Old Law – La Vista Church of Christ

Are Christians Under the Old Testament?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Fri, 07 Aug 2026 18:26:17 +0000

Has the Old Testament been done away with? Or does it actually still apply to modern-day Christians?

If you've ever wondered how Christians should read the Old Testament today, this biblical discussion will challenge assumptions, strengthen your faith, and help you see God's redemptive story with fresh eyes. Watch the full conversation and discover why this key question about the Old Testament is vital for understanding what God wants of us.

Was the Law of Moses Abolished?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 02:35:57 +0000

by Samuel Matthews

Loved ones, a great deal of confusion exists in the religious world concerning what spiritual law man is under today. Some say the old law still is binding—all of it. Others say that most of it has been abolished, but some of it is still in effect. Many simply pick and choose laws out of both testaments and abide only by those that are appealing to them.

Much of today's confusion about the old and new laws stems from the false teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Church. This intensely evangelistic group teaches that the Ten Commandments still are binding in the present age.

Although most “Christians” readily agree that nine of the Ten Commandments either are stated explicitly or are implied in the New Testament (and thus binding today because they are part of the new law), Seventh-Day Adventists actively teach that the Ten Commandments (including and especially the command to observe the Sabbath Day—Exodus 20:8) are part of “God’s unchangeable law” (from the Seventh-Day Adventist’s official website).

Whereas certain parts of the Old Testament have been abolished, they insist that God intended for the Ten Commandments to be an eternal covenant that all of His children must follow.

In response to such teachings, some Christians (like myself) quickly cite passages of Scripture that indicate the old law has been taken away. For example, the writer of Hebrews plainly stated that “if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second” (Hebrews 8:7). Then, quoting the prophet Jeremiah, he wrote: “Because finding fault with them, He says: ‘Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt’” (Jeremiah 8:8-9; cf. Jeremiah 31:31-34).

Elsewhere, the apostle Paul stated that Christ has “wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14). The old law has become “obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13; cf. 7:12; Ephesians 2:14-16). Although we can still learn numerous valuable lessons and principles about how to live godly lives from the old law (cf. Romans 15:4), we are no longer bound by it.

What some, like the Seventh-day Adventists, teach, however, is that God gave two laws on Mt. Sinai. They differentiate between the Ten Commandments and the ceremonial laws, saying that one (the Ten Commandments) is the Law of God and the other (the ceremonial laws) is the Law of Moses. However, the Bible plainly says that only one law came from Mt. Sinai (Galatians 4:24).

Moreover, they assert that all of the passages in the Bible that refer to the old law being abolished are speaking of the “ceremonial laws” and not the Ten Commandments, which (they stress) were written with the very finger of God (Exodus 31:18).

Those who separate “the Law of God” and “the Law of Moses” (in an attempt to find approval for continuing to follow portions of the old law) fail to realize that the Bible does not make such distinctions. Ezra read from “the Book of the Law of Moses,” which was also called “the Book of the Law of God” (Nehemiah 8:1, 18).

Luke recorded that after Mary gave birth to Jesus “when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, ‘Every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord’), and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, ‘A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons’” (Luke 2:22-24).

The Law of Moses and the Law of the Lord were the same thing and still are. When writing to the brethren in Rome, the apostle Paul quoted from the Ten Commandments and taught that it was part of the old law to which they had “become dead…through the body of Christ” (Romans 7:4, 7).

In his second epistle to the Corinthians, Paul wrote: “Clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart…. But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious…. For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious” (II Corinthians 3:3-11).

What was “passing away”? The law was written on the “tablets of stone.” What was the law “engraved on stones” that was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai? The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). In this passage, Paul teaches the very opposite of what Seventh-day Adventists teach—namely, that the Ten Commandments are not an eternal covenant.

