Old Testament – La Vista Church of Christ

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).

Taking Another Look at the Old Testament

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 26 Mar 2026 18:47:55 +0000

by David Gibson

Why It’s so Important!

Although we’re not under Old Testament law, there is great value in being familiar with the 39 books that make up three-fourths of the Bible.
Reading the New Testament without knowing the Old Testament is like reading a sequel without the original.

The New Testament keeps pointing back to the Old. It refers to Abraham, Moses, David, and many other Old Testament characters. It quotes from Genesis, Psalms, Isaiah, and many other Old Testament books.

On the day Jesus rose, He said, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled” (Luke 24:44 NASB).

What We Can Learn

Though originally addressed to Jews, the Old Testament instructs Christians as well: “For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (Romans 15:4; see I Corinthians 10:1-11). There’s so much to be gained from these ancient documents. We learn from Noah’s obedient faith, Job’s sufferings, and Esther’s courageous stand.
We see how God was patiently working out His great plan, laying the groundwork for Jesus’ coming into our world to be our Savior.

Well Worth the Effort

By reading only four chapters a day, you can complete the Old Testament in less than eight months. The more we read, the greater blessings we’ll find in its pages.

So please, read it all. You’ll be glad you did!

The Words of Jesus (Hamilton)

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sun, 11 Jan 2026 18:03:41 +0000

https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/The-Words-of-Jesus.mp3

by Jeffrey W. Hamilton

Download Audio

Text: John 12:44-50

I. I continue to be amazed at the lengths people will go to justify a belief.

A. Perhaps you have heard the story of Martin Luther’s decision that James 2 did not belong in the sacred text because of one small phrase in James 2:24.

1. It contradicted everything that Martin Luther had come to believe about God’s word.

2. Instead of re-examining his beliefs, he decided to discount the passage.

B. So many people do this to God’s word. They approach the Bible with the goal of proving what they already believe instead allowing the Word to teach them what they ought to believe.

1. When passages are shown to conflict with their beliefs, they seek some way to remove the passage or alter them to match their belief.

2. An example of the latter is the Jehovah Witnesses who developed their own translation so as to justify their false teachings.

C. Unfortunately, these same attitudes of making the Scriptures match what they believe occurs among the brethren.

1. I once received a statement from a brother who said: “We have scripturally decided that Jesus’ words, which were restricted to Old Testament Israel, will not judge New Testament Christians on the last day.”

a. Now I strongly disagree that they had scripturally proven anything, but these are his words, not mine.

b. His message contained no evidence.

2. I then had to ask him how he could call himself a Christian, which means “follower of Christ,” if he did not feel he had to obey Christ.

a. He was very irrate in his response, but the key point he made was that he did follow Jesus’ teachings, but only those statements he made after his resurrection and before his ascension.

b. Unfortunately for this man, Jesus said something different - John 12:46-50

c. Of course, this man doesn’t believe this because Jesus said it before he died on the cross.

3. How could a person come to such a strange belief?

a. It started with the fact that people like this brother hold a belief that is easily disproved by the teachings of Jesus.

b. Rather than change their belief, they decided remove themselves from being accountable to Jesus’s teachings in the gospels.

c. To remain objective in this lesson, I won’t even mention what belief they are trying to justify.

D. Let us examine the reasonableness of the claim that the teachings of Jesus before his death on the cross were only for the Jews and were not meant to be followed by Christians.

II. Let us first apply common sense

A. It is a fact, undisputed, that the four gospel accounts were written after Jesus’ death and resurrection. The accounts themselves contain events which happened after Jesus’ resurrection, so they had to have been written after that time.

B. We also know that the Old Testament ended with the death of Jesus on the cross.

1. Colossians 2:13-14 - The law was nailed to the cross.

2. Hebrews 10:9-10 - He took away the first to establish a second, sanctified through the body of Jesus

C. If the life and words of Jesus were only for those under the Old Law, then what are the purposes of the four gospels?

1. Why would Christians write books after the end of the Old Law about things that only apply to those who lived under that law?

