9/30/19

"THE BOOK OF RUTH" Ruth's Noble Choice: "I Will Go" (1:1-22) by Mark Copeland


"THE BOOK OF RUTH"

Ruth's Noble Choice:  "I Will Go" (1:1-22)

INTRODUCTION

1. The book of Ruth is a beautiful "interlude of love," set in...
   a. The period when judges ruled Israel - Ru 1:1
   b. An era marked by immorality, idolatry, and war - cf. Judg 21:25

2. It tells a heartwarming story of devotion and faithfulness...
   a. Concerning a Moabite widow (Ruth) who leaves her homeland
   b. To live with her Jewish mother-in-law (Naomi)  in the land of Israel

3. God honors Ruth's commitment...
   a. By guiding her to the field of Boaz (a near kinsman to Naomi)
   b. Where she gathers grain and finds a place in the genealogy of Christ!

4. It has been said the book serves two purposes...
   a. To illustrate how Jehovah rewards those who make wise spiritual
      choices and show steadfast filial loyalty
   b. To explain how Ruth, a Moabitess, came to be an ancestor of David,
      and ultimately, the Messiah - cf. Ru 4:21-22; Mt 1:5-6

[While the book's brevity and beauty makes it easy to read in one
sitting, we will let it serve as the basis for four sermons, one for
each chapter.  In chapter one, we learn of "Ruth's Noble Choice"...]

I. A FATEFUL SOJOURN IN MOAB

   A. FAMINE PROMPTS THE JOURNEY...
      1. The setting - Ru 1:1
         a. In the days of the judges (prior to the period of the kings of Israel)
         b. There is famine in the land of Judah
         c. A family of four leave Bethlehem to dwell in Moab
            1) Bethlehem, city located 5 mi. S of Jerusalem; birthplace
               of David and Jesus
            2) Moab, country located due E of the Dead Sea
               a) Descendants of Lot - Gen 19:36-37
               b) Sometimes enemies, friends, of Israel - Judg 3:12-30; 1Sa 22:3-4
      2. The family - Ru 1:2
         a. Elimelech the father, Naomi the mother
         b. Their two sons:  Mahlon and Chilion
         c. Ephrathites - Bethlehem was also known as Ephrath 
                                     - Gen 35:19; Mic 5:2
      3. The move
         a. Prompted by the famine
         b. Perhaps indicating a lack of faith in God, who made
            provision for when His children became impoverished - cf. Lev 25:35

   B. DEATH STRIKES THREE TIMES...
      1. Elimelech dies - Ru 1:3
         a. Leaving Naomi a widow with two sons
         b. Rabbinic tradition suggests his death was punishment for
            greed or having forsaken his homeland (Expositor's Bible Commentary)
      2. Mahlon and Chilion marry women of Moab - Ru 1:4
         a. Mahlon married Ruth, Chilion married Orpah - cf. Ru 4:10
         b. Such marriages with women of Moab were strongly suspect,
            if not wrong - cf. Deut 23:3; 1Ki 11:1-2; Neh 13:23-27
         c. They live in Moab about ten years
      3. Mahlon and Chilion die - Ru 1:5
         a. Rabbinic tradition suggests it was because of leaving Judah,
            and their marriages
         b. Leaving Naomi a widow and childless, which she took as
            divine judgment against her - Ru 1:13,20-21

[Elimelech and his sons went to Moab to find bread, instead they found
graves (Baxter).  Bereaved of her husband and two sons, Naomi gives
thought to return to her homeland...]