The New Testament explicitly teaches that the old law has been abolished. Whether one is talking about the Ten Commandments or the ceremonial laws, the Law of Moses or the Law of God, all are considered the old law that is no longer in effect. Jesus Christ fulfilled that law and nailed it to the cross forever (Matthew 5:17-18; Colossians 2:13-17).

The God of Heaven and Earth is so good, and His love reaches all. Through the free gift of God’s grace by Jesus’ blood (Ephesians 2:8; Revelation 1:5) and your obedient faith (Romans 1:5; 10:17; 16:26; John 3:16; Luke 13:3; Acts 17:30; Matthew 10:32-33; Romans 10:9-10; Acts 2:38; 22:16), salvation is offered. If you have Bible questions or wish to comment on this post, please do so. Lord willing, a Bible answer will be provided for every Bible question.

The churches of Christ are neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jew (Romans 16:16; Matthew 16:18-19). We are the loving suffering one body of Christ (Ephesians 1:20-23; 4:4-6) – Christians: “Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf” (I Peter 4:16; cf. Acts 11:26; 26:28).

We love you with the love of the Lord (John 13:34-35).

Timothy Was Circumcised

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 06 May 2026 14:37:27 +0000

by Hugh DeLong

When you move from Acts of the Apostles 15 into chapter 16, the question naturally arises: has Paul just contradicted himself? In Acts 15, circumcision as a requirement tied to the law is clearly rejected. Yet in Acts 16:3, Paul the Apostle circumcises Timothy. The answer lies in a distinction that must be carefully maintained—the very distinction we have emphasized in our study of Galatians.

Circumcision, as a matter of law for justification, is denied.
Circumcision, as an expedient for service, is permitted.

Acts 15 settles the doctrinal issue. Circumcision, when tied to “keeping the law” as a basis of justification, is rejected. It is not part of the gospel. To bind it as necessary for salvation is to alter the terms of justification and undermine grace. This is exactly the issue Paul confronts in Galatians—where circumcision is not merely a cultural practice, but a theological requirement being imposed. There, Paul refuses to yield at all because the truth of the gospel is at stake.
But Acts 16 is not about justification—it is about serving—the service of spreading the Gospel.

Timothy’s background explains everything. He is the son of a Jewish mother and a Greek father (Acts 16:1). In the eyes of the Jews, that made him Jewish. Yet he was uncircumcised. That fact alone would immediately disqualify him from being heard in Jewish settings and would hinder access to the synagogues—Paul’s consistent starting point in preaching.

So why circumcise him? Luke tells you plainly: “because of the Jews who were in those parts.” This is not about salvation—it is about access.

Here is the distinction:

If circumcision is done to be justified, it is a denial of the gospel.
If circumcision is done to remove a barrier to teaching the gospel, it becomes a tool in the service of the gospel.

Paul himself articulates this principle in I Corinthians 9:20—becoming “as a Jew” to win Jews. This is not a compromise; it is a strategy governed by truth.

The contrast with Titus (Galatians 2:3–5) makes this even clearer. Titus, a Gentile, is not circumcised. Why? Because in that case, circumcision was being demanded as necessary for acceptance before God. That crosses the line into justification by law—something Paul will not allow. With Timothy, no such doctrinal demand is present—only a practical obstacle to effective service.

So Paul is entirely consistent:

He denies that circumcision is the law for salvation (Acts 15; Galatians).
He uses circumcision as an expedient for service (Acts 16).

The act is the same; the meaning is entirely different.

This distinction is critical. When any act is elevated to a condition of justification, it corrupts the gospel. But when an act is used wisely to remove unnecessary offense and open doors for teaching, it serves the gospel without altering it. What would we be willing to do to help the spread of the Gospel?

New Is Better

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 16 Feb 2026 20:04:21 +0000

by Hugh DeLong

"God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world" (Hebrews 1:1-2).

The Bible is God’s word. God, whose knowledge is Infinite, created us with the ability to communicate with Him. He chose to reveal Himself and His will for us through such communication. God spoke. This is the foundation of the Bible: God speaking to man.