2. According to this man, it would not benefit any Christian, other than as history.

3. It would not, and has not been, accepted by the Jews as part of their Law.

D. Yet, these Gospels do state their purpose

1. Mark 1:1 - The good new (gospel) of Jesus Christ

2. Luke 1:1-4 - So you will know the exact truth of the things you were taught.

a. Notice Theophilus was taught the things contained in Luke

3. John 20:31 - So that Christians might believe and through that belief have life in Jesus’ name.

III. Were there teachings by Jesus in the gospels that the apostles bound on Christians?

A. The plan of salvation is fully taught in the Gospels, but not prior to them

1. John 6:45 - Must hear and learn

2. John 3:16 - Must believe to have eternal life

3. Luke 13:3 - Repent or perish

4. Matthew 10:32-33 - Confess Christ

5. John 3:5 - Must be born of water and Spirit

B. The Lord’s supper was instituted prior to Jesus’ death on the cross

1. Luke 22:19-20

2. Paul quotes Luke’s account (it is the only one to mention the new covenant) and says “I received from the Lord” - I Corinthians 11:23-25

C. Jesus’ new commandment

1. John 13:34-35 - A new commandment to love one another so all may know they are Jesus’ disciples.

2. I John 2:7-10 - A new commandment, which is really an old one they had heard from the beginning.

a. Notice that Jesus’ teaching then is the beginning.

3. I John 3:11 - The message from the beginning that you love one another.

4. II John 5-6

a. The new command from the beginning to love one another

b. And another command from the beginning, that love is keeping his commandments (John 14:15)

D. Were there teachings by Jesus that dealt with the Old Law?

1. Yes, but it is a fallacy to conclude that all of Jesus’ teaching dealt solely with the Old Covenant

2. Jesus’ teachings about the coming church or kingdom

a. Matthew 16:18 - 19 - Jesus would build his church. Peter would have the keys to this kingdom

b. Matthew 18:15-17 - Disciple within the church

c. Matthew 13:10-11 - The disciples were granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven

d. Matthew 13:16-17 - The prophets longed to know what the disciples were learning

(1) Sounds just like I Peter 1:10-12

3. Jesus contrasted His teachings with the Jews

a. Matthew 23:1-13 - Jesus instructs the crowd not to be like their leaders and tells the Jews that they were not entering the kingdom and keeping others out.

4. These are just brief samples

IV. When did the Apostles teach that New Testament doctrine begin?

A. We already noted that John puts the beginning with Jesus’ teaching of the disciples (I John 2:7-10, I John 3:11, II John 5-6)

1. Look further at I John 1:1-4 - The things from the beginning which the Apostles witnessed.

B. Hebrews 2:3 - Salvation was first spoken through the Lord

C. Acts 10:36-37 - Jesus preached peace starting in Galilee after his baptism by John

D. Mark 1:1 - The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ

E. Consider: When is a Last Will and Testament written? Before or after the person dies?

1. Obviously afterwards

2. The New Covenant, Jesus’ Will, was introduced before it was put in force - Hebrews 9:15-17

3. Jesus spoke of his New Covenant before his death, so that it would come into effect at his death.

V. Truly, God has spoken to us through His Son - Hebrews 1:1-2

A. Christ is the firstborn. He is the beginning - Colossians 1:18

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?

When was Jesus first referred to as the Son of God in the Old Testament?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 13 Sep 2025 20:31:59 +0000

Question:

When was Jesus first referred to as the Son of God in the Old Testament?

Answer:

"I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, and the very ends of the earth as Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like earthenware.' Now therefore, O kings, show discernment; Take warning, O judges of the earth. Worship the LORD with reverence And rejoice with trembling. Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way, for His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!" (Psalms 2:7-12).

This prophecy is quoted in Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5; and Hebrews 5:5 and applied to Jesus.

"For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this" (Isaiah 9:6-7).

An angel alludes to this prophecy and applies it to Jesus. "The angel answered and said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God'" (Luke 1:35).

"When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son" (Hosea 11:1).

This is applied to Jesus in Matthew 2:5.

