During my online debates with mainstream Christians I’ve had people, in desperation, pull out almost any kind of incomplete, over generalized, or poorly translated Biblical verse that at first glance appears to them to provide some support for their antinomian, anti-Old Testament law keeping position. As you can see from the common sense explanations for the following verses, though, the mainstreamers demonstrated a reckless disregard for the true context of those verses and for what the rest of the Bible says.

1) Romans 2:14: “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves.” — NKJV  Anti-Old Testament leaning translators have again seized the opportunity to slant the translation of the last part of this verse their way. In the Greek there is no “to” or “a” in the last part of verse 14. To and a are artificially added words by most translators. The Greek is simply 3 words: ARE LAW THEMSELVES (eisi Strong’s 1526, nomos 3551, heautou 1438). Heautou can also easily be translated as “itself,” “alone” or “himself.” In Romans 2:12-15 the Greek for law is always nomos, 3551 which throughout the Bible overwhelmingly refers to the OT laws. Verse 14: “….. are Old Testament laws themselves” is a more reasonable, more literal, much less doubt filled translation that remains within the general meaning of these verses. Some pygmies in Burma, for example, are gentiles who quite probably, instinctively consider it wrong to rape, to convict a father for a crime committed by his son, to remove property landmarks, etc. All of those evil actions are prohibited by specific Mosaic laws. So in a way, those pygmies already ARE LAW THEMSELVES, Old Testament style. Those pygmies are following their own conscience and using it as a guide. The general meaning of Romans 2:13-15 is simply that the OT laws are very good and must be obeyed for justification before God according to verse 13. Nothing in the above verses, according to the literal Greek, refers beyond reasonable doubt to a type of new set of laws separate from OT law. Even in the highly unlikely event new laws are involved, they are so vague that they cannot even be identified. Verses saying basically that God will write His laws on your heart refer to being much more firmly convinced, much more fervently persuaded that His OT laws plus NT laws (magnified OT laws) are the real laws that must be obeyed. Romans 2:14-15 shows that some gentile Christians in Paul’s day had a willing and obedient attitude to obey the Law even without a complete and proper knowledge of the Law, to the embarrassment of disobedient Israelites who knew the Law.

2) 2 Corinthians 3:7,11,13: “But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, …….. 11 For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious. ……..13 unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away.” This book was written around 55 or 56 A.D. The Temple where sacrifices were offered was destroyed in 70 A.D., so this book was written BEFORE the sacrifices ended in 70 A.D. The sacrifices were therefore in the process of “passing away,” by force through the destruction of the temple and by the supreme sacrifice of Jesus’ death which more than replaced the need for further sacrifices. In verses 7, 11, and 13 it was the Old Covenant that was passing away, not the holy law of God. Most Christians mistakenly equate the Old Covenant with the laws and commands of God. It is a MAJOR MISTAKE that has caused much confusion concerning “the law being abolished.” The commands of God (the law of God, especially the letter of the law, since the spirit of the law had not yet been given [Matthew 5:21-22, 27-29, etc.]) were a part of the terms of the Old Covenant. The law was not the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was the contract or the agreement that the Lord offered to Israel. It contained what He would require of Israel and the promises He offered if they obeyed. The law contained the terms of what God required of Israel. There was a body of law that was set aside after the death of Jesus. This was the ceremonial law (the Levitical law of burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin that were forerunners of Jesus’ sacrifice). Most Christians confuse this body of law that was set aside with the holy law of God. Jesus said that He had “not come to destroy the law or the Prophets …….. but to fulfil” (Matthew 5:17). The original Greek word for fulfil means to make full, to fill up, to fill to the full, or to complete. Jesus came to complete the law by adding the spirit of the law to the letter of the law. He did not come to abolish it. What was passing away was not the holy law but the Old Covenant. The original agreement that God made with Israel was not meant to bring salvation to Israel. It was incomplete. Paul refers to this in Hebrews 8:6-8: “But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. For finding fault with them, He says: ‘Behold the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel ……..’ ” Paul then quotes from Jeremiah 31:31-34. Paul says here that the New Covenant is a better covenant, not because it does away with the laws of God, but because it is established on better promises. There was a fault or flaw in the Old Covenant. However, the fault was not with the laws of God. The fault was in the people of Israel. It was a flaw that was not corrected by the terms of the Old Covenant. The people did not have the heart to obey God even in the letter of the law (Deuteronomy 5:23-29, 29:2-4). God did not promise Israel access to His Holy Spirit under the terms of the Old Covenant. The Holy Spirit would have enabled the Israelites to have a heart to obey God’s laws. Only the patriarchs and the prophets had access to the Holy Spirit. God promised Israel only physical blessings for their obedience to His laws (Deuteronomy 28:1-13). Paul quoted from Jeremiah 31:33 in Hebrews 8:10: “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts.” The New Covenant because of its better promises (specifically the promise of the Holy Spirit) enables God’s laws to be written in our hearts so that the law actually becomes a part of our minds and hearts as we use the Holy Spirit to become like Jesus Christ, to have His nature, mind, character and love in us. In summary, it was the Old Covenant that was passing away, not the holy laws of God. Circumcision, sacrifices, the Levitical priesthood, and the automatic death penalty, singled out in the New Testament as now abolished, were also in the process of “passing away” or had already passed away in the growing Christian community.

