You successfully added to your cart! You can either continue shopping, or checkout now if you'd like.
Note: If you'd like to continue shopping, you can always access your cart from the icon at the upper-right of every page.
Under the Old Covenant, these are commandments, telling our flesh what to do to conform to the mind of God. Under the New Covenant, these are ten promises of what God will do in us so that we can be conformed to His image. This is a basic study on the divine law, the basis of government for the Kingdom of God.
Category - Long Book
The Fifth Commandment establishes respect for authority from family to community to national government. It is the basis of peace and order in society. As we will see, it is also the law revealing how we may become the sons of God (John 1:12).
Deut. 5:16 gives us the Fifth Commandment:
16 Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, that your days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with you on the land which the Lord your God gives you.
This commandment establishes the primacy of family relationships. To honor one’s father and mother is to recognize that being a source of life carries with it a level of authority that must be respected and honored. This principle is seen first in the fact that God created all things, and because of that, He has the right to be honored and obeyed.
Parents do not create, but they procreate, a subordinate power to bring forth life. Procreation, then, is inherently endowed with authority that is derived from God’s own authority of creation.
Secondly, this respect for family authority also establishes order in society and teaches responsibility to the children. In fact, if children learn to respect their parents, they are then capable of respecting all others. Treating all people with respect is the foundation of all relationships. Most people are aware of the biblical teaching to love one’s neighbor, but most have not discovered that the main ingredient of love is respect.
The Darwinian world-view of evolution sees family origins in nature itself, rather than in God. Thus, they view animals in the wild and assume that man was originally part of a “primal horde,” dominated by a “violent primal father” who drives out the sons and claims exclusive sexual rights over the mother and daughters.
To this, they add the Oedipus complex, telling us that the rebellious sons fight back by killing the father and eating him in order to possess the mother and sisters. Then their guilt caused them to establish three taboos: parricide, cannibalism, and incest. They tell us that religion was an outgrowth of those taboos.
Evolutionary thinking assumes that there was no Creator and that our first parents rose of out primal instincts as animals, rather than being a perfect creation which later fell through sin and then degenerated toward animal-like amorality. They look at nature and the rule of raw power in some of the animals and assume that this is how it began with us. Hence, many are also convinced that we must go “back to nature,” not only by stripping off our clothing, but also in animal-like sexual “freedom” and in totalitarian forms of fear-based governmental power.
The psychology of evolutionary thinking prepares people to think in terms of power and force, rather than in responsibility and honor of authority under God. They see the father-animal as the original god of the family, and hence “god” is defined in terms of the power of self-interest and the pursuit of his personal pleasure. Their god seeks to steal other’s property to obtain more servants.
Their philosophers often make it their mission to destroy the family structure, believing that this is the only way that they can succeed in destroying “superstition” (i.e., belief in God). Thus, Frederick Engels (who promoted Karl Marx) believed that a monogamous family was the source of brutality toward women. He said marriage was founded on the idea of wife-slavery, when, in fact, such slavery is an outgrowth of animal behavior in the evolutionary theory itself.
Honor has to do with personal responsibility under God to fulfill one's word. His yes is yes, and his no is no. A man's strength, power, or energy is used to bring honor, rather than personal pleasure or self-interest. Family relationships teach children the first principles of honoring authority. When the child grows to maturity, this habit should transfer to the community government and extend to the state and national governments.
But if a child learns that fatherhood is only about being stronger than the sons, those sons will be ruled by evolutionary thought and will dishonor both parents and other governments. The more prevalent this becomes among the people, the more power that governments will seek, and liberty will be eroded and will be replaced in the end by totalitarianism.
In a perfect world of evolutionary, animalistic, self-interested behavior, only totalitarian rule by fear can hold a society together. True republics would not work at all. We would be reduced to democracies, whereby all peons are created equal, as they serve the elite power brokers. As Orwell said in chapter 10 of his classic parody, Animal Farm, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
To honor parents establishes a God-centered government, whereas secular evolutionary philosophy leads toward the rule of the strongest by the law of the jungle and survival of the fittest. The Kingdom of God is ruled by the law of God, which is based upon love. Men’s governments may claim to be “the rule of law,” and they may simulate love and humanitarian causes while seeking to consolidate power, yet once control is complete, the result is a nation of slaves.
