How do we Discern which Laws have Passed Away?

If a judge uses a guide to test whether someone is innocent or guilty, it should be applied to everyone equally, regardless of how rich or poor, or what color they are, or how famous they are. Otherwise, the judge would be arbitrary and capricious. He would be punishing some, and freeing others, for the same crime. He might free one man because he's rich, and imprison another because he's of a different race. He would not be using that guide to measure who is innocent or guilty, but he would be using his own personal judgment to decide for himself who to punish and who to set free. This shows prejudice and discrimination.

Likewise, if we use a guide to determine which laws of God are still binding and which Laws of God have passed away, they should apply equally to every law of God. We should apply this guide not only to laws that are convenient for us to obey, but also to laws that may be inconvenient for us to obey. Otherwise, we would be arbitrary and capricious, picking and choosing for ourselves which laws to obey and which to ignore. We would be no different than the above judge.

In this article, we will go to scripture to understand the guide that God has given us to discern which laws have passed away and which laws are still binding. This article will also give you a few questions to consider, and these questions are highlighted in this color. Feel free to contact us and fellowship on these questions and statements, if you are moved to do so.

Two ways to Interpret Scripture

Let's begin by asking a question. How do we interpret scripture? It should be apparant that we must use something outside of us...something outside of our own interpretation...in order to correctly understand its meaning. Otherwise, we risk mixing our own personal opinions in with the Truth. Fortunately, His Word tells us how to interpret scripture:

Isaiah 28:9-10, "Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:"

As this passage says, we should begin with a precept of scripture, and build from there. Start with a truth in scripture, and build upon that truth. As we read scripture, our interpretation must not conflict with Scriptural Truth. This way, when two people read the same passage, but they both come up with two different interpretations, and one is true and one is false, the way to discern which is true and which is false is to compare those interpretations with Scriptural Truth. When two people agree on a Scriptural Truth, then each of them should take their interpretation of a passage and test it to see if it harmonizes with Scriptural Truth, or contradicts Scriptural Truth. If an interpretation contradicts a Scriptural Truth, then that personal interpretation cannot possibly be true.

There are two ways that man interprets scripture. We take a scriptural truth on the one hand, and our pre-conceived belief (which may be true and may be false) on the other, and compare it to each other in order to test its validity.

1. If a preconceived belief contradicts a scriptural truth, we change our preconceived belief and conform it to that scriptural truth.

2. If a preconceived belief contradicts a scriptural truth, we ignore that scriptural truth, make an exception to that truth, and we try to change that scriptural truth to conform to our preconceived belief.

The first way is how we walk in righteousness. The second way is how we walk in our own lusts, desires, wants, wishes, heart, conscience, so that we can live our life the way we want to, without having anyone, including God, interfere in the way we live our life. Many people believe it is okay to live by their own conscience; however, conscience is simply a term for their own desires, enthroned as law.

There are many important scriptural truths. For example, it is a Truth that God created the heavens and the earth. Any interpretation of scripture which contradicts this truth is obviously false. Another scriptural truth is that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the only begotten Son of God. Any interpretation of scripture which contradicts this truth is obviously false.

This article will concentrate on one of the most important scriptural truths that should be used in all scriptural interpretation. And that is the following: "Good and evil does not change." It does not change with time, with circumstances, nor with covenants. What God says is good and evil for His children at one point in time, is still good and evil for for His children today. And when determining which laws have passed away and which laws are still binding, we must keep this truth in mind.

For illustration, the law that will mostly be used, as an example, in this article, is the sabbath day, even though this truth applies to all of God's Law. After this article is finished explaining why, from scripture, good and evil does not change, we will give a list of passages to use that God has given us to discern whether or not a law of God has been changed.

Calling Good Evil

Man can rationalize anything as okay if it's something he desires to possess or do without consequences. This is precisely why Divine Law is so crucial; God's Law acts as a mirror, to reflect the good and evil in our lives (James 1:23-25).

Hebrews 5:13-14, "For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."

How do we discern both good and evil? There is only one way; by the Word of God as revealed through the Holy Scripture. And scripture is clear that good and evil is so opposed to one another, that to even call good evil and evil good is a sin in itself!

Isaiah 5:20,24 "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil…because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”

This passage is saying woe to those who confound the distinctions of good and evil as God Himself has defined them. Woe to them that take away the difference between good and evil. Not only those who do that which is evil, but those who justify it, and recommend it to others as safe and good. The above passage is in reference to God's people (verse 25); to those who follow His ways. And one cannot call evil good and good evil unless they forsake the Law of God. And to forsake the Law of God (the laws that define good and evil) is a sin. Therefore, it is a sin to call good evil and evil good.

One cannot sin unless one breaks this truth. Adam and Eve re-defined good and evil, when they chose to disobey God and eat from the tree in the Garden. They convinced themselves that what God said was evil to do, would actually be good to do. This way of thinking is how one becomes a god, by changing our Father's definition of good and evil (Genesis 3:1-7, 22). Those who sin are calling evil good. An act cannot be good and evil at the same time:

3 John 1:11, "Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God."

When good and evil are equalized, then the erosion of the law is inescapable and inevitable.

The Measuring Rod of Good and Evil

God says to test all things with scripture, examine all things with God's Word and His Law (Isaiah 8:20, Matthew 12:30, Mark 7:7, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, Titus 1:14, 1 John 4:1, 3 John 1:11, Acts 17:11, 2 Timothy 2:15). We are to even test what we believe the Holy Spirit is telling us with scripture (otherwise, how do we discern the prodding of the Holy Spirit from the prodding of our own desires and wishes?).

In order to measure something, the measuring rod must be unalterable and unchangeable. Such as a tape measure or scale. If we use a scale to measure something, and a certain mark on the scale is defined as 50 pounds, then a short time later that same mark is changed to 25 pounds, then later changed to 75 pounds, there would be confusion, and God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). For something to be used as a measuring rod, it must be unchangeable. When God used the term “cubit”, it had a fixed definition. It was unchangeable. Today, man has changed the meaning of "cubit" so that we do not know if it is 18 or 24 inches. It is one or the other, but nobody knows for sure because it was changed. When a measuring rod is changed, it always ends up in confusion.

One thing we can depend on is that God does not change:

Hebrews 13:8, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever"

Malachi 3:6, "For I am the LORD, I change not"

James 1:17, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."

And if God does not change, that means His image does not change. We are to be conformed to His image (Romans 8:29, 1 Corinthians 3:18; 11:7; 15:49, Colossians 3:10), which would be impossible if his image changes from time to time. That is why scripture says He changes not. Therefore, we are to discern what is right and wrong by using God's definition of good and evil.