Here in Hebrews 1, we learn that in times past (to the fathers) He spoke in many ways: History, Wisdom, Prose, but also by dreams, audible vocalization, and even using a donkey. This covers the whole of the Old Testament: the Patriarchal era (before the law of Moses), and the Mosaic era of Israel living under the Law. This has been written, saved, and translated for us in the Old Testament section of our Bibles.

But now He has spoken through Jesus. Jesus spoke audibly while he was on earth; the chosen apostles wrote down (with the help of the Holy Spirit) His teaching, and, with the help of the Holy Spirit, wrote further history and letters that have been compiled into our 27 books of the New Testament.
The Hebrew writer will later contrast the first covenant with the second covenant (cp. Heb. 8). The Old Testament is useful for learning history and the plan of God, and also great principles that help us live godly lives. The New Testament, however, is our source for learning Christ’s instructions.

In Hebrews, we will repeatedly compare these two covenants. The conclusion is reached that the new is better than the Old. In fact, the word ‘better’ will be found some 13 times in this book.

Were Sins “Rolled Forward”?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 28 Jan 2026 22:54:15 +0000

by Ney Rieber
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 20 No. 2, June 1994

Was there forgiveness of sins for those under the Old Testament? This question is frequently answered in the negative. It is stated that their sins were not forgiven, but were "rolled forward" year by year. The primary passage used to support this idea is Hebrews 10:3, which says, "But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year."

Many say this indicates that their sins were not forgiven, but "rolled forward." They reason the sins of the Old Testament figures were not forgiven, and this is confirmed by the next verse, Hebrews 10:4, which says, "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." It is held that because the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins, God held the people accountable every year, reminding them of all the sins they had committed. The sins of the people were listed again and again, year after year, with the list getting longer each year, until finally, Jesus died on the cross and all of those past sins were finally forgiven.

While this is a popular interpretation, it does not take into account other passages. It has the appearance of truth, but upon close examination of the Scriptures, it must fall. Let’s consider some of the more significant Old Testament passages.

In Leviticus, God repeatedly promised that sins would be forgiven when the sin offering was made (Leviticus 4:20, 26, 35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18; and 6:7). Each of these verses contains the phrase, "...it shall be forgiven them." Leviticus 19:22 says, "the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him."

These statements seem to be irrefutable. God would forgive their sins! These passages cannot be reconciled with the "rolled forward" interpretation. The dilemma now is that, according to Hebrews 10:4 ("...not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins"), their sins could not have been forgiven, since that forgiveness depended on the sacrifice of bulls and goats. How can the two premises be harmonized? By rolling the sins forward each year?

Continuing our examination of the Old Testament, we encounter the book of Numbers. Again, regarding the sin offering, God promises forgiveness of sin. Numbers 15 twice says that ״...it shall be forgiven them״ (Numbers 15:25 and 28). Upon making the sin offering, sin would be forgiven. There was the promise of forgiveness of sin to those under the law! Did God keep his promises?

Consider Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple. This prayer is recorded in both I Kings 8 and II Chronicles 6. At least three times, he specifically requested that God hear the people when they prayed facing the temple, and that God forgive their sins. (I Kings 8:34, 36, 50, II Chronicles 6:25, 27, 39) After Solomon’s fervent prayer at the dedication of the temple, God answered him and, in II Chronicles 7:12-14, promised him that the people’s sins would be forgiven. It says, ״And the LORD appeared to Solomon by night, and said unto him, I have heard thy prayer, and have chosen this place to myself for a house of sacrifice. If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people; If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.״ Again, we clearly see God promising that sin could and would be forgiven under the Old Covenant!

In Psalms 32:1-2, we read that David believed sins were forgiven. It says, ״Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.״

In Psalms 85:1-2, another Psalmist rejoiced that God had forgiven their sins when he wrote, ״LORD, thou hast been favourable unto thy land: thou hast brought back the captivity of Jacob. Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy people, thou hast covered all their sin. Selah."