The root difference is that the Kingdom of God gives no man sovereignty. Only authority is delegated, and all authority is held accountable by the higher Power. Secular governments recognize no power higher than that of the man (or men) at the top of the pyramid of power. Hence, those men rule by their own whim, based on the overriding principle that “good” is what keeps them in power, while “evil” is what might remove them from power. They recognize no moral absolutes, such as are found in the Kingdom of God.
The Fifth Commandment tells children to honor both father and mother. Long life is the blessing associated with such honor, as Paul points out in Ephesians 6:2 and 3,
2 Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), 3 that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the earth.
This commandment is the foundation of sonship, the promise of immortality given to the sons of God. But every son has two parents: father and mother. The sons of God are no different. They have a heavenly father and an earthly mother, even as Jesus did.
John wrote in John 1:12,
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name.
If we have the right to become the children of God, how do we do this? The simple answer is to have faith in Jesus Christ, which is a prerequisite to receiving the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the seed of the Father, and when we (as “mothers”) are overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, Christ is begotten in us. Paul says in 1 Cor. 4:15, “for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel” (KJV).
In one sense Paul was their father, but in the greater sense, God was their Father, who had begotten them by the gospel. Further, he tells the Galatian church, “I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you” (Gal. 4:19). Thus, Paul speaks as if he were pregnant with the Galatian church, laboring to see them come to a full-term birth. It is like this with individual believers as well, who have been impregnated by the Spirit.
When a person has been begotten by the Spirit, Christ is said to be alive within that person, as if he or she were pregnant with Christ. Paul describes this condition in Col. 1:27 as “Christ in you, the hope of glory.” In other words, as believers we are all like Mary, who was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35) and who later gave birth to the Christ in her.
Christians have often missed this truth, because most Bible translators did not distinguish clearly between birthing and begetting. The problem is that in the original Greek, the word gennao could mean either. If applied to a woman, it meant “to give birth,” as that is what women do. But where the word is applied to men, it means “to beget,” because that is what men do.
In The Companion Bible, Dr. Bullinger comments on the word “begat” in the first 17 verses of Matthew, noting:
Begat. Gr. gennao. When used of the father – to beget or engender; and when used of the mother it means to bring forth into the world, but it has not the intermediate sense, to conceive.
And so, for instance, John 3:3 ought to read,
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is begotten from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
John’s word picture shows God as the Father in heaven who is begetting children on earth. That which has been conceived in us is “Christ in you.” It has a heavenly Father and an earthly mother. We are that child’s mother, but that holy seed is also the real you, for it is what you are becoming.
Hence, Paul speaks of the two “I’s” in terms of different identities in Romans 7:20. The fleshly “I” cannot help but sin, because it was begotten by Adam. The spiritual “I” cannot sin, because it was begotten by God. Knowing this, we can then understand 1 John 3:9 correctly, which I will paraphrase:
9 Whatever is begotten of God does not sin, because His seed abides in him; and he [Christ in you] cannot sin, because he is begotten of God.
Paul, then, shows his struggle between the two identities within him. The “I” of Adam follows the law of sin, because its desire is to violate the law of God. The “I” of Christ, however, serves the law of God. Romans 7:25 says,
25 … So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind [of the spirit] am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my [mind of the] flesh the law of sin.
Each of Paul’s “I’s” has a mind of its own. Paul’s Adamic “I” has been sentenced to death with Adam, while Paul’s Christ “I” is destined for glory.
In order to understand the origins of sonship, one must take it back one step. Proper marriage is the prerequisite to proper sonship. Without legitimate marriage, sons are illegitimate. I am not referring to marriage licenses or wedding ceremonies in churches. It is deeper than that, for it has everything to do with the kind of marriage covenant that we have with God.
In order for the Holy Spirit to beget Christ in us, we must first be married to God. In other words, we must come into a Covenant relationship with God. When the Old Covenant was instituted at Mount Sinai, God married Israel, for thereafter the prophets speak of God as Israel’s husband (Hos. 2:7). When Israel worshipped other gods, the prophets accused them of adultery (Jer. 3:8).