In addition, when scripture says God does not change, that also means His character does not change. The Ten Commandments are the revealed principles of God's holy character that will always be true as long as God exists.

Characteristic	God Is	The Law Is
Good	Luke 18:19	1 Timothy 1:18
Holy	Isaiah 5:16	Romans 7:12
Perfect	Matthew 5:48	Psalm 19:7
Pure	1 John 3:2,3	Psalm 19:8
Just	Deuteronomy 32:4	Romans 7:12
True	John 3:33	Psalm 19:9
Spiritual	1 Corinthians 10:4	Romans 7:14
Righteousness	Jeremiah 23:6	Psalm 119:172
Faithful	1 Corinthians 1:9	Psalm 119:86
Love	1 John 4:8	Romans 13:10
Unchangeable	James 1:17	Matthew 5:18
Eternal	Genesis 21:33	Psalm 111:7,8

Notice on the above chart that God and His law have the same characteristics. Do you see what this means? God's Law is His character in written form - written so we can comprehend it. It is no more possible to change God's Law of good and evil than it is to pull God out of heaven and change Him. Jesus came to show us what the law (which is the pattern for holy living) looked like when made up in the form of man. God's character can never change. Neither can His Law of good and evil, for it is His character in man's language.

• Was it God's Will that those in the first century use God's definition of good and evil to test others?
  
• To test the apostles?
  
• To test Jesus Christ?
• To test the epistles?
  
• Is it God's Will that we use God's definition of good and evil to test others?
  
• To test ourselves and our own beliefs?
  
• To test what other people say the Holy Spirit is telling them?
  
• To test what we say the Holy Spirit is telling us?
  
• To test our interpretation of scripture?

We can show, from scripture, that the answer to all these questions is a resounding, "Yes!"

When the New Testament points to the Old Testament

Please notice these important facts from scripture. We do not read anywhere in the New Testament scriptures where it tells us to go to the Old Testament scriptures for:

• Our instructions on how to atone for our sin.
• Our instructions on how much to give those in the ministry to support them (a tithe).
• Our instructions on how to be priests of the temple.
• Laws on divine service.
• Laws on a worldly sanctuary.
• Laws on gifts and sacrifices, meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, etc.

Why does the New Testament avoid telling us to go to the Old Testament scripture for our instruction in these things? Because the New Testament specifically says these laws were changed, passed away, waxed old, vanished, abrogated, abolished, destroyed, and no longer apply to us today. Do you see how there would be a contradiction if the New Testament scriptures said to believe in Christ's blood to atone for our sins, but at the same time, told us to go to the Old Testament scriptures for our instruction on how to atone for our sin, which would be to sacrifice an animal? The New Testament would be contradicting itself, it would be confusion.

However, if the New Testament scriptures do say to go to the Old Testament scriptures for our instruction and doctrine in a particular area, then these laws have not passed away for us, and are still just as valid for us as it was for God's children of old. Otherwise, there would be a contradiction, and God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33).

If the New Testament said to go to the Old Testament scripture for our instruction on how to atone for sin, then we would choose for ourselves how to atone for our sin. The Old Testament says to sacrifice animals, the New Testament says to believe in the blood of Christ. If the New Testament says both are equally valid (and it would be saying that both are equally valid if it instructed us to go to the Old Testament for our instruction in this area), then Christians who sacrifice animals would be just as true and correct as those who believe in the blood of Christ.

This is why it is so very important to understand that if the New Testament scriptures tell us to go to the Old Testament scriptures for our instructions and truth, then whatever it is telling us to go to the Old Testament scriptures for cannot have changed, cannot have passed away, cannot have waxed old, cannot have vanished, cannot have been abrogated, cannot have been abolished, cannot have been destroyed. It must still apply to us, and must be just as valid, 100%, as the New Testament teaching is.

Our Instructions in Righteousness and Sin

2 Timothy 3:16-17, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

When Paul said "all scripture," he was referring to all of the Old Testament scripture as well, because that was the scripture that existed at the time he spoke these words (the New Testament scripture was just barely begun by this time). Even if Paul included the New Testament as well, the two testaments would not contradict one another in this area. Paul refers us to the Old Testament for our instruction in righteousness, and for our instruction in all good works. In other words, what the Old Testament scriptures say is righteous, and a good work, must be the same as the New Testament. Otherwise, there would be a conflict, a contradiction, if God's definition of righteousness and good works were changed! Paul never tells us to go to the Old Testament scripture for our instruction in things which changed; he only tells us to go to the Old Testament for things which have not changed.

Where does the New Testament tell us to go for our instruction in righteousness? To the scriptures, both Old and New Testaments. Why? Because Jesus Christ and the apostles lived their lives and preached what the Old Testament taught about righteousness. They taught nothing new or different from what the Old Testament taught about righteousness. They took their teachings directly from the Old Testament and quoted from it, because this Truth does not change. God's definition of good and evil does not change.

Likewise, the New Testament scripture tells us to go to the Old Testament scriptures for our instructions in sin. Why? Because nowhere does the New Testament define what sin is! Nowhere! How are we supposed to use the New Testament to learn what sin is if it does not tell us what sin is? It's impossible.

Now, to clarify the above statement, the New Testament scripture does tell us that blasphemy, adultery, stealing, murder, fornication, bearing false witness, etc. is a sin, yes. However, the New Testament does not define blasphemy, adultery, stealing, murder, fornication, bearing false witness, etc. It does not define these sins. Do you realize the importance of this fact? The only way to know what these sins are, to understand the definition of these sins, is to go to the same place that Jesus Christ went to, the same place the apostles went to, and the same place the New Testament itself says to go to for our instruction in the knowledge of sin. To the Old Testament scripture. The Old Testament! Yes, we go to the New Testament also, but the sins listed in the New Testament can all be found in the Old Testament. If the New Testament is telling us to go to the Old Testament for our instruction in good and evil, then good and evil could not possibly have changed. Otherwise, God would be the author of confusion, and "God is not the author of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33).

Consider the following verses:

Matthew 6:33, "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

When Jesus spoke these words at Matthew 6:33, where would people seek God's Righteousness? In the Old Testament scripture (there was no such thing as a New Testament yet, for His blood was not shed), because God revealed what he considered righteous in the Old Testament scriptures, which were the scriptures in Christ's day.

Acts 10:35, "But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

When Luke spoke in Acts 10:35, there was no New Testament scripture. Where did people go to know whether or not a nation was working righteousness or not? To the Old Testament scripture.