Were sins forgiven under the Old Testament? These passages clearly say that they were!

One of the most comforting passages in the Bible regarding the forgiveness of sin is found in Psalms 103:10-12. It says. "He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities. For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him. As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.״ God has removed their transgressions! Yet still some say there is no forgiveness of sin in the Old Testament!

The Hebrew writer clearly states that there was efficacy in the blood of goats and calves, then links the superior cleansing to Christ’s blood. Look at Hebrews 9:12-14 where it says, "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" Pay particular attention to the words, "... the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh..." A purifying did take place! The Hebrew writer’s argument is really based upon the efficacy of the blood of animal sacrifices. If they purified the flesh, how much more would the blood of Christ do?

Romans 3:23-25 says, ״For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.״ Notice "for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." The wealth of information in that phrase is staggering. The blood of Jesus is what forgives "sins that are past" due to the "forbearance of God." Is it possible that "sins that are past" is looking not only at our past sins but also at the sins of those in the past? In other words, when the faithful person of the Old Testament met the conditions God had set, God applied the same cleansing blood of Jesus to them that he does to us! Now let us read Hebrews 10:3-4 again. It says, "But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins."

Do not limit God. God has declared Himself to be above time as we know it in Exodus 3:14. There, He told Moses, "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." Jesus made the same declaration about himself in John 8:58, where it is recorded, "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." The past is just as accessible to God as are the present and future.

Jesus’ blood reached back to those in the past just as efficiently as it reaches forward to those of us in the future. As easily as the cleansing blood of Jesus is applied to the believer today who meets the conditions for forgiveness that j God has set, so the same cleansing blood of Jesus was applied to the believer under the Old Testament who met God’s terms of forgiveness then! God is not limited by our perception of time.

A proper understanding of Hebrews 10:3-4 is that God called for the people to make a sacrifice for the sins committed during the last year. Their sins since the previous sin offering were remembered. God forgave their sins when this offering was made. Hebrews 10:4 indicates that it was not the blood of bulls and goats that did the cleansing. Romans 3:25 indicates that it was the blood of Jesus. The yearly sacrifice, through the blood of Jesus, brought forgiveness for a year’s worth of sin, but each year a new accounting was made, and the sins of that year were remembered. Their sins were not "rolled forward," but forgiven!

Who Are You Listening To?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 28 Jan 2026 16:59:07 +0000

by Hugh DeLong

Text: Galatians 3

The promise to Abraham – all nations bless in his ‘seed’, which is Jesus. The law was given to Israel, but was their ‘tutor’ or ‘guardian’ to bring them to Christ, and now they are no longer under that tutor (the Law). However, the blessing was for all nations – including us who are not ethnic Jews! Now, in chapter 4, Paul enlarges on the problem: Some disciples were changing the gospel and arguing for the continued demands of that covenant with Israel.

This is the basis of the argument in Galatians 3:8 and following. Even though they were disciples, they demanded that disciples keep the various requirements of the old law. Paul mentions several such demands, including the keeping of the ‘holy days’ and circumcision. This was the very problem addressed by the apostles and elders in Acts 15 – “some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved'”

That was answered by inspiration with a definite No. Here it is again, and it receives the same answer: No.

We are not under an obligation to keep the demands of the law of Moses. We are, as Paul said, “under law to Christ.” We now live by ‘the faith of Christ” (Galatians 2:20). We now walk by faith (II Corinthians 5:7). Jesus is our savior, king, mediator, high priest, and friend: The Father has said, “This is my beloved son, hear ye him.”

Who are you listening to?