II. A FAITHFUL RETURN TO JUDAH

   A. NAOMI CHOOSES TO RETURN HOME...
      1. The famine in Judah had ended - Ru 1:6
         a. The Lord's blessings had return to Judah
         b. The Lord had given them bread
      2. Naomi encourages her daughters-in-law to remain in Moab 
         - Ru 1:7-9
         a. As they were on their way to leave
         b. Naomi encourages them to return to their mothers' house
         c. Naomi prays God's blessings upon them
            1) To treat them kindly, because their kindness to her
            2) To find rest in the homes of future husbands
         d. Prompting sorrowful displays a great affection

   B. RUTH CHOOSES TO RETURN WITH HER...
      1. At first, both daughters-in-law desire to go with Naomi - Ru 1:10
         a. Willing to return with her to her people
         b. Which speaks highly of their love for Naomi and duty as
            daughters-in-law
      2. Naomi seeks to dissuade them - Ru 1:11-13
         a. She has no sons to offer them
         b. She is too old to have a husband
         c. If she did marry and have sons, would they wait until they
            were old enough?
         d. It grieves her to see them suffer because of God's chastisement of her
      3. Ruth cannot be dissuaded - Ru 1:14-18
         a. Weeping, Orpah kisses her mother-in-law and leaves
         b. Ruth clings to her mother-in-law, and Naomi tries once again
            to persuade her to return
         c. Ruth's noble choice
            1) To go wherever Naomi goes
            2) To live wherever Naomi lives
            3) To make the people of Naomi her people
            4) To make the God of Naomi her God
            5) To die and be buried where Naomi is buried
            6) To let nothing but death come between them
            -- In making such a choice, Ruth has become a proselyte to Judaism
         d. Naomi realizes Ruth is determined to go with her

   C. NAOMI AND RUTH ARRIVE IN BETHLEHEM...
      1. Their arrival sparks excitement in the city - Ru 1:19
      2. Naomi believes she should be called Mara - Ru 1:20-21
         a. No longer Naomi ("Pleasant"), but Mara ("Bitter")
         b. For she feels the Lord has dealt bitterly with her
            1) She left Judah full, and has returned empty
            2) She believes the Lord has testified against her, and has afflicted her
         c. This may be true - cf. Deut 28:15-19
            1) Yet not all suffering is indicative of divine
               chastisement (cf. Job)
            2) She may have been the innocent victim of others' sins
      3. Naomi and Ruth settle in Bethlehem - Ru 1:22
         a. Naomi, a woman without husband and sons
         b. Ruth, the Moabitess living in a strange land

CONCLUSION

1. Their arrival was at the beginning of the barley harvest...
   a. Which sets the stage for the events in the next chapter
   b. Which portends a new beginning in the lives of Naomi and Ruth

2. This story certainly illustrates the importance of making choices...
   a. Choices come with consequences, sometimes good, sometimes bad
   b. Elimelech and his sons made choices...
      1) Which may have appeared to be a good business decision
      2) But ultimately left a wife and mother a widow and motherless in
         a strange land
   c. Ruth made a choice
      1) To leave family and false religion, for the true God and His family
      2) One that would have provide both temporal and eternal blessings
         - cf. Mk 10:29-30

Sometimes the choice is not between right and wrong, but between good
and better.  Yet any choice we make will be the right one if made with
these words of Jesus in mind:

   "But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all
   these things shall be added to you." - Mt 6:33

"Ruth's Noble Choice" to follow Naomi and her God illustrates the truth
of Jesus' words!


Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker 

Don't Touch Dead Bodies! by Kyle Butt, M.Div.




Don't Touch Dead Bodies!