Romans 8:4, "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Paul tells us that God's Law is righteous, and we are to execute God's Law, because when we execute God's Law, that is one way we walk after the spirit. Paul says, "For we know that the law is spiritual" (Romans 7:14). What Law? God's Law. When we seek to do God's Law though faith, that is righteousness (Romans 9:31-32).

1 Corinthians 15:34, "Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame."

Paul puts “righteousness” and “sin” in opposition to one another. Because righteousness is good, and sin is evil. And those that claim that one can be righteous while in the act of sinning (while forsaking God's Law) is, in truth, calling evil good.

1 John 5:17, "All unrighteousness is sin"

This verse does not say "most" unrighteousness is sin, but all of it. That includes all unrighteousess that God defined in the entire scripture, which would include both Old and New Testament scriptures.

Two Categories

There are two categories of laws that God has given us to use as a measuring rod to determine which laws have not changed. These two categories are the following:

• If a law defines righteousness, it has not passed away (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
• If a law defines sin, it has not passed away (Romans 3:9,20; 6:1-2,15; 7:7,14, 1 Corinthians 15:34, Galatians 2:17; 3:22, Ephesians 4:26, 1 Timothy 5:20, Hebrews 3:13, 1 Peter 4:1, 1 John 2:1; 3:4; 5:17).

Jesus Christ, the apostles, the epistles, the gospels, and the Holy Spirit all have one thing in common. They did not re-define good and evil, but they confirmed God's definition of good and evil as found in the Old Testament scriptures.

Jesus taught:

Matthew 7:21-23, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work lawlessness (iniquity)."

By "lawlessness," Christ refers to sin:

1 John 3:4, "Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness."

Jesus was saying, in Matthew 7:21-23, to do the Will of our Father. Where did people learn about the Will of the Father at the time He spoke these words? It was expressed in the Old Testament scriptures. Something cannot be lawless, and good, at the same time. John wrote that sin is lawlessness. This points to the same thing Jesus taught. Jesus taught to go to the Old Testament scripture for our knowledge in sin.

The New Testament says to go to the Old Testament for our instruction in righteousness, and our instruction in sin. Why did our brother Paul, and the other apostles, and Jesus, say to read the Old Testament scripture for our instructions in righteousness, and why do they say to go to the Old Testament scripture for our knowledge of sin? Because good and evil does not change. In other words, no law defining good and evil has passed away! If both Jesus and the apostles said that the Old Testament defines what good and evil is, and what the Old Testament says about good and evil is binding on the bondservants of Christ, then it cannot be contradictory to the New Testament teaching on good and evil. Otherwise, we become our own gods.

How do we become our own gods? Imagine this. The Old Testament says, unequivocally, that “A” is a sin. The New Testament scriptures, likewise, say “A” is a sin. But, in other places of the New Testament, it says “A” is not a sin anymore. Picture that. Now, is the line between good and evil clear? Or is it confusing and contradictory? Is God confusion? If the New Testament scriptures say that “A” is a sin, and also that “A” is not a sin, how do we determine if it is good or evil for us? Do we not determine for ourselves good and evil in this case? Do we not become like God now? If we agree with that law of sin, we can go to this part of the New Testament and obey it. If we do not agree with that that law of sin, because it is too inconvenient for us to keep it, or because it goes against our own wishes, desires, and wants, we can go to that part of the New Testament and forsake that law in this part of scripture.

God is not like the crafty serpent who leaves it up to us to determine for ourselves what is good and evil, God tells us what is good and evil in His Word. And both the Old and New Testaments are in harmony as to what good and evil is.

And if the New Testament says “A” is not a sin, but the Old Testament says "A" is a sin, how do we line that up with the fact that the New Testament itself says to go to the Old Testament for our knowledge of sin? Is that not another confusion? Both cannot be true. Either “A” is a sin, or it is not a sin. If the Old Testament says it is a sin, and the New Testament says to go to the Old Testament for our knowledge of sin, yet at the same time, says “A” is not a sin, which one do we pick? Do we say, "eenie meenie miney moe"?

If there ever was a dilemma like this, there is only one thing we can do. Since the New Testament says to go to the Old Testament for our instruction in righteousness and for our knowledge of sin, then we must do what the New Testament says to do, which is to go to the Old Testament and follow its precepts of good and evil. That is what the New Testament says to do. That is what Jesus Christ told us to do. That is what the apostles told us to do. To go to the Old Testament for our Father's definition of good and evil.

Men have no right to interpret the will of God in terms of their wants and wishes; the will of God for man is declared in His law-word.

Besides, the New Testament does not tell us what sin is. It does not define murder, stealing, adultery, honoring mother and father, the sabbath day, bearing false witness, graven images, idols, it simply mentions these words without defining them. Why? Because we are to go to the Old Testament scripture for our instruction of what sin is, and not the New Testament. The Old and New Testaments do not contradict each other when it comes to good and evil. The New Testament is not to be used for determining what is a sin or not, that is not its purpose.

If God's definition of good and evil is changeable and moldable with the passing of time, it would be worthless, useless, and meaningless to test whether something is good or evil. If we go to God's unchangeable being for truth, we must believe that Truth is also unchangeable, and is not arbitrary and capricious.

The question is, is God's measuring rod of good and evil alterable, changeable, moldable, arbitrary and capricious? Or does God's measuring rod of good and evil, like God Himself, remain the same, regardless of time? What is the image of God? Does not His Law reflect His image? When we conform to His Law, are we not also conforming to His image? When we do what He says, is that not His image. If God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, His definitions of good and evil must be the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, or His Word is only good as toilet paper.

Hypocritical?

God does not say one thing and do another. If a parent tells a child not to drink and get drunk, and the child says, “but mommy, you do it,” and mommy says, “Don't do as I do, do as I say,” do you see the confusion that results? The child will grow up not knowing what is good or evil as far as drinking and drunkenness is concerned. Mommy should practice what she preaches. God is the same. If he tells us to forgive those who repent, but God himself does not forgive those who sincerely repent, as He promises us He will do, that is confusion and contradiction. If, after Jonah preached to Nineveh, and Nineveh repented, what would you think of the Lord if he destroyed Nineveh, after they truly repented, instead of Him blessing Nineveh (Jonah 4)? That would be a God who says one thing, but does another. A hypocrite. God is no hypocrite.

We are to conform ourselves to His image, but if God's image is to do one thing, but He says to do the opposite, which image do we conform ourselves to? Do we conform ourselves to what He says or to what he does? The fact is that God would not command us to do something that He himself would not do. We are to follow his example as well as his Word. God does not contradict his own will.

