, can sympathize with our weakness.

3) Hebrews 4:9 declares that there is still a “Sabbath keeping” for the people of God (sabbatismos = Literally means “Sabbath keeping” in the Greek; Derivative from G4521, sabbaton, or Sabbath)

Note: The context so far is completely about Yeshua (Jesus) and His worthiness to be our High Priest and the established need to change out the current imperfect priesthood administration to a perfect administration. Note that the author of Hebrews has not yet offered anything negative about the Law of God. As the problem statement or issue is more clearly defined, we should expect that the solution should be directly related to the problem statement. We need to continuously ask if the problem is with the Law of God, and thus needed to be changed, as that is the point of contention and answer we seek.

Chapter 5
1) Yeshua (Jesus), our new High Priest, unlike men as High Priests, will not have compassion with those who are ignorant or deviating from His ways. Imperfect men in the priesthood allowed God’s people to deviate from God’s ways. This is a problem. In chapter 4, the author already stated that Yeshua (Jesus) as our High Priest would not sympathize with our weakness (we are accountable) but He still affords us grace (forgiven). Again, the solution is being foreshadowed as the problem statement is solidified.

2) The author of Hebrews establishes that Jesus is scripturally and rightfully called to be the High Priest in the order of Melchizedek. The context is set. The author has defined the problem (imperfect priesthood) and is strongly hinting at the solution.

3) After establishing that the change in the High Priesthood has been prophetically foretold in the Law and Prophets, the author expresses concern that his audience needs to invest more focus in the oracles of God (God’s law in other scriptural references). The author of Hebrews declares God’s law as the milk that is necessary to discern both good and evil. We need to move past milk (understand God’s law) before we can eat meat (deeper teachings of God’s Word). The author now takes a break and actually rebukes his audience for not being able to figure this out in their study as it is all written in God’s Word.

Question: Why is it important for the author of Hebrews to reference scriptural support in his suggestion that (Yeshua) Jesus is now our High Priest, meaning a change in the law and covenant has occurred?

Answer: Amos 3:7 Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets.

The author of Hebrews knows full well that nothing in the law can change or will ever change unless God told us before hand that it was going to change and exactly how it was to change. That is an important scriptural truth to understand in the context of many teachings that suggest that many of God’s laws have been abolished. God never told us beforehand that He would ever abolish His law in any capacity. In fact, the opposite is true in which the Law of God is stated to be perpetual, continual, and forever.

Chapter 6
1) The author of Hebrews appeals to his audience to move beyond the elementary and simple matters of Christ and the gospel and begin understanding the more complicated matters.

2) Yeshua (Jesus) has entered into the Heavenly sanctuary and is making constant intercessions on our behalf as our High Priest.

Note: A High Priest necessitates a priestly system. That is simply how it works and how it is established in the Law of God. If we state that the priestly system has been discarded or abolished, then by default, as an unfortunate yet profound consequence, we have then also discarded (Yeshua) Jesus as our High Priest. We cannot have one without the other. What this simply means is that if anyone teaches that the sacrificial system is abolished, then they are in essence firing their High Priest in their own theological doctrine. Which of course would mean that we would not have a High Priest making continuous intercession for us on our behalf and are all still under curse of the law of sin and death (Romans 8:1-2).

It is not that the sacrificial system has been abolished, it just now operates perfectly in the Heavens instead of imperfectly on Earth.

Therefore, by now, we are starting to understand that the priestly system has not been abolished, just transferred to a new administration, as prophecy foretold in the order of Melchizedek. The author of Hebrews will now begin discussing the detail behind such change, as apparently the author of Hebrews is highly disappointed in their initial inability to grasp this concept without his help.

Chapter 7
1) Melchizedek is a priestly order that is forever, and even Abraham gave tithes to him (therefore the point is established that he is greater than Abraham)

2) The Levitical priesthood system was not perfect. That in of itself was a serious problem, and now the problem at hand has been well established.

3) The former was set aside, as the law could not make us perfect/righteous. Because of this, imperfect beings were in administration of the High Priest duties and another solution was obviously necessary. The problem at hand has been clarified more.

4) The author of Hebrews establishes that the Lord does not change His mind, and Yeshua (Jesus), being worthy, as established earlier, can be the perfect SOLUTION to the “imperfect man” priesthood PROBLEM. This in fact means that there is not a problem with the law, as some imply, but the problem is directly related to the “who” is in administration as the High Priest, which was imperfect man. The context is sealed in cement here.

5) This is a permanent solution, as He continuously makes intercession for us in the eternal priestly system. From this point on, we will always have a perfect priestly administration system and will never revert back to a priestly system operated by imperfect man.

6) This was always the plan, and it is established again that Yeshua (Jesus) is perfect, and man was not, thus the logic behind the change that has been foretold at least since the law was written.