He Takes Away the First

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 16 Jul 2025 13:59:54 +0000

by Terry Wane Benton

Hebrews 10:9 says, “…He takes away the first that He may establish the second.” What is the first, and what is the second? The first is the law of Moses and its system of animal sacrifices. Paul agrees in Colossians 2:11-16 that the old system with its food laws, sabbaths, circumcision, and festivals were “shadows” of the good things that would come in Christ, and that Christ is the “substance” those things were pointing toward. Once the “substance” (Christ) arrived, we would have the proper sacrifice, the proper spiritual food, the proper sabbath (rest), and the better things the old only darkly illustrated.

Illustrations and shadows get absorbed into the substance. This is like you seeing your shadow on the ground, and you follow that shadow right up to your body. Your body is the substance that casts the shadow, but the shadow is only a dark form of your body. Your body is far greater than your shadow. The shadow fades into the substance's light.

Back to Hebrews 10, we find that the “first” is the shadow-filled law. “The law, having a shadow,” which includes the animal sacrifices (Hebrews 10:1-4). But God wasn’t interested in those animal sacrifices when all they were for was to be dark illustrations of the better thing, Jesus, the final and all-sufficient sacrifice. The Old Testament already confessed the insufficiency of its system of animal sacrifices. In Psalms 40:6-8, it admits, “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire.” He commanded it for a temporary purpose, not a purpose sufficient of itself, and certainly not the real answer to our sin problem.

God technically desired the Israelites to obey and offer the illustration offerings, but “shadows” have no substance in themselves. So, “the first” is the Law (of Moses) with its shadowy illustrations of sacrifice for sin, and that was not God’s objective or end-goal. God had in mind a far better and sufficient sacrifice that would never need to be repeated. It would be a sufficient, one-time-for-all-time-and-all-people, sacrifice for all sins.

He removed the first system of shadows and types so that He could establish the real thing we truly needed. Justice and mercy rolled together in Jesus, in His being wounded for our transgressions (Isaiah 53). The first system was “nailed to the cross” (Colossians 2:12f; Ephesians 2:11-18). We are not to be judged regarding foods and sabbaths. The old system was only illustrating the need to be discerning of our spiritual food and our need for internal rest in Christ (our true Sabbath rest). He has established a better system with a better covenant built on better things.

If someone teaches that we must retain all the shadows of the Old Testament, they cannot select just one thing, such as circumcision or Sabbath keeping. That would cause us to fall from the sufficient grace that is now offered to us in Christ. Stand fast in that liberating blessing (Galatians 5:1-6). We are complete in Jesus (Colossians 2:10). We need to be established in this better covenant with Jesus. He took away the first because the end-goal was the second and better covenant in Jesus.

Why Study the Old Testament?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 30 Apr 2025 16:23:24 +0000

by Naomi Works

"What is the point of studying the Old Testament? We're not under that covenant, Jesus only appears in the New Testament, and Leviticus-Deuteronomy is just plain boring!"

I feel so sorry for people who think that way. They're missing out on so many incredible lessons that will strengthen your faith and make you appreciate the Creator. One way I would answer that question or attitude is by showing them this series of passages:

“That you may know that the LORD makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel” (Exodus 11:7). Egypt was often used as a picture of sin, slavery, or bondage to sin, and being without God. During the time of the plagues, God made a distinction between Pharaoh and the Egyptian people and the Israelites, as shown to them. He was encouraging Israel not to “lump themselves in with” or attach themselves to what (or who) is sinful. He wanted them to see the difference between being slaves of sin and being servants of Yahweh (Exodus 12:31).
“To make a distinction between the unclean and the clean” (Leviticus 11:47). After telling the people of Israel what they could and couldn’t eat, God tells them that he was using that as a teaching moment to show them how to make a difference between what is unclean and what is clean (wording that is often used to describe sin versus righteousness or holiness). Their unique diet in Leviticus 11 served as a teaching tool used by God to show them that they would and should want to stand out and be distinct.
“They [talking about the priests] shall teach my people the difference between the holy and the common, and show them how to distinguish between the unclean and the clean” (Ezekiel 44:23). One of the main jobs of the priests was to learn, understand, and then to teach the people how to be holy and set apart. Contrary to popular belief, the priests were doing much more than offering sacrifices; they were given the difficult but essential task of teaching the people why their holy lifestyle, including sacrifices, was so important.

Connect Exodus 11:7 to Ephesians 5:7-8

“Therefore do not become partners with them; for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light.”