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


In their book, None of These Diseases, physicians S.I. McMillen and David Stern discussed how that many of the hygienic rules established by God for the children of Israel still are applicable today. To illustrate their point, they recounted the story of Ignaz Semmelweis.
In 1847, an obstetrician named Ignaz Semmelweis was the director of a hospital ward in Vienna, Austria. Many pregnant women checked into his ward, but 18% of those women never checked out. One out of every six that received treatment in Semmelweis’ ward died of labor fever. Autopsies revealed pus under their skin, in their chest cavities, in their eye sockets, etc. Semmelweis was distraught over the mortality rate in his ward, and other hospital wards like it all over Europe. If a woman delivered a baby using a midwife, then the death fell to only 3%. Yet if she chose to use the most advanced medical knowledge and facilities of the day, her chance of dying skyrocketed to 18%!
Semmelweis had tried everything to curb the carnage. He turned all the women on their sides in hopes that the death rate would drop, but with no results. He thought maybe the bell that the priest rang late in the evenings scared the women. So, he made the priest enter silently, yet without any drop in death rates.
As he contemplated his dilemma, he watched young medical students perform their routine tasks. Each day the students would perform autopsies on the dead mothers. Then they would rinse their hands in a bowl of bloody water, wipe them off on a common, shared towel, and immediately begin internal examinations of the still-living women. As a twenty-first-century observer, you probably are appalled to think that such practices actually took place in institutes of what was at the time “modern technology.” What doctor in his right mind would touch a dead person and then perform examinations on living patients—without first employing some sort of minimal hygienic practices intended to kill germs? But to Europeans in the middle-nineteenth-century, germs were a foreign concept. They never had seen a germ, much less been able to predict its destructive potential. According to their theories, disease was caused by “atmospheric conditions” or “cosmic telluric influences.”
Semmelweis ordered everyone in his ward to wash thoroughly his or her hands in a chlorine solution after every examination. In three months, the death rate fell from 18% to 1%. Semmelweis had made an amazing discovery. Or had he? Is it possible that Dr. Semmelweis simply “rediscovered” what had been known in some circles for many years?
Almost 3,300 years before Semmelweis lived, Moses had written: “He who touches the dead body of anyone shall be unclean seven days. He shall purify himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh day; then he will be clean. But if he does not purify himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he will not be clean.” Germs were no new discovery in 1847; God had known about them all along. If only we would learn to give the Holy Scriptures the respect they deserve, we could save ourselves from so much sin, heartache, and death.

Does the Presence of History in the Gospels Mean that They are Old Testament Books? by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.





Does the Presence of History in the Gospels Mean that They are Old Testament Books?

by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.