Outside the Camp

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 05 Jan 2026 00:29:21 +0000

https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Outside-the-Camp.mp3

by Jeffrey W. Hamilton

Download Audio

Text: Hebrews 13:9-14

I. Understanding the place of the Old Testament is difficult for man

A. God is clear that

1. The Old Law would come to an end - Jeremiah 31:31-34

2. The Old Law did come to an end - Colossians 2:14; Ephesians 2:15-16

B. The book of Hebrews is mostly about why that change had to take place and how much better the New Law of Christ is - Hebrews 8:6

C. We are going to examine the concluding summary of Hebrews to better understand these things - Hebrews 13:9-14

II. The book of Hebrews was targeted to Christians from a Jewish background

A. From the establishment of the church there were always elements who tried to push Christianity back toward the Old Law - Acts 15:1-5

B. The book of Galatians deals with the issue

1. A perversion of the Gospel - Galatians 1:9-10

2. Christians were being pulled away by Judaizing teachers - Galatians 3:1-4

3. People wanted to make it a Jewish sect - Galatians 6:12-15

III. Old Testament Food versus New Testament Food

A. It wasn’t just circumcision that was at issue, there was push to conform to the dietary laws

1. “Righteousness” was being determined by conforming to the rules of the Old Law - Colossians 2:17-18

2. Even though food doesn’t make a person righteous - I Corinthians 8:8

3. Foods do not profit the person occupied with them - Hebrews 13:9

4. Don’t subject yourselves to regulations - Colossians 2:20-23

5. Righteousness comes by grace, not by law keeping - Romans 3:27-28

B. Under the Old Testament, only the priest could eat from the altar - Numbers 18:9-10

1. It was a part of a priest’s rights - I Corinthians 9:13

C. But Christians have food which cannot be eaten by priests following after the Old Law - Hebrews 13:10

1. They had no right to it

2. Jesus declared that he was the bread - John 6:35, 48, 51

3. That bread we partake in - I Corinthians 5:7; 10:16-17

4. The Lord’s Supper represents this, but we understand that Jesus wasn’t talking about physical food, but spiritual food

5. Christ bought with his blood our salvation - Hebrews 10:5-12

6. And those remaining under the Old Law had no right to partake in it

D. Notice that the writer talks about those serving under the tabernacle

1. Why tabernacle instead of temple?

2. A tabernacle was a tent, a temporary dwelling

3. This was a further stab that the Old Law was only temporary

E. Pulling in the Old keeps you out of the New - Galatians 5:2-4

IV. Jesus’ death is compared to the sacrifices of the Old Testament - Hebrews 13:11-12

A. The sin offerings were not fully burnt on the altar - Leviticus 16:27

B. It wasn’t a coincidence that Jesus died outside the city limits - John 19:17-18

C. In this way, Jesus became a type of burnt offering. His sacrifice was in the category of burnt offerings - Ephesians 5:2

D. But because it was outside the gates of Jerusalem, what was done was not fully a part of the Old Law. It is for this reason that Jesus’ blood reaches those not born as Jews - Ephesians 2:11-18

E. Using Jerusalem as a symbol, the writer points out that to partake of this sacrifice, the Jew must go outside the camp - Hebrews 13:13

F. They had to come out of the Old Law - Romans 7:4

G. That it would involve hardships was a given - Matthew 5:10-12

V. No continuing city - Hebrews 13:14

A. The Old Law had been fade since the days of Jeremiah - Hebrews 8:13

B. The city that the Jews took so much pride in would not last - Matthew 24:1-2

C. There was nothing left for the Jews under the Old Law

D. But in Christ we seek an eternal home - Philippians 3:20-21

E. Salvation is not in the Old Law, but in Christ and his law.

F. Will you also seek for the continuing city to come?

Does God pursue those who don’t keep their vows?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sun, 04 Jan 2026 20:45:19 +0000

Question:

Hello, dear pastor,

I have a question for you. Today, while I was reading the Bible, I read Deuteronomy 23:21: "You must not delay in repaying your vows to the Lord your God, for the Lord your God will seek you back, and you are guilty if you do not pay them."

