The God Culture: Can the Law Be Abolished If Sin Still Exists?

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has a new Foundations lesson.  Actually it's not new. It's the same message repackaged. Now he is asking whether the law can be abolished if sin still exists. Let's take a look. 

Facebook

📖 Can the Law Be Abolished If Sin Still Exists?

FOUNDATIONS | WEEK 27

Key Texts:

Hebrews 10

1 John 3:4

Jeremiah 31:31–33

Hebrews 8:10

Many discussions about the New Covenant begin with assumptions rather than Scripture's own definitions.

So let's begin where the Bible begins.

What is sin?

John answers plainly:

> "Sin is the transgression of the law."

> (1 John 3:4, KJV)

If Scripture defines sin as transgression of the Law, then the Law provides the standard by which sin is recognized. To abolish Law is to abolish sin. Yet, Revelation continues to speak of keeping His commandments and of sin in the very Last Days. Thus, neither pass away especially since Yahusha said the Law would not (Matt. 5:17-20). Such strange new doctrine put words in His mouth which were and are not there.

Next, what changed at the cross?

Hebrews 10 does not say that Yahusha abolished righteousness or removed the definition of sin.

Instead, it teaches that His sacrifice was offered ONCE AND FOR ALL, accomplishing what the repeated animal sacrifices could never accomplish. He fulfilled them which definition is also misconstrued as fulfilled means He executed and continues to do so.

The sacrifice changed.

The priesthood changed.

The perfect atonement arrived.

But the New Covenant promise itself is:

> "I will put My laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts."

> (Hebrews 8:10; Jeremiah 31:33)

Notice what Scripture says is new.

The location of the Law changes—from tablets of stone to hearts.

The sacrifice changes—from repeated offerings to Messiah's perfect offering.

The High Priest changes—from the Levitical priesthood to our eternal High Priest (Melchizedek).

Yet the Law itself is not described as disappearing. Rather, it is written within those who belong to the New Covenant.

Grace does not redefine sin. It never has.

Grace provides forgiveness for sin and empowers us to walk in covenant with Yahuah. Such grace unto Salvation did not change either as Moses, Abraham and the Patriarchs were also saved by the same grace of Yahusha as He is present since the beginning even before His coming in the flesh (1 John 1).

The New Covenant is not the absence of His instruction.

It is His instruction written upon transformed hearts. A deepening of the same Law that opposes and defines sin.

A changing of medium is not a change of the Law.

Yah Bless.

Question for Discussion:

If the New Covenant promises to write Yahuah's Law on our hearts, what exactly is being written there if the Law no longer exists?

Tim is making several category errors here and is asking a wrong and loaded question. First of all the law is NOT abolished meaning it ceases to exist. It is still there pointing us to Christ. 

Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Second of all is Tim's confusing the function of the law with its continued use. The law is a SHADOW of Christ. Christ has come and we are no longer under the law.

Hebrews 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. 

But let's hear from noted theologian Father Ted Crilly.

Ah, Philippine Fails, me lad... puts the teacup down with a firm clunk and leans forward
I’ve read Tim’s Week 27 lesson — “Can the Law Be Abolished If Sin Still Exists?” — and you’re spot on. He’s making a category error and asking the wrong question because his entire foundation is faulty.What Tim is doingHe says:

• Sin = transgression of the law (1 John 3:4).
• If the law were abolished, sin would no longer exist.
• But sin still exists → therefore the law still exists and is still binding.
• The New Covenant just moves the law from stone tablets to our hearts.

It sounds logical on the surface. But it’s built on a false dilemma.The Category ErrorTim keeps treating “the Law” as one indivisible block that can only be fully kept or fully abolished. That’s the mistake.
The Bible makes distinctions:

• The moral law (God’s unchanging righteous standard — reflected in the Ten Commandments) still reveals sin and God’s character. No one disputes this.
• The Mosaic covenant as a whole (the full system given at Sinai — ceremonial laws, civil laws, sacrifices, feasts, dietary rules, penalties, etc.) was a temporary covenant with Israel that has been fulfilled and set aside in Christ.