Our Father and His Son are not hypocrites. They live by the laws They set.

Would God tell us to rest on the seventh day if he would not do that Himself? No. God himself rested from his work on the seventh day of the week at Creation, because God obeys His laws of good and evil (Genesis 2:2-3). Christ rested from ordinary work on the Sabbath day also, and kept that day separate and sanctified from the other 6 days (Mark 1:21; 6:2, Luke 4:16; 6:6; 13:10, John 15:10). Even when Christ was crucified, the only full day he rested in the grave was on the sabbath day! Even in "death" he has showed us his truth. God practices what He preaches. He would not tell us to do that which He himself would not do. The fact the God rested on the 7th day of creation is God's example for all man, and the fact that Jesus kept the 7th day sabbath is also an example for all man. He was demonstrating to us by His own action, what He himself is commanding us to do by his own mouth.

• If you were living in the first century, and somebody from Nazareth, who was called Jesus, claimed He was the Lord and Saviour, the promised Messiah, would you just accept Him at His Word, or would you test this man with scripture?
• If Jesus was teaching everybody the following, “Our Father in Heaven has told us that all the following things are good to do, but I tell you all these things are now evil to do. Likewise, Our Father in Heaven has told us that all the following things are evil to do, but I tell you all these things are now good to do," would you accept someone like that as Lord over your life?

Either Jesus was re-defining God's definition of good and evil, or he was not changing God's definition of good and evil. Both cannot be true.

Did Jesus change God's definition of good and evil, or was he confirming God's definition of good and evil? If Jesus did change God's definition of good and evil, then He would be a false prophet, because he would be calling evil good and good evil, which is one way God himself has told us how we can tell if a man is sinning or not (Isaiah 5:20,24). No one has the power to change good and evil, except our Father in Heaven...not even Jesus, for He was sent to do God's Will, not change it (John 4:34; 5:30,36; 6:38; 8:29). If Jesus did not have the power to change God's definition of good and evil, did the apostles have that power?

If the apostle Paul was teaching that evil is good and good is evil, and the Bereans, who were searching the Old Testament scripture to test Paul's Words (Acts 17:11), discovered Paul was re-defining good and evil, would they have believed Paul was sent by God? If Paul was doing what Adam and Eve did when they sinned, would the Bereans believe Paul was moved by the Holy Spirit? Of course not.

Therefore, God's Laws that define evil cannot have changed. This includes working on the Sabbath Day, since that is a law that defines what is evil to God.

Didn't God change His definition of Evil?

There are those who believe God does change his definitions of good and evil. Here are some of the reasons they use for believing this:

1) God did not punish Cain for killing, he protected him.

From outward appearances, it would seem God did not consider murder a sin, but he did say it was a sin, when he said to Cain, just before he murdered his brother, "sin lieth at the door" (Genesis 4:7). There was a purpose why God showed mercy to Cain and refrained from killing him (which was the punishment for murder); and it was not because God changed his definition of sin.

2) Moses permitted divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1-4), but Jesus said it was now a sin (Matthew 5:31-32).

First, let us look at Deuteronomy 24:1-4. This passage tells us that when a woman remarries, she will be defiled if she marries after going through divorce. The only thing removed was the curse of the law, but the law that gave a knowledge of sin, the law that said she would be defiled if she marries another man, did not change. It was still a sin, but God permitted that evil to prevent an even greater evil. God permitted that sin temporarily, but did not approve or change his definition of sin. In Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which regulates divorce, it says that even though a woman is allowed to marry another man after divorce, she would still be defiled if she does that. God's definition of evil did not change, but he allowed evil to take place to avoid a greater evil. But evil is still evil. It was still God's will, in Moses time, that divorce not happen, and it was still a sin.

Deuteronomy 24:4, "the former husband who sent her away shall not be able to return and take her to himself for a wife, after she has been defiled."

The reason Moses permitted them to divorce and remarry was because of the hardness of their hearts (Matthew 19:8).

3) When Israel rejected God and wanted a man to rule over them, that was evil in God's eyes (1 Samuel 8:5), but he permitted them to be ruled by a man instead of God directly. God even picked out the man himself!

This does not mean he approves of that sin. It's still a sin. Israel rejected God by wanting a man to rule them, and it is a sin to reject God. Yet, God is the one who chose who would rule them, He is the one who commanded that man to rule them. Does that mean God no longer considered it a sin to be ruled by some man instead of God? No, God's definition of good and evil did not change, but he permitted evil for his purposes.

Even though God removed the curse of the law from Cain, it was still a sin. Even though God removed the curse of the law from women who divorce and marry another man, it was still a sin to do so. Today, Christ has removed the curse of the law for breaking the ten commandments by removing the physical death penalty, but those laws are still a sin to do.

The reason God permitted them to sin, was because of the hardness of their hearts. This is a common theme in scripture. When a man sins, and feels justified in that sin, whether it is approved by God or not, it is because of the hardness of ones heart.

Throughout the entire scripture, both Old and New Testaments, whenever any man, whether a man of God or a heathen, has called evil good and good evil, every time, without exception, God called his acts sinful. Is that not for our learning and instruction? What makes us better than the men of God in scripture? If it was sinful for those in the Old and New Testaments to call evil good, what gives us the authority to call evil good?

The Image of our Father or Jesus?

Everybody is to be to be conformed to the image of our Father in Heaven. Jesus Christ, His Son, was conformed to his Father's image (2 Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 1:3). And, the apostles themselves were told to be conformed to both our Father's image (1 Corinthians 11:7, Colossians 3:10) as well as to the image of His Son (Romans 8:29). Therefore, the image of our Father and Christ Jesus must be the same.

But, it would not be possible to conform ourselves to both if their definition of good and evil was opposed to one another. If our Father says certain acts are an abomination and evil for the children of God, but Christ says those same acts are good and righteous for the children of God, we cannot conform ourselves to both anymore. Now, we must choose one or the other.

For example, if, before Jesus was crucified, Jesus and the apostles bought food on the Sabbath, would they have sinned? Yes, because the Word of God tells us that it was a sin to buy food on the sabbath day (Nehemiah 10:31; 13:15-22). If Jesus was re-defining good and evil by telling them they can buy and sell on the sabbath (in other words, what our Father said was evil, Jesus is telling them is good), who do the apostles conform to? Jesus or our Father in Heaven? They have a dilemma. If they do what our Father says is evil, they would be sinning. But if they do what Jesus said to do instead, they would not be conforming themselves to our Father's image.