The Old Covenant was broken in the same way that men and women break their marriage covenants. For this reason, God divorced the House of Israel (Jer. 3:8; Hosea 2:2) and then prophesied of a New Covenant (Jer. 31:31). It was to be different from the first covenant, in that this New Covenant was to write the laws of God in our hearts, rather than externally on tables of stone.
This is the only way to succeed in the long run. The Old Covenant attempted to force the old man of Adam into complying with the divine standard. It failed, and the marriage ended in divorce. But the New Covenant is based upon the work of the Spirit within the hearts of men, writing the law upon their hearts so that they comply with the law, not by force, but by nature.
This is accomplished by begetting Christ in us, for this new man—this holy seed—already has the law written upon his heart. Therefore, he cannot sin, because he is begotten by God and has the nature of the Father every bit as much as Jesus Christ had the nature of His Father.
Even so, we all have complications in our pregnancy, for we do not always follow the headship of Christ in us. Any time we sin it is because we are following the will of the old Adamic man, rather than the new man (Rom. 7:15-17). In a way, we are bearing twins, much like Rebekah, who was pregnant with Jacob and Esau at the same time. One was the spiritual man, while the other was the fleshly man. Even as Jacob and Esau fought for mastery in the womb (Gen. 25:22), so also do the two “I’s” fight within us.
The complications with pregnancy are compounded still further when believers try to add the New Covenant to their Old Covenant belief system and way of life. The Apostle Paul ran into this problem with the Galatian church, which was being torn in two by this dispute. Jewish believers from Jerusalem had come to try to dissuade them from Paul’s teaching. They insisted that the Greek believers should be circumcised in order to be in a proper covenant relationship with God.
Circumcision, Paul argued, was the sign of the Old Covenant, while heart circumcision was the sign of the New (Rom. 2:28, 29). The Jewish believers, from the day of Pentecost until the day that Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed in 70 A.D., had tried to conform to all of the temple rituals, sacrifices, and circumcision of that old order. It was not until God destroyed the temple and that Old Covenant system that most were able to make the final separation and come into a New Covenant marriage with God.
We will say more about this later.
Jesus’ example is the pattern for all of the sons of God who are destined to fulfill the Feast of Tabernacles and come into full maturity as the body of Christ. But the foundational truth of this is found in the Fifth Commandment, where we are told to honor both father and mother.
First, we are to recognize the Creator as our heavenly Father. Christianity is unique in that Jesus taught us that we may go beyond servanthood and actually call God our Father. To be a son of God is considered blasphemy in some other religions. Those religions are incapable of fulfilling the Fifth Commandment, except toward their earthly parents.
To honor our heavenly Father is to believe His word as expressed in the Bible, for although there is truth in the holy books of all religions, none of them present the character of God that is fully accurate. They are all at a disadvantage, in that they do not recognize Jesus Christ as the express image of God and “the exact representation of His nature” (Hebrews 1:3, NASB).
We honor our heavenly Father by faith, by obedience, and ultimately by being in agreement with Him. Faith is our Passover experience; learning obedience is true Pentecost; and agreement is Tabernacles.
Faith honors God, for when we believe His word and take it seriously, it honors Him. But faith without obedience dishonors God on the next level. Hence, “faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself” James says (2:17). Pentecost is designed to teach us obedience by the daily leading of the Spirit. Yet even obedience is not the highest form of honor, for even an obedient servant may disagree with his master and grumble about the things that he is required to do. True honor is to agree that everything the Father commands is true and righteous altogether, that it is a great and marvelous plan, and that we are privileged to take part in it.
The manner in which we honor our Father is disputed among religions, each claiming to know the Creator’s character. Virtually all Christians agree that God is their Father, even if their understanding of this is limited. Their disagreement comes primarily in honoring their spiritual mother, for many do not know who their mother is.
Paul tells us in Gal. 4:22-26,
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. 23 But the son of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh [by natural childbirth], and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24 This is allegorically speaking; for these two women are two covenants, one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.
