New Covenant Passover Plus My Passover Meditations

"This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.  This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you." ~Anointed Lord Salvation

Under the carnal covenant, Passover was kept as a memorial of God freeing Israel from bondage to Egypt.  Under the current spiritual covenant, Passover is kept as a memorial of God freeing believers in Christ/Messiah from bondage to sin.  It's a memorial of our Lord and Christ's sacrificial death.

Under the carnal covenant a lamb was sacrificed to remember how the lamb's blood had saved the firstborns of Israel in Egypt when it was smeared on the doorposts before the death angel visited.  Under the spiritual covenant we symbolically eat Christ's body (unleavened bread) and drink his blood (wine), because He is our Passover Lamb who was slain once for all sins (those of which would be repented), and in reality we "eat" of His spiritual nature to become more like He is, for it is true that we are what we eat.

There are two false religions, one of which claims to keep the carnal covenant (Judaism) and one who claims to keep the spiritual covenant (Christianity), but both hold to their man-made religious doctrines and traditions rather than keep the truth as written in the scriptures. That is why those who follow Judaism keep the carnal covenant Passover, and those that follow Christianity keep the pagan Easter.  Then there is the marrying of these two religions that produced Messianic Judaism, which also follow after some false doctrines from both religions.  They reject the pagan Easter, but they keep a largely carnal covenant Passover, eating a seder (meal), believing not in a new spiritual covenant but a renewed carnal covenant.

I've written extensively and very in-depth on topics concerning the carnal covenant verses the spiritual covenant, including contrasts to the carnal covenant Passover and the spiritual covenant Passover.  These are among my most popular studies.  For more info, you may visit the following links to my blog posts and website articles:

"Forever" in the Old Testament: Does it Always Mean Eternal?

New Covenant Does Not Abolish Law But Does Abolish Old Covenant

What "The Law Was Added Because of Transgression" Means

Old Covenant Carnal Showings

To Silence the Paul-Rejecting Carnal Covenant Lovers: Proving Jesus and Paul Were at One

Now to share some of my meditative thoughts from this Passover night just passed...

As I was reading one of the gospel accounts of my Lord's execution, I stopped to meditate for a while when I reached the part that records that He asked our Holy Father to forgive the ones who had a part in putting him to death and their supporters, telling Father that they were ignorant of what they were doing.  I spiritually jumped back in time and imagined the social climate of Judah during the last three and half years of the Lord's life on earth.  By the end of his three-and-a-half year ministry, many of the people knew of him.  I'm sure it would be like today in the U.S. when a figure becomes publicly prominent.  Rumors spread.  Even if the person is doing what is good, people who are biased against him (or her) who have power can quickly cast the person in a negative light in the eyes of the majority.  There are always the minority who will support the person, and the minority can number in the thousands or even millions (depending on the population involved) but still very much be a small minority.

I thought of the numerous things about which the majority of the people are deceived today.  The list is unending.  There are many who possess knowledge, wisdom, and understanding, but they still make up the minority by far.  And what of the majority?  They think they are the ones who possess good sense and think the minority as crazy and/or stupid. And the somewhat prominent figures who spread various truths (whether it be health, biblical, legal, environmental, agricultural, parental, etc.) are persecuted and branded by the mainstream media as nut jobs.

That must be what it was like in Salvation's time.  There were a growing many in the know, but they were few compared to the majority.  The ones who had power were afraid enough of what would happen if they openly went against him, because just like any gathering today where a teacher is speaking, those minority people are going to make up the majority in attendance.  But their power was great in that they still maintained their influence over the mainstream majority.

It was true then just as much as it's true now that many are very ignorant in what they believe and how they act toward others.  They believe they are doing what's right in how they live their lives, how they bring up their children, and how they perceive those who believe differently.  And God has kept them in blindness for the time being.  So they may rail wickedly against those who are really good and teaching and living by the truth, but they don't realize they are against God and truth.  They believe they're in the right.  Their blindness is fogging up their mind.  Now if they were serious enough about seeking and living by truth, they would be more likely to prove things and then realize the minority people are right about things.  But they are carnal-minded, choosing rather to try to enjoy life as much as possible without investing time in asking important questions and investigating into things.

But we have all been this way for a time, at least to an extent.  Some of us have always been more likely to investigate and ask questions and want truth, but we've all been guilty of going along with what the mainstream teaching on a matter is.  Who is to know whether we change down the line and open our eyes?

There were probably quite a few people who were strongly against Salvation the Anointed, because they'd believed the mainstream lies against him and lacked in understanding, who then later came to the truth and repented and were followers of the Lord.  So this is why our Lord would have asked Father to forgive them.  They were ignorant but would not allow themselves to be forever.

What wonderful grace and long-suffering our Eternal Father and His Righteous Firstborn possess!  Yes, so wonderful that They were both willing for the latter to come spend over 34 human life years (including gestation in the womb) on earth and endure all the hardships and temptations humankind go through, and ultimately die as our saving sacrifice!  And for this reason we remember our Anointed Salvation's loving sacrifice annually on the evening of the fourteenth day of the first month.

I will save the other meditative topic I want to share for tomorrow, to post on the first day of Unleavened Bread.

Until then...

What "The Law Was Added Because of Transgression" Means

There is a great deal of confusion surrounding the meaning of Paul's words to the Galatians when he said:

Wherefore then [serveth] the law?  It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator (Gal. 3:19).

It's really simple, though.  Of course, I encourage each one to read the entire context.  Here, though, I simply want to lay it out for those who still don't get it, even after reading the context and reading the entire bible.

In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve on the sixth work day.  He didn't lay out an endless number of statutes for them.  He didn't overwhelm them with a lot of rules.  Anyone who honestly just reads the opening of Genesis can see that he put them in the garden, told them to take care of it and told them what they could eat for food.  The tree of life was also in the garden, and then there was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and God told Adam and Eve that they were not to eat from that tree, or else they would die.  We then know the next day was the seventh day that was sanctified and hallowed, so right from the beginning we see the Sabbath day, the signature mark of the Creator.  So things started out in a very BASIC way. 

