Why The Old Covenant Failed


Copyright c by Joe Crews.
  All rights reserved.


Some time ago I stepped off the platform at the close of an 
evangelistic message and hurried toward the front door to greet 
the people.  Suddenly my path was blocked by three young men, 
one of whom addressed me in quite a loud voice.  He said, 
"Brother Joe, we were disappointed with the way you put us back 
under the Old Covenant tonight by preaching the seventh-day 
Sabbath.  Don't you realize that we are living under the New 
Covenant now and should be keeping Sunday instead of the 
Sabbath?"
That young man was voicing the conviction of many thousands of 
Christians today who sincerely believe that the Ten Commandments 
constituted the Old Covenant, which disappeared at the cross 
and, therefore, has no present application to grace-saved 
Christians.  Is it a true premise?  If so, we certainly need to 
be clearly apprised of the doctrine in order to avoid the 
pitfall of deadly legalism.  On the other hand, if the Ten 
Commandments are still binding, it would be the most tragic 
mistake to discount even one of those great moral precepts.
No one can deny that there are Old Testament statements which 
refer to the Ten Commandments as a covenant; however, it will be 
our purpose here to show that the Ten-Commandment law was not 
the Old Covenant which was abolished.
But before we delve into this fascinating subject, we need to 
define what a covenant really is.  There are many types and 
forms, but basically a covenant is an agreement between two 
parties based upon mutual promises.  All through the centuries 
God has dealt with His people on the basis of covenants. He is a 
reasonable God, and he invites, "Come now, and let us reason 
together."  Isaiah 1:18.
Sometimes God established pacts with individuals like Moses, 
Abraham, and David, and sometimes with the nation of Israel.  
The most important covenant of all was set up long before this 
world came into existence.  It was a covenant between the Father 
and the Son and had to do with the eventuality of sin. Jesus 
offered Himself there in the vast eternity of the past as the 
"Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."  Revelation 13:8.  
He agreed to become the atoning sacrifice to redeem man, should 
Adam and Eve choose to sin.
The terms of that eternal covenant have never been changed or 
superseded.  Although many other covenants have been established 
through the years, the simple provision of salvation through 
faith has remained in effect through all ages, for all mankind.
The covenant which has caused the most misunderstanding, though, 
is designated as "the Old Covenant" by the writer of Hebrews. He 
also describes the institution of a new covenant which has some 
very important advantages over the old.  Here is how he 
describes the two:  "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.  For if 
that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place 
have been sought for the second.  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:  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.  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: ... For I will be merciful to 
their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will 
I remember no more.  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."  Hebrews 8:6-13.
This description leaves no room for doubt concerning the fate of 
the Old Covenant. It was set aside in favor of a new one which 
had better promises. Naturally, we are interested to know all 
about that new covenant which will place God's law in the heart 
and mind.  But we also need to understand the nature of the 
covenant which disappeared.  Millions have been taught that it 
was the Ten-Commandment law.   They boast of being delivered 
from the law and claim to walk in a glorious freedom from the 
Old Testament covenant of works.

The Old Covenant--
Not the Ten Commandments

Is this a biblical position?  It is just as important to 
understand what the Old Covenant was not, as to know what it 
was.  Right now, let us look at three absolute proofs that the 
covenant which disappeared was not the Ten Commandments.  Then 
we will determine by comparing scripture with scripture just 
what the Old Covenant was.
First of all, we notice that the Old Covenant had some poor 
promises in it.  The New Covenant, we are told, "was established 
upon better promises."  Verse 6.  Tell me, has anyone ever been 
able to point out any poor promises in the Ten Commandments?  
Never.  On the contrary, Paul declares that they were very good.   
"Children, obey your parents in the Lord:  for this is right.  
Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment 
with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest 
live long on the earth."  Ephesians 6:1-3.
This declaration alone is sufficient to show that the writer of 
Hebrews was not charging the moral law with any weak promises.  
The Old Covenant, whatever else it might be, could never be the 
Ten Commandments.
The second thing wrong with the Old Covenant was that it was 
faulty.  The Bible says, "For if that first covenant had been 
faultless, then should no place have been sought for the 
second."  Hebrews 8:7.  Let me ask you a question:  Has any man 
ever been able to find a fault or a flaw in the handwriting of 
God?  The psalmist declared, "The law of the Lord is perfect, 
converting the soul."  Psalm 19:7.  Paul wrote, "Wherefore the 
law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good."  
Romans 7:12.
Does that sound like something weak and imperfect?  No law could 
be perfect and faulty at the same time.  It becomes more and 
more apparent that the Old Covenant could not have been the Ten 
Commandments.
Finally, though, we read the most dramatic thing about the Old 
Covenant--it was to be abolished!  "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."  Hebrews 8:13.  Now we 
can ask a serious question that should settle every doubt on 
this matter.  Did the great moral law of Ten Commandments vanish 
away?  Anyone who has read the New Testament must answer, 
Absolutely not.  Paul affirms the exact opposite about the law.  
He asked, "Do we then make void the law through faith?  God 
forbid: yea, we establish the law."  Romans 3:31.
Does the Bible contradict itself? Can something vanish away and 
be established at the same time?  Did the same writer say 
opposite things about the same law?  Just to be certain that 
Paul was not saying that the Old Covenant was the law, let us 
insert the words "Old Covenant" instead of the word "law" into 
Romans 3:31.  "Do we than make void the Old Covenant through 
faith?  God forbid:  yea, we establish the Old Covenant."  
That doesn't sound right at all, does it?  We know that the Old 
Covenant had vanished away and could never be spoken of in this 
way.  Very clearly, then, we can see that the covenant which 
came to an end could not have been the Ten Commandments.