Some commentary is warranted regarding verse 12
Hb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Some also confuse this verse and mistakenly offer it as clear evidence that the law has been abolished, simply because Jesus Christ is now our High Priest. This confusion is hard to understand, because it specifically states that the law is changed, not abolished. In fact, this same author uses this same Greek word, G3346 – metatithemi, in chapter 11 verse 5:

Hb 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated (metatithemi) that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated (metatithemi) him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Here, the translators translate the same word as “translated.” Obviously Enoch was not abolished or deleted. He was simply transferred or translated into the Heavenly realms without seeing death.

Strong’s defines the word to literally mean to translate or carry over something. As one incorporates this into the overall teaching that the letter to the Hebrews is offering us, it is quickly apparent that all verse 12 is stating is that the priestly laws that were once laws for the Levitical (imperfect) priesthood, are now transferred in responsibility to our perfect High Priest Jesus Christ (Yeshua), thereby removed from the Levitical priesthood and established with Jesus Christ (Yeshua) as our new High Priest.

This understanding leads into verses 18:
Hb 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

Note that it states that there is a disannulling of a commandment, not commandments. If it was the whole law of Moses being cancelled then we would be dealing with more than one commandment. We know that the law is not weak and unprofitable, however the author does not clarify yet at this point what is weak and unprofitable. Later we discover it is the “sinful man administration of the priesthood” that is causing the weakness, which is the root cause of the problem at hand.

We do not want to ignore what we learned in verse 12 when reading verse 18. We know that the commandment was not erased, but translated, or transferred from the Levitical Priesthood to Yeshua (Jesus) in the order of Melchizedek.

The Greek word for disannulling (G115 – athetesis) helps clarify exactly what is occurring here. Athetesis means “to set aside something, to refuse to recognize its validity, or the complete removal of something“

To the Levitical Priesthood, the commandment that placed them in charge of the High Priesthood, it was “set aside”, and “removed,” and “they were no longer recognized” as the administers of the Priesthood, but in fact, as verse 12 already clearly stated, the law was not thrown out the window, but handed off, or transferred, to the perfect administrator, Yeshua (Jesus). He, unlike the Levites, was without sin.

Hebrews is simply a teaching on the well orchestrated solution to a well articulated problem. What often sadly occurs at this point is many teachers mistakenly claim that the law was the problem and therefore the law was abolished. So far, we can see in using context and the words used, that interpretation is failing. In chapter 8, the root problem is even more clearly established, warranting the “transfer of High Priesthood” solution that God implemented.

Isn’t it quite simple when we take the verses before a verse to discover meaning, instead of bringing our own bias into the text?

Now that verses 12 and 18 have been beaten into the ground, let’s examine the more complicated matters.

Note: The context so far is completely about Yeshua (Jesus) and His worthiness to be our High Priest, the reason for it, and the scriptural method on how it was accomplished. Note the context is still not about the abolishing of the Law of God.

Chapter 8
1) Verse 2, specifically states that even the tabernacle in which Yeshua (Jesus) is now High Priest is the eternal, heavenly tabernacle, not made by corrupted and polluted man.

2) The Earthly tabernacle was built as a foreshadowing of the Heavenly tabernacle with Yeshua (Jesus) as the High Priest.

3) Verse 6, specifically states that Yeshua (Jesus) as a mediator of this covenant is superior (because Yeshua (Jesus) is a perfect High Priest).

Hb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

The focus of verse 6 is the “ministry” that Yeshua has obtained. The Greek word being used here is “G3009 – leitourgia” which means a “public function such as a priest” according to Strongs Greek Concordance. This should not be a surprise to us, as that has been the whole point of Hebrews so far. Yeshua was given a new office as our new High Priest. It is BECAUSE Yeshua (Jesus) is the new High Priest (“by how much also he…”) that the covenant was made better. Some propose the covenant was made better because God abolished some of His commandments. That teaching is found nowhere in the letter to the Hebrews. The covenant was made better because of the new office/ministry/priesthood of Yeshua (Jesus) our Messiah.

To prove it, all we need to do is simply read the following two verses. The author of Hebrews explains this to us! Watch.

4) Verse 7, specifically states that something was WRONG with the covenant, again establishing the need for Yeshua (Jesus) as the High Priest for this improvement in the covenant. This again begs the question, what was so wrong with the covenant, God’s commandments or God’s people?

Hb 8:7 For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Verse 7 says that the first had been faultless. Notice how “covenant” is in brackets. It is in brackets because it is not in the original Greek. This is a literary tool called an “ellipsis” which we will cover in more detail shortly. The point is this, the translators placed “covenant” after “first” to hopefully offer more clarity for the reader. Unfortunately, as we already read in verse 6, the subject is the new “leitourgia” (public office as High Priest) of Yeshua (Jesus), thus the translators have shown their own bias. It was not the first covenant at fault, but the first priesthood of Israel that was at fault.