3) Mark 16:16: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; ……..” 
4) John 3:15: “that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.” 
5) John 3:18: “He who believes in Him is not condemned; ……..” 
6) John 3:36: “He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; ……..” 
7) John 5:24: “He who …….. believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, ……..” 

8) John 6:40: “…… everyone who …… believes in Him may have everlasting life ……”

9) John 6:47: “…….. he who believes in Me has everlasting life.” 
10) John 11:25-26: “…….. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die ……..”

11) John 14:12: “…… he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also ……” Most people would probably say that it is unreasonable to simply lift the previous 9 verses out of the Bible and basically forget what the next verse or the rest of the Bible says, but that is what many antinomians seem to expect the rest of us will do. Common sense says that believing in someone not only involves the mere existence of the person but also basically everything that the person has taught AND COMMANDED during his lifetime. Isaiah 28:9-10: “Whom will he teach knowledge? And whom will he make to understand the message?…….. 10 For precept must be upon precept, …….. Line upon line, …….. Here a little, there a little” shows that understanding the Bible is similar to piecing together the parts of a puzzle. The original Greek word for “believe” in ALL of the above verses by Mark and John is pisteuo, Strong’s number 4100. According to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament some of the definitions of pisteuo include “…….. to believe one’s words …….. the credence given to God’s messengers and their words ……. a conviction, full of joyful trust, that Jesus is the Messiah ……. CONJOINED WITH OBEDIENCE TO CHRIST …….” Support for antinomianism in these Mark and John verses abruptly vanishes when John 3:36 is read completely: “He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who DISOBEYS the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” The original Greek word for “disobeys” is apeitheo, Strong’s number 544. Thayer’s lexicon defines apeitheo as “…….. a. to refuse or withhold belief …….. b. to refuse belief and obedience ……..” Today’s English Version, Living Bible, Revised Standard Version, and the New English Bible translations all use “disobeys” or “not obey” or “don’t believe and obey” in the last half of John 3:36.

12) Luke 10:25-28: “…… ‘Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ 26 He said to him, ‘What is written in the Law? What is your reading of it?’ 27 So he answered and said, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’ 28 And He said to him, ‘You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.” To claim that merely obeying the 10 Commandments and/or merely loving God and your neighbor will save you without obeying other Biblical laws is of course ludicrous since the Scriptures warn in no uncertain terms that many other sins such as DRUNKENNESS, LYING, FORNICATION, HOMOSEXUALITY, BESTIALITY, AND PORK CONSUMPTION (Isaiah 66:17), for example, will bar you from eternal life in God’s kingdom. The command to love the Lord with all of your mind also strongly implies knowing as much as possible about, and respecting and obeying, all of His rules and laws, including certain still valid Old Testament laws. as explained in the Bible. Therefore the Luke verses above do not clearly prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that all the OT laws have been abolished.