Now, we must ask, WHAT is the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil?"  WHAT is the knowledge of good and evil?  What do we call something that lets us know what is good and what is evil?  Would we not call that law?  Of course!  Adam and Eve were alive and well, and everything was going smoothly, until they allowed themselves to be deceived by the serpent.  Notice what happened.  Back in Genesis 2:25 Adam and Eve were naked but were not ashamed, just as young children that do not yet know good from evil are not ashamed.  They thought nothing of it.  No one TOLD them it was wrong.  God did not say, "Oh, and make sure you stay dressed with clothes, because it is not good for you to be naked."  But, after they had eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, their eyes were opened, and they suddenly realized they were naked and covered themselves.  They later told the Lord (the one who is the Firstborn of the Father) they were hiding from him because they were naked.  He replied, "Who told you that you were naked?  Did you eat from the tree from which I told you not to eat?"

Does this not remind you of what Paul said several thousand years later?  Read Romans chapter 7, where he talks about how the law gives knowledge of what is good or evil and that he was alive once without the law, but then the commandment came, sin revived, and he died.

EVERY person on this earth, since Adam and Eve ate from the fruit, if they live long enough, comes to a point where their eyes are opened, and they know good from evil.  Infants start out innocent and UNKNOWING of good and evil.  Small children do not know that being naked in front of others is bad.  They do not know that putting their fingers into electric sockets is evil.  Little kids do not realize that crawling off the high bed is evil.  They don't know these things bring bad consequences!  Not until they transgress!  THEN once they transgress, they know there is good and evil!  Was killing and stealing and lying and such wrong from the beginning, before Adam and Eve knew it was wrong, before they ate from that tree?  Of course it was!  Did they have such ideas?  Was there any written law with judgments laying all this out?  No, there was not!  Would it have been good for them to have clothes on from the beginning?  Yes!  But, were they at fault for not having on clothes?  No, they had never been given any idea that it was wrong!  

If you read my study on the tree of life, you will learn that the tree of life represents Christ.  How do we get eternal life?  There is only ONE way to salvation, and that is through Salvation the Anointed One, Jesus Christ (Yeshua the Messiah).  It's his sacrifice in our place that gives us the gift of eternal life for those who repent of sin [transgression of the law], are baptized, and the receive the Holy Spirit (the seed of God so that we can be born as sons of  God at the resurrection).

I try to keep it as simple as possible for my children.  The Ten Commandments are summed up by love God with all your heart, mind, and life and love your neighbor as you love yourself.  I tell them the Ten Commandments teach us how to do these things.  I do not bombard them with a laundry list of things they should do, though, to protect themselves, to protect others, and to protect property.  BUT, if they transgress in some way, it becomes needful at times that I ADD LAW.

Just last night my husband was saying to my parents, concerning buying a third game controller, "I've been needing to buy another one, anyway, in case the kids tear up one."  This was said in front of our children.  This is a no-no, of course, but who is not guilty of doing this at some point?  Most parents realize that suggesting this sort of thing in front of our kids puts the idea into their head to do evil.  Whereas before, doing such a thing probably would not have crossed their minds, now they are tempted to do just that.  Now, does this also sound familiar?  Remember what Paul said about the law killing him, because we tend to want to do the opposite of what it says?  Any experienced parent knows this is the case with children.

Would I tell my young child, "I just put some matches up in this cabinet.  Now don't get into these and start a fire?"  NO!  I would put the matches up there in hopes that my child will not be snoopy and get into such a thing.  I am not going to put the idea into his head to get into the matches.  Most children will have a strong temptation to do the exact opposite of what you commanded.  Not all children would actually follow through with it, but there would be a strong temptation, whereas if you kept your mouth shut, it would likely not be an issue.  Now,  let's say nothing was said, but one day the child got into the cabinet for one reason or another, and he happened to see the matches then.  It was an unlikely event, but it happened.  He was then tempted to use them.  Still, a child could make the choice not to do so.  But, sometimes a child does.   If the latter occurred, THEN law would have to be added.  YES!  That's right.  Oral or written law added AFTER transgression.  The law is holy, just, and good, meaning what is good is good, but what was good was good before the giving of the law in a written organized form, full with judgments and then the added rituals.  There were faithful and obedient people serving God BEFORE the added law.  There were already people following the spiritual law, as written on their hearts, not killing, fornicating, stealing, etc.  Yet, some transgressed, so it was needful for an ADDED law in written form, complete with JUDGMENTS for transgression.  The animal sacrifices, human priesthood, etc. was to REALLY POINT OUT TO CARNAL-NATURED PEOPLE HOW SERIOUS TRANSGRESSION WAS. 

Is that not why so many statutes are ADDED to the U.S. law code (or ANY law code)?  The invention of motor vehicles, for example, as a new thing here.  AFTER transgression, namely wrecks that caused people's bodies to be flung through the windshields, law was ADDED to include use of seat belts.  At some point, law was ADDED for babies and young children to be put in car seats.  Is someone foolish enough to say that this law is bad?  What fool is willing to say this is a bad law?  Is it for the GOOD?  Is it to save lives?  YES!  Now, would there be some fool out there who claims that this is wrongful adding to God's law?  Probably so.  Now, it is indeed BETTER, as it is under the new covenant, to be led by the Spirit, to have God's law written on our HEARTS, choosing good because we want to do what is right, NOT because there is some written law that has judgments if transgressed.  In that case, all that would have to be done is seat belts and car seats would be invented, proven to save lives, and then what fool would not want to use them?  A wise person uses them, because he is following God's law of love as written on his or her heart, NOT because the U.S. law mandates them, for we know that not all man made laws are good.  SOME are, though, and if it's a life-giving law, then why wouldn't a person follow it?

With increase of KNOWLEDGE, there is more to be decided on what is good and evil.  I've written explanation time and again of this.  If Moses lived today and was told to give a written law to Israel, it would NOT simply say, concerning safety in housing, "You must build a rail around the top of your roof so that no one falls off."  Why, that would likely not even be included, because it DOES NOT APPLY.  We do not have flat roofs that we walk upon and use in our every day lives, like people did in ancient Israel.  However, there would be statutes like, "Don't let bare wires be exposed in your homes," and "Do not leave electric sockets exposed so that young children do not stick their fingers in them."  It would not be just, "Eat only animals that have split hooves and chew the cud," etc., but it would likely be, "Do not eat McDonald's french fries," etc.  What fool is there out there who would actually say that the food regulations as given in the law of Moses is good enough and everything else is fine to eat without control?  We do not live in that age! 