• If Jesus changed our Father's definition of good and evil before his crucifiction, were the apostles to do what our Father says to do, or what Jesus says to do?
• If Jesus changed our Father's definition of good and evil after his crucifiction, were the apostles to do to what our Father says to do, or what Jesus says to do?
• Are they the same image, or are they not the same image?

Scripture says they are the same image.

Picture this. For the first 2500 years of man's history, God's people were resting in the Lord, and doing ordinary work on the seventh day and God called that act good. Then, when the 10 commandments were given, God called that same act evil, and put people to death for doing the same act that was previously good to do since the beginning of time. Then, about 1500 years later, after Jesus was born, God changes his mind again and says, “I am re-defining good and evil again. It is no longer evil to do ordinary work on the seventh day, now it is good."

This is arbitrary and capricious. Only man's laws are arbitrary and capricious, not God's Law. But one thing we can depend on, about God, is that His Law regarding good and evil does not change. If we change that Truth, we change all of scripture. Any man can arbitrarily call evil good and good evil now, because that is God's image, and we are to be the image of God. If Christ changed good to evil and evil to good, we can do the same because we are to be conformed in His image.

If God re-defines good and evil, and that is His character, what is wrong if we redefine good and evil? That is the image of God after all, to change good and evil, to redefine good and evil. Do we conform ourselves to what God says, or to what He does? Is it not both?

A sin is a combination of an act and an intention. Sin is a conscious, intentional act or thought of breaking God's Law. It matters not whether someone is a believer or unbeliever. God's definition of good and evil does not change. The New Testament is clear that sin is sin, and the Old Testament is for our instruction in righteousness and sin. If the definition of righteousness and sin has changed from the Old Testament to the New Testament, why would the apostles tell us to go to the Old Testament scriptures for our instructions in righteousness and sin, if those laws were passed away? There would be a contradiction, if just one law of good and evil changed, there would still be a contradiction. God is not arbitrary and capricious, he doesn't call good evil or evil good. They remain constant.

There are those who believe the evil of working on the Sabbath is now good to do. They believe this because they believe the Holy Spirit is telling them this. Therefore, they believe the Holy Spirit is calling evil good. But in the end, we must keep this in mind. We must test our preconceived ideas with scripture. We must not change scriptural truth to fit our preconceived ideas about the Sabbath.

By the Laws of God, the testimonies of Christ Jesus, and by the examples of godly men in both the Old and New Testaments, it is a sin to call evil good and good evil. If we are calling evil good and good evil, we must not find ways to justify doing this evil, but we must change our personal definition of good and evil to fit that of God's definition, if we are to be called His children and ministers.

Matthew 7:21-23, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work lawlessness (iniquity)."

By “lawlessness,” Christ refers to sin:

1 John 3:4, "Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness."

If Jesus was saying, in Matthew 7:21-23, to do the Will of our Father (which was expressed in the Old Testament scriptures at that time), yet at the same time, Jesus was saying to forsake those laws that reflect our Father's definition of lawlessness, Jesus' statement would be contradictory. Therefore, the Will of the Father, and the Will of Christ Jesus, must be one and the same. Something cannot be lawless, and good, at the same time. If Christ taught that what was once lawless (i.e., working on the sabbath, buying food on the sabbath) is now lawful, he would be a minister of sin (Galatians 2:17). Christ said to do the Will of the Father (Matthew 12:50, John 5:30; 16:3). In other words, He said to avoid doing that which our Father said was a sin to do. Our Father gave His children, at that time, the Old Testament scriptures which were the revealed Will of God. If Christ said that evil is now good to do, who do we obey? Christ or our Father? If Christ's definition of lawlessness is contrary to our Father's definition, who do we obey?

This is a dliema which nobody has been able to answer. This is a dilema which I believe cannot be answered. This is why it must be a scriptural truth that Good and Evil does not change.

A Parable to help Discern which Laws passed away

Here is a parable that will use physical truths to represent spiritual truths, just as Jesus used parables to illustrate truth.

There is a master of a household. This master has 100 cars, all painted white, all have steering wheels, but some do not have engines. It is the master's will that some of these cars be junked, but the others remain. This master will communicate to his servants, on paper, exactly which cars are to be junked and which cars are to remain. The master has made it clear that we are not to junk all the cars.

If the master wrote, "the cars that are painted white are to be junked," would you know which cars are to be junked and which are not? No, because they all are painted white. This is something that both the cars that are to be junked and the cars that are to remain have in common!

If the master wrote, "the cars that do not have a steering wheel are to be junked," would you know which cars are to be junked and which are not? No, because they all have steering wheels. This is something that both the cars that are to be junked and the cars that are to remain have in common!

But, isn't it a truth that these cars are all painted white? Yes. Isn't it a truth that all these cars have steering wheels? Yes. But it is also a misapplication of these truths if one uses them to determine which cars are to be junked, for the simple reason that all the cars have that quality in common. To differentiate between these cars, we have to use a criteria that is different between the cars that are to be junked and the cars that are to remain, something they do not have in common.

But if the master said, "the cars without an engine are to be junked," would you know which cars are to be junked? Yes, because now we have something to differentiate one car from the other.

In the above parable, the master represents our Father in Heaven, His servants represent us, the cars represent God's Law in the Old Testament scriptures, and the paper represents the New Testament teachings on what laws from the Old Testament were passed away.

For one to distinguish which laws have passed away and which remain, we must not use what they have in common to determine that, but what they do not have in common. If both the laws that have passed away, and laws that remain, have a certain truth in common, we cannot possibly use that truth as a measuring rod to determine which laws have passed away.

How to Discern which Laws passed away, and which Laws remain

Hebrews 7:12, "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."

Hebrews 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."

Here, God's Word tells us that along with a new covenant comes a change of the law. But how are we to determine which laws were changed (passed away, waxed old, vanished, abrogated, abolished, destroyed) and which laws are still binding for the bondservants of Christ? By using the following measuring rods. If any law fits into the following descriptions, we can be assured that they passed away.

This is the measuring rod we are to use to determine which laws have passed away:

• Tithe (Hebrews 7:1-10).
• The priestly laws after the order of Aaron and Melchisedec (Hebrews 7:11).
• Carnal commandments (Hebrews 7:16).
• Ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary (Hebrews 9:1).
• Laws pertaining to the physical tabernacle or sanctuary (such as the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread) (Hebrews 9:2).
• Gifts and sacrifices (Hebrews 9:9).
• Meats and drinks (Hebrews 9:9).
• Divers washings (Hebrews 9:9).
• Sacrificing of an animal for sins (Hebrews 10:1-6).
• Sacrifices and offerings for sin (Hebrews 10:6,8).
• The curse of the law (Galatians 3:13).