Can we prove this? Yes!
Once again all we have to do is read the next verse to discover who or what was at fault.

5) Verse 8, specifically states that God found fault with the PEOPLE, which is the root cause of what was wrong with the covenant.

Hb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

The covenant built on God’s law, as established earlier, is just, holy, perfect, and good.

Question: If we adopt the dominant teaching on Hebrews that states that God’s law was replaced by a better law, then how can we answer the following question considering the totality of scripture? If God’s covenant and law was already perfect, how did God make it better? Can you make perfect even more perfect? Of course not, that is absurd. There is another answer.

Answer: The author of Hebrews has simply stated this: Yeshua (Jesus) is perfect and man is not. It is not good for an imperfect man to be the administrator of a perfect law and covenant system specific to the component of the priestly system. Yeshua (Jesus) was the perfect solution and is now our perfect High Priest, thus solving the problem. This is not a problem with God’s law or covenant. The administration of the High Priesthood, as a component of God’s law and covenant is what was made better, by transferring from an imperfect administration, to a now perfect administration. This is all amazing yet profoundly simple.

The most important thing to consider is that God fixes what was broken. Does this not make sense? Would we expect God to “fix” what was not broken?

God found “fault with them,” not His own law. Thus God fixed the priestly system (them) and made it perfect (through Yeshua), just like His already perfect law.

6) Verses 9-12 specifically references the Old Testament prophecy indicating that this change has all been foretold. Notice that the prophecy speaks of the High Priesthood, not the whole Law of God as written by Moses. Notice that the New Covenant is made with the House of Israel (northern Kingdom) and the House of Judah (southern kingdom), which is collectively Israel as a whole. This is why Romans 11 and Ephesians 2 declares all believers in Yeshua (Jesus) as Israel, which should bring a new perspective to the commands in the Bible that were given to Israel and stated to be perpetual, lasting, and forever. These are the same commands that are stated to be supposedly abolished as a result of a serious misunderstanding of the letter to the Hebrews. Also note that the law is written on our heart, which means that we want to obey out of love. If the law has been abolished as some teach, then what law is being written on our heart? Do a search on commandments and love in scripture, and relationship to love and the commandments will be very clear.

In verses 8-12 (which is quoting Jeremiah 31:31-33) we learn that the whole point of the New Covenant is for us to actually walk in God’s law. Remember, the problem outlined before is that the priests consistently failed in teaching God’s law to the people. We now have a perfect High Priest who taught and walked God’s law perfectly. He demonstrated to us perfect obedience which is the same image we are to conform to. Where we fail in applying the perfect law we are covered by His grace. His grace is His manifestation of His love for us. Because of His love for us we are to love Him back (1 John 4:19). Loving God is defined as keeping His commandments (1 John 5:3).

The irony is that mainstream doctrine tries to teach us that the new covenant solution was to abolish God’s law or commandments in God’s law. They fail to recognize that Yeshua (Jesus) was to be our example in how to practice and observe God’s law and that He is now established as our High Priest, not replacing God’s law, but replacing the imperfect priestly administration.

And now we should be well equipped to understand this verse:

Hb 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Note: In the actual manuscripts, “covenant” does not actually exist, but is inserted by translators to attempt to clarify, and the same applies to verse 7 as already briefly mentioned. This is why many translations either put “covenant” in brackets or italics to let the reader know that it is not really God’s Word, but man’s commentary inserted into God’s Word. This is an honest attempt that translators used to help. However, in this case, it only confuses and leads others in the wrong direction as we will see.

Question: What has the whole context of Hebrews been about? What went away? Was it God’s law and covenant, or the simply the imperfect Levitical priestly administration to be replaced by Yeshua (Jesus) as our new High Priest in the order of Melchizedek? If you have read the letter to the Hebrews up to this point, and did not just start reading in chapter 8, then answering this question is quite simple and not complicated at all.

Let’s just review the next few verses to let the context to continue to speak for itself:

Hb 9:1 Then verily the first had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. (What is the subject? The answer is the priestly system and the Tabernacle, thus the “first” is defined for us)

Hb 9:2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.

Hb 9:3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;

Hb 9:4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

Hb 9:5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.

Hb 9:6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service [of God].

Hb 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

Isn’t it simply evident that the focus at hand is the priestly system, the problem it had, and the solution that was provided? That is the “first” (ellipsis) that is in context. The “first” is not the covenant as presumed in the ellipsis. The letter to the Hebrews never leaves that subject alone for one second. Embarrassingly, the scripture supporting the abolishing of the Sabbath or God’s Holy Feast days is completely lacking.

Hb 8:13 In that he saith, A new (PERFECT HIGH PRIEST ADMINISTRATION THROUGH YESHUA) he hath made the first (HIGH PRIEST ADMINISTRATION THROUGH LEVITICAL PRIESTS) old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old (LEVITICAL PRIESTLY SYSTEM) is ready to vanish away. (And it did by 70 A.D. with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem)

Goodbye human administration priesthood and enter in the Yeshua (Jesus) High Priesthood in the order of Melchizedek.