Some have attempted to subvert the teachings of Christ by suggesting that the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John belong in the Old Testament instead of in the New Testament (see Billingsley, n.d., p. 4; see also Brewer, 1941, pp. 85-90 for additional documentation of those who hold such a position). In doing so, they have promoted an erroneous theory that we can summarize in the following statement: “The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are history books, so they are Old Testament books. They contain a beneficial historical record of the life and times of Jesus Christ as He lived under Mosaic law, but no New Testament doctrine.”
What about the Gospel accounts? They contain substantial history concerning the life of Christ, but they also contain certain of His teachings. If any of those teachings can be shown to be different from Old Testament material and applicable to New Testament Christians—obligatory for faith and practice—then the books themselves must be accepted as part of the New Testament canon, because they contain commandments that are obligatory for those living under Christ’s covenant, as opposed to Moses’ covenant. The Gospel accounts contain just such doctrine. Consider the following passages:
Matthew 3 (and Mark 1; Luke 7): Jesus was baptized with John’s baptism “to fulfill all righteousness” (3:15). Jesus clearly endorsed John’s baptism (Luke 7:29), and when the Pharisees declined to submit to that baptism, they rejected the “counsel of God” (7:30). In this instance, Jesus required certain people to do more than what the Law of Moses required. The baptism of John certainly was foreign to the rules of the Mosaic Law. It would have done Moses no good to command the children of Israel to submit to the baptism of John, for John was not yet born, so his baptism would not have washed their sins away—yet here, Christ encouraged it (Mark 1:2-11; Luke 7:29-30). One purpose of John’s baptism was to prepare the hearts of people for the coming kingdom (Matthew 3:1-2; see Psalm 2). Baptism, as a religious ceremony, had been practiced, because of rabbinical tradition (Lindsay, 1994, 1:389; Moseley, n.d.). However, John’s teaching was distinct from the Law of Moses, ushering in a new era of obligation, as again emphasized in Luke 16:16: “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it” (emp. added).
Matthew 15 (and Mark 7): Christ taught something that, at the very least, sounded quite different from the then-operative Old Testament Law—the idea that foods which were considered unclean under the Old Testament Law did not defile a person, but rather the things that come from within (Matthew 15:11; cf. Mark 7:18-23). Jesus noted that foods do not go into people’s hearts—they do not directly affect people spiritually—but only go into the digestive system and are eliminated. “All these evil things,” Jesus said (specifically having mentioned adulteries, evil thoughts, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, and foolishness), “come from within and defile a man” (Mark 7:23). It appears that Christ taught a new doctrine here—one that would not become operative until after He took the Old Testament Law out of the way.
Matthew 18: In this similar circumstance, Jesus taught specific doctrine concerning how one should deal with an erring brother (18:15-20). The doctrine contained in Matthew 18:19-20 specifically addressed discipline in the church. Christ’s teaching in this instance is not merely an attempt to call erring Jews back to faithful Judaism; rather, Christ taught something new in this case, and unique to the rest the Bible (see Elkins, 1978, p. 528).
Matthew 26 (and Mark 14; Luke 22): Jesus initiated the Lord’s Supper (26:26-29), the practice of which is entirely different from any Mosaic ceremony. The fact that Christ initiated an ordinance that was not to be enforced immediately, but only after the church was established, is illustrative of the fact that Christ was within His rights when He gave legislation that would come into effect after the New Testament Law came into effect.
Matthew 28 (and Mark 16): Jesus gave to His apostles the command to take the Gospel to the whole world (a New Testament principle in itself). Notice that Jesus Himself stated that He had preached New Testament doctrine to His disciples. Christ told the apostles that, as they converted lost souls to Christ, they were to teach them “to observe all things that I have commanded you…” (28:20). Included in “all things that I have commanded you” was New Testament doctrine, because, in this instance, Christ was commanding His disciples to take the Gospel to “all the nations” for the purpose of baptizing people (28:19). If Christ had preached nothing but Old Testament doctrine, He surely would not have commanded His disciples to spread “all things that I have commanded you” to the nations after the Old Testament law had been put away.
John 3: Jesus said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Jesus called this the act of being “born again” (verse 7). Though the particular requirement of new birth through baptism was, in a sense, administered by John and Jesus in their baptisms, there was no provision for baptism in the Old Covenant.
John 13: Jesus said, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another” (13:34, emp. added). In stating that the commandment was new, Jesus obviously intended to draw a distinction between His commandment and everything else that would have been familiar to His disciples concerning the topic they were discussing. Though the command to love one’s neighbor was not new (Leviticus 19:18), Christ’s command was new in that it demanded that we love not as we love ourselves, but as God loves us. This would be the sign to non-Christians that the disciples really were followers of Christ (13:35; see Pack, 1977, 5:54-55). The command itself is repeated in the record of John 15:12,17, and Christ emphasized it again in Luke 10:33-36 when He relayed the parable commonly called “The Good Samaritan,” illustrating that followers of Christ are to have love for all people (Galatians 6:10).
We are assured that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John belong in the New Testament, for they contain teachings that are not contained in the Old Testament, but that are obligatory for the Christian’s faith and practice. The gospels certainly are much more than just Old Testament history books.

REFERENCES

Billingsly, Dan (no date), “Roy Deaver’s Doctrinal Dilemma,” Fundamental Bible Studies.
Brewer, G.C. (1941), Contending for the Faith (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
Elkins, Garland (1978) “A Review of the ‘No-Remarriage-for-Any-Reason’ Theory,” Your Marriage Can Be Great, ed. Thomas B. Warren (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
Lindsay, T.M. (1994), The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, ed. James Orr (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Moseley, Ron (no date), “The Jewish Background of Christian Baptism,” [On-line], URL: http://www.haydid.org/ronimmer.htm.
Pack, Frank (1977), The Living Word Commentary, ed. Everett Ferguson (Austin, TX: Sweet).