When someone says a Law of God has passed away, and it is questionable whether it has or not, a good question to have them answer is the following:

The law that says (fill in blank #1) has passed away and is no longer binding for us, because (fill in blank #2).

Whatever law fits into blank #1, must, by definition, have passed away if it fits into blank #2. In other words, if blank #2 gives a criteria, then whatever laws fit into that criteria must also have passed away. If there are any laws that fit into blank #2, but have not passed away, then blank #2 (criteria) cannot and must not be used to determine which laws were passed away, because this criteria would be false when applied to other laws. All laws that fit that criteria must, by definition, have passed away.

For example: Scripture says that there was a change of the law. And continues by saying the sacrificing of blood never pleased God, and that God no longer requires the shedding of blood for sin. Therefore, any law in the Old Testament that fits this principle has been passed away (i.e., sacrificing lambs, pigeons, turtledoves, heifers, goats, etc.).

Another example: Scripture says that there was a change of the law. And continues by saying the laws that dealt with the physical temple and the priestly laws have passed away, such as “ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.” Let's fill in the blanks. Does that refer to tithe, shewbread, candlesticks, wearing holy garments, and forbidding offspring from going into temple if they are born deformed? Yes. No exceptions.

Another example: Scripture says that there was a change of the law. And continues by saying the laws that offered both gifts and sacrifices were done away, meats and drinks (referring to yearly festivals), and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, were passed away.

God says Christ did away with the curse of the law. Whatever fits into this description has passed away also. No exceptions.

This is the measuring rod we are to use to determine which laws have not passed away:

• Laws that give a knowledge of sin (Romans 3:9,20; 6:1-2,15; 7:7,14, 1 Corinthians 15:34, Galatians 2:17; 3:22, Ephesians 4:26, 1 Timothy 5:20, Hebrews 3:13, 1 Peter 4:1, 1 John 2:1; 3:4; 5:17).
• Laws that give instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

The above measuring rod is what God gave us to determine if a law has passed away or not. Now, let's see if the 4th commandment fits into any of the above categories of laws that passed away. Does the 4th commandment fit into any of the above descriptions? Yes! It fits into the description of God's definition of good and evil. The 4th commandment does not fit into any of those measuring rods that God gave us for determining what laws have passed away. Therefore, according to this measuring rod, the 4th commandment, the Sabbath day, which is the seventh day of the week, has not passed away!

Therefore, let us fill in the blank of other reasons that others give as to why the sabbath day laws have passed away.

The Sabbath Day has passed away because...

1)
The law that says it is evil and an abomination against God to work on the Sabbath Day has passed away and is no longer binding for us, because it was part of the law of Moses.

The first and most important thing we should notice is that God does not tell us to use this description as a measuring rod in His Word to determine if a law has changed or not.

Yes, it may be a part of the law of Moses. Does that mean we can do the evil of adultery, murder, and stealing? Those laws were also part of the law of Moses. Therefore, the fact that a law was part of the a part of the law of Moses is irrelevant in determining if a law has passed away or not, because many laws that are still binding upon us today were part of the law of Moses.

In addition, we must remember that the apostles and Jesus Christ taught us that the "law of Moses" was written for our sakes! Brother Paul said:

1 Corinthians 9:9-10, "For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn...For our sakes, no doubt, this is written:"

It was Paul's custom to preach "both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets" (Acts 28:23). Even Jesus taught the truths "which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms" (Luke 24:44). Jesus even said that people will not be persuaded to hear the Truth if they do not hear Moses:

Luke 16:31, "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

Therefore, it would be a contradiction to say the law of Moses was abolished, when both Jesus and the apostles not only taught from the law of Moses, but told us it was written for our sakes, and for our examples (1 Corinthians 10:6).

2)
The law that says it is evil and an abomination against God to work on the Sabbath Day has passed away and is no longer binding for us, because it points to Christ.

The first and most important thing we should notice is that God does not tell us to use this description as a measuring rod in His Word to determine if a law has changed or not.

Now, any law that fits this criteria must, by definition, have passed away. Yes, the Sabbath law may point to Christ. But since all laws point to Christ in some way, since the Old Testament points to Christ, this is not a criteria to use to determine if a law has passed away or not. For example, the physical marriage between man and woman that was ordained by God at creation points to the spiritual marriage between Christ and us, but physical marriage is not abolished today just because it pointed to Christ. Likewise, the books of Proverbs and Psalms point to Christ, but it does not mean what is written in the books of Proverbs and Psalms is not for us today.

Yes, it's true that it points to Christ, but it is no reason to determine if a law has passed away or is still binding. For something to determine if something is still binding or not, it must fit into a category that the other laws do not fit into.

• Example 1. I am thinking of a specific law. I will not tell you what this specific law says, only it's description, which describes many laws. Tell me if it passed away or not. This law requires the sacrificing of an animal to atone for ones sin. Has this law passed away? Yes. But notice I did not tell you what animal, who was to do the sacrificing, what the reason is for sacrificing it, where it is to be sacrificed, when it is to be sacrificed. Yet, you were able to tell me it was passed away. Why?
• Example 2. I am thinking of a specific law. I will not tell you what this specific law say, only it's description, which describes many laws. Tell me if it passed away. This law points to Christ. Has this law passed away? There is no possible way for you to determine that, because all laws point to Christ.

Therefore, the fact that a law points to Christ may be true, but this truth is irrelevant as to determining which laws were passed away.

3)
The law that says it is evil and an abomination against God to work on the Sabbath Day has passed away and is no longer binding for us, because Jesus fulfilled the law.

The first and most important thing we should notice is that God does not tell us to use this description as a measuring rod in His Word to determine if a law has changed or not.

Yes, Jesus fulfilled, and executed, the law. Does that mean we can now disregard it because of that? Does that mean we don't have to obey God's Law because Jesus obeyed it for us? Of course not.

Jesus fulfilled the law by honoring his parents. Does that mean the 5th commandment is abrogated now? Does that mean it is no longer a sin if somebody forsakes the 5th commandment and dishonors their parents? Of course not.

Therefore, the fact that a law was fulfilled by Jesus is irrelevant in determining what laws have passed away or not, because many laws that are still binding upon us today were fulfilled by Jesus.