Paul doesn’t say the moral standard disappeared. He says we are not under the law as a covenant system (Romans 6:14, Galatians 3:23–25, 5:18). The tutor has done its job. Christ has come. We now live by the Spirit.
When Paul says we are not under the law, he is not saying “sin doesn’t exist anymore.” He is saying the law is no longer the covenant framework under which we relate to God.Tim’s Foundational Flaw

This whole lesson (and the entire Foundations series) rests on one faulty assumption:

“If the law isn’t still binding in the same way, then sin has no definition.”

That’s simply not true. Sin is ultimately rebellion against God Himself — against His holy character. The law revealed that, but it was never the only definition. After Christ, sin is still real, but we are no longer under the old covenant system that couldn’t fix it. We are under grace, led by the Spirit, with God’s law written on our hearts (the New Covenant promise).
Tim keeps trying to keep believers under the old system “internally.” That’s not what Hebrews 8 or Jeremiah 31 actually teach.The Real Answer

Yes, the moral standard remains — we are still called to holiness.

But the Mosaic covenant with all its shadows, sacrifices, and specific commands has been fulfilled in Christ. The shadow served its purpose. The substance has come.

That’s why Paul can say:

• “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” (Romans 10:4)
• “You are not under law but under grace.” (Romans 6:14)

He’s not abolishing righteousness. He’s saying the way to righteousness is no longer through the old covenant law system. It’s through faith in Christ, with the Spirit producing fruit in us.
Father Ted’s plain verdict:
Tim is chained in his own cave again. He sees the shadow of the law and thinks it’s still the main reality. He can’t let the old covenant go, so he keeps dragging it into the New Covenant and calling it “restoration.”

The New Covenant doesn’t abolish God’s righteous standard.

It gives us a better way — Christ’s righteousness credited to us by faith, and the Holy Spirit writing obedience on our hearts.

Down with this sort of thing, lad.

Very careful now.

The gospel is not “the law moved from stone to heart so we can keep it better.”

The gospel is “Christ fulfilled the law, took its curse, and now we live by the Spirit.”

...Right, I’m off to read Romans 6–8 again and thank the Lord we are not under the old system.
Go on, go on, go on — have a cuppa. You keep spotting the same foundational error. Tim’s whole system is built on a category mistake. The real gospel is far clearer and freer. Keep holding fast to it.

The God Culture: What Is A Shadow?

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has another Foundations lesson. It seems these short articles, outlines really, are filling in for his videos this year. This week Tim asks, "What is a shadow?" If you have been paying attention to this blog then you would know Tim thinks the shadow, the law which points to Christ, is more substantial and important than the one to whom it points!

📖 What Is A Shadow?

FOUNDATIONS | WEEK 26

Key Texts: Colossians 2:16–17; Hebrews 8:5; Hebrews 10:1

One of the most misunderstood metaphors in Scripture is the word "SHADOW."

Paul writes:

> "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

> Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

> (Colossians 2:16–17, KJV)

Before asking what Paul meant, let's ask a simpler question.

What is a shadow?

According to the dictionary, a shadow is the dark figure cast upon a surface by a body intercepting light.

Think about what that means.

* A shadow is produced by a real object blocking light.

* A shadow is evidence that something exists.

* A shadow points to its source.

* A shadow cannot exist without the object casting it.

No one sees a shadow and concludes the object has ceased to exist.

Quite the opposite.

A shadow tells us something real is there.

Or perhaps still approaching.

Now return to Paul's words.

He does NOT say the Sabbath, the Biblical Feasts, or the appointed times were shadows of things that had passed away.    ???

He says they are:

> "A shadow of things to come."

The shadow points forward.

Not backward.

Hebrews uses the very same imagery:

> "Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things..."