What Was the Old Covenant?

Having found what the Old Covenant was not, we are now ready to 
identify it specifically from the Word.  To do so we must go 
back in the Bible to the book of Exodus.  Many people have 
failed to see that there was more than one covenant involved at 
Mt. Sinai.  God called Moses up into the mountain before He gave 
the law and proposed a covenant between Him and His people:  
"And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of 
the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, 
and tell the children of Israel; ... if ye will obey my voice 
indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar 
treasure unto me above all people:  for all the earth is mine:  
And ye shall be unto me ... an holy nation.  These are the words 
which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."  Exodus 
19:3-6.
Notice how God asked Moses to present His offer to the people.  
Here are all the elements of a true covenant.  Conditions and 
promises are laid down for both sides.  If the children of 
Israel accept God's proposal, a covenant will be established.  
How did they respond to the divine offer?  "And Moses came and 
called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces 
all these words which the Lord commanded him. And all the people 
answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we 
will do.   And Moses returned the words of the people unto the 
Lord."  Exodus 19:7, 8.
Just as soon as that answer went back to God, the basis for the 
Old Covenant was set up.  But before it could go into formal 
operation there had to be a sealing or ratifying of the pact.  
This ritualistic service involved the sprinkling of the blood of 
an ox on the people and is described in Exodus 24:4-8:  "And 
Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the 
morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve 
pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.  And he sent 
young men of the children of Israel which ... sacrificed peace 
offerings of oxen  unto the Lord. And Moses took half of the 
blood, and put it in basins; and half of the blood he sprinkled 
on the altar.  And he took the book of the covenant, and read in 
the audience of the people:  and they said, All that the Lord 
hath said will we do, and be obedient.  And Moses took the 
blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the 
blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you 
concerning all these words."
Again we are reminded that this covenant was not the law itself 
but was made "concerning all these words."  The Ten Commandments 
were the basis for the agreement.  The people promised to keep 
that law, and God promised to bless them in return.  The crucial 
weakness in the whole arrangement revolved around the way Israel 
promised.  There was no suggestion that they could not fully 
conform to every requirement of God.  Neither was there any 
application for divine assistance.  "We can do it," they 
insisted.  Here is a perfect example of leaning on the flesh and 
trusting human strength.  The words are filled with self-
confidence.  "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be 
obedient."
Were they able to keep that promise?  In spite of their repeated 
assurances, they miserably broke their word before Moses could 
even get off the mountain with the tables of stone.  Do we begin 
to see where the poor promises lay in the Old Covenant?  
The book of Hebrews begins to unfold.  There God is reported as 
"finding fault with them."  Hebrews 8:8.  He said, "Because they 
continued not in my covenant ... I regarded them not."  Verse 9.  
The blame is placed squarely upon the human side of the mutual 
pact.  Thus, we can see exactly why Paul wrote as he did about 
this Old Covenant in Hebrews 8.  It did gender to bondage, it 
proved faulty, had poor promises, and vanished away--all because 
the people failed to obey their part of the agreement.  Putting 
all these things together we can see why a new covenant was 
desperately needed, which would have better promises.
How were the New Covenant promises better?  Because God made 
them, and they guaranteed successful obedience through His 
strength alone.  "I will put my laws into their mind ... I will 
be to them a God ... I will be merciful to their 
unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I 
remember no more."  Hebrews 8:10-12.
How was the New Covenant ratified?  In the same manner that the 
Old was confirmed--by the shedding of blood. But instead of an 
ox having to shed its blood, the sinless Son of God would 
provide the blood of sprinkling:  "Now the God of peace, that 
brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd 
of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, 
Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in 
you that which is well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus 
Christ."  Hebrews 13:20, 21.
What a contrast to the weak promises of the flesh made by Israel 
at Sinai.  Instead of the people's "we will do," God's New 
Covenant promise is to "make you perfect in every good work ... 
working in you."  It is no longer human effort. It is not so 
much you working, but Him "working in you."  And how is this 
power made available?   "Through the blood of the everlasting 
covenant."  Because of what Jesus did on the cross.
The New Covenant 
Based On Conversion