13) Matthew 7:12: “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” Briefly, to state that the Law consists  of doing to others what you want them to do to you is basically, but not always, true, as in the example of homosexuals. If you are a homosexual and associate with such people, appearing as a handsome male, sinful thoughts and even sinful behavior may result on their part which could prevent one or more of the homosexuals from being granted eternal life. Verse 12 is a summary of the law. Jesus said in another verse that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the law keeping Pharisees you will not be granted entrance into God’s Kingdom. The entire Bible must therefore be accepted as a guide to salvation, not just a simple, quick, condensed summary of the law. Some verses cannot just be lifted out of the Bible ignoring what the rest of the Bible says. Therefore the above Matthew verse does not clearly prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that all the OT laws have been abolished.

14) Matthew 22:40: “On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” Briefly, the explanation immediately above also applies to this verse, too.

15) Romans 14:5-6: “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.” Romans 14:1 reveals the context of verses 5 and 6: the discussion is about “disputes over doubtful things.” These were matters of opinions which show that the author, Paul, was not addressing issues clearly stated and established in the Bible, such as when and if to obey the commandment to rest on the Sabbath day, avoiding the consumption of unclean meats, and observing the OT holy days. Verses 5 and 6 about days occurs immediately between references to eating meat, vegetarianism and fasting in verses 2, 3, and 6, which are not Biblically related to Sabbath observance. To assume that Paul, a strict Pharisee who quoted the Old Testament many times, meant that the Sabbath, a feast day, no longer had to be kept is taking verses 5 and 6 far out of context. Paul’s letter was written to a mixed church of gentile and Jewish believers, and arguments had broken out over some of their eating practices and fasting day traditions. The Sabbath day was not an issue here. For additional study of Romans 14:5-6 please visit ucg.org/booklets/NC/opposite. You can also visit ucg.org/booklets/nc/worship.. Many people mistakenly believe that Romans 14 also proves that the Old Testament dietary laws restricting which meats can be eaten has been done away with. Many Bible authorities agree that Paul wrote this letter to the Romans in about 56 or 57 A.D. from Corinth, where there had been a lot of arguments about meat sacrificed to idols. These Bible experts say that the book of 1 Corinthians was written by Paul around 55 A. D. Chapters 8 and 10 in 1 Corinthians discuss meat sacrificed to idols, and this food controversy is the logical reason for Paul’s comments about it in the book of Romans. The common practice of the Romans at the time was to offer sacrifices of meat and wine to idols, and then they sold whatever was left over in the marketplace. Romans 14:21 shows that the main subject of Romans 14 is the sacrifice of meats and wine to idols. The “Life Application Bible” comments on Romans 14:2 saying that some Christians at the time felt guilty about eating meat or drinking wine they had bought because they knew it could have been part of the meat or wine recently sacrificed to idols. Some Christians thought it was okay to eat part of the meat or drink wine that was used as a sacrifice. The most important point Paul makes in Romans 14 is not to offend anyone else if they are present when you are eating some meat or drinking wine as he points out in verses 13, 15, 16, 20, and 21. 
16) Acts 15:5,24: “…….. the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, ‘That it was needful to circumcise them, AND to command them (them is a word added by translators) to keep the law of Moses.’ 