The Apostle Paul deals with this question more than any other biblical writer. The question boils down to a single issue: Who do you claim as your mother? Which “mother” is destined to bring forth the inheritors of the Kingdom? Which city is the center, or capital, of the Kingdom of God?
The mother that you claim is the mother that you honor. But only one of these mothers is the one chosen to bring forth the promised son who will be the inheritor. The children of Hagar (the Old Covenant) may be believers, but they are not inheritors; the children of Sarah (the New Covenant) are inheritors.
Who is your mother?
In the big picture, the allegory is about being the son of the flesh or the son of promise. Hagar’s son was a child of the flesh (Galatians 4:29), while Sarah’s son was a child of promise, born according to the Spirit, Paul says. Hence, we see that the only sons who can inherit the Kingdom are those who are begotten by the Spirit, even as Jesus Christ was begotten of the Spirit (Matt. 1:18).
While every true believer can claim God as his father, only those who claim Sarah as their mother will be an inheritor. The problem is not their Father, but rather their mother. Only Sarah can be the mother of Isaac. Only the New Covenant can be the mother of the inheritors of the Kingdom.
In other words, Paul says that those who try to add Jesus to the Old Covenant have “fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4). Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant; Jesus Christ is the Mediator of the New Covenant. One can only have one marriage relationship at a time.
In other words, one cannot remain in Judaism and honor Sarah at the same time. Neither can one consider Jerusalem to be the chosen mother of the Kingdom and still honor Sarah. One must choose between two mothers. Paul’s concern was that Christians from Jerusalem were unable to break free from Judaism and were continuing to sacrifice in the temple and remain in submission to the priestly system that had been rendered “obsolete” by the coming of Christ (Heb. 8:13).
The Old Covenant was unable to bring forth the promises of God, for they were based upon men’s vows of obedience, along with their ability to keep those vows. This was symbolized by fleshly circumcision, the sign of the Old Covenant, which these Christian Jews were demanding as a requisite for entering a covenant relationship with God.
In other words, they were trying to bind men to the Old Covenant, which was Hagar, and which could never give birth to the promised sons of God. Paul advocated heart circumcision, which was the sign of the New Covenant (Rom. 2:29), whereby the Spirit of God would beget Christ in us and do an inner work of obedience by the leading of the Spirit.
So we see that the problem of “who is your mother?” extended beyond Judaism vs. Christianity. The problem in the Jerusalem church, which had taken root in the Galatian church as well, showed that many Christians also had a problem with knowing the identity of their mother. Should men follow a brand of Christianity that honored Hagar, or one that honored Sarah? Which Jerusalem is to be the capital of the Kingdom?
In the first century, this question was largely resolved when God hired the Romans to destroy Jerusalem in 70 A.D. (See Matthew 22:7.) Hagar was “cast out,” so that Sarah could be recognized by Christian believers everywhere as their true mother.
However, in the twentieth century the same problem has again resurfaced with the rise of Christian Zionism and the Messianic movement. With the establishment of the Israeli state in 1948, followed by the Jewish occupation of Jerusalem in 1967, it was argued once again that Hagar was the true mother of the Kingdom. But appearances can be deceiving. In the end, God will again “cast out the bondwoman and her son” (Gal. 4:30) in order to validate Sarah as the true mother and capital city of the Kingdom.
In destroying Jerusalem again, God will again settle this dispute, for the day comes when the prophecy of Jeremiah will be fulfilled. In Jer. 19 the prophet was told to take an old earthen jar and smash it in gehenna (the valley of the son of Hinnom). He was then to prophecy its meaning, as we see in Jer. 19:10 and 11,
10 Then you are to break the jar in the sight of the men who accompany you 11 and say to them, “Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘Just so shall I break this people and this city, even as one breaks a potter’s vessel, which cannot again be repaired’…”
In Jeremiah’s day the city was destroyed by Babylon, but it was repaired later by Nehemiah. In 70 A.D. Jerusalem was again destroyed, this time by the Romans, but once again the city was repaired. The day is coming, Jeremiah said, when the city will be destroyed in such a complete manner that it “cannot again be repaired.” That day is soon upon us.