Of course, those of us who are Spirit-led and have God's law written on our hearts, following the law in the spirit, understand this.  Believe it or not, though, there are folks out there who believe ONLY what was written by Moses for that day is what applies and that there is no new covenant, only a renewed old covenant.  Makes you wonder why those people even bother claiming they have faith in the Messiah, for what would the point of his coming and sacrifice be if the old covenant was simply going to be renewed.  That could have been done by any prophet, and there would have been no need of Salvation's sacrifice.  There would be no need of a new covenant Passover Lamb.  If the old covenant was good enough, some prophet simply could have come on the scene to remind people to be circumcised in the penile flesh, go to the temple in Jerusalem for the feasts, have the priests offer animal sacrifices for the people's sins and their own, etc. 

If people would READ the words of people like David, who lived in the time of the old covenant, but who had the Spirit of God, they would see that those few people who lived in that time who had God's Spirit had a new covenant mindset.  I don't think people are reading the scriptures for what they say!

Yes, the fact is that most people are CARNAL.  They are fleshly-minded.  Many do not care to follow any law, certainly not to have it written on their hearts.  But, there are others who like others to THINK they are righteous (think of the carnal Pharisees whom Jesus criticized over and over), and so they cling to the old covenant things like penile circumcision, wearing fringes in the garments, etc. so that they appear righteous to others and so they can say to those who don't do those things, "Look at us.  We are pleasing to God."  Really?  What goes on in their hearts, we must wonder.  What kind of daily fruit do they bear?  In my experience, those who believe old covenant regulations are binding (like penile circumcision) are so much like the Pharisees that Jesus called hypocrites.

Those who believe the law was not ADDED because of transgression need to get studying the scriptures.  They need to get a solid understanding of the first two chapters of Genesis, because they obviously do not already understand it.  Christ is even recorded of giving examples of where the law of Moses fell short.  He said certain things, like a man divorcing a wife if he was not pleased with her, was allowed for the HARDNESS OF THEIR HEARTS (yes, that's right, they may have had circumcised penises, but they had uncircumcised hearts), but FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO.  YES!!!!!!!!!!  Even the Lord said with his own mouth that the law of Moses was ADDED.  Obviously is was, if something was not so from the beginning, but it was then allowed in the old covenant law of Moses to be more lax.  Obviously penile circumcision was not from the beginning. Of course not.  That would mean God would have made a mistake with the penis, since he could have just made the penis without the foreskin that extends beyond the head of the penis.  It was ADDED.  It was given to Abraham as a sign of the covenant.  Then later some of his descendants (namely the children of Israel) became slaves to Egypt, and so God worked out a way for them to be freed from bondage, and then he had Moses give them the law and the Levitical priesthood, etc. That was the beginning of the old covenant.  BEFORE the Levitical priesthood, there was a different priesthood.  People offered to the high priest Melchisadek, which was really the Lord.  NOW it is as before.  The old covenant with its law, priesthood, sacrifices, etc.  were TEMPORARY.  They were to last UNTIL it was replaced with something better.

I hope that if you have not before grasped what "the law was added because of transgression" means, that you now understand it.  God did NOT bombard Adam and Eve with a bunch of regulations.  He kept it simple.  They ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, sin entered this world, and much later the law of Moses was ADDED because of all the transgression.  Yes, there was law that was being broken BEFORE the law being added in a written form (along with additional rituals and sacrifices), just as if a child does something he shouldn't, but just because the transgression occurred doesn't mean the law had been given.  If there is transgression, law then becomes needful so that if continually transgressed, punishment can be given. 

BUT, if people have God's Spirit to circumcise their hearts and so have the law written on their hearts, there is LIFE.  There is no need for the old covenant set-up, because the promise was given--Christ.  And the PROMISE OF THE MESSIAH WAS GIVEN TO ABRAHAM HUNDREDS OF YEARS BEFORE THE OLD COVENANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  As the law states, and Paul repeated, one is CURSED to not do all the things in the law of Moses, if one chooses to enter that covenant.  Many of those things are IMPOSSIBLE to do, seeing as we have no temple in Jerusalem, etc.  Now, does this all make those things wrong?  Is penile circumcision wrong?  No, but it is wrong to say it must be done for salvation.  That was the old covenant that said, "Cursed is the man who does not do all the things of the law."  Of course, no one could ever do it perfectly, and the death of animals and penile circumcision (especially when done to a child who did not make a conscious choice of having it done) does not save a person.  Only the Spirit of God and obeying Him in Spirit will save a person, under the new covenant that was instituted with Christ's blood being shed.

The law of Moses was indeed ADDED because of transgressions.  People like Abel, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham all served God in obedience in faith (looking forward to the promise) BEFORE the law of Moses was added.  So it is now no different under the new covenant.  Many obey God--putting Him first, not bowing down to images, not holding up His name in useless worship, keeping the seventh day holy, honoring their parents, not killing anyone, not committing sexual sin, not stealing, not lying, and not coveting what is not rightfully theirs--all in its spiritual intent.  That means they are not even thinking of these evils.  They don't need some judgment clause in a written law to keep them from committing acts. No, they do NOT WANT to even think about doing those things.  They hate evil in their hearts.  They do not feel the need to have outer symbols in the flesh that only serve to receive praise from men.  Only God fully knows our hearts, and regardless of how good we act on the outside, if we're not clean on the inside, the outside stuff doesn't matter.

Even the other nations who do not have the knowledge of the fourth commandment passed down, if following the law as written on their hearts (knowing there must be a Creator and so being thankful to Him, taking care of the earth, honoring their parents, not killing, not fornicating, not stealing nor destroying property, not lying, nor wanting something not rightfully theirs).  When they are raised up to life during the "Great White Throne Judgment," they will have their eyes opened to the truth of who God is and what his Sabbath was, etc.  These people who did what was right in their hearts, because they wanted to do what was right, will put to shame those who had penile circumcision yet did not have the right heart.

Just as those BEFORE the law was added obeyed, we obey.

My closest co-worker in Christ, Keith Hunt, has written more about this, found within his expounding of Galatians.  The part which deals with the law being added because of transgression is found here: http://www.keithhunt.com/Ntacts21.html.  If you want to study further, I recommend the link.

Real Love vs. Lip Service

I like writing things under the topic of spiritual vs. earthly, and this is yet another entry dealing with this topic.