This is a clear example of the type of confusion that can happen if we start in the middle of a letter, or enter into scripture with a preconceived idea of what we believe it is going to reveal to us by relying on doctrines to teach us instead of God’s Word. These same methodological mistakes, which Peter even warns us about (2 Peter 3:15-17), are also evident in Paul’s letters, and are often even more doctrinally embarrassing than in this demonstration. Yet they all can be simply addressed just as the letter to the Hebrews.

There are still some more chapters to cover in Hebrews, so let’s continue. The context, of course, continues as expected.

Chapter 9
The author of Hebrews begins diving into the detail of the problems with the Earthly tabernacle and associated priestly processes. These laws associated with the priestly system have not been abolished, but transferred to our new and perfect High Priest operating in a perfect tabernacle, making continuous intercession for us.

Chapter 10
Consistent with all of the other problems with an Earthly priestly system, even the sacrifices were imperfect. This should be of no surprise to anyone that understands the gospel. Yeshua (Jesus) died for our sins as the perfect Passover Lamb, and death can now pass over us. His sacrifice is eternally sufficient and given to us by grace from the Father as we accept it in faith and trust in Him.

Chapter 11
The author of Hebrews then begins to lay a historical foundation that our faith is our hope and it is evidenced visibly by our actions and works.

Chapter 12
Therefore, we need to remove any sin that ensnares us, look to Christ as our example and establisher of our faith, and also recognize that the Father will chasten us and correct us, making us better, producing even better fruit. Pursue holiness (being set apart) and straight paths for our feet (His ways).

Chapter 13
Continue to love others (which is defined in scripture as keeping God’s commandments), do not be carried away with strange doctrines, and live honorably.

Note: It should be fairly evident, that unwarranted claims that the letter of Hebrews offers scriptural support that God’s law or parts of God’s law has been abolished are just simply unsubstantiated. There is certainly more that can be said on the letter to the Hebrews, but this should certainly be sufficient in addressing the confusion that is often unaddressed or ignored.

Why did translators find it necessary to insert “covenant” in the first place? Why did it make sense to insert anything into the text?

Answer: Ellipsis

Hebrews 8 – What is an “ellipsis?”

A literary device known as an ellipsis is apparent in Hebrews 8, which means that “covenant” is indeed not in the Original Manuscripts. This ellipsis forces the reader to fill in the context following the word “first.” Ellipses occur in verses 8:7; 8:13; 9:1; & 9:18. Most translations have filled in the gap left by the ellipses for us by incorrectly inserting “covenant” instead of “High Priest administration.”

If one examines the context, inserting “covenant” to fill the hole created by the ellipses instead of “High Priest administration” is an error as it conflicts with the overall theme of Hebrews and immediate surrounding text.

Definition of an ellipsis:
ellipsis or ellipse, the omission from a sentence of a word or words that would be required for complete clarity but which can usually be understood from the context. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis)

The critical question is what is the context? If the author of Hebrews felt comfortable using ellipses in these verses (8:7;8:13;9:1;9:18), you would think he would have set the context so clearly that we would not even be capable of misinterpreting him. Is the context of Hebrews abolishing or annulling the whole covenant as supposed, or just the Levitical High Priesthood? How about even the surrounding text? Believe it or not, the author of Hebrews clearly tells us just only a few verses earlier his main point of his whole letter:

Hb 8:28 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.

Hb 8:1 Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.

Scripture defines the main point or context of Hebrews to be a new High Priest administration. It is clear that it states that the men are weak and that they are the problem, which needed replacing, not the law. We clearly have the context for the ellipsis.

Everything prior to this “main point” statement sets up the foundation, problem statement, and solution for the main point, and everything following offers additional support of that “main point” and then leads into specifics about Tabernacle conversion resulting from our new High Priest that happens to be residing in Heaven. The Tabernacle conversion, by intended consequence, also satisfied another problem, which was a tabernacle built by imperfect man, which could not house a perfect administration or mediator (Yeshua/Jesus).

Because it supports the law abolishing paradigm, many maintain that the quote from Jer. 31 establishes brand new context, when in reality, the author citing Jer. 31 is just supporting the continuation of what the author already clearly established as the root cause problem. Thus the Jer. 31 quote is just supporting the overall solution as the context and main point. Not only does the context continue through chapter 8, but chapter 9 begins to discuss in detail the priestly system, not the nature of the whole covenant that is supposedly being made obsolete instead of just the Levitical Priesthood administration.

It is quite clear that Priesthood remains the “main point” throughout the Book of Hebrews and does not temporarily leave the overall teaching just to focus on quickly deleting a covenant just to immediately leave that subject and begin talking about the priesthood again.