And so, Paul agrees with Jeremiah, saying in Gal. 4:30,
30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman [Jerusalem] and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.”
Even as the dispute between the competing wives and their sons was settled when Abraham cast out Hagar and Ishmael, so also the first-century dispute was settled when God cast out Jerusalem to vindicate Paul’s teaching. Unfortunately, the same dispute has arisen once again in the twentieth century, requiring God to settle the dispute again once and for all.
Honoring Hagar may appear to fulfill the Fifth Commandment for those who claim her as their mother, but in order to be an inheritor, one must forsake Hagar and begin to honor Sarah as one’s mother.
There has been much teaching about the church being in a marriage relationship with Jesus Christ. However, not much has been taught about the two kinds of marriage relationships that God recognizes. According to the law, a free woman has rights that a slave wife does not have. The story of Abraham’s wives, as explained by Paul in Galatians 4, shows us that only a free woman enjoys the kind of marriage relationship that can bring forth the inheritor, your “Isaac,” which is Christ in you.
So let us trace this back to the beginning. In the beginning God separated Eve from Adam in order to create a double witness in the family. That is the original purpose of marriage, for when the two are one, they are in unity, even though they are two distinct people. At that time there was only one marriage relationship on earth, and it was characterized by unity or agreement.
Then sin entered the world, and after this, God put the wife in subjection to her husband, telling her in Genesis 3:16, “your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” The change of relationship was due to sin, not just the original sin, but to the general condition that would afterward characterize humanity.
God knew that when sin entered the world, unity would be one of the first casualties. Husbands and wives were certain to disagree on many things, even if both sought to know the will of God. For this reason it was necessary to create an authority structure, so that disagreement would not result in paralysis.
This was a practical measure, but it did not reflect the original marriage pattern that existed prior to sin. The ideal marriage relationship was to be in unity, so that authority was rendered irrelevant. In other words, if both husband and wife were in agreement, there would be no need for one to command the other to do anything. Both would know the will of God and would follow it instinctively with the other being in agreement.
But until we regain that which was lost when sin entered the world, God saw fit to give men family authority.
Meanwhile, this situation was played out on a grand scale with the introduction of the Old and New Covenants. The Old Covenant was given at Sinai in Arabia, the inheritance of Ishmael, son of the bondwoman (Gal. 4:25). The New Covenant is centered in the heavenly Jerusalem, Paul says in verse 26.
Why was the New Covenant not centered in the earthly Jerusalem? Why is Jerusalem not destined to be the capital city of the Kingdom? How did Jerusalem become Hagar?
The main reason is because Jerusalem rejected the Mediator of the New Covenant when He came as the Messiah. Their decision locked them into the Old Covenant of Sinai and into the inheritance of Hagar and Ishmael. Judaism chose to remain under the Old Covenant, given at Sinai in Arabia. Thus, they declared Hagar to be their mother and became Ishmaelites in God’s sight.
It was for this reason that God eventually honored their decision and gave that land and the city to the descendants of Ishmael and the Islamic people in general. That side of prophecy is, of course, a long and complicated story, which I covered in my book, The Struggle for the Birthright.
The point that we must understand in our present study is that the two covenants are depicted by Hagar and Sarah, as Paul tells us in Galatians 4. The two covenants are marriage covenants. God first married Israel at Sinai under the Old Covenant, by which God married a slave-bride that compares with Hagar. That relationship could only produce an “Ishmael,” a believer but not an inheritor of the promise. Only a New Covenant relationship with God, in which He marries a free woman, can possibly bring forth “Isaac,” the one chosen to inherit the promises of God.
Old Covenant religion takes many forms, including Islam, Judaism, and much of Christianity itself. It is seen wherever men are subjected as servants, slaves, or bond slaves to God or to a religious hierarchy or denomination. They all have one thread in common—to become the best of God’s slaves. They know nothing higher; they know little or nothing of becoming sons of God.