24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, you must be circumcised, AND keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:” The over all, overwhelming context here is that the Apostles never sanctioned or required circumcision for salvation. In verse 5 “…….. That it was needful to circumcise them AND to command them (them is a word added by translators) to keep the law of Moses,” the original Greek word for AND is te, Strong’s number 5037, which can be translated as “whether” or “then,” two alternate definitions of te. When you remove the artificially added “them” the verse can be translated as “…….. That it was needful to circumcise them “whether” or “then” to command to keep the law of Moses,” which radically changes what this verse is saying. Remember, anti-Old Testament leaning translators, when they can, jump at the opportunity to insert their theological bias into any verse. Also keep in mind that there are no commas in the Greek language. That means there was no comma after “circumcised” in the original text. Translators add them where ever they want them. In verse 24, the Greek word for “and” is kai, Strong’s number 2532, usually translated as “and.” That pivotally important little conjunction, if it is accurately translated, significantly weakens the already very poor arguments of those preaching the abolition of the Mosaic laws. Although kai is translated about 9,000 times in the Bible as “and,” it definitely CAN be translated in other ways, depending on the context. The conservative, more literal King James Version of the Bible translates kai in other verses in the New Testament as “even” 108 times, “then” 20 times, and “so” 18 times. Kai has also been translated as “so then, certainly, just, now, well, while, for, if, that, therefore, when.” Kai can mean “as a consequence or result of an action taken” in which verse 24 could very well mean that circumcision would merely be an act or consequence of keeping the law of Moses, and Mosaic law observance in general was not a separate command. In such a situation keeping the other laws of Moses is not an issue. Verse 24: “…….. subverting your souls, saying, you must be circumcised so then or certainly or now or well or while or for or if or that or therefore or when keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment” are other possible translations. THINK!! USE COMMON SENSE!! Paul and Barnabas had a HUGE argument and debate over only one single part of the Mosaic laws — circumcision in Acts 15:2. Can you even begin to imagine how great and prolonged the debate would have been if other Mosaic laws were disputed, such as those dealing with murder, coveting, resting on the Sabbath, and worshipping only one God? The verse 1 Corinthians 7:19: “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters,” only one of many, many dozens of other pro-law verses, helps prove that the Apostles did not conclude that the Mosaic laws in general were nullified at the time they decided to abolish circumcision. Acts 27:9 records that Paul continued to observe Old Testament laws such as the fasting Day of Atonement, which occurred well after the time they decided to abolish circumcision, again indicating that Acts 15:24 does not mean that they decided to nullify the law in general. Kai therefore must have had a meaning other than “and.” The Apostles concluded that it would be too much of a burden to impose circumcision on Christians. Please visit gnmagazine.org/booklets/NC/ circumcision and read at least the first 8 paragraphs to better understand this verse. Another helpful site to visit is ucg.org/papers/covenants. 
17) Acts 15:10-11: “……… why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.” The overall context or main topic of Acts 15 was a ministerial conference in Jerusalem to decide if the law of circumcision, not the other Mosaic laws, should still be obeyed. The disciples concluded that requiring Gentile Christian males to be circumcized would have been an unnecessarily burdensome yoke on them, and that circumcision therefore was no longer required. Luke’s use of the Greek word ischuo, Strong’s number 2480, translated into the English “were able” in Acts 15:10 shows or suggests that the fathers and their descendants were actually able to bear such a yoke, but not in a “forceful” or “robust” or “strong” or “extraordinary” way. Ischuo indicates a more forceful strength or ability to prevail than the Greek word dunamai, Strong’s number 1410 which simply means “to be able” or just “be possible,” “can,” or “may.” For many hundreds of years the tribes of Judah (the Jews), Benjamin, and the other tribes of Israel did observe circumcision which did not seem to significantly adverse their physical or mental health, so in a sense they were able to bear circumcision. Visit ucg.org/un/un0608/ treasure/digest and read the bottom one eighth of that page for additional study of these verses. 

18) Luke 16:16: “The law and the prophets were until John: from that time the kingdom of God is announced ……” (Analytical Literal Translation) The word “were” is artificially inserted by translators and is not in the original Greek. This verse is basically repeated in Matthew 11:13 below and explained.