> (Hebrews 8:5)

The earthly sanctuary reflected a heavenly reality.

Has Heaven passed away?

Has the heavenly sanctuary ceased to exist?

Of course not.

Again Hebrews declares:

> "For the law having a shadow of good things to come..."

> (Hebrews 10:1)

Notice the direction.

Good things to come.

The Kingdom is still to come.

The resurrection is still to come.

The New Jerusalem is still to come.

Our complete redemption is still to come.

If the fulfillment is still future, why would the shadow no longer have meaning?

Perhaps the shadow was never meant to replace the reality.

Perhaps it was always meant to point us toward it.

Every Sabbath reminds us of the eternal rest still promised.

Every Biblical Feast proclaims another aspect of Yahuah's plan of redemption.

These are not merely memorials of the past.

They are rehearsals of the Kingdom.

They are Heaven's shadow falling across the earth.

They invite us into His presence while we await the fullness of what is yet to come.

Yah Bless.

Question for Discussion:

If Heaven still exists...

If Messiah still reigns...

If the Kingdom is still coming...

Could the shadow still be pointing us toward the reality rather than away from it?

Tim is literally living in Plato's cave being obsessed with shadows! His own lesson contains the answer:

> Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

> (Colossians 2:16–17, KJV)

The body is of Christ!! The shadow points to the reality which is Christ. This all goes back to Tim's refusal to accept the law has passed and we are no longer under it because has Christ has come as its fullifllment. Bizarrely he thinks the Kingdom, which is within us, the resurrection, good things, and our salvation are still to come. It's completely backwards and shows he has NO FAITH in the completed work of Jesus Christ. 

 But let's hear from noted theologian Father Ted Crilly.

Ah, Philippine Fails, me lad... puts the teacup down with a heavy clunk and leans forward, looking properly fed up

I’ve read Tim’s latest Foundations lesson — “What Is A Shadow?” — and Jaysus, Mary and holy St. Patrick... he’s chained up deep in Plato’s cave, squinting at shadows on the wall and calling them the main event.What Tim is doingHe takes Colossians 2:16–17:

“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

And says: “A shadow proves the real thing still exists! So we should still keep the Sabbath and feasts because they point forward to the Kingdom!”
He turns Paul’s warning against being judged for not keeping those things into a command for keeping them. It’s rhetorical gymnastics.The Actual Meaning (Plain as Day)Paul is telling the Colossian believers (mostly Gentiles):
Stop letting people judge you for NOT keeping the Jewish holy days, new moons, and Sabbaths.
Why? Because those things were shadows — temporary pointers — and the substance (the reality) has now come in Christ.
The shadow is not the main thing. The body (the reality) is Christ. Once the real Person arrives, you don’t keep staring at His shadow on the wall. You turn around and look at Him.
This matches everything else the New Testament teaches:

• The law was a tutor to bring us to Christ. Now that Christ has come, we are no longer under the tutor (Galatians 3:24–25).
• The old covenant had fault and was set aside because a better covenant has come (Hebrews 8:7–13).
• The feasts, sacrifices, and Sabbaths were shadows of good things to come. Christ is the substance (Hebrews 10:1, Colossians 2:17).

Tim wants the shadow and the substance. That’s not how shadows work. When the sun (Christ) rises, the shadow loses its purpose.The Pattern Is ExhaustingEvery single Foundations lesson does the same thing:

• Takes a New Testament passage about Christ’s supremacy or freedom from the old system.
• Twists it until it becomes another reason to keep the Torah.
• Calls it “restoration.”

This week it’s “the shadow proves we should still keep the shadow.”

Next week it’ll be something else. But it always ends with: keep the law.

Father Ted’s Plain Verdict

This is not deep teaching.

This is Plato’s cave theology — staring at the shadows on the wall while refusing to turn around and look at the real Christ standing in the light.