The root problem was men as high priests instead of Yeshua (Jesus), therefore the solution is Yeshua (Jesus) as the High Priest. Another related problem is that men built the tabernacle instead of a Heavenly tabernacle. The law that assigns a high priest is not even deleted or abolished. It has just changed assignment to Yeshua through the order of Melchizedek (7:21)(5:6)(5:10), as was foretold.

Another problem was man’s disobedience and we refused to want to obey. All of these problems and solutions have nothing to do with deleting a covenant or God’s law. Yet we want to state that the entire covenant was deleted and replaced, as being made obsolete and fading away. Men’s flesh might want that to be true, but those after the Spirit want God’s law. We will cover more of that later.

Because we were not supposed to conclude that we were to delete the Law of God, no one can clearly figure out exactly which commandments we are supposed to be obedient to anymore. This is always the debate and the source of so much confusion.

Are we only supposed to obey the commands Yeshua (Jesus) specifically stated? Well, He told us to obey the whole Law of Moses when it is read from the Seat of Moses (Matthew 23:1-3).

Are we only supposed to obey the commandments in the New Testament as if commandments in the Old Testament are not part of the Bible? Where is the third commandment in the NT, can we now take the Lord’s name in vain? Can we now marry our brother and sister? Something does not seem right.

The only thing the whole letter of Hebrews mentions as being made obsolete is the Levitical priesthood, which is not a law, but “who” is administering the priestly laws.

Is the main point the removal of God’s law or laws by removing the whole Mosaic covenant? No. Then how can we make it such? More importantly, why do we want to?

By mistakenly inserting “covenant” after “first” in verses 8:7;8:13 & 9:1 one changes the main point of Hebrews to be about the covenant instead of what the author of Hebrews clearly stated as the subject as defined in 8:1 and evidenced throughout the whole letter. This would even be against the whole “main point” that the author is trying to teach in Hebrews. Perhaps we should again remind ourselves that the author of Hebrews even specifically told us the whole main point of the letter in Hebrews 8:1 which is ironically right in the middle of all of the verses that are commonly confused!

The brief mention of the word covenant is simply just citing Jer. 31. It is necessary for the author of Hebrews to cite this verse to establish scriptural support for the change or transfer that the author of Hebrews is trying to prove (3:1). He is proving to his audience that the problem was with THEM (8:7) (not the law) and the fact that they did not remain faithful to the covenant (8:9)(Jer. 31) was indeed the problem. This means that they broke the covenant. They broke the law. They were sinners. Every man is a sinner. Therefore the solution can not be men, or even making a covenant obsolete. Consider this, how could making a covenant obsolete solve a problem with the imperfect nature of man and the High Priesthood? What could we even be logically proposing the relationship would be between the clearly stated problem (them) and the abolishing of a covenant? It simply would not make any sense.

The real solution was for Yeshua (Jesus) to replace THEM the PEOPLE (8:7,8:9) not replace the covenant. Therefore, the only thing that can be old and fading away is the commandment (singular)(7:18) that previously assigned THEM (8:7), the PEOPLE to the High Priest system, and instead the commandment changed/transferred (7:18) to Yeshua (Jesus) as our current perfect High Priest (6:20)(7:28). Yeshua (Jesus) was worthy and man was not (7:26-27).

Why in the world are we suggesting that He abolished a previous covenant, when scripture declares that he refreshes it or makes it new in freshness (G2537 – kainos)? He refreshed the covenant by taking men out of the High Priest system and replacing it with himself. This is one central reason the covenant was made better, because of a perfect High Priest. The other reason it was made better is because God’s law (which was not abolished) was written on the hearts of Israel (us).

If we are stating that the whole covenant is abolished and obsolete (instead of the human High Priest administration), then we have numerous problems that are impossible to reconcile.

For example:
1) Hebrews 7:12 makes it clear that it was a transferring/change of the priesthood that occurred, not a deleting of a supposed obsolete covenant. There happens to be a difference between a covenant with God and the performance of a priesthood.

2) Hebrews 7:18 makes it clear that it was a commandment that changed, not commandments. If the Sabbath and Feast days were removed as part of the changes that Hebrews is teaching, which is what many want to do, the focus would be on commandments, not a commandment (singular). The author would have also specifically mentioned those changes, which he did not. He mentioned countless times how the High Priesthood changed, yet mentioned no other specific change as it relates to the covenant. Was he leaving the Hebrews in the dark? Hebrews even tells us which commandment was transferred. The commandment that was transferred was the one that assigned the High Priesthood from the imperfect man (Levites) to Yeshua (Jesus). (Ex. 29:44; Ex. 30:30; Ex. 31:30; Ex; 38:31 etc.)