Just as Israel needed to think of themselves as separate from the Egyptians, we need to remember that God called us out of the world and out of sin. Our lives need to show the difference between being slaves to sin and being servants of Yahweh.

Connect Leviticus 11:47 to Ephesians 4:17

“That you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do.”

As God’s people, we must show that we stand out in everything we do. Not in a “Focus on me and give me attention” kind of way, but instead in a “Unlike the world’s, my God’s standards are fixed and unchanging. He has told me how he wants me to live. He requires moral excellence in the face of temptation, love for my enemies, modesty in all my actions and words, and constant growth in my faith in him.” kind of way.

Connect Ezekiel 44:23 to I Peter 2:9-12

“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable.”

Those of us who have been born again through the resurrection of Jesus (1 Peter 1:3) are called to be spiritual priests who offer ourselves as living sacrifices (Romans 12:1). One of our primary responsibilities is to learn and understand, and then to teach others how to be holy and set apart.

So, yes, I’m going to continue studying the Old Testament (especially Leviticus-Deuteronomy) so I can learn how to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean in my walk with the Lord.

If the Old Testament isn’t helping you understand the New Testament better and appreciate it more, you’re reading one (or both) of them wrong.

Gender Roles Within the Sacrificial System

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 12 Mar 2025 02:35:44 +0000

by Perry Hall

Gender requirements were specified in the Mosaic sacrificial system. We will reveal how this is important to our topic of gender roles within the church. Before that, let's examine the gender specifications.

The priesthood and the Levitical ministers were all males. This is undisputed and must be meaningful since pagan religions had both male priests and female priestesses. Either pagan religions were more enlightened or less enlightened.

There is another aspect worth considering. Were there gender-specific requirements for the animals being sacrificed?

Burnt offerings had to be male (Leviticus 1:3, 10).
Peace or Fellowship offerings could be male or female (Leviticus 3:1,6).
Sin offerings had to be male for leaders (Leviticus 4:3, 14, 23), but female for the common people (Leviticus 4:28, 32).
Guilt offerings were males (Leviticus 5:15; 6:6).

What is the point of this exercise?

God specified males for both the priesthood and Levitical ministers.
God specified when he wanted male-only sacrifices.
God specified when sacrifices could be male or female.

First, regardless of whether we can discern a reason for God's gender-specific requirements, that is not the point. God declared it. Therefore, that is valid enough.

Second, patriarchy is often negatively described as a power play of male domination over women. However, within the sacrificial system, we see a different dynamic of males sometimes being prioritized - sacrifice, not domination.

Third, whether a sacrifice was male or female did not determine the intrinsic value of the animal. The point was not value within gender. The value is ultimately found in faithfully following God.

Fourth, some exceptions were made when the person was poor. They could offer certain birds that were not gender specific. However, no one had the authority to make the exception the rule. No one had the right to argue that if a female bird was acceptable for some, why not a female cow for atonement for all?

Fifth, if God specified only males for certain sacrifices, who had the right to add female sacrifices? Likewise, if God allowed male or female animals to be sacrificed, then no one had the right under God's law to restrict.

Today, within the church, God has gender-specific roles. The determining factor is not whether males and females are equal; it is God. The sacrificial system in the Law of Moses demonstrates this principle.

Forgiveness in the Old Testament

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 20 Feb 2025 16:22:42 +0000

by Tommy Peeler

Were God’s people forgiven of their sins in Old Testament times, or were their sins simply “rolled forward”? Examining this question must begin with the Old Testament, not the New Testament Scriptures. I believe the Old Testament teaches that God forgave His people in the Old Testament.

First, the Old Testament pictures God as a God of forgiveness. In Exodus 34:6-7 God revealed Himself to Moses as One who is “forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin.” In Numbers 14:18, Moses quotes this verse to the LORD, emphasizing how God abounds “in love and forgiving sin and rebellion.” The words of Exodus 34:6-7 are quoted or echoed in Psalms 86:5, Nehemiah 9:17, Daniel 9:9, and Jonah 4:2. The LORD God “forgives all your sins” (Psalms 103:3). “As far as east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us.” (Psalms 103:12). His worshippers praised Him, saying, “But with you there is forgiveness” (Psalms 130:4). Micah 7:18-19 presents a beautiful picture of God’s forgiveness, saying He treads our sins underfoot and hurls our iniquities into the sea. Isaiah 1:18 says, “Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they will be like wool.” In Isaiah 43:25, the LORD says, “I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake, and I will not remember your sins.” The idea of God as forgiving was well-known in the Old Testament.