4)
The law that says it is evil and an abomination against God to work on the Sabbath Day has passed away and is no longer binding for us, because it is a law that applied and pertained to Jews only. It is not commanded before the Ten Commandments and it is never commanded anywhere in the New Testament scriptures.

The first and most important thing we should notice is that God does not tell us to use this description as a measuring rod in His Word to determine if a law has changed or not.

First of all, it's irrelevant if a law applied to His children only, and did not apply to the stranger. That means you are going to what the heathen did or did not do, to determine what laws you will obey, instead of going to the laws that God gave His children to obey. Heathens were not sanctified, were not made holy, were not chosen by God…His children were. If you must look at one of two choices…the laws that His children obeyed, or the law that heathens obeyed, for your determination of what laws to obey today...if a law was given to His children, that should be more of an incentive to obey it rather than forsake it. Otherwise, you are placing yourself on the same ground as heathens, and not His children.

Is the law of restitution still binding upon the bondservant of Christ? Yes. But not once in the New Testament is restitution mentioned. Not once is it mentioned before the 10 commandments were given. Therefore, just because a law fits into this description, it does not mean it was passed away.

Is it a sin for a bondservant of Christ to charge usury to another bondservant of Christ? Yes. But not once in the New Testament is usury said to be a sin to the bondservants of Christ. As a matter of fact, it is never mentioned after the gospels! Not once is it mentioned before the 10 commandments were given. This is a law given to Jews only, and did not apply to anyone except for the Jews. Why is the law of usury still binding upon us, if it was given to Jews only? Because that particular law defines what is good and evil for us. And God's definition of good and evil does not change.

All sin applies equally to believers and unbelievers. When Jonah threatened Nineveh (Jonah 1-4), was it a different set of laws Nineveh was breaking? Or the same laws that God gave to His children?

Leviticus 24:22, "Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God."

Exodus 12:49, "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you."

Scripture is clear that the sabbath pertained to the gentiles as well as believers (Exodus 20:10, Deuteronomy 5:14, Isaiah 56:1-8).

One can search throughout the New Testament, and nowhere does it say that sin has changed, or was altered, or passed away. On the contrary, it says that sin has not changed! The New Testament confirms that both Jews and Gentiles are under God's definition of sin. In other words, if a law of God describes what is a sin (what is evil), it applies to the gentiles as well as to His children:

Romans 3:9, "…for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;" (it doesn't say “except for the 8th commandment, or 1st, or 4th).

Romans 3:20, "… for by the law is the knowledge of sin." (is the 4th commandment a law? Does it give a knowledge of sin? Does Paul say that the knowledge of sin was changed?)

Romans 6:1-2, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid."

Romans 6:15, "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid."

Romans 7:7, "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." (the Old Testament definition still applies to the New Testament)

Romans 7:14, "For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin." (the law is spiritual, and when we obey God's Law, we are obeying the spirit, not the letter, of the law)

1 Corinthians 15:34, "Awake to righteousness, and sin not;"

Galatians 2:17, "… is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid." (if Christ made possible for us to do that which God said was a sin to do, he would be a minister of sin)

Galatians 3:22, "But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, …" (how can all be under sin, if the law of sin only applied to Jews?)

Ephesians 4:26, "Be ye angry, and sin not:"

1 Timothy 5:20, "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear."

Hebrews 3:13, "But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin."

1 Peter 4:1, "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;"

1 John 2:1, "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:"

1 John 3:4, "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."

1 John 5:17, "All unrighteousness is sin:" (does the 4th commandment tell us what is unrighteous? Yes. Does this verse say all unrighteousness is sin, except for the unrighteousness of the 4th commandment? Or does the "all" include the 4th, as well as all the other 9, commandments?)

5)
The law that says it is evil and an abomination against God to work on the Sabbath Day has passed away and is no longer binding for us, because Christ is our Sabbath.

The first and most important thing we should notice is that God does not tell us to use this description as a measuring rod in His Word to determine if a law has changed or not.

If scripture defines a word a certain way, each and every time, and I say, “well, the spiritual meaning of that word is the opposite of what God's written Word says,” what would you say? Would you apply the same “test” to yourself? If scripture defines a word one way, and you say it means the opposite, and scripture never defines it as the opposite, would you disregard your definition and accept God's definition instead? Many people did evil thinking they did God's Will, like the crusades and Hitler, because they convinced themselves that the Holy Spirit told them to do so and so, even though it contradicted the Word of God.

If “Christ is our Sabbath” and you interpret that as “Every day is the Sabbath” or “we can call good evil and evil good,” then we have a problem. Because it directly conflicts and contradicts the Word of God, which we use as the ultimate authority for judging what is good and evil.

If somebody keeps the sabbath day as God says to keep it in the Old Testament (keeping it holy, no work, etc.) is it still possible to rest in the Lord every day? If we discover that the sabbath day is still the seventh day of the week where we rest from work, does that mean you would not be able to rest in the Lord the other 6 days of the week?

The “Sabbath Day” is defined as the seventh day of the week in which we do not do any ordinary labour. If God defines the “Sabbath day” as the seventh day of the week, we have no authority to change God's definition. That would be the same as changing his words. Therefore, we must agree on his definition. His only definition is the seventh day of rest. Even if we believe God's Holy Spirit is telling us that the definition has changed, we must ignore it if that definition contradicts the scripture's definition. Now, if you want to say the seventh day of rest is no longer binding, we can fellowship on that, but it does not change the definition of the word “Sabbath day.”

The law of tithe was changed and passed away. Now, we cheerfully give to support the ministry. No predetermined percentage of ten percent anymore. However, we do not, and cannot, call this giving a “tithe.” Four reasons.

1. Tithe has a set meaning given by God, which means a tenth of all we have, and we no longer give a tenth.
2. The word “tenth” is never, ever, defined as freely giving in the New Testament.
3. God specifically says tithe is a carnal commandment and was passed away.
4. The New Testament never calls it tithe when the bondservants of Christ gave money to support the ministry.

Let's presume the law of the Sabbath day was changed and passed away. Now, we can work seven days a week without a day of rest for the rest of our lives (as long as we rest in the Lord while working). No predetermined day to rest anymore. However, we do not, and cannot, call this the “Sabbath day.” Two reasons.

1. The Sabbath day has a set meaning given by God, which means we shall not work on the seventh day of the week.
2. The word “Sabbath day” is never, ever, defined as a day of work (as long as we rest in the Lord). Nor is it defined as “every day” but as the seventh day.