3) Hebrews 8:7 makes it clear that the problem that existed was the people, not the covenant. The covenant was made better because man was no longer the High Priest, but Yeshua (Jesus) is now the perfect high priest. The covenant was not made better because it was made obsolete. At no point in all of scripture is it ever mentioned that God’s Feast days or Sabbaths were ever a problem and needed to be deleted or changed in any capacity. Men who do not like God’s law decided those commandments were a problem, so they were deleted through doctrine’s of men, not by divine decree. God simply never does anything without telling us through His prophets first. In addition, if He was going delete His most special holy days He would have at least told us why. We are often told that the reason why is because God’s law was not perfect, but we know that God’s law was perfect. We are also often told that the reason why is because God’s law was bondage, but God’s Word says His law is easy and freedom.

4) The author of Hebrews’ focus is on the Levitical High Priesthood being abolished and obsolete for man and reassigned to Jesus Christ in the order of Melchizedek. There is no such context established with the whole covenant. There is no prophecy that stated that the Mosaic covenant would be made obsolete and replaced, just made new or refreshed, improved, or made better.

5) The MAIN POINT as stated in 7:28-8:1 is about the change in the High Priesthood and thus establishes the context required by the ellipsis. This main point does not mention a covenant made obsolete.

6) The author’s point of citing Jer. 31, is to show that the problem with man was already prophesied in advance and the solution was to be part of the refreshing of the covenant. This is keeping in context of what he is already discussing. The author wants to prove what he just said in 8:7-8 by testing it to scripture (Jer. 31)

How do we address the above if we were to make the covenant obsolete?

What does it state in verse 9 when the author of Hebrews cites Jer. 31?

Hb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

….hence a problem with THEM, the PEOPLE, the administration of the covenant, which is not the covenant itself.

So now the author has shown in scripture that the problem was foretold and the solution as Yeshua (Jesus) in the order of Melchizedek was also foretold.

Notice what was not foretold was the making of covenant obsolete. As something as important as deleting a covenant from God, you would expect it to be mentioned by God somewhere instead of saying it was going to be there forever.

7) 9:14-15 clearly states that the Christ’s sacrifice of himself enabled Him to the mediator (intercessor) of the covenant, it does not state that Christ’s sacrifice enabled the annulling of the covenant and that had anything to do with helping anything.

8) 7:22-8:1 makes it clear that the covenant was made better by Yeshua (Jesus) replacing imperfect man High Priesthood administration with His perfect High priesthood administration.

9) The last ellipsis, the same as all of the others (first…) also clearly demonstrates that the subject is the High Priest administration as the context describes the covenant blood that is spilled and dedicated to the priestly administration, tabernacle, and vessels. It was through Christ’s blood that the perfect High Priest administration was dedicated (9:19-26)

10) How can we erase the very covenant that supports the High Priesthood?

11) How can we erase laws that are part of the covenant when this contradicts the statements of Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19?

The bottom line is this. The context of the ellipsis is either the covenant or a human high priest administration. It is really simple.

Let’s explore the usage of the ellipsis literary tool in detail and once again apply the surrounding context to properly utilize the ellipsis.

Here is verse 7, the first ellipsis.

Hb 8:7 For if that first (ellipsis) had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Whatever is not faultless is the subject and context of what is defined as the “first”. What exactly had fault might I ask? I really need to know, so that I can then know the precise context of the ellipses. Is the context the covenant or is it the human high priest administration? Whatever the answer is, that is what the “first” is in 8:7.

Watch. What is not faultless?
Hb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

What was at fault, and therefore is the context of the ellipses was THEM and therefore verse 8:7 (as defined by verse 8:8) is understood as:

Hb 8:7 For if that first [high priesthood administration] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

It was the high priesthood administration that was NOT faultless (thus we needed a second), which is exactly what 8:7 describes as “first.”

So then, what is the “first” and old?
Answer: The human imperfect High Priesthood administration.

What is the “second” and new?
Answer: The perfect High Priesthood (Yeshua/Jesus) administration.

So every time going forward the author of Hebrews uses the “first” and the “second” we KNOW that he is talking about what was replaced, because the first (High Priesthood administration) of Israel was indeed NOT faultless (they had fault).

Then the author continues with citing Jer. 31 to prove from scripture that they were indeed at fault:

Hb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

So the solution is exactly what the author of Hebrews proposed as the main point and WHOLE THEME of Hebrews, which is Jesus as a High Priest, not the abolishing and making obsolete of a whole covenant.

The author uses the same exact linguistic structure of the ellipses from 8:7 in 8:13, continuing the same context and then supporting his point that the fault was with man (not the covenant) and the solution Yeshua (Jesus) as the new High Priest administration:

Hb 8:13 In that he saith, A new [high priesthood administration], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

One last point
If 8:13 is speaking of God’s covenant and law, then why does 13 state that it is now ready to vanish away and that it is in the process of decaying? How does a covenant gradually decay and fade away after it has already been made obsolete? Why is it still ready to vanish away instead of having already vanished away? Isn’t this a difficult question to answer? If the covenant is made obsolete, is it made ready to vanish and decay away, or is it in fact already gone? How do we answer this? Why is 8:13 in present tense and still progressing?