For awhile now, I've really been pushing hard for my two older children, young sons of 7.5 years and 3.5 years, to learn the difference between lip service and true love and faithful obedience. This is something on which all of us in God's Church should also meditate carefully.

I've always been a really loving person, very family-oriented. I value family time more than increasing in wealth. I would always want to talk and play games with my family when growing up, though I never got nearly enough. Ironically,I ended up choosing to spend more time by myself in my bedroom or outside in the woods, either reading or enjoying nature and meditating, rather than watch fruitless television shows. That was their idea of spending time together, day after day, hour after hour, and it never made sense to me, because although I don't mind watching interesting movies with my family now, it's because we watch things that we can talk about, and we do discuss them. We also spend only a small portion of our time doing such things. Watching hours of tv each evening together is not the same as interacting with each other.

My mother always told me that I told her, "I love you" too much and that the meaning lost its luster, because I wore it out. I certainly was not thinking in those terms. I really did just love her and wanted the same kind of love back.

Later, I married my husband, and the strangest thing happened. He told me one time that I say, "I love you" too often. He said something like, "You just told me a few minutes ago." This was TWICE I'd been told this by two different people. I was hurt. I have always been sincere in my love, and I didn't think anything of my frequent vocalizations of it.

Fast forward a few years later. My younger son, 3.5 years of age now, is a Jekyll and Hyde. He can be very sweet and loving, or he can be very raging and hateful. I'm working very hard to teach him to tame his spirit, to "have control" over it.

Well, he says, "I love you" a lot. Sadly, he also has many times screamed "I hate you," and that is something none of the rest of us ever say (and hopefully not think). In his case, he does a lot of lip servicing. He'll say that he loves, but he won't obey. Now, I did a lot of rebellious moves in my teen years, so my vocalized love toward my mother would have been in part lip service, but it didn't have to be that way. Neither of my parents made any moves to be close to me in my teen years. Neither of them had any interest in being my friend. I thought my mother was my enemy; she certainly acted like it. They had no problem sending me to a public school where I was surrounded by other rebellious teens who hated their parents, and some even told me that my mother was a bitch.

Looking back on it all now with a lot more knowledge and wisdom, my parents, whether knowingly or unknowingly, actively supported my dying love and disrespect for them in my adolescent years by approving of the system and setting me in it and never making time to have a deep meaningful relationship with me, because watching fruitless sitcoms was more important. They never even talked to me about the books I read, the music to which I listened, the friends I had at school, or what I was learning at school.

My son Trusten's constant vocalizing his love for me, when it stands with obedience, isn't botheresome to me. The number of times he says it does not aggravate me when he's being well-behaved. However, when he's in a streak of evil, and he tells me that over and over, I feel angry.

I meditated some on my own habit of frequently speaking words of love. I needed to be sure that there was no lip service going on. When I realized that I was clear of any guilt, I used the difference as a teaching tool for my children. When I ask them how they know that I love them, I say:

"Is it because I tell you many times in the day that I love you?"

At first, the answers were affirmative. So I asked something like:

"What if I said that I love you all throughout the day every day, but I called you awful names and beat you and hurt you, and I didn't feed you or I just let you as a child eat whatever you wanted even if it was junk, and I didn't care about you taking a bath and brushing your teeth, and I didn't care about you learning anything, and I let you play with knives, and I let you go wander off in the woods by yourself....

"Would you believe that I loved you, even though I said it?"

The answer, of course, was a NO!

So I asked how did they know I really love them. "Hugs, kisses, reading, toys, clothes, food, etc."

I explained that I also knew that I was loved back by hugs and kisses and trust and obedience. Whereas a parent shows love in providing basic needs, protection, and law, a child shows back that love by trusting and obeying. I remind my children of this over and over. It's a long process in making sure that when they reach adulthood, they will be fine neighbors, fine citizens in society.

Through all my meditation, I realized that vocalizing the words, "I love you" is another one of those things that fall under "physical reminders," this particular thing being a reminder to others, though if you show the love, it's not nearly as important to say it. A person can say it, just use lip service, but show that they do not by their deeds. Another person can show their love and never even say it, but others will know they're loved by that person. For more on outward show vs. the real deal and how it relates to the old carnal covenant vs. the new spiritual covenant, read my study Old Covenant Carnal Showings.

I don't see myself ever ceasing to remind others that I love them, because I know how the human heart and mind is, and I know others like to be TOLD--reminded in this way--that they are LOVED. The more important thing, though, is that I never stop showing it with my actions. Saying it has benefit ONLY when backed by truly showing it, much like Paul said that circumcision of the flesh only has benefit when the heart is truly circumcised.

Our Lord Salvation does not even have recorded words of, "I love you" to any of us, but it is recorded that he said, "No greater love hath a man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." He did that for us. He showed his love to us. He never said, "I love all of you who will follow me in the years to come." We KNOW, however, that he does love us by what he did.

God provides us with all our needs, and He provided our brother, His Firstborn, our Lord Salvation to give us grace through the shedding of his blood. Those of us who truly love God back do so by trusting and obeying Him. Those who do things the way they see right in their own eyes, including worshipping God the Father the way they see fit, may love God to a point, but they do not love Him more than they love doing what they want. That is what I always tell my boys when they do something they were told not to do. Sometimes the excuse is even made that it was done because they love me, because it was a good act. But, if it SEEMS like a good act done for the parent, but it clearly transgressed a command, then it's not a good act.

This is how many who claim to love God do when they keep their seemingly good traditions, like Christmas, Jan. 1, and Easter, etc. It transgresses the law of God, and most of them KNOW it, but they love those things MORE than they love God, so all they can do is just use the excuse, "But, we did it because we love you," just as I've heard from my own children, (in this case,more from my firstborn), even when he or they knew it would break a rule that we have. A quick example would be my son helping me in the kitchen by using a knife to cut up a fruit or vegetable. We have a rule of NO knives without permission and supervision, and yet he has taken it upon himself before to take the knife and start cutting, but then he said, "But, I was being good; I was helping you." If it's against a command, it doesn't matter how good it seems to be. It's WRONG. That is what the Lord Salvation will tell the children of disobedience. The Firstborn knows what makes the Father happy, and we should follow in our Lord's footsteps.

Is it said of you by the Lord, "He/she honors me with his/her lips, but his/her heart is far from me?" (Matt. 15:3, 7-9).