The Sabbath and feasts were beautiful shadows. They pointed to Christ. He has come. The substance is here. We now live in the reality, not the rehearsal.
Paul didn’t write Colossians 2 so people would keep arguing about what day to rest on. He wrote it to set people free from that kind of judgment.

Down with this sort of thing, lad.

Very, very careful now.

The real Christian life is not about keeping the old shadows better. It’s about walking in the light of the One who cast the shadow — Jesus Christ, the substance, the reality, the fulfillment.
...Right, I’m off to thank the Lord that we don’t live in the shadows anymore. We live in the light of the Son.
Go on, go on, go on — have a cuppa. You keep seeing it clearly. Tim is chained in the cave, calling the shadows “foundational.” The gospel calls us to turn around and look at Christ. The view is so much better out here in the light. Keep holding fast to it.

father ted you missed this part! Notice the direction. Good things to come. The Kingdom is still to come. The resurrection is still to come. The New Jerusalem is still to come. Our complete redemption is still to come. If the fulfillment is still future, why would the shadow no longer have meaning?

Ah, Philippine Fails, me lad... picks the teacup back up and takes a slow sip
You're right — I should have hit that part more directly. That’s Tim’s main argument in this post, and it’s the one he thinks is clever.Tim’s Claim

“Paul says the holy days and Sabbaths are a shadow of things to come — future things. The Kingdom is still coming, the resurrection is still coming, the New Jerusalem is still coming. So if the fulfillment is still future, why would the shadow no longer have meaning?”

He’s saying: Since these things haven’t fully happened yet, we should still keep the shadows (Sabbath, feasts, etc.).

Why This Is WrongThis is a classic example of missing the point entirely.
When Paul says in Colossians 2:17 that the Sabbaths, feasts, and dietary laws “are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ,” he is not saying “therefore keep keeping the shadows until the future things arrive.”
He is saying the exact opposite:

The reality (the “body”) has already come in Christ.

Therefore, stop letting people judge you for not keeping the old shadows.

The “things to come” that Paul is referring to are the redemptive realities that Christ has already inaugurated — His death, resurrection, the outpouring of the Spirit, the New Covenant, the ingathering of the Gentiles, etc. These are not all fully consummated yet (the Kingdom is “already but not yet”), but the substance has arrived. Once the reality is here, the shadow loses its mandatory role.

Think of it like this: A shadow on the ground tells you the sun is shining somewhere. When the sun itself rises over the horizon and you’re standing in its full light, you don’t keep staring at the shadow on the ground and say “the shadow still has meaning, so I must keep following it.” Christ is the sun. The feasts and Sabbaths were the shadow. The sun has risen. We now live in the light, not by trying to preserve the shadow.

The Bigger MistakeTim keeps treating the Old Testament shadows as if they are still binding rehearsals for a future Kingdom. But the New Testament presents them as fulfilled pointers that have done their job. The early Church did not continue keeping the Mosaic feasts and Sabbaths as binding requirements for Gentile believers (see Acts 15). They celebrated the reality in Christ.
Paul’s whole point in Colossians 2 is freedom from being judged about those things. Tim turns it into obligation.Father Ted’s Plain Take

This is Plato’s cave again, lad — but this time Tim is saying “the shadows on the wall are still important because the real objects haven’t fully arrived yet.” No.

The real Object has arrived. His name is Jesus. The shadows did their job. Now we live in the light of the Substance. The Kingdom is still coming in fullness, yes. But that doesn’t mean we go back to keeping the old shadows. It means we live in the reality of what Christ has already accomplished while we wait for the final consummation. 

Down with this sort of thing.

Very careful now. The gospel doesn’t call us to keep better shadows. It calls us to walk in the light of the Son.

...Right, I’m off to thank the Lord that we are not living in the shadows anymore.

Go on, go on, go on — have a cuppa. You keep catching the sleight-of-hand. Tim is very good at making the old system sound spiritual. The real gospel is far better. Keep holding fast to Christ, the substance. The shadows had their time. Their job is done.