Second, several times in the Old Testament, God told people they would be forgiven if they surrendered to His terms of pardon. If the people brought the proper sacrifices to God and leaned in humble trust upon Him, God promised they would be forgiven (Leviticus 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18; 6:7; Numbers 15:25, 26, 28). II Chronicles 6 records Solomon’s prayer at the time of the dedication of the temple. Solomon asks God to forgive the people when they come to the temple to pray (II Chronicles 6:21, 25, 27, 30, 39). In II Chronicles 7, God assures Solomon He has heard his prayer (II Chronicles 7:12). He tells Solomon when the people turn to Him in time of calamity, He will forgive their sins (II Chronicles 7:13-14). God promised to forgive sins in the Old Testament. I Kings 8 is parallel to II Chronicles 6. I Kings 8 also begs God to forgive Israel’s sins (I Kings 8:30, 34, 36, 39, 50).

Third, God is said to have forgiven people in the Old Testament. David (II Samuel 12:13), Isaiah (Isaiah 6:7), and Hezekiah (Isaiah 38:17) were all said to be forgiven. The author of Psalms 32 spoke of himself as being forgiven by God (Psalms 32:5). His words describing the blessedness of the forgiven man in Psalms 32:1-2 are quoted in the New Testament in Romans 4:6-8. God forgave Israel in the wilderness (Psalms 78:38) and throughout their history (Psalms 85:2; 99:8).

Usually, the idea that sins were “rolled forward” is defended by an appeal to the New Testament, not the Old. Hebrews 10:3-4 is the passage that is appealed to most frequently. However, the “reminder of sins” in Hebrews 10:3 seems to have been in the worshipper's mind (Hebrews 10:2), not God’s. Animal sacrifices couldn't take away sin (Hebrews 10:4). Please understand that there is no forgiveness without Jesus. However, people in the Old Testament were ultimately forgiven in the prospect of the cross of Christ (Hebrews 9:15).

If there was no forgiveness prior to the cross, how could John’s baptism be said to be for forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3-4)? Before His death, Jesus told certain ones their sins were forgiven (Matthew 9:2; Luke 7:48). Were their sins actually forgiven? If so, obviously, there was forgiveness before the cross.

Some of God’s most beautiful promises of forgiveness are in the Old Testament -- Psalms 103:12; Isaiah 1:18; 43:25; Micah 7:18-20. If those people were not really forgiven, how can God’s people today have assurance of forgiveness?

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John: Old Testament or New Testament? (Robinson)

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 17 Feb 2025 16:40:23 +0000

by Garland M. Robinson

If you reject the Gospel records of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (including Acts 1) being any part of the Lord’s New Testament, then you have to accept the conclusion that nothing the Lord said or taught while on earth is valid for the church today. That makes everything the Lord and Savior said null and void.

We received a letter that took issue with the Lord’s words regarding divorce and remarriage which was discussed in the April 2015 issue of Seek The Old Paths. In part, it reads:

“Just to keep it simple, I ask, do you believe we are under the old law? I know you will say No. Matthew through Acts 1 is old law given before the church was established on Pentecost. We are not bound by these teachings —thus your article of Divorce, Baptism, Eunuch is not valid.”

In reply, please consider the following.

Jesus the Christ lived and died during the Old Testament era. Therefore, He was amenable to the Law of Moses. However, the Scriptures teach that the New Testament replaced the Old Testament. Who among the Lord’s people would deny it? Is there anyone out there who would disagree? His life and teaching were to “take away the first that he may establish the second” (Hebrews 10:9).
Where did the second (new) Testament law come from? It came from God and was delivered by Jesus, the apostles, and other inspired writers such as Mark, Luke, James, and Jude. Those who delivered and recorded the new covenant (testament, law) were infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit (II Timothy 3:16-17; II Peter 1:20-21).