Does Matthew 18:11 Belong in the New Testament? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.





Does Matthew 18:11 Belong in the New Testament?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


Q:

My resources are limited to find a decent enough answer for the passage at Mt. 18:11. I would like to know why or why not it should be in our Bibles.

A:

During the early centuries of Christianity, copies of New Testament books were made by Christians as those books came from the hands of the apostles. Then copies were made of copies, and then copies of copies of copies, and so on. It was inevitable that slight/minor changes would occur in some copies. In later years, New Testament books were copied by monks and even by professional copyists who did so for their living. Those who became very familiar with the synoptic Gospel accounts sometimes unnecessarily attempted to harmonize them with each other in those passages that are parallel, even though the Holy Spirit used different wording in, say Matthew, than He did in Luke, where the same incident is reported. Hence, copyists sometimes introduced words from one Gospel account into another to force them to be uniform in wording. That is clearly what happened with Matthew 18:11. Somewhere along the line, a copyist who was very familiar with Luke introduced the words of Luke 19:10 into the copy of Matthew 18 that he was making. The words are authentic from Luke’s pen, but were not written by Matthew. Many manuscript copies do not contain the verse, but the copies that ultimately influenced the KJV were copies that had the interpolation introduced. Observe that no doctrine of Scripture is placed in jeopardy and no new information is added to the text by such variants in certain copies, and the original text is still preserved in the aggregate of manuscripts. See our article at: http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=5196&topic=103.

SCRIPTURES THAT OFFEND BY STEVE FINNELL



SCRIPTURES THAT OFFEND   BY STEVE FINNELL


1. Romans  16:16 Greet one another with a holy kiss. The churches of Christ greet you. (NKJV)

The name church of Christ offends people enough, that some churches remove that name from from their building, they do not want to be identified as a church of Christ.

2. Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one on you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (NKJV)

Acts 2:38 offends those who deny water baptism is in order to the forgiveness of sins.

3. John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. (NKJV)

John 14:6 offends believers in Christ who believe in universal salvation. Some believe it is arrogant to assert Jesus is the only way to heaven.

4. Genesis 1:1-31.......31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good . So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (NKJV)

Genesis 1:1-31 offends those who believe in theistic evolution or claim it is too difficult to understand that God created the heaven and earth in six days, in a twenty four hour day.


5. Galatians 5:4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law, you have fallen from grace. (NKJV)

Galatians 5:4 offends men who teach one in grace always in grace.

Finding one's self (Who am I) by Eugene C. Perry



Finding one's self
(Who am I)

(The following is an adaptation of remarks made as a senior member at a recent family reunion. ecp)