Well, when we realize that 8:13 is NOT about God’s covenant but the Levitical High Priesthood then it makes complete sense. When Yeshua (Jesus) became the High Priest there were still those of the Levitical priesthood that were playing out their roles. Is this what Hebrews specifically states?

Let’s go back to verse 8:4 and it will make what seems complex very simple.

Hb 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

Nowhere does the author of Hebrews suggest that the priests offering these sacrifices (long after Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and the Feast of Pentecost when God’s Spirit was given to the Church in Acts 2), were doing so illegitimately. On the contrary Hebrews asserts that Jesus Christ Himself can’t offer sacrifices even if He was on Earth while the Levitical priesthood exists!

This is because the Levitical Priesthood, though obsolete, was still fading and decaying away!

The Heavenly High Priest administration (Yeshua/Jesus) was perfect and operational, yet the Earthly Levitical based administration, though obsolete, was still functioning and playing out their role until it faded away when the temple was destroyed in 70 AD.

This verse comes at the conclusion of two whole chapters devoted to showing the superiority of Jesus’ “Melchizedek’ priesthood to that of our earthly Levitical priesthood. So what is ‘ready to vanish’ must be taken in the context of what has just been discussed. It is the earthly temple and the earthly priesthood ready to vanish, to be rendered eventually inoperable (as did occur a few years later in 70 CE).

We have a choice to make. Either the Word of God is indeed eternal, or it can in fact slowly vanish away.

Either God contradicts Himself in the Bible or the problem is with MAN’S UNDERSTANDING of what he reads.

I would like to submit that the problem is with MAN’S UNDERSTANDING of what he reads.

Does any of the new covenant prophecies mention abolishing God’s law? No. In fact, it states the exact opposite. The whole point of the new covenant is that it is written on our heart and we want to do His law. We are given a new heart, and our old heart is taken away.

Ezekiel 36:26 A NEW HEART also will I give you, and a NEW SPIRIT will I PUT WITHIN YOU: and I will TAKE AWAY the STONY HEART out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

Jeremiah 31:33 But this shall be THE COVENANT that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put MY LAW in their INWARD PARTS, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

NEW = NEW HEART that WANTS to follow God’s law
God says that He gave the Holy Spirit to give us the desire to KEEP His law.

Ezekiel 36:27 And I will put MY SPIRIT WITHIN YOU, and cause you
to WALK in my STATUTES, and ye shall KEEP my JUDGMENTS, and DO THEM.

Zechariah 7:11 But they REFUSED to HEARKEN, and PULLED AWAY the SHOULDER, and STOPPED their EARS, that they should NOT HEAR.

Zechariah 7:12 Yea, they made their HEARTS as an adamant STONE …

OLD = STONY HEART that will NOT follow God’s law

When we read all of Hebrews, or even just simply focus on the main point clearly established by the author, we find not one mention, of the covenant being made obsolete.

The only way we can build such a doctrine is to ignore the blatant context given and misuse the ellipse in Hebrews by trying to slide in “covenant” in 8:13 and then ignore the contradictions that result.

It makes no sense to force the covenant to be the root problem statement and the solution to be the making of the covenant obsolete. Clearly the letter to the Hebrews as a whole and in the immediate surrounding text establishes that the problem statement was imperfect man as the High Priest administration and mediator, and the solution was reassigning Yeshua (Jesus) as the perfect High Priest to a perfect Heavenly tabernacle by the means of the eternal order of Melchizedek in the transferring of one commandment.

We do not want to confuse why Jer. 31 was cited by the author in the first place, and thus pull out the incorrect context for the ellipses evident in 8:13 that would destroy the overall theme of Hebrews, and even violates the exact same ellipses in 8:7. It simply makes no sense, unless one has an interest in preserving a paradigm that is dependent upon forcing the discarding of the Law of God as written by Moses.

If anyone teaches that Hebrews states something beyond a simple foretold transferring of the priestly system to Yeshua (Jesus), Yeshua (Jesus) being the perfect sacrifice, and a transferring of the man made tabernacle to the Heavenly tabernacle, then their conclusions are already highly suspect, as Hebrews does not deviate from such in the slightest capacity. The problem stated simply is that imperfect man is operating in an imperfect tabernacle, the offering of imperfect sacrifices was corrected by Jesus Christ (Yeshua) as a perfect High Priest, as a perfect sacrifice, now in the perfect Heavenly tabernacle.

Anyone stating anything more than that, has a bias to attempt to prove.

As fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, I urge you to take all of the above seriously, since these things are relating to our awesome God YHWH, who deserves every bit of our attention and our sincere desire to understand His Word and His ways.