This brings us to the very heart of the New Covenant operation.  
Obedience is made possible by the writing of God's law on the 
heart.  Through spiritual regeneration the mind and heart are 
transformed.  Christ actually enters into the life of the 
believer and imparts His own strength for obedience.  By 
partaking of the divine nature, the weakest human being begins 
to live the very life of Jesus Christ, manifesting His victory, 
and crucifying the flesh. 
Paul describes that transaction this way:  "For what the law 
could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending 
his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, 
condemned sin in the flesh:  That the righteousness of the law 
might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but 
after the Spirit."  Romans 8:3, 4.
The word for righteousness is "dikaima," meaning "just 
requirement" of the law.  In other words, because of Jesus' 
sinless life in the flesh, the requirement of the law can be 
fulfilled in us.  He overcame sin in the same kind of body we 
have, so that He could impart that victory to us.  He will 
actually live out His own holy life of separation from sin in 
our earthly bodies if we will permit Him to do so. This is the 
New Covenant promise for every believing, trusting child of God.  
And it is absolutely the only way that anyone can meet the 
requirements of the law:  "Christ in you, the hope of glory."  
Colossians 1:27.  "The life which I now live in the flesh I live 
by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself 
for me."  Galatians 2:20.
It is most important for us to understand that the New Covenant 
law written on the heart is exactly the same law that was graven 
on the stone.  Those great spiritual principles reflect the very 
character of God,  and form the basis for His government.  The 
difference is not in the law but in the ministration of the law.  
Written only upon the tables of stone, they can only condemn and 
minister death, "because the carnal mind ... is not subject to 
the law of God."  Romans 8:7.  Received into the heart which has 
been spiritualized by the converting grace of Christ, the same 
law becomes a delight.  The beloved John declared, "For this is 
the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his 
commandments are not grievous."  1 John 5:3.  Not only is the 
law not grievous for the Spirit-filled child of God, but 
obedience becomes a joyful possibility. The psalmist wrote, "I 
delight to do thy will, O my God:  yea, thy law is within my 
heart."  Psalms 40:8.