As I read this verse, I thought, "These are the regulations of the Old Testament." If we put it in the New Testament now, will God still pursue it like the Old Testament? (I don't mean to avoid these responsibilities, but to make sure that some of the provisions of the Old Testament are still in place today.)

Answer:

"When you make a vow to the LORD your God, you shall not delay to pay it, for it would be sin in you, and the LORD your God will surely require it of you. However, if you refrain from vowing, it would not be sin in you. You shall be careful to perform what goes out from your lips, just as you have voluntarily vowed to the LORD your God, what you have promised" (Deuteronomy 23:21-23).

God is the giver of the covenants. It is not our duty to put laws from one covenant into another. See "Why We Don't Follow the Old Testament." It isn't that the Old Testament is useless. We have the Old Testament in our Bible so that we can learn from it (Romans 4:23-24; I Corinthians 9:9-10; 10:11). It illustrates the teachings in the New Testament and reinforces the message of God (II Timothy 3:16-17). We have examples of patience. We find hope that, through trials, promises are kept, and rewards are given. It is also true in the New Testament (II Corinthians 1:3-11). The prophecy about Christ wasn’t just for him alone; we learn from His example as well (I Thessalonians 1:3). In other words, we don't follow something from the Old Law directly. If we find something in the New Law, we can look back at the Old Law to illustrate the command.

In the New Law, we are taught to avoid oaths or vows. "Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.' But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil" (Matthew 5:33-37).

Whether a person is giving an oath, swearing to tell the truth, making a promise, or taking a vow, all involve making a commitment bound by something else. Through the ages, people have used various things to bind their words, such as their possessions, their reputation, their religion, or their life. Anything that another person would accept can be offered to bind a person’s commitment.

We use oaths frequently in modern life and often don’t think about it. When purchasing a car with money loaned to us by the bank, we sign a statement promising to repay the loan and offering the car as collateral. The bank doesn’t just take our word that we will pay what we owe. Our word is bound by a physical possession that the bank can take possession of if we do not keep our promise. Legal documents, such as our tax forms, contain statements above the signature line stating that we promise what we have submitted is accurate to the best of our knowledge and that the government may impose penalties on us if we provide false or misleading information.

In Matthew 5:34-36, Jesus lists things not to swear by: heaven, God’s throne, the earth, Jerusalem, or the hair on your head. Each example would be an oath that Jews would have considered non-binding. According to the Mishna, a Jewish commentary on the Law, “Oaths may only be taken about what can be defined according to size, weight, or number.” In other words, a promise is not considered binding unless it was bound by something tangible that could be, at least in theory, redeemed if a person broke his oath. “If a claim concerns these, no oath is imposed: bondsmen, written documents, immovable property, and the property of the Temple.” In other words, the claimant against a broken oath must have at least a remote chance of collecting on the broken promise if the promise is to be considered valid. Further, the Mishna states that oaths sworn with the phrase “I adjure you,” “I command you,” or “I bind you” were binding, whereas a vow sworn with phrases such as “by heaven and earth” was not binding. Thus, it mattered to a Jew how an oath was worded as to whether it was binding or not. Thus, Jesus is forbidding the making of non-binding oaths, or hypocritical oaths if you will.

When Jesus said, “swear not at all,” he was not forbidding all oaths. The Bible contains several examples of proper oaths. God swore an oath to Abraham based on Himself (Hebrews 6:13-17). God didn’t do this because His word wasn’t trustworthy, but He placed His reputation on the line to prove to the world His faithfulness. Jesus was under oath during his trial (Matthew 26:62-64). Paul took a vow while in Antioch (Acts 18:18). These oaths were acceptable because those who took them intended to keep their promises. Making an oath with no intention of carrying it out would be lying.

Instead, Jesus states that Christians need not take oaths. The reason people feel the need for an oath is because of Satan’s activity in the world. Satan is the father of lies and liars (John 8:44). It is because worldly people lie that those in the world insist on having something more than a simple “yes” or “no.”