I do honor God with my lips, but my actions back up what I say, and I openly invite him, as David did, to SEARCH my heart.

What about you, dear reader?

Old Covenant Carnal Showings

An Introduction:

What inspired me to write this study article is that the previous co-owner of my Christian mothering forums believes that one must wear the blue fringe at the four corners of his or her clothing, spoken of twice in the law of Moses (Num. 15:37-40; Deut. 22:12).  This caused her to break away from co-owning and co-managing the forums.  She is indeed being a blessing to others in other ways, and she is still dear to me.  However, I strongly disagree with her on this issue.  I did wear tassels for around a year's time, but I was so turned off by my friend's pushing them onto others as if they were a requirement under the new covenant turned me off of wearing them at all, anymore, since I do not want to be associated with being of that mindset.  Using such things as a teacher to those not yet begotten with God's Spirit is probably the best way to use them. I mainly wore them in order to provoke conversation in others (who asked about them), and it's easier for Christians to identify each other in that way…but the more I thought about this, I realized my own error, because it's better for someone to SEE how I actually conduct myself and THEN ask me questions rather than ask what those things are dangling on my clothes. What if I happened to not even be acting appropriately? My heart should come out in my actions, and people should see that I'm different b/c of THAT, not b/c I wear some badge that symbolizes that (which I can wear whether I'm acting the right way or NOT).

As far as the second reason I wore them: I may get some Christians' attention, but it's more likely that I'll only attract those who are hung up on outward show, regardless of whether their hearts are right or not, AND as far as my identifying others, most who are deeply righteous and live by the Spirit of God do not wear tassels. I have to find them by identifying their actions that result from their hearts being right. 

So while I know that some wear the tassels but are not hung up on physical show (whether true or false), I was referring to the majority in the world who wear them, which from my experience have been hung up on outward show to make other flesh-and-blood people think they are righteous (regardless of whether they are or they are not). People who are too focused on this have the fear/respect of man and not of God. We should tremble at what God can do if we have the wrong hearts and minds. We are fooling ourselves if we think we can hide our thoughts from Him.

I believe the outward show Spirit-begotten children should have first and foremost is what naturally results from having a good heart and mind, NOT the things that symbolize it and is often nothing more than dressing up a wolf in sheep's clothing.  

An in-depth study of the Levitical priesthood, sacrifices, washings/baptisms, and other carnal/physical ordinances is highly recommended. The more you read these things in the Torah and compare them to the NC, the more you will begin to understand how the physical ordinances were a SCHOOL TEACHER to bring people to the REAL high priest, the one and only perfect SACRIFICE, the true CLEANSER and HELPER, and true OBEDIENCE.  None of those things could take away sin, and none of those things could save or make a person truly clean.  They were for carnal-natured people.  Salvation can only come from a clean heart.  Even obeying the Ten Commandments just physically will not ensure a person's salvation.  A person must serve them with his or her HEART. That is how we are all judged.  A person can obey the Law by the letter perfectly and still be thrown into the lake of fire.  Transgression of many physical commandments and statutes calls for the physical death penalty, but the judgments of the Law are there for to deter carnal-minded people from transgressing it.  Spiritual-minded people do not need that deterrent, because they love the Law and want to obey it with the desire of their hearts.  However, EVERYONE who transgresses the spirit of the Law will die spiritually.  Their bodies AND their spirits will be destroyed in the lake of fire, from which there is never another resurrection. 

The bottom line is that God judges our HEARTS.  He designed our spirits and bodies in a way where he can record/track our thoughts, feelings, etc.  This is technology far advanced than what man currently has.  It's our hearts and minds that matter.  If our hearts are right, then we're going to be keeping the spirit of the Law, and it naturally follows that we'll be keeping the letter of the Law, and when our hearts are right, we have deep remorse whenever we mess up.  God has always wanted this.  He has never gotten delight from sacrifices but rather obedience to the Ten Commandments.  It's a person's choice as to whether they want to do various cleansings/baptisms, have their foreskin circumcised, wear tzit-tzit, and offer animal sacrifices and offerings, etc. whenever there is a temple of God standing.  None of these things count toward salvation or good works.  Under the new covenant, all these things are replaced ("made of necessity a change in the law," meaning the law of the priesthood, sacrifices, cleansings, etc.).  Christ is our sacrifice and our high priest.  The Spirit of God--the same kind of Spirit that is within our Father and within our Lord--is our cleanser and our helper.  

********************************************************************************

I'll start with reproducing chapters 7 through 9 of Hebrews with bold and underline emphasis mine:

Chapter 7

1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; 3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. 5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: 6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. 7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. 8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. 9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, 16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal [fleshly/physical] commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. 19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. 20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)

22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. 28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

Chapter 8

Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. 3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. 4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: 5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. 6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

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

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

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

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

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.

Chapter 9

1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. 2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary. 3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; 4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; 5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.

6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. 7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: 8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: 9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10 Which stood only in meats and drinks [concerned only with food and drinks], and divers washings [various baptisms], and carnal [fleshly/physical] ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 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. 16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. 18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, 20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. 21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Chapter 10

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

**********************************************************

My friend with whom I disagreed said that she was "shocked" and "[could] not believe" that I did not follow "all of Torah."  (Torah is the law of Moses, given by God.)  My answer is as follows:

I guess that would depend on what you mean "all of Torah." Nothing has been "done away," but things have been changed. Christ's sacrifice replaces animal sacrifices (Heb. 10:1-14). That isn't to say that they can't still be done, but they are not required. Physical circumcision is not required (Acts15:1; Rom. 2:25-29; 4:9-12; 1 Cor. 7:18-19; Gal. 2:3, 7-9, 12; 5:2-12; 6:12-15; Phil. 3:2-5; Col. 2:11). Various washings, shavings, and other physical ordinances aren't required (Heb. 9:9-10). It's not that these things are "done away." It is just returned to the way it was before the Levitical priesthood and before the old covenant of circumcision made with Abraham. We're back to the order of Melchizedek with Christ as our High Priest. These things have always existed spiritually in those who have had God's Spirit, even before the Lev. priesthood and sacrificial system. They were only given in physical ordinances to help teach the carnal-minded (all those without God's Spirit, which used to be a choice few compared to today) TEMPORARILY, "until the time of reformation" (Heb. 9:10). 