Israel’s Old Covenant marriage ended in divorce, because God’s wife refused to be obedient. Her rebellion and adultery with other gods finally caused God to give her a writ of divorce in Jeremiah 3:8,
8 And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also.
In other words, the northern house of Israel was divorced from God, but the southern house of Judah was a harlot also. There is no record that God divorced Judah, of course, because she yet had to bring forth Jesus Christ. He could not be born legitimately through Judah, if God had divorced her prior to His birth.
The story of Judah’s marriage follows a different path from that of Israel. Jeremiah 24 divides Judah into two groups, depicted as good figs and evil figs. These obviously were from different fig trees, as the story shows. In Jesus’ day, the evil figs, who were in rebellion against God by refusing to submit to divine judgment, were those who chose the way of Barabbas, the robber-rebel, while rejecting the way of Jesus, the Prince of Peace. The good figs were Jesus’ disciples, who learned from Jesus’ teachings and by His example, to be content with Roman rule, knowing that they were the iron kingdom that God had empowered (Daniel 2:33).
It is ironic that the evil figs were those who wanted to be free externally, but did not realize that internally they were slaves to their own rebellious nature. Likewise, the good figs were those who were free internally, while being content with external servitude in their relationship to Rome.
Hence, we see that one’s external, political position does not determine one’s relationship with God, nor does external slavery indicate a Hagar relationship. Slaves on earth can enjoy a New Covenant relationship with God, even as free men can be enslaved by the Old Covenant. Likewise, it has nothing to do with race or gender, as Paul indicates in Gal. 3:28,
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Jews and Israelites can be spiritual Ishmaelites from Hagar, while physical Ishmaelites can become Israelites through Sarah and the New Covenant. It depends upon the type of relationship they have with God. Which “mother” do we love and support? Is the Old Jerusalem our mother, or is it the heavenly Jerusalem?
Once we understand the difference between the two types of marriage in Scripture, we have opportunity to enhance our own marriages between husbands and wives. In fact, marriage is the most natural way in which we may learn these basic principles and put them into practice in daily life. It will only work to the degree that both husband and wife are able to hear God’s voice. If either party has trouble in that regard, then a New Covenant relationship is not possible.
But if both have developed their spiritual ears, then God can speak to both of them equally. When they compare the word of the Lord that each has received, the words will match, even if they include different details of His will. But if one wants to go north and the other south, and prayer does not resolve the difference, then in the end one will have to submit to the will of the other. In that case, authority trumps agreement, and the relationship reverts to an Old Covenant marriage arrangement.
Some have tried to establish a New Covenant marriage, but end up coercing agreement, often in subtle ways. This is just an Old Covenant relationship cloaked in a New Covenant garb. Marriage was established as a double witness in the family, and a genuine witness cannot be coerced into agreement. A genuine witness must hear from God independently, otherwise it is tampering with the witnesses. Husband and wife must trust each other to hear correctly, and both must only want to know the word that God has spoken to the other.
There must be no hint that any contradictory word must be wrong, or that getting such a word will result in a reprimand, ill will, or punishment of any kind. If the relationship is not based upon complete trust in the other’s ability to hear, then it is not yet based on the New Covenant. Without complete trust, there will always be a fear of disagreement that will be remedied by coercion.
For this reason, it is more difficult to get “back to Eden” than people may realize. Yet if we look at this from the standpoint of a journey, it is less discouraging. We should practice these principles until we achieve 50%, or 80% or 95% of the goal. Perhaps someday we may even arrive at that perfect destiny.
Those who are unmarried are under some disadvantage, in that they may not be able to practice marriage as much. However, God has established other relationships, such as Pastor/Church or even among friends, whereby a man or woman may obtain a double witness to know the will of God.
For a fuller study on these things, see my book, Old and New Covenant Marriage.
This completes the first half of the Ten Commandments. These five are summarized by the greatest law in Deut. 6:5,
5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.
We love God by recognizing His rights to rule the earth, by hearing and obeying His voice without distortions caused by heart idols, by recognizing Him as Supreme Court Justice, by conforming our lives to the divine plan of prophetic history, and by learning to become manifested sons of God.
The last five commandments are summarized by the second great commandment: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18).