If God gives a word a certain definition, then someone says, “the spiritual meaning of this is exactly the opposite of the definition that God has given us,” what would you say? I would say, “Okay, let us replace that word with your definition and see if that is the meaning of this verse. Then we will insert God's definition and see if that is the meaning of this verse.” God does not change the meaning of his words to mean the opposite of what he has given us, there would be confusion. We must accept the definition he gave us over the definition of anything else, if that other definition is never given in scripture. We cannot take something scripture never says, and use that to replace what scripture does say. Either we use the definition given to us in God's written word, or we place our feelings, emotions, and heart above God's definitions.

Questions: If scripture defines “stealing” or “theft” as taking something from someone that doesn't belong to you, and I say, “well, the spiritual meaning of that is exactly the opposite of God's written Word, it means to not take something from another,” what would you say to me? If you asked me to show you, from scripture, where it says what I say it says, and I said, “Oh, I can't show you from scripture where God redefined His Word, but the Spirit is telling me it was changed,” would I not be deceived? Would I not be re-defining His Word? If I showed you passages in scripture which I said proved my point, but neither the word being defined, nor its definition, appear anywhere in the passage I'm showing you, which of these two definitions would you accept as truth? The definition that is written in the Holy Scripture? Or the definition that I say the Holy Spirit is telling me, which is the opposite of God's definition? I would have to disregard my definition if I were to call myself a bondservant of Christ. Would you use this same criteria on your own beliefs? If the roles were reversed, would you admit that you must disregard your definition, and use God's definition instead?

Man redefines the definition of words to mean the opposite. The words "awful, nice, corpse" are examples. But God never re-defines his words to mean the opposite of how he already defined them. There is no truth in man's words because everything is changing. If God and His Word changes, then we cannot use that as a measuring rod for Truth either. Therefore, God's words do not change.

We are to rest in the Lord when we buy and sell, it does not mean our rest in the Lord replaces buying and selling (harvesting, marriage, etc). Likewise, We are to rest in the Lord when we physically rest from our ordinary labour on the seventh day of the week, it does not mean our rest in the Lord replaces our physically rest from our ordinary labour on the seventh day of the week. These are two completely different acts, different rests.

Where does scripture say Christ is our Sabbath day? It never does. Where does scripture say Christ is our Sabbath? It never does.

Your Questions Answered

Question:

You claim God's definition of Good and Evil does not change, in reference to His Law. However, I would like to point out the following.

It is against God's Law for a believer to eat an animal that dies by itself (Leviticus 17:15; 22:8), but at the same time, believers are commanded to give it or sell it to an unbeliever (Deuteronomy 14:21). Another example is usury. Believers are forbidden to charge usury to another believer (Exodus 22:25, Leviticus 25:36-37, Deuteronomy 23:19), but at the same time, God commands believers to charge usury to unbelievers!

Deuteronomy 23:20, "Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury:"

Both usury and eating an animal that dies of itself are considered an abomination to God:

Ezekiel 18:13, "Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him."

Leviticus 17:15-16, "And every soul that eateth that which died of itself…shall both wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even: then shall he be clean. But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh; then he shall bear his iniquity."

Leviticus 22:8-9, "That which dieth of itself…he shall not eat to defile himself therewith…lest they bear sin for it, and die therefore, if they profane it.”

Ezekiel 4:14, "…my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth."

As we can see, both usury and eating an animal that dies of itself is considered an abomination to God, but he permitted, and even commanded, that believers may do these acts to the heathen.

A final example is that of being a bondmen (meaning a lifelong slave). Believers were forbidden from buying, selling or having bondservants that were also believers (Leviticus 25:42). However, believers were commanded to buy, sell, and have bondservants who were unbelievers (Leviticus 25:44).

Therefore, God's Law does change. What is evil for believers is not evil for unbelievers.

Answer:

First of all, it should be noted that God's law does not say that usury is evil, nor is eating an animal of itself, nor is having a lifelong slave. What scripture does say is that usury is evil only if a believer does this to a believer, and that eating an animal that dies of itself is evil only if the one eating it is a believer, and that a lifelong slave is evil only if the slave is a believer.

We must take into account "who" did this act. All of God's Law depends upon "who" did what, it never applies equally to all people. Here are some examples.

Adultery is a sin. Does this mean that the penalty of adultery is the same for all who break this law? No, we must take into account who committed adultery before we give a penalty. Under the Old Testament, the penalty was death. However, it still depends upon who committed adultery.

For example, Leviticus 19:20-22 is a situation where a man can sleep with another man's wife, where both of them have sex willfully with each other (yes, both engage in adultery willfully), yet neither party will be executed! Why? Because, in this particular case, the woman was a slave, and she is supposed to have less self-command, and therefore less guilt. However, since she did not make any resistance and consented to it, they were to be scourged. But only the man was to bring a ram for a trespass-offering. Since the woman did not need to make a blood sacrifice, it was not considered a sin for her. It was a sin for the man, however. The reason for this difference is not from any respect which God gives to persons, for bond and free are alike to him, but because bond-women were scarce wives, and their marriages were scarce true-marriages, being neither made by their choice, but their masters authority, nor continued beyond the year of release, but at her master's or husband's pleasure.

This is an example of someone committing adultery (evil), yet, it is not counted as sin (evil) against her! Some may claim that God's definition of good and evil has changed, however, God's Law does not say all adultery is evil, it says adultery is evil in in certain situations, with certain people, with certain intentions.

Another example is when a man rapes a woman who is married (Deuteronomy 22:25-26). Here is an example of a married woman having sex with a man, yet, scripture says there is no sin worthy of death for the woman, but there is for the man. Did God's definition of Good and Evil change? No. We must take into account "who" is involved.

The same goes for killing. Killing is not always a sin, for God commanded the Israelites to carry out the death penalty for certain sins. Did God's definition of evil change? No, it did not. Because God's Law does not say all killing is evil, it says killing is evil in certain situations, with certain people, with certain intentions.

Likewise, the same is true with usury, eating animals that dies of itself, and lifelong slaves. God's Law does not say these things are all evil, it says these are evil in certain situations, with certain people, with certain intentions. God's Law defining evil does not change. All of God's Law applies to everyone, but it depends upon who is committing the act and the situation and intent that determines if it is evil or not.

Final Thoughts

This article has attempted to eliminate the criteria which are "impossible" to use to discern which laws have passed away and which laws remain. I would like to close this article with four quotes from Sherlock Holmes:

"Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth" (The Sign of the Four).

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" (The Sign of the Four).

"We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" (The Bruce-Partington Plans).

"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" (The Blanched Soldier).

Remember, we cannot use that which is impossible to determine the truth.