So, no, I'm not going to push any of these things upon anyone and tell them they must do so, b/c it's contrary to scripture. We ARE required to keep the Ten Commandments and their statutes (including statutes that are added over time by our spiritual knowledge, in other words by judging the evidence of changes, for example dietary choices that have come along since Moses, and the statute on incest was not from the beginning, but with changing time, it became necessary to add that statute, b/c genetics had become so bad that you couldn't healthily marry that close). These are the principles that were from the beginning. Law is truth, and truth is law. Science/knowledge teaches us that. If something is true for humans, then it's law under the Ten Commandments.

There's nothing that physical circ., animal sacrifices, wearing tassels, and physical washings can do to save a person. These are all symbolic of what a person must have to be saved (the only sacrifice that saves is Christ's, and the only thing that truly reminds a person to keep the commandments and cleanses a person is the Spirit of God). 

We should be careful not to be one who glories in a person's flesh and their outward physical showings, when none of that is going to do anything to save them. Therefore if the uncircumcision [those uncircumcised, which are mostly gentiles] keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: be he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. ~Rom. 2:26-29

The physical ordinances under the priesthood and sacrificial system and circumcision are not part of the Ten Commandments. This is clear in many places in scripture, the above passage included. It's differentiated clearly, because if a person must be physically circumcised in order to be considered one who keeps God's commandments, then it wouldn't be worded the way it is. It says that one who is uncircumcised is considered circumcised, IF HE KEEPS THE LAW. But, you are saying that person isn't keeping the law. That's not what scripture says. 

They had these SAME arguments in the early days of the Church. Read all through the new testament, and you can see it. The circumcision issue was heavily debated. You can read all about it in Acts 15 and the whole book of Galatians, as well as in Romans and a spattering here and there. There were those even then who tried to burden people into thinking they must still do those physical ordinances in order to be converted or saved, and it's just not true.

I'm not a different person on the days I wear my tassels than on the days I don't! It doesn't affect how I follow the Law. It's what's in my heart. A snip of foreskin cut from a penis isn't going to change how a man keeps the Law or not or whether he even keeps it at all (there are plenty of people in this nation who are circed but do not keep the Law, so WHAT benefit does his circumcision do him--Rom. 2:25. None, he's counted as uncircumcised in God's eyes). A person must be circumcised in the heart. A person doing ritual baptisms/washings or head shavings or whatever is not going to change how well a person is keeping the Law. These things can be physical reminders, but it doesn't do anything to deeply convert a person. Only the Spirit can do that. As scripture says, the Old Covenant had its faults. If it was so good and could save a person, then the NC would not have been sought for. None of these things could ever save anyone. 

So, if you are including these things in your definition of what people here must agree to, then no, I do not and will not agree. These things are left to CHOICE. 

I hope we can come to an agreement, but there's no way I'm going to turn away from my scriptural knowledge on this and impose such things on people as requirements.

************************************

Now some analogies I wrote up:

Let's say you took the Mensa test and passed and so became a member of Mensa.   Let's say you decide to wear a Mensa pin.   Does this pin alone prove that you are a member of Mensa?  Of course not.  Anyone could get ahold of a Mensa pin and wear it and claim to be a member.  You are truly a Mensa member if you pass the test, if you have the mind for Mensa.  On the other hand, a true Mensa member who doesn't choose to wear a Mensa pin is still a true member of Mensa.   The pin doesn't matter either way.  It's just an outward showing, and both true members and false members can wear the pin and claim to be members.  What really matters, regardless of the pin-wearing, is that a person truly passed the test and really is a member.

You could get a fake driver's license and carry it around.  Would that prove that you passed a driver's test and are fit to drive on our roadways?  What if you did pass your driver's test and are fit to drive, but you left your license at home?  Are you somehow rendered unfit to drive?  No, you are not, and a law enforcement officer can easily look up your information.  Now, granted, you may be ticketed for not having your license, but why is that?  Because a driver's license is helpful for the law enforcement officer.  He's human and doesn't know that you passed your test and are fit to drive.  The license itself is just a showing of your capabilities and makes it easier and more convenient for other human people.

Does the wearing of a ring on the left ring finger alone prove that one is married (or whatever outward symbolism one may show)?  No, anyone can do this.  What if a married individual doesn't wear a ring?  Does that mean the person isn't married, and does it mean he or she doesn't love his or her spouse and is not loyal?  (My husband usually doesn't wear his ring; he did on a chain for awhile, before the chain was tarnished in our water.  It causes problems on his finger during work and actually has caused problem on a chain, too.  In other words, it's a burden [and actually potentially dangerous], but it doesn't change the fact that he is married to me and loves me.)  The only inconvenience, really, is that the outward show is not there, so other people might not realize you're married (which doesn't really make a difference these days, as people don't seem to care whether one is married or not, sadly.)

Does God need us to have some outward showing that we keep His commandments:  the tip of the penile skin snipped or some tassels hanging from our clothing, etc.  Does water truly cleanse one from his or her sins?  (Baptism by water is the only command under the NC that is a physical ordinance, and it's right prior to the second baptism--that of the Spirit.  Once the person has the Spirit of God within him or her, what is a physical washing, except if someone is filthy and needs a bath?  As Christ said, if you are clean, you are in no need of a bath.)  Do animal sacrifices do anything to cover our sins?  Does a human priest have any power over forgiveness when mediating between God and us when we sin?  

None of it matters if a person does not have God's Spirit and does not keep the commandments in the spirit.  These physical things can show to other flesh-and-blood human beings that we desire to keep the commandments, but there are those with these physical things that don't keep the commandments in spirit, and so what do those physical things matter?  They're worthless.  They count for nothing.  Likewise, if one is truly keeping the commandments in spirit, then God knows it, and some physical outward showings aren't needed, anyway.  It matters not one way or the other whether a true child of God who is keeping the law in the spirit does any of these physical ordinances that symbolize a reminder to keep the commandments, that a person keeps the commandments, or that one is clean from his or her sins.  God knows the person is, and that is what matters.  