Will you deny that Jesus delivered any part of New Testament doctrine? If you reject the Gospel records of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (including Acts 1) being any part of the Lord’s New Testament, then you have to accept the conclusion that nothing the Lord said or taught while on earth is valid for the church today. That makes everything the Lord and Savior said null and void. That leaves the entirety of the Christian Age without any words that Jesus spoke (while living on this earth) that are relevant to the world today. Therefore, nothing the Lord said or taught has anything to do with how we live! Who can imagine such a devilish and disastrous doctrine?

Are we to understand that the apostle Paul (even though guided by the Holy Spirit) did not know that the Lord’s words did not pertain to New Testament doctrine? That cannot be so because he certainly knew they applied to the church. He told the elders of the church at Ephesus that we are “...to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). He was an inspired apostle. I choose to believe Brother Paul, who had no problem recognizing the words of Jesus, though spoken before the church began, had application to the church and the world.

Moses prophesied that when Jesus came into the world, we were to hear his words. “For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, [that] every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people” (Acts 3:22-23; cf. Deuteronomy 18:15,18-19). If people today do not hear the words of Jesus, they will be destroyed.

Acts 8:5 says that Philip “preached Christ unto them” when he went to Samaria. Are we to believe that Philip “preached Christ” but refused to teach anything the Lord taught? Shall we believe in Jesus but not believe that anything he said applies to the church? The point is this: You can’t preach Christ without preaching Christ’s Words.

Luke 16:16 is very clear. It records Jesus saying, “The law and the prophets [were] until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached...” (Luke 16:16; cf. Matthew 11:13). From the beginning of John’s preaching and continuing through the teaching of Jesus, the words of the New Testament were in the process of being delivered. John began preparing the way for Jesus and the New Testament era (Matthew 3:3; 11:10; Isaiah 40:3-4). The word's of the kingdom (regarding the New Testament church) did not start or begin to be given (delivered) in Acts two. They started with John but did not become effective (made law, ratified, probated) until Acts two and then continued with the inspired apostles and writers through the delivery of the rest of the New Testament. It’s also worth noting that even though the events recorded in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John occurred before Acts Two, they were not actually written until after Act Two.

Jesus went about preaching “the gospel of the kingdom” (Matthew 4:23; 9:35; 24:13; Mark 1:14). What does that mean? What is “the gospel of the kingdom?” Jesus said he would build his church and give unto the apostles the keys of the kingdom (Matthew 16:18-19). The church and the kingdom are one and the same. Since the kingdom is the church and the church is the kingdom, Jesus was preaching the Gospel of the church. According to Acts 1:3, He was preaching things “pertaining to the kingdom of God” —the church of Christ. The Lord’s preaching (teaching) was concerning things that would be a part of the teaching of the New Testament. Does Luke 16:16 mean nothing? Are they just words taking up space?

If nothing recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts 1 is a part of the New Testament, then we don’t have to listen to anything Jesus said. Isn’t it interesting that God anticipated such foolishness and recorded the account of Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration when he met with Moses and Elijah (Matthew 17:1-5)? Moses represented the Old Law, and Elijah represented the prophets — in other words, the entirety of the Old Testament. What did God tell Peter, James, and John and, by extension, the whole world to do regarding Moses, Elijah, and Jesus? “...This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him” (Matthew 17:5). What does God tell us to do concerning the Lord and his words? Hear him. But, if nothing He said is the doctrine of the New Testament (church), then we have a major dilemma between what man would have us believe and what God tells us to do. Will we believe in the teaching of men, or will we believe in the teaching of Jesus? In keeping with what Joshua said long ago (Joshua 24:15), “for me and my house,” we will accept the teaching of Jesus.

Hebrews 1:1-2 is very clear concerning the words of the Lord —the words he spoke while walking the earth. “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.” We must take these verses out of the Bible if Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not a part of the New Testament.

These two verses tell us plainly that God has spoken to the whole world, this Christian Dispensation, through his only begotten Son, Jesus, the Christ.