Often, when people get involved in deviant behaviour, seem directionless or manifest other symptoms of troubled lives, we hear the remark, “He/she just needs to find himself/herself?” The person is not lost but rather is confused or unsure of his/her place in the family, community, nation, world. Where do I fit in? What do I stand for? It involves being lost in the sense of needing to decide/determine/find one’s place among the diverse world-views and value systems of a pluralistic society.
A very real part of who I am has to do with FAMILY. That is to say that family usually has much to do with one’s world-view, value system and life-style. WHO ARE WE?
To begin with, in a general sense, all are a part of God’s family. We are His children, His creation. We are daily recipients of His loving care. He provides what is needed to sustain our lives as well as the example and direction that enables us to live “full” lives (Jno.10:10).
Unfortunately, there are those who outright disown this relationship. Others just fail to cultivate or recognize it. God is our father and ideally this defines us – enables us to find ourselves and thus to know who we are and where we stand – our value system and life-style.
In a more particular sense, we are children of [mutual ancestor] whose name many of us bear and who provided us with example and, hopefully, direction. Once again, some might go so far as to deny or reject the relationship and influence while others tend to ignore or neglect to cultivate it. Most of us, however, acknowledge and even take pride in the relationship and accept it as a real part of who we are.
Ideally our forebears are worthy of recognition and their example and instruction defines who we are and influences our life-style and value system which is thus passed down from generation to generation. In our family many generations have been people of faith, defined by a desire to know and do God’s will. Bible study and church attendance have been characteristic along with honesty and a strong work ethic. Many of us, like our forebears, met and married as a result of associations in Bible Schools or churches.
We are a part of this heritage and it will be a part of who we are and what we stand for unless we have either disowned the relationship or are neglecting its significance and influence.
I remember and was impressed by my parent’s dedication to work on the farm. It seemed to take precedence over all else except church. When there were church services or gospel meetings we somehow managed to get some time away from the work. We would sometimes walk seven miles to attend such meetings and walk back home afterwards. Family traits that we were taught include faithfulness, honesty, dependability, hard work and independence.
We were moulded by our parents and this is an ongoing process. Those of you who are parents must face the fact that you have heavy responsibilities in this process. What are you “passing on”? Yes, you are expected to provide food, clothing and shelter. That part usually “comes naturally”. The greater burden on you is the preparation of your children for life by passing on values. Too often, this part tends to be neglected or poorly done.
When God chose Abraham to be the father of His chosen people, He said, “For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.” (Gen.18:19).
As Moses led Abraham’s descendents and passed God’s instructions on to them, he wrote, “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. ... Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.” (Deut.6:6-9).
Both parents must be involved. Timothy’s “sincere faith” “first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice” (II Tim.1:5). Fathers are instructed to bring their children “up in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Eph.6:4). It is most unfortunate when parents do not work together in this task.
This system breaks down when neglect occurs – when parents fail to assume their responsibility and/or when children reject or rebel against parental teaching and influence.
We are sometimes saddened to observe a downward generational process that goes something like the following. Great-grandpa had the Bible in heart and life, grandfather had it in his head, father on his shelf and son in the attic. May this not be the situation in our families.
WHO ARE WE? We are children of God and descendents of godly ancestors.
Eugene C. Perry

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

To obey God... by Gary Rose


Cute story; in fact, as I think about this, it could almost be classified as a parable. You know, an earthly story with a heavenly meaning. The Dad would be our heavenly Father, we are the boy and the rules are the covenant we live under. Concerning these things, a passage of Scripture came to mind. The Apostle Paul writes…


(2 Corinthians 3:1-7 WEB)
(1) Are we beginning again to commend ourselves? Or do we need, as do some, letters of commendation to you or from you?
(2) You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men;
(3) being revealed that you are a letter of Christ, served by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tablets of stone, but in tablets that are hearts of flesh.
(4) Such confidence we have through Christ toward God;
(5) not that we are sufficient of ourselves, to account anything as from ourselves; but our sufficiency is from God;
(6) who also made us sufficient as servants of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.


In the story, it is obvious that the boy really did not want to do all the things that he agreed (covenanted) with his father to do. He used part of the agreement (Bible Study) to negate another part (getting his hair cut). This parallels The nation of Israel and God as compared to Christians under the New Covenant. God realized that the Jews would never really do what he wanted them to, so He gave them a New Covenant based on complying with his wishes from their heart instead of a long list of rules and regulations they had to obey. God said through the prophet Jeremiah...


Jeremiah 31 (WEB)
[31] Behold, the days come, says Yahweh, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: [32] not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Yahweh. [33] But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says Yahweh: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people: [34] and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Yahweh; for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says Yahweh: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.


If we love God, we will be willing do his wishes and not look for ways around what HE has told us to do. Paul praises the Corinthians in his second letter for the attitude with which they obeyed God and this should be an example for all of us.

Only one thing remains to be said:

Are you trying to obey God by rule-keeping (The Ten Commandments) or by God’s Spirit in your heart?