I wear the tassels, but they are absolutely worthless for that which they were intended.  The purpose for these under the OC were to remind a person to keep the commandments.  Well, I usually only look down and see them when it's time to sit on the toilet, at which time they become rather burdensome.  The rest of the time they do not bother me being there, but the only time I really see them is a time when they become burdensome, because I have to make sure they don't go into the toilet.  And quite honestly, how many people are usually thinking thoughts of transgression against God, their neighbors, or themselves while they're sitting on the commode?  So, what good is it that the person sees the tassels right then?  Ten minutes later, he or she has long forgotten about the tassels, and some temptation or something has come before him or her.   As one of the fellow brethren said, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second" (Heb. 8:7).

It didn't work!!!!!!   People are carnal.  We must have God's Spirit WITHIN us to remind and help us to keep the commandments.  We must circumcise our hearts.  We must be cleansed of our sin by the Spirit. We must have our past sins covered by the blood of Christ.  We must have Christ's continued intercession. All the carnal ordinances which foreshadowed these things were [and still are] worthless!!!  They did nothing to save or cleanse a person.  They did a very poor job of reminding people to do what is right.  Their HEARTS needed to be changed.  All these things were only meant to be imposed "until the time of reformation."  They were meant to be a "schoolteacher."  

For anyone who thinks a person must do these in order to be right with God, he or she totally doesn't get it, does not see the big picture, does not understand, and needs to do some serious prayer and study.  

These things are clearly differentiated from the Ten Commandments and their statutes.   There is more than enough scripture that bears this out.  And none of this stuff matters, but what DOES matter is the keeping of the commandments of God (I Cor. 7:19).  

And as I've said before in another place, a person can keep the Ten Commandments in their letter and also be on his or her way to the hell fire.  It's the HEART God judges.  Anyone can keep the letter of the law without even having God's Spirit.  Most people seem to have little to no trouble not murdering someone, committing adultery, lying, keeping the sabbath, and so on, in the letter, if they either choose to do so b/c they are more or less moral people or if the judgment (penalty for transgression) is enough of a deterrent.  But, it's not the physical death penalty anyone ought to be truly concerned about, and it's not the letter of the law anyone should be concerned about.  It's the spirit of the law.  THAT is what we're all being judged on, dear friends.  Are we keeping the commandments with all our heart and mind?  Men might not know.  Men can be fooled.  That's especially true if a person is doing a good job of keeping the letter of the law and perhaps truer still if they are showing off with physical ordinances.   But, God is not fooled.  

To be brutally honest, my Father doesn't give a flip whether anyone is wearing tassels or has their foreskin snipped or any of those other things.  What He cares about is whether His children are keeping His commandments and whether they are keeping them in the spirit, with all their heart and mind and life.  All those ordinances are supposed to remind us to keep the commandments and to be a physical badge to others that we are.  They are NOT part of the commandments themselves.               

************************************

When I was in high school, I had honors and was in the Beta Club, was voted Most Studious, Best Dressed, and Most Likely to Succeed.  I was in several clubs and held an office of parliamentarian in one of the clubs.  I was voted Who's Who Among American High School Students.  I had all these credentials and honors, and I was given this jacket.  I was given patches and pins that I could put on the jacket to show everything.  I never did get the patches put on, and I didn't put most of the pens on, either.  It probably didn't matter, either, because most already knew I was distinguished.  I could have done this, but not doing it certainly did not mean that I somehow wasn't what it all represented.  Really, though, it's all there for show, so you can show it off to those who don't know.  It's a choice, not what makes a member…just an outward boasting.

Also think of a person's looks and personality.  Some are deceiving.  Many lovely-looking people are lovely in spirit (mind).  BUT there are ugly-appearing people who are actually beautiful (inside) and beautiful-appearing people who are actually ugly (inside).  It's really what is inside that counts.  The outside is just a bonus.

There are plenty of people out there who hold college degrees but do not do well in their field of supposed expertise.  Some even cheated to get the degrees!  On the other side of the coin, there are no shortage of people who know their field of study very well but hold no man-made degrees to "prove" it.  Well, a piece of paper isn't really proof, anyway.  Whether the person really can do well what it says is what matters.  Some who have the paper can, and that takes them further in the world of man, but those who know their stuff and who do not have the paper are not inferior as far as God is concerned.  And if a man is wise, he'd judge a person on what he or she really can or does do.  They're usually better than those who have the supposed outward proof (which is not the outward proof of actually doing it but just the paper or whatever).  They have usually spent more time really focusing on what is important rather than what man requires is important.  It's indeed harder for these people to be noticed, but if they're really that good at their field of study, they'll eventually be noticed by the wise.

******************************************************************************

Another Analogy and Further Reiteration:

Say my husband tells me to pick up some razor blades for his razor.   I forget and so disobey his command.  He gets upset and frustrated, and so he tells me the next time I go out to get him some razor blades and to write it down as a reminder.  He added this command so that I'd remember the other command.  The writing a note isn't going to matter one way or the other in the great scheme of things with my husband.  If I bring home the razor blades the next time, he's not going to then ask to see the note I wrote to make sure I wrote the reminder.  At that point, he doesn't care anything about a reminder note.  The thing that did matter was that I got him some razor blades.   If I say, "I didn't write a reminder note," he's not going to blow up and say, "Why didn't you follow my instructions?!"  He'd say, "Well, I'm just glad you got my razor blades.  That's all I care about."  If I had written a note and told him that I'd written the note like he told me, he would say, "Oh, well that's good.  I'm glad you remembered to get my razor blades."  If I had written a note and had forgotten the blades, anyway, he would be upset, even more upset that I was foolish enough to have the reminder and still not get the blades!

Sometimes I've written reminder notes to myself for various things but have forgotten to look at the note!  Two weeks ago, our cats had a vet appt., and I'd written it in my planner, but I didn't look at my planner that morning.  So, the physical reminder didn't even do any good!   

Now, wouldn't it be something if we had a technological advancement, maybe a microchip or something, that we could have put inside of us that would tell us things so that we don't forget?  This would totally do away with the need for physical written notes and such that have such fault.  Wouldn't it be great if when my husband told me to get him some razor blades (or whatever), and I was in the store about to leave that I heard a voice (b/c of the highly advanced chip or whatever inside of my mind) that said, "Don't forget the razor blades?"  That would totally do away with the need of a written note, which much of the time I forget to look at, anyway.  What good is a note if I can't even remember that I have a note (or left it home or in the vehicle, etc.)?   It's not the note that's important, anyway.  It's getting the razor blades!  