19) Matthew 11:13: “For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.” In both Luke 16:16 and Matthew 11:13 the original Greek word for the pivotally important word “until” is heos, Strong’s number 2193. It is often translated as “until,” but is translated about as often as “unto.” Other translations are “to,” “while,” and “whilst.” In the following 12 different translations you can see that there is no indication at all that the law was abolished in this verse: The New Living Translation, New Century Version, New Life Bible, The Darby Translation, Goodspeed New Testament, Knox New Testament, Living Oracles New Testament, Williams New Testament, Worsley New Testament, and An Understandable Version. Therefore this verse is not conclusively anti-Mosaic law. The “until” word usually does not even appear in these translations. Easy to Read Version: “All the prophets and the law {of Moses} spoke until the time John came. They told about the things that would happen.” The Message: “But if you read the books of the Prophets and God’s Law closely, you will see them culminate in John, teaming up with him in preparing the way for the Messiah of the kingdom.” These Matthew and Luke verses essentially just state that John the Baptist learned Old Testament laws and prophecies, which was the only religious material available to learn since the New Testament did not exist when he was alive. After John arrived he announced the soon coming kingdom of God. That announcement in itself was not a clear statement, beyond reasonable doubt, that OT laws then became abolished.

20) Romans 8:1-2: “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.” These verses do not say that Christians are free from the law, which is the law in general, but are now free from a more specific law, the law of sin and death (the penalty), which is the penalty part of breaking the law. Jesus repeatedly said in other verses that Christians must obey the law.
21) James 2:10: “For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.” This is a criticism of those who rely SOLELY on law keeping as their only way to receive salvation. Such people are those that reject the sacrificial death of Jesus to atone for their sins and refuse to prayerfully ask Jesus to forgive them for breaking a law, or “stumbling” in keeping one point of the law.

22) Acts 13:39: “and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.” THE WORD “JUSTIFICATION” ITSELF IS MERELY A RELATIVE COMPARISON AND AN ABSTRACT, INTELLECTUAL OBSERVATION WHICH BY ITSELF DOES NOT CLEARLY FORBID OR CLEARLY COMMAND LAW KEEPING. No part of this verse clearly and conclusively states that law keeping can be abandoned. If you believe the verse grants permission to start working on the Saturday Sabbath, eating “bushmeat” (monkeys in particular, which is how Ebola outbreaks usually keep recurring according to some experts), or skipping the Feast of Tabernacles, what are you going to do with Romans 6:15 and over 90 other New Testament pro-law keeping verses, throw them out the window? No, of course not. Therefore verse 39 is not clear proof, beyond reasonable doubt, that Mosaic law observance has been abolished. It is merely a reminder, especially to those who think that law keeping by itself justifies worthiness to be saved, that it is really faith in the sacrificial death of Jesus that saves us from eternal death. Do you really think that incurable disease spreading homosexuals, violators of one of the Mosaic laws, will actually be saved, if you think verse 39 abolishes the Mosaic law? If you believe they will be saved, you are wrong, if what the Bible says can be trusted.
23) Acts 15:19,20,28,29: “Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. ……. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality …….” When the book of Acts was written the dominant Greek and Roman cultures at that time were centered around idol worship and even had many local pagan temples. Christian Gentiles assembled, literally with the sizable Jewish community, in the synagogues each Saturday. Bibles were extremely expensive at the time since Scrolls were hand written, and very few people had them except the very rich. Synagogue services were the only opportunity most Gentile Christians had to hear the Scriptures and learn Christianity since new Christian congregations had not yet been established in many areas. The Jews welcomed the new people, but they needed to be assured that the Gentiles had genuinely forsaken any form of idolatry. The apostles therefore required the Gentile believers, to get along with the Jews, to accept certain rules (generally man made rules or customs that were not necessarily always required for salvation) showing that they had rejected idolatrous practices:

1) they should not become involved in any ritual involving animal strangulation,

2) they should not participate in any ceremony misusing blood in sacrifices,

3) they should not become involved in any meal associated with idol worship, and

4) they should completely avoid any contact or dealings with temple prostitutes. Verse 21: “For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” This last verse shows that the apostles were motivated to help make the Jews accept the new Christian converts into the synagogues to regularly hear and learn what Moses was recorded to have said. If Acts 15:20,29 is a complete, exhaustive list of laws for Christians to obey, Gentile believers can now murder, cheat, lie, remove property landmarks, commit bribery, abuse the name of the Lord, work on the Sabbath, eat an animal torn by a wild animal, consult wizards, eat trichinosis infected pork and other toxic, scavenger meat, forget about tithing which often saves the helpless hungry from starving to death, curse their parents, covet, divorce for frivolous reasons and marry someone else, look at women adulterously, etc. which of course is a ridiculous conclusion. Acts 15:20,29 therefore does not even remotely begin to prove that the Mosaic laws have been nullified. For a better understanding of these verses in Acts 15 go to tomorrowsworld.org/magazines/2008/how-to-study-your-bible then scroll down to principle 5. 
24) Acts 21:21: “….. you teach all the Jews ….. to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.” Paul was accused by Jews of trying to teach Jews (what he taught the Gentiles, which was different, was not their immediate concern) that there no longer was any need to become circumcised or to obey Jewish customs or rituals. That accusation was false and inaccurate. To better understand these controversial, difficult verses search “which old testament laws should we keep today, by herman l hoeh” and read the lower one fourth of that page. Paul told the Gentiles that circumcision and the sacrificial customs and rituals no longer need to be obeyed. The emphasis here is on the added customs (sacrifices and rituals) of the Mosaic laws which the Jews followed, not the original civil laws of Moses. He did not say that the ten commandments and the civil laws of Moses had passed away. Christians still need to observe those laws. (editing — will be completed soon.) 
25) Acts 21:25: “But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.” This verse is actually a quotation taken from the conference in Jerusalem dealing with circumcision. The speaker is James, the half-brother of Jesus. The subject, according to verse 21, is the customs (ceremonial additions), not the civil laws or the Ten Commandments. Verse 25 basically is a reaffirmation of Acts 15:19-20. Read again 37 above.

26) Romans 3:20: “Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” This is another way of saying that law keeping BY ITSELF cannot provide justification. This verse does NOT SAY actually say that law keeping is no longer necessary, which is a big difference from merely saying that justification is not available from observing the law. Verse 20 is an observation, not a direct or even implied acknowledgement about whether or not law keeping is still in force. 
27) Romans 3:28: “……… a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.”  Paul qualifies and clearly explains this verse in verse 31, only 3 verses away, “spelling out” that the law still needs to be obeyed. Mainstreamers just love to isolate this verse by itself, totally ignoring verse 31, lifting it “sky high” out of context as “proof” law keeping is no longer necessary. “For we reckon that a man is to be declared righteous by faith, apart from works of law.” — Rotherham Emphasized Bible          Young’s Literal Translation, American Standard Version, and ExeGeses Companion Bible also use the word “apart” instead of  “without.”  Alternate translation is “besides” the law. (editing — will be completed.)  Please visit http://www.ucg.org/booklet/new-covenant-does-it-abolish-gods-law/justice-and-judgment-god/how-paul-put-law-firmer-footi/.

28) Romans 7:6: “…… we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.” (NKJV) Grace through Jesus’ sacrifice is what really saves us now, not law obedience, but law keeping is still an integral, required part of salvation as “spelled out” in verses 7, 12, 22, and in over 100 other pro-law verses.       