We see this in the Old Law: "If you refrain from vowing, it would not be sin in you" (Deuteronomy 21:22). Does God expect Christians to keep their word? Absolutely! Lying is forbidden, and the Lord will hold us responsible for our words (Revelation 21:8; Matthew 12:36). Putting a lie in the form of an oath doesn't make the situation better. Therefore, say what you mean and mean what you say.

Behold, I Will Do Something New

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sun, 04 Jan 2026 18:19:49 +0000

https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Behold-I-Will-Do-Something-New.mp3

by Jeffrey W. Hamilton

Download Audio

Text: Isaiah 43:8-21

I. New things are special

A. They are fresher, cleaner, brighter.

B. We want new things, not old, used, hand-me-downs

C. God told His people that He had something new for them - Isaiah 43:18-21

II. A new covenant

A. God selected the decedents of Abraham, specifically the children of Israel, and established a covenant with them

1. But Israel disobeyed and repeatedly broke the terms of the covenant - Jeremiah 11:6-10

2. And in accordance with that covenant, God brought disaster on the people - Jeremiah 11:11-17

B. But God also promised a new covenant for His people - Jeremiah 31:31-34

C. Christ brought in a better covenant based on better promises - Hebrews 8:6

1. The first covenant, the Law of Moses, was flawed due to the people who should have kept it - Hebrews 8:7-8

2. The write then quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34

3. And ends with noting that by using the word “new” God made the Law of Moses obsolete, growing old from that time until it disappeared and was replaced by Christ - Hebrews 9:15-22

4. We have arrived at the new covenant with Jesus’ shed blood - Hebrews 12:22-24

D. The old covenant was canceled at the cross - Colossians 2:13-14

III. How was the New Covenant better? - Hebrews 8:10-12

A. God’s Laws will be a part of His people

1. The Old Law was written on tablets of stone and that came to illustrate the problem

2. The Israelites were frequently urged to put the laws in their hearts and minds - Proverbs 3:3-4

a. But they failed to really make the Law apart of them - II Corinthians 3:12-15

3. To become a Christian under the New Law, you have to learn it first - Romans 10:17

a. We read the law and allow it to change us - II Corinthians 3:16-18

b. We are transformed by the renewing of our minds - Romans 12:2

c. We become new creatures - Ephesians 4:22-24

B. There will be a closer relationship between God and His people

1. We become the temple of God - II Corinthians 6:16-18

2. We are being built into a spiritual house - I Peter 2:4-5

3. We are chosen to be God’s people - I Peter 2:9-10

C. His People will know God

1. Under the Old Law, Israelites were born into the nation. Boys took on the seal of the covenant by being circumcised when they were 8 days old - Genesis 17:10-11

a. They then had to be taught about God and His Law as they grew up - Deuteronomy 6:6-9

2. God’s new covenant is different. You learn about God first and then choose to be His child.

a. Jesus came that we may know God - I John 5:20

b. We show that we know God through our obedience - I John 2:3-6

D. In His Mercy He will provide complete forgiveness

1. The Old Law could not provide complete forgiveness - Hebrews 10:1-4

2. We have redemption in Christ - Ephesians 1:7

3. We remember this when partaking of the Lord’s Supper - Matthew 26:27-28

IV. A New Law

A. The New Covenant comes with new terms of agreement (laws, if you would)

B. It is a law of faith - Romans 3:27

C. The new laws are not compatible with the old - Luke 5:36-39

1. Any attempt to blend them will destroy both

2. The Old Law had become ridged and cannot contain the new

3. Yet, those use to the Old Law had no tolerance for the New Law

V. How is the New Law better?

A. The Old Law was a unbearable yoke - Acts 15:10

B. But Christ’s law frees us from that slavery - Galatians 5:1

C. The Old Law of sin and death was brought to a conclusion - Romans 8:1-4

D. We have been set free from the fear of death - Hebrews 2:14-15

E. It is still a law. It still is a burden. But it is a light one now - Matthew 11:28-30

1. His commands are not burdensome - I John 5:3

2. And we share the burdens of life - Galatians 6:2

VI. Will you enter into the covenant God is offering through Christ?

The Spirit or the Letter?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 01 Jan 2026 20:36:40 +0000