No Change in the
New Covenant After Calvary

Since the New Covenant was ratified by the blood of Christ, it 
obviously could not have gone into effect until after Jesus died 
on the cross.  This crucial fact must not be overlooked.  
Eternal life or death could hinge upon the proper understanding 
of this key point.  Paul wrote, "For where a testament is, there 
must also of necessity be the death of the testator.  For a 
testament is of force after men are dead:  otherwise it is of no 
strength at all while the testator liveth."  Hebrews 9:16, 17.  
The word "testament" is the same as the word "covenant."  Only 
after a man's last will and testament has been ratified by his 
death can the provisions be executed.  In the same way, Christ's 
covenant or testament would begin to operate just as soon as He 
had confirmed the covenant by His death at Calvary.
Another text leaves no question on this issue:  "Brethren, I 
speak after the manner of men;  Though it be but a man's 
covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth 
thereto."  Galatians 3:15.  Paul is saying here that after a 
man's death, his will or covenant cannot be changed.  Not one 
new addition can be made after the death of the testator.  The 
covenant stands forever exactly as it stood when the testator 
died.  After the death of Christ, no change whatsoever could be 
made in His provisions to save mankind. The conditions were all 
sealed and ratified by the shedding of blood.  Every requirement 
had been laid down clearly by the perfect pattern of His sinless 
life and provision had been made for the writing of His 
magnified law, by the Holy Spirit, upon the mind of each 
believer.
Under the terms of that New Covenant not one soul would be left 
to struggle helplessly against the powerful urges of a fallen 
nature.  "Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound."  
Romans 5:20.  Eternal promises rooted in the changeless nature 
of God would provide power to overcome every inherited and 
cultivated weakness.   No wonder the Bible emphasizes the 
"better promises" of this glorious new agreement!
Now it is easy to understand some of the things Jesus did just 
before He died.  For example, why did He institute the Lord's 
Supper before His body had been broken?  On the Thursday night 
before His agonizing death on Friday, Jesus met with His 
disciples in that upper room.  Holding the cup in His hands, He 
said, "This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for 
many for the remission of sins."  Matthew 26:28.
Isn't it curious that Christ would say those words before His 
blood had been shed?  He was commanding a memorial for an event 
which had not even happened yet!  Why?  Because it had to be 
introduced before His death in order to come under the New 
Covenant.  Nothing could be added after His death.
Now, let me come back to the story I started to tell at the 
beginning of the book.  I had just finished preaching on the 
subject of the Sabbath in one of my evangelistic crusades.  As I 
stepped off the platform to greet the people as they left, three 
young men blocked my way in the aisle. One of them addressed me 
in quite a loud voice--loud enough to cause about fifty people 
near the front of the auditorium to stop and listen.  
"Brother Joe," he said, "we were disappointed tonight with the 
way you put us back under the Old Covenant.  Don't you realize 
that we are living under the New Covenant now, and should keep 
Sunday instead of the Sabbath?"
Although most of the congregation were leaving the building, the 
group near the front gathered closer to hear all that the young 
men were saying.  It was obvious that I would have to take the 
time to answer this trio's challenging question.  As I 
suspected, they turned out to be young seminarians in training 
at a local Bible college.   Eagerly they held their Bibles in 
their hands and waited triumphantly for me to answer.
Usually, I do not like to debate controversial matters in a 
public forum, for fear of stirring combative natures, but there 
seemed no way to avoid dealing with these ministerial students.  
Anyway, they had my path completely blocked, and the circle of 
listeners looked at me expectantly for some explanation.
"Well, it seems as though you have studied the subject of the 
covenants quite deeply,"  I suggested.
"Oh, yes," they affirmed, "we know all about the covenants."
"Good," I replied.  "You undoubtedly know when the Old Covenant 
was instituted."  One of them spoke up quickly, "It was started 
at Mt. Sinai."
"And how was it ratified?"  I asked.  Without a moment's 
hesitation one of them answered, "By the sprinkling of the blood 
of an ox."
"Very good," I commented, "and how was the New Covenant 
ratified?"  All three chorused the answer, "By the blood of 
Jesus on the cross."
I commended the young men for their knowledge of the Scriptures 
and asked them to read me two verses out of their own Bibles--
Hebrews 9:16, 17 and Galatians 3:15.  They responded eagerly to 
the invitation, and read the verses, commenting on each one 
after reading.  "We agree that the New Covenant did not go into 
effect until after Christ died, and nothing can be added or 
taken away after He ratified it on he cross," the spokesman for 
the group asserted.   All three nodded their heads emphatically 
over this point.
I said, "Now you must answer two more questions for me.  Here's 
the first one, and you must think carefully to give me the 
correct answer:  When did Sunday-keeping begin?"  There was a 
moment of shocked silence, and then another, and another.  The 
boys looked at each other, and then down at their feet, and then 
back at me.  I gently prodded them for the answer, "Surely you 
can tell me the answer to this question. You have known all the 
others, and have answered correctly.  When and why do you think 
people began keeping Sunday?"
Finally, one of them said, "We keep Sunday in honor of the 
resurrection of Jesus."  I said, "Then I must ask you my last 
question.  How could Sundaykeeping be a part of the New 
Covenant?  You just stated that nothing could be added after the 
death of Christ.  He died on Friday and was resurrected on 
Sunday.  If Sunday was added after Jesus died, it could never be 
a part of the New Covenant, could it?"
The three young men shuffled their feet, looked helplessly 
around, and one of them said, "We'll study into that and talk to 
you later."  Then they fled from that auditorium as fast as they 
could go. I can assure you, also, that they never returned to 
talk further about the covenants.
The fact is that Sundaykeeping, even if it had started on the 
day of the resurrection, would have been three days too late to 
get into the New Covenant.  Both Bible and history prove that 
Sunday was never observed by the apostolic church.  It was added 
much, much later as a result of the gradual apostasy which 
developed in the early centuries of the church and which 
culminated in the pagan accommodation of Constantine in 330 A.D.
Millions of modern church members regard Sunday as a sacred day 
which memorializes the resurrection of Christ.  It is certainly 
true that Christ arose on the first day of the week, but nowhere 
in the Bible are we commanded to keep that day holy. Events such 
as the crucifixion and resurrection should mean much to every 
Christian, but not one intimation is given in the Bible for 
observing either Friday or Sunday.  The only day ever commanded 
for weekly worship is the seventh day of the week--the same 
Sabbath Jesus kept during creation week and the one He will keep 
with His people throughout all eternity.  Genesis 2:1-3; Isaiah 
66:22, 23.
The very strongest reason for rejecting Sunday worship is that 
it was not included in the New Covenant requirements which were 
ratified by the death of Jesus.  If Christ had desired His 
resurrection to be memorialized by Sundaykeeping, He could have 
introduced it on that same Thursday night of the Last Supper.  
Then it would have become a part of the New Covenant, along with 
the Communion service and foot-washing. Jesus did not hesitate 
to command the observance of His death, even though it had not 
taken place yet.  Just as easily He could have commanded the 
observance of His resurrection, which was still future, in order 
that it might become a New Covenant requirement.  But He did 
not!  And no one else ever did either, until Paul's prophecy 
began to be fulfilled about an apostasy following his departure.  
Acts 20:29, 30.  He spoke also of a falling away which would 
lead to the enthronement of Antichrist.  2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4.  
But true it is that no hint of any change of the law is given in 
the Scriptures.  The unchangeable moral law was preserved in 
both Old and New Covenants as the perfect revelation of God's 
will.