Test everything I have said to scripture. Never take a man’s word for Truth, but test it to the only established Truth we have, God’s Word. This is what we are accountable to at the end of the race. Show yourself approved, and study the scriptures. Contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. Seek out His ways and His path. Test your heart and ensure that it desires God’s ways and not the ways of the world, doctrines of men, or traditions of our fathers. As Jesus (Yeshua) stated, we can do many things in God’s name, but if we were not doing it out of pure love and obedience to Him, then it matters not. In fact, our heart can still be so far from Him, that He could state, “Depart from me. I never knew you, you who works lawlessness.” (Matthew 7:21)

It is our faith in Jesus (Yeshua) that matters, but if there is no evidence of faith in your life that is demonstrated by a sincere interest in the keeping of God’s commandments, then begin asking yourself why you do not trust God’s ways, but instead rely on man’s ways and your ways. We need to humble ourselves and see Truth in the place where Truth is written. We cannot pretend to invent Truth, but only have it delivered to us through His established Word.

I pray that this study has blessed you. I also pray that as you test the above to scripture, that you bring to my attention any part that might be in error as defined by scripture. Do not allow me to reside in any understanding that could be false, but reach out to me in love and discuss God’s Holy Word with me, and I will make every attempt to do the same with you. In the end, only the Truth matters. In the end, only Truth can end the division in His body and restore unity.

How does scripture describe God’s law?
1. The Law blesses (obey) and curses (disobey). (Deut 11:26-27)(Ps 112:1)(Ps 119:1-2)(Ps 128:1)(Prov 8:32)(Is 56:2)(Mat 5:6)(Mat 5:10)(Luke 11:28)(Jam 1:25)(1 Pe 3:14)(Rev 22:14)

2. The Law defines sin. (Jer 44:23)(Ez 18:21)(Dan 9:11)(Ro 3:20)(Ro 7:7)(1 Jo 3:4)

3. The Law is perfect. (Ps 19:7)(Jam 1:25)

4. The Law is liberty. (Ps 119:45)(Jam 1:25, 2:12)

5. The Law is the way. (Ex 18:20)(Deut 10:12)(Josh 22:5)(1 King 2:3)(Ps 119:1)(Prov 6:23)(Is 2:3)(Mal 2:8)(Mark 12:14)(Ac 24:14)

6. The Law is the truth. (Ps 119:142)(Mal 2:6)(Ro 2:20)(Gal 5:7)(Ps 43:2-4)(Jo 8:31-32)

7. The Law is life. (Job 33:30)(Ps 36:9)(Prov 6:23)(Rev 22:14)

8. The Law is light. (Job 24:13)(Job 29:3)(Ps 36:9)(Ps 43:2-4)(Ps 119:105)(Prov 6:23)(Is 2:5) (Is 8:20)(Is 51:4)(2 Cor 6:14)(1 John 1:7)

9. The Law is Jesus, the Word made flesh. (PERFECT-LIBERTY-WAY-TRUTH-LIFE-LIGHT). (Ps 27:1)(Jo 1:1-14)(Jo 14:5-11)(1 Jo 1:7)

10. The Law is also for the Gentiles (foreigner/alien) who are grafted in. (Ex 12:19) (Ex 12:38) (Ex 12:49) (Lev 19:34) (Lev 24:22) (Num 9:14) (Num 15:15-16) (Num 15:29) (ie: Ruth) (Is 42:6) (Is 60:3) (Mat 5:14) (Eph 2:10-13) (Ac 13:47) (Ro 11:16-27) (Jer31:31-34) (Ez 37) (1 Jo 2:10) (1 Jo 1:7)

11. The Law is God’s instructions on how to love God, how to love others, and how to not love yourself. (Ex 20:6)(Deut 5:10)(Deut 7:10)(Deut 11:13)(Deut 11:22)(Deut 30:16)(Deut 6:5)(Lev 19:18)(Neh 1:5)(Dan 9:4)(Mat 22:35-37)(Matthew 10:39)(Mat 16:25)(Jo 14:15)(Jo 14:21)(Ro 13:9)(1 Jo 5:2-3)(2 Jo 1:6)

Proverbs 28:9 “He who turns away his ear from hearing the Law, Even his prayer is an abomination.”

We are to seek unity in the seeking of Truth (Ephesians 4) and desire to see the 33,000 denominations in 258 countries contend for the faith that was once delivered to all of the saints…(Jude 1:20)

Only when God’s people start doing Bible things in Bible ways, believing and doing all things according to His Word will we finally see unity in the Body.

119 Ministries

www.TestEverything.net

I’m back! I hope the above study done by 119 Ministries, has opened your eyes to see the Book of Hebrews in new light. The true and perfect light which is Yeshua. May your eyes be like Paul’s, as he could see perfectly while on his way to Damascus, but was blind to the truth. His eyes actually opened only when he got blinded to the light of Yeshua and came out a new man. May our new perfect High Priest in heaven be praised for all that He has done for us!