by Michael Thomas

The apostle Paul said he and his fellow apostles were “ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (II Corinthians 3:6). He said this in reference to the work they had been given as gospel preachers, and how their message contrasted with the Law given through Moses. The old covenant led to death for those who did not keep it flawlessly (Deuteronomy 27:26), but the new covenant of the gospel gives life because it is based on the blood of Christ. Until Jesus died, there was nothing man could do, not even the Jew in his sacrifices (Hebrews 10:1-4), to erase the eternal debt of sin. We needed Jesus, who “takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:9-10). Therefore, by revealing this second covenant to us through the inspired teachings of the apostles, the Spirit was giving us the eternal life that the Law could not. The message he taught through the apostles was truly the first life-giving message ever made known to mankind (Titus 1:2-3).

It is a shame that some have misunderstood what Paul meant in writing of the letter of the Law and the Spirit. Some think he is saying we are saved through a literal indwelling of the Spirit, separate and apart from any obedience to God’s writings. They associate “the letter” of II Corinthians 3 with any letter written by inspiration, especially those of the apostles, and interpret God to be saying we are not to worry with any obedience for salvation. What a horrible exegesis of inspired writing. True life is found in following what the Spirit has already revealed through the apostles (Ephesians 3:1-5; II Timothy 3:16-17; James 1:18-21), not in our feelings or thoughts outside the word. The sword of the Spirit is His word, not His person (Ephesians 6:17).

In saying the Spirit saves and the letter kills, Paul was trying to get people to see the folly of trying to be saved through the Law of Moses, a message covered often in Paul’s writings (Romans 7-9; Galatians 3-5). In no way was he saying our salvation is solely by a literal indwelling of the Spirit or by God’s grace alone, else no one would be lost since “the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men” (Titus 2:11). Furthermore, God had never sent His Spirit literally upon anyone for the purpose of salvation. The Spirit was promised to the apostles to guide them into all truth (John 16:13), which would enable them to convict the world of sin (John 16:8), and to lead them in ways that produce eternal life (John 20:31). By teaching the things the Spirit taught, the apostles and inspired teachers of the first century “cut to the heart” those who contradicted God’s will (Acts 2:37; I Corinthians 14:24-25).

The Spirit doesn’t literally dwell in man to guide our thoughts and actions; else we wouldn’t need the word of God at all. If not, why not? Instead, the Bible says God has given us His word for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness that we might be complete unto every good work. He did not leave us to our opinion, traditions, or feelings to guide us, but has left a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path, through the word, that we might know all things that have been freely given to us. If anyone teaches anything contrary to the apostles’ teachings, we are to ignore them and stay far away from them, even if they are an angel from heaven (Galatians 1:6-9, II John 9-11).

The question is, do we have enough love for God to be content with His word as it was written (I Corinthians 13:8-10; II Peter 1:3; Jude 3)? The Bible is filled with examples of people who resisted God’s word for human opinion and were condemned for it (Genesis 4:4-5; I Kings 13:21-22; Acts 13:8-11). Will we join that list of compromisers, or will we be content with the truth? Will we follow the Spirit into life, or will we hold onto the letter that kills? “The letter” for us may not be a temptation to revert to Judaism, but it can represent anything that contradicts God’s will. Therefore, we must measure every teaching by the word of God (I John 4:1), lest we follow a spirit that leads unto death.

Those who believe a lie are those who resist what the Spirit teaches through the word (II Thessalonians 2:10-12). Therefore, I choose to follow the Spirit who will lead me into life, instead of a letter that kills.