Ishmael and Isaac
Represent Two Covenants

With this background, we are now prepared to examine Galatians 
4.  Many have been confused over the allegory Paul used to 
illustrate the Old and New Covenants.  Here is the way he wrote 
about it:  "For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the 
one by a bondmaid, the other by a free-woman.  But he who was of 
the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman 
was by promise.  Which things are an allegory:  for these are 
the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth 
to bondage, which is Agar.  For this Agar is mount Sinai in 
Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in 
bondage with her children."  Verses 22-25.
Paul portrays Isaac and Ishmael, the two sons of Abraham, as 
representing the Old and New Covenants.  He plainly shows that 
Hagar's son, Ishmael, symbolizes the Old Covenant, and Sarah's 
son, Isaac, is a type of the New Covenant.  "Now we, brethren, 
as Isaac was, are the children of promise. ... So then, 
brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the 
free."  Verses 28-31.
This is interesting.  How do those sons of those two women 
represent the two covenants?  Actually, they are a perfect 
illustration according to everything we have learned so far.  
God had promised Abraham a son by his wife Sarah, but because 
she was almost 90 years old, neither of them believed such a 
thing could happen.  Sarah knew that her womb was dead and that 
she was long past the age for bearing children.  So she 
suggested that her husband take Hagar, her handmaid, and have a 
child by her.  It seemed the only way to rescue God from an 
impossible promise. In time, Abraham yielded to the face-saving 
device and had a child by Hagar.
Here is an exact illustration of the Old Covenant principle of 
"we will do."  Abraham tried to work it out in the flesh, 
according to human effort and planning.  The old arrangement 
failed just as surely as the Old Covenant promises failed, 
because there was no dependence on divine power.  God did not 
ever recognize Ishmael as the promised seed.
When Isaac was born, it was a miracle.  God actually created a 
new life out of a biologically barren womb.  The physical 
impossibilities yielded to the supernatural, creative power of 
God.  Isaac perfectly represents the principle of the New 
Covenant relationship based upon regeneration, a new-birth 
experience, which begets the life of the Son of God in all who 
believe.  The natural, physical womb of Sarah was totally 
incapable of producing any fruit.  In the same way, the natural, 
carnal body and mind of a sinner cannot bring forth the fruit of 
obedience.  When God used His power to create a new life within 
Sarah, the impossible happened, and she bore a son.  When God 
uses His power to create new life in the soul, the impossible 
happens again--a human being becomes spiritual and obedient.
Isaac was not "born after the flesh," but "after the Spirit."  
Galatians 4:29.  Because man is carnal and "weak in the flesh," 
he has no power to attain to the righteousness of the law.  He, 
too, must be born after the Spirit.  Every attempt to obey on 
the Old-Covenant basis of human effort will produce only 
children of bondage.  The law must be written into the heart by 
the Holy Spirit and fulfilled by "Christ in you."
This allegory of Hagar and Sarah clears up another very 
important point of truth.  Those who are under the Old Covenant 
are the commandment breakers, and those under the New Covenant 
are the commandment keepers.  It was only when Abraham disobeyed 
God by taking Hagar that he fulfilled the principle of the Old 
Covenant.  When he trusted God to give him a son through Sarah, 
he was being obedient to God's will, and properly represents the 
New-Covenant Christians.  Yet how often do modern interpreters 
get these facts confused!  Like the three young preachers, they 
accuse law-keepers of being under the Old Covenant.  The truth 
is exactly the opposite.  The law is not really kept until it is 
written on the heart of the transformed believer.  Then it 
becomes the mark of identification--the love symbol--for those 
who are born of the Spirit.  Jesus said, "If ye love me, keep my 
commandments."  John 14:15.  John wrote, "For this is the love 
of God, that we keep his commandments."  1 John 5:3.