John 12:48 is certain. If the New Testament does not start until Acts two, then why did Jesus say, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:48). Which is it? Either his words mean nothing, being spoken while living under the Old Testament and cannot be a part of the New Testament, OR they are a part of the New Testament because all men in the Christian Age will be judged by his words. I think I’ll believe and teach Jesus’ words. What about you?

No less than seven parables spoken by Jesus in Matthew 13 are specifically pertaining to the kingdom, the church. By these parables, the apostles were to know the mysteries of the church (Matthew 13:11) and the word of the church (Matthew 13:19). The kingdom/church would last until the end of the world (Matthew 13:40). This is not true of the Old Testament, but it is true of the church of Christ. These parables were the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies concerning the kingdom or church, such as Matthew 13:13 from Jeremiah 5:21, Matthew 13:14 from Isaiah 6:9, and Matthew 13:35 from Psalm 78:2. They teach the great value, treasure, and importance of the Lord’s church. We are to forfeit all that we have in this world to be a faithful member of the church (Matthew 13:44- 50; cf. Matthew 6:33). These parables apply to the Christian Age, not the Mosaic Age.

When did the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (historically part of the New Testament) become effective? It was on the day of Pentecost when the church began (Acts 2). The Lord’s last will and testament was in the process of being given (delivered) in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John while he was on earth, but it would not become effective until preached on Pentecost in Acts 2.
Hebrews 9:15-17 tells us when the Lord’s words in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John — those things pertaining to the kingdom (Acts 1:3) —became effective. “And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.”

While we live, we can write our own “last will and testament.” As long as we live, we can change, modify, add, and take from it. While we are living, the stipulations of our will are null and void. It is only after our death that our will can be probated in a court of law. At that time, the executor(s) of our will has the power to administer the estate. This is exactly what we read in Hebrews 9. While the Lord was alive, he was speaking/teaching his will. That’s what we read in Luke 16:16. After his death, his will was preached. That’s what was done in Acts 2 and the rest of the New Testament. What’s so hard to understand about that? Men need help to misunderstand it, and there is plenty of this kind of help around!

Desperation

Those who believe and teach the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are a part of the Old Testament, and not a part of the New Testament often do so to avoid (dismiss) what Jesus said in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. In these two passages, Jesus gives only one reason for a divorce and remarriage that meets God’s approval. Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matthew 19:9). Why did Jesus talk about eunuchs in Matthew 19:12? What was the point? The point is that those who have an unscriptural divorce cannot marry again. They must live as a eunuch —not married. Going to heaven is far more im-portant than marriage. Those who are divorced, but did not divorce their spouse be-cause of their spouse’s fornication, have to make a choice: marriage or heaven, they can’t have both.

To remove the passages of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 from the New Testament does not help their case whatsoever. Instead, if they’re looking to be able to divorce and remarry, it makes their situation even worse. If you remove these two verses, no passage from Acts 2 throughout the rest of the New Testament authorizes divorce and remarriage. Consequently, there is no authority whatsoever for one to divorce their spouse and enter another marriage. If one does so, they’re “living in adultery” and cannot be saved unless they repent and get out of the adulterous marriage in which they are living.

I’ve heard some say you can’t “live” in adultery and that committing adultery is simply a “one-time” event. You just repent of your divorce, and then you’re free to enter another marriage. However, they conveniently ignore the words of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, where Jesus made clear that whoever enters another marriage “committeth adultery.” The verb tense is continuous action —you “keep on committing adultery” as long as you continue in that marriage. In Colossians 3:5-7, the Holy Spirit actually makes application of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 by reminding some of the members of the church at Colosse that before they became Christians, they had “lived in” fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness. You can’t just wish or ignore these passages away!

An attempt to so desperately do away with Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 has left such individuals in dire straits with no Bible authority for divorcing and remarrying whatsoever. By the way, is what Jesus said in these verses so despised they must be dismissed, discredited, and disposed of? If so, then you’re left with absolutely no passage that authorizes a divorce and remarriage!

Conclusion

Romans 7:2-3 provides authority for another marriage, not because of divorce, but because of the death of your spouse. “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband. So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”

“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (II John 9-11). If all Jesus said belongs to the Old Testament era, then we need to inform the apostle John he missed it in these verses!

The way of the transgressor is hard! (Proverbs13:15)