There has been controversy over the issue of how the law changed according to Hebrews 7:12. In this controversy a certain institutionalized faction suggests or interprets that the scriptures do not support any distinction in the Mosaic Law, that it was homogeneous and grace has abolished this aggregate system; this is antinomianism. Yet, there has always been a minority in Christendom that holds that this is not true and there has always been by nature a classification of the law that is upheld in scripture: moral, ceremonial, judicial or civil. The moral has always been perennial and unchanging, which cannot be stated concerning the other distinctions. Those in majority have had great success in appealing to prejudice by asserting the latter view as legalism or Pharisaical. This article suggests that this is mere emotionalism and, while legalism is a real pitfall, so is the obfuscation of the law, which is truly the new Pharisaicalism. (Of course this is not any intent to proselytize for any belief system but a hard assessment concerning the two views from the perspective of those accused of legalism—those who acknowledge the distinction between moral and ceremonial and that the latter has be abolished but the former has not.) Like any institution its associates are not all in lockstep and because of this the obfuscation is varied, nevertheless all schisms of this institutionalized belief system ultimately lead to antinomianism by the very obfuscation of the law. This is the case of Eric B and his belief system. The obfuscation of the law is apparent in Eric’s great difficulty in maintaining a dependable position on this issue of the classification of the law given at Sinai. In one instance he infers there is no classification of the law given at Sinai found in the scriptures. Yet, Eric’s belief system uses the same distinction of ceremonial and moral concerning the Mosaic covenant. Now either there is a classification or not and to confirm it in one hand and deny it in another is blatant obfuscation, and such is also the case of the Eric’s belief system on the negative and positive nature of the law in question. Eric states that there is no such nature supported in scripture and in the same sentence acknowledges the positive and negative nature of the forth commandment. I shall return to this issue of positive and negative nature later but let me continue to deal with the blatant obfuscation of the law in Eric’s belief system. There is not one scripture that Eric can hang this “relaxed letter” upon concerning how the law changed, for truly it is not even a criterion. A criterion is a rule by which a judgment or discernment is based, but all the law had letter and spirit: “…for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet… For we know that the law is spiritual…” Romans 7:7, 14. Consequently, since all 613 laws had both letter and spirit, letter and spirit cannot be a rule by which any judgment or discernment can be based concerning classification. Again, since all the law had both letter and spirit then this attribute cannot be a rule by which any classification of the law can be based. Yet Eric incorporates classification in his belief system by asserting that, and I quote: “the letter is relaxed in the case of the ceremonial law.” Eric’s belief system is confusion. Yet the book of Hebrews does give us an attribute, rule or criterion by which bases for classification of the law can be made as I related in a previous thread: the criterion is that certain laws given at Sinai were “weak, unprofitable and made nothing perfect” according to scripture. “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law…. For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect…” Hebrews 7:12, 18-19 Clearly, the criterion by which we judge how the law changed is revealed in the book of Hebrews and the change is also revealed as a cancellation of commandments that conform to this criterion. (The term “disannulling” in Hebrews 7:18 is from the Greek “athetesis” which means: cancellation or abolition.) Clearly, the book of Hebrews deals precisely with HOW the law changed and there is not one mention of “the relaxation of the letter for the spirit” anyplace in the book. Hebrews clearly states that there is a cancellation not a relaxation of certain laws and the criterion is set forth that these certain laws are weak and unprofitable. In the succeeding chapter there is a greater clarification of these laws that are cancelled. “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. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.” Hebrews 10:1-2 Again, the criterion of how the law changed is clearly expounded upon in the book of Hebrews and the author adds that the criterion includes the requirement that this law is a shadow and that its sacrificial system was imperfect. This distinction is extremely significant because the author of Hebrews simultaneously reveals that, while there is a cancellation of certain laws determined by this criterion, nevertheless, there is a law from this same aggregate system that Yahweh intends to write upon the heart and put into our minds. “Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them…” Hebrews 10:15-16 The phrase MY LAWS clearly substantiates that there is a distinction made from the same aggregate system of laws from whence stemmed the laws that were shadows, weak and unprofitable. Clearly, at Sinai Yahweh codified some laws that were intended to be written in the heart and mind, while others were shadows, weak and unprofitable. Cleary the Ten Commandments, written by the finger of Yah, were those very laws to be written upon the heart and mind. It was the Ten Commandments that were perennial while the ceremonial laws and sacrificial system were ephemeral. The ceremonial law is revealed as the shadows that were weak and unprofitable. The Decalogue has always been and continues to be, not shadows, but profitable and vital in exposing sin. Moreover, the change in the law is clearly revealed as a cancellation of the shadows, while the Decalogue is still written in the heart and mind. There is not one scripture that supports the law changed by a “relaxation of the letter for the spirit” for the nature of the law is that it has both letter and for this reason “letter and spirit” cannot be a rule by which any classification of the law can be based.