True Circumcision is Not Physical

Have you ever wondered why God gave circumcision to Abraham as a 
sign of the Old Covenant? Doesn't that seem to be a rather crude 
way to represent such an important agreement?  Think about it 
for a moment and it might begin to make a lot of sense.  God 
gave Abraham the sign of circumcision to remind him of how he 
failed by trusting the flesh.  All through the Scriptures, 
physical circumcision is related to dependence on the flesh.  
Paul wrote, "For we are the circumcision, which worship God in 
the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence 
in the flesh."  Philippians 3:3.
Paul was comparing true circumcision with "that which is called 
circumcision."  The cutting off of the flesh was not true 
circumcision at all:  "For he is not a Jew, which is one 
outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the 
flesh:  But 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."  Romans 2:28, 29.  
Notice how Paul turns from the flesh to the Spirit.  He says 
real circumcision happens to the heart, and it exalts what God 
does, and not man.  It is the cutting off of the fleshly nature 
through conversion.  The new birth is the true circumcision 
experience.
The clearest explanation is found in Paul's epistle to the 
Colossians:  "In whom also ye are circumcised with the 
circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the 
sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ."  Colossians 
2:11.
Here the spiritual work of Christ on the heart is called 
circumcision.  It is done without hands, indicating that no 
human effort could perform this act.  It is not cutting off the 
physical flesh, but cutting off the fleshly nature of sin 
through the indwelling of Christ.  It will be available to all 
on exactly the same basis:  "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye 
Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."  Galatians 
3:29.  All who receive Christ become heirs of all the promises 
made to Abraham.  Those experiencing true heart-circumcision 
constitute the real Jews.
No longer can anyone boast of belonging to the right physical 
family.  There is no more Jew or Gentile, male or female. 
Acceptance is based upon personal faith in Jesus Christ as 
Saviour.  Neither can any man claim special favor for cutting 
off the physical foreskin of flesh. Those things were done by 
people who based everything on "we will do."  They sought 
justification and salvation through works of the flesh.  God's 
new plan through Christ is not of works, but of grace through 
faith.
Does this mean that works are no longer important?  Since the 
law cannot justify, should it be abolished by the believer?  The 
doctrine of the covenants establishes beyond any doubt that the 
law is just as important under the New as under the Old. Instead 
of being graven on stone, it is written in the heart. Instead of 
being fulfilled by us, it is fulfilled by Jesus in us.  Instead 
of keeping the law in order to be saved, we keep it because we 
are saved.  The same works of obedience are there, but they are 
there for a different reason and from a different motive.
Sometimes, without realizing it, we can begin to trust our 
traditional round of religious exercises far more than we ought.  
No merit system must clog the free channels of faith, love, and 
grace. Obedience in its proper position is important and 
necessary, but it must always be in that position--following 
grace and accompanied by love.
In fact, it is possible to put ourselves back under the Old 
Covenant even today if we begin to trust our works to save us.  
Just as the saints of old could have received true circumcision 
by accepting spiritual regeneration, we may fall back under the 
Old Covenant by trusting the flesh to save us.

If you found this topic interesting, we would love to hear from 
you. We have bible studies as well as video and audio tape 
libraries. Send for our free catalog of study materials.
	Amazing Facts
	P.O. Box 680
	Frederick, MD 21701
Please let us know that you found this sermon on a bbs.