29) Philippians 3:8,9: “…… for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus …… that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith.” (NKJV) Philippians 3:9:”…… and become one with him. I no longer count on my own righteousness through obeying the law; rather, I become righteous through faith in Christ.” (New Living Translation). These verses do not specifically, clearly say that law keeping can be abandoned. If you think that they give you permission to ignore the food and festival laws, for example, what are you going to do with Romans 6:15: “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? God forbid!” and over 90 other New Testament pro-law keeping verses, “throw them out the window”? No, of course not. The Biblical definition of sin is the breaking of primarily Old Testament laws. Philippians 3:8 and 9 are merely a relative comparison of two important conditions for salvation: law keeping and faith in the sacrificial death of Jesus to atone for our sins. It is really faith that saves us, but the law must still be observed. No matter how much faith a practicing homosexual may have, his sexual deeds will destroy his salvation, if we can trust that what the Bible says is true and will be carried out in the distant future. Also, the original Greek word for “having” in Philippians 9 is echo, Strong’s number 2192, which has many, many other definitions closely related to “having.” “Accompany” and “following” and “count,” for example, are other definitions of echo that appear elsewhere in the Bible. In other words, no translator has a 100% guarantee that “having” is really the best, most exact, most precise translation, only an assumption or trust that that is probably the best translation. Therefore verses 8 and 9 obviously do not provide clear and conclusive proof, beyond reasonable doubt, that law keeping has been annulled.
30) Titus 3:9: “But avoid ……. strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.” Paul’s letter to Titus was written when Titus was on Crete organizing new Christian churches, where he met considerable opposition and insubordination from dogmatic Jews who generally insisted that all the Christians should be circumcized, something that the Apostles agreed should be abolished. The original Greek word for “strivings” is mache, Strong’s number 3163, defined as such serious, heated arguments or contentions that they approach armed conflict and occasionally do result in violence. Paul would of course advise against becoming involved in such potentially violent arguments or fights whether it involved law, grace, or other religious subjects. This verse does not even remotely begin to provide support for the abolition of Mosaic law.

31) Hebrews 9:9,10: “Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” Some laws such as the circumcision and sacrifice laws had a symbolic purpose. The book of Hebrews explains that those kinds of laws also had only a temporary purpose because they were “concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.” Hebrews, though, does not say that everything contained in “the whole law” was temporary. The symbolic temple ceremonies and rituals practiced in a physical temple by ancient Israel are no longer necessary for today’s Christians because a certain physical temple (destroyed long ago) is not where Christians worship anymore as it was in Israel many centuries ago. Refer to Galatians 3:19-25. Jesus has now become the sacrifice for sin that those meat (animal) and grain sacrifices represented. Under the Old Covenant, only the priest could be allowed to enter the most holy part of the temple known as the “Holiest of All” (Hebrews 9:6-10). Since the sacrifice of Jesus has cleansed us and made us pure, we now have direct access to the Father (Hebrews 9:24). Jesus, now our High Priest, has entered into The Most Holy Place (Hebrews 9:11,12).

32) “The law of Christ:” Wickipedia.org, the online encyclopedia, basically defines this phrase as one WHOSE MEANING IS NOT CERTAIN. The phrase is found in Galatians 6:2 translated mostly as “the law of Christ.” “The law of Christ” is also found in some translations of 1 Corinthians 9:21. Most other translations render 1 Corinthians 9:21 differently, such as “under the law to Christ,” “subject to law to Christ,” “legally Christ’s,” “legitimately subject to Christ,” “lawfully subject to Christ,” “within law to Christ,” subject to the law to Christ,” “subject to the Messiah’s law,” and “with law to Christ,” etc. Galatians 6:2: “Bear the burdens of one another and thus fulfill the torah of the Messiah.” — exeGeses Companion Bible               The Greek for “torah” is nomos, Strong’s 3551, which generally refers to the Mosaic laws. Everything that Jesus taught would logically be the “law of Christ.” Mainstreamers, however, incorrectly believe that “the law of Christ” exempts Christians from obeying many Mosaic laws. When asked to point out a verse in which Jesus indicated the Mosaic laws no longer need to be observed, they cannot find such a verse.        
Mosaic law rejecting Christians have more than major problems in believing that the above verses in the English translations literally mean that obedience to the moral and civil laws within the Mosaic laws is now obsolete. Such Christians make the New Testament that they themselves use appear confusingly, even hopelessly contradictory, damaging some of its credibility. If the verses above mean that observing those Old Testament laws that are still applicable to today’s world really have been abolished, then the many other verses mentioned in this website, which include statements by Jesus Christ Himself, stating that these laws must still be obeyed are lies, an impossible situation if 2 Timothy 3:16 is true: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”     

Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved. All verses are from the NKJV unless otherwise noted.          
website security