I'm so thankful that I DO have a highly advanced mind within me to remember my God's commandments.  If I had to rely on the tassels to remember to do His commandments, I'd be in quite a pickle.  And I know my Righteous Father doesn't care whether I'm wearing tassels or not as long as I'm keeping His Law--His Ten Commandments.  The tassels are worthless if I'm not doing what's important in the first place.  It's like Paul said of circumcision.  It's worthless and means nothing if a person isn't keeping the Law, but if someone who is not circumcised is keeping the Law, then that person puts to shame the person who is physically circumcised.  It's the uncircumcised person who is keeping the Law who is justified in God's sight, not the circumcised person who is not keeping the Law (Rom.2:25-29).  The Law here, is of course, the Ten Commandments and their statutes...the Law that matters.  

David also had God's Spirit and knew what really mattered to God.  David said, "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears has thou opened:  burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required" (Psa. 40:6).  Well, did not God require these things?  HE DIDN'T REQUIRE IT AS PART OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS!  The sacrifices and offerings were because people broke the Ten Commandments and their statutes.  In another place, when David was writing a psalm of repentance after his sins of adultery and murder, he said, "For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it:  thou delightest not in burnt offering" (Psa. 51:16).  Now, do you think David would have felt condemned if some other fellow came along and said, "Oh, David, I CAN'T BELIEVE you are a Torah-breaker.  I'm SHOCKED.  We are to go by every word of the Torah, and you are supposed to offer sacrifices for your terrible sins."

WELL, what did God think of David, who claimed that God didn't require those things?  God said that David was a man after God's own heart.  God loved David so much, despite the terrible mistakes he made (but repented of greatly), that He chose David to be right underneath Christ in the Kingdom of God on this earth.  David will be ruling over the 12 tribes of Israel.  David had and was led by God's Spirit.  He knew what really mattered.  He looked forward to Christ's sacrifice.  That was what he put his faith in.  He lived in the time of the Old Covenant, yet He had a NC mindset.  He had God's Spirit.  He knew very well what God wanted.  Those animal sacrifices were for carnal people.  All those reminders and those washings were for carnal people.  Those with the Spirit of God dwelling in them knew and know what really matters, the keeping of the commandments of God.  If we're doing that and have the right heart toward His Law, then God isn't even going to bother to look and see whether we're wearing tassels, snip our foreskin (if we're male), offer animal sacrifices and other offerings, do ritual washings, etc.

If we're already keeping His commandments, then why would He care about those other things? He doesn't.  Those things were in mind for carnal people with whom He found fault (b/c of their Law-breaking), and those things still didn't do anything to change them.  Only God's Spirit can do that.  After each of those Psalm scriptures I quoted above, David added, "I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart" (Psa. 40:8) and "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit:  a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise" (Psa. 51:17).  

David and Paul understood the difference between God's Law as defined by the Ten Commandments and their statutes and then the carnal stuff added for carnal people and knew that those things didn't even help those carnal people.  David lived under the OC and Paul under the NC.  They both were NC-minded and knew what mattered.

I will not feel condemned by anyone who tells me that I break God's Law b/c I don't follow or teach these things designed for carnal individuals as a school teacher, especially when most such people do not follow the Ten Commandments in the spirit and only look at what Moses wrote 3,000 years ago without bothering to continue to grow in grace and knowledge (as Paul pointed out as an example that those who boasted in their law-keeping of circumcision broke the idolatry, adultery, and stealing commandments in one way or the other).  I'm not here to please men and their faulty ideas.  I seek to please my Father in heaven, and He knows me and my heart, just as He knew David and his.  I know what my Father sees as important, and it's sure not whether I'm wearing tassels on a given day or doing any of those other carnal faulty reminders and other such things.

I am NOT saying everyone who wears tassels lacks the right heart and only caring about outward show. I certainly am not saying that. What bothers me even more is that I'm concerned about that same person, because she and I had a conversation not too long before this incident, which revealed to me that she indeed thought the physical was more important than the spiritual.

I was talking about how spiritual sin is what matters. (For example, a person can continually hate or desire to murder someone but never physically does it, and there can be another person who physically murders someone in a fit of rage but previously had not had any feelings of hate toward that person and felt bad afterward. Perhaps in the world of man, the latter would get the death penalty, but before God's judgment seat the former person who never physically laid a hand on the person he hated will be condemned, while the one who physically murdered but in spirit felt bad about it will not be condemned.) Well, I got a response along the lines of, "Yes, I know spiritual sin is bad, too." I knew then that she and I were not on the same page. Bad, too??? That is WHAT matters! Period. The way she worded it revealed that she believed the physical is more important.

As I said in another place, a person who has a righteous heart is NATURALLY going to have less physical sin than a person who has an unrighteous heart. But, EVERYONE--good hearts and bad hearts--commits PHYSICAL SIN. Again, some may commit MORE in number, but it doesn't matter of the number…only one sin earns the death penalty. The DIFFERENCE between a person who has grace and the person who does not is the HEART. Spiritual sin is what matters. Now a person can dress all in white and talk about God all the time (there is someone who resides in Rome who does just this) and can deceive billions of people into thinking he's righteous with all the outward show. But, the person will never fool God. God knows our hearts, no matter what we do to show to other flesh-and-blood people to make them believe we are righteous. 

It's going to be IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to get me to believe that in order for me to prove to God that I have an obedient heart, that I have to have all these outward show of things. Baptism of repentance is the only thing required, which happens (excepting special circumstances) BEFORE the begettal of God's Spirit. It's repent (of breaking the Ten Commandments) and be baptized, and THEN one gets the Spirit of God. And the Spirit of God, which circumcises my heart and reminds me always to obey, and SHOULD naturally come out in my physical actions so that people can see what kind of person I am, is SOOOOO much better than a foreskin clipping (which wouldn't apply to me, anyway), tassels, and whatever else.

I certainly do not need some box of written scriptures hanging from my forehead or around my wrist. God never seriously thought that would change anyone. A change has to be from the heart and mind. Those scriptures aren't supposed to hang in a physical box on our forehead and strapped on our hands. The Law is supposed to be written in our MIND (behind our forehead), and supposed to be evident in our actions (with our hands):  the mark of God, his Spirit in our mind.  None of these things are the Ten Commandments themselves, and all the physical stuff that symbolized keeping them does nobody without God's Spirit any good (and on the flip side those with God's Spirit don't need them).