Paul on the Law

The Exoneration of Paul, Part 3:

Paul Confirms the Law

By Pastor Eli James

“Wherefore the Law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” – Rom. 7:12.

“They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them. Evil men understand not judgment: but they that seek Yahweh understand all. Better is the poor that walks in uprightness, than he that is perverse in his ways, though he be rich. Whoso keeps the law is a wise son: but he that is a companion of riotous men shames his father…He that covers his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesses and forsakes them shall have mercy. Happy is the man that fears always: but he that hardens his heart shall fall into mischief…Whoso walks uprightly shall be saved: but he that is perverse in his ways shall fall at once.” – Proverbs 28: 4-18.

Does Yahweh contradict Himself? Was the Law only for the Israelites of the Old Testament, and not for their descendants in the New Covenant? If so, by what standard will He judge the world at the Great Day?

Is it true, as the dispensationalists teach, that the Law was abolished at the Cross? Furthermore, and along with the Law, were the Covenants, which pertained exclusively to Israel, suddenly broadened to include all races and nations? If these doctrines are true, then Yahweh has abrogated all of His promises to True Israel. But Yahweh said, “I CHANGE NOT; therefore ye sons of Jacob are NOT consumed.” (Mal. 3:6.) Either God is a liar or the dispensationalists are.

With respect to the writings of Paul, it is evident that Paul was always contending against evil men. If Paul was saying that the law had been abolished, what would be the basis of his contentions? The mere fact that Paul constantly admonished evildoers is proof that he was not an antinomian.

“For if you live after the flesh, you shall die: but if you through the Spirit mortify the deeds of the body, you shall live.” – Rom. 8:13.

Notice the conditional, IF, in that statement. Paul was by no means advocating a blanket “salvation.” He was advocating a conditional salvation, based on the Law.

“Your servant am I; give me understanding and I shall know your instructions. It is time to take action, Yahweh, your Law is being broken. So I love your commandments more than gold, purest gold. So I rule my life by your precepts, I hate all deceptive paths.” – Psalm 119:125-128.

“Not everyone that says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of My Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name? And in Your name have cast out devils? And in Your name done many wonderful works? And then I will profess to them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: depart from Me, you that work LAWLESSNESS.” – Matt. 7:21.

These verses define “faithfulness” to the Father’s Will, which is what all True Israelites must PRACTICE. Faithfulness is obedience to Yahweh’s moral laws, which are the basis of personal conduct and also of good government. Anyone who says that Paul is against the moral laws has been deceived by the antinomians. Paul does NOT use the word ‘faith’ as an antonym for the word ‘law.’ That is a misconception. Over the last two millennia, especially recently, the word ‘faith’ has developed a false, diluted meaning. If a word, like ‘faithfulness,’ which represents taking action, can be replaced by a word, like ‘faith,’ which merely represents having a mental attitude, devoid of the responsibility to act upon that attitude, then a major shift in doctrine has been accomplished.

Introduction

Thankfully, not all of modern Churchianity is antinomian. There is still a rational strain of Christian thought, although it rarely exists outside of the theologian’s study. The emotionalism of popular Christianity is largely devoid of reason. Given this irrational state of affairs, I was delighted to come across this pro-nomian commentary, in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible:

“The cause of man’s estrangement from God is the sin of man, his persistent disobedience to the will of God. God is a holy God. In spite of his great love and boundless mercy, he cannot treat sin as though it did not matter, for it corrupts and degrades human life, and thwarts all the purposes of God for man’s good. God stands ready to forgive and to heal the penitent sinner, but where man continues deliberately and defiantly in his wrongdoing, God by his very nature cannot be complacent about it or indulgently indifferent to it. Dreadful penalties are ordained as a consequence of sin. ‘God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap’ (Gal. 6:7). This law of retribution is part of what is meant by the wrath of God which rests upon the unrepentant sinner (Rom. 1:18) and which finds expression in the solemn warning: ‘The wages of sin is death’ (Rom. 6:23). Indeed, the sinner is already ‘dead through trespasses and sins’ (Eph. 2:1).” – Atonement, p. 311, Volume I.

Did you notice how the author drew his pro-nomian argument from verses in the epistles of Paul? By creatively ignoring the pro-nomian statements contained in Paul’s writings, the doctrine of antinomianism has deceived millions of unsuspecting sheep. This sermon will attempt to explain the how and why of this false theology, which has turned Scripture on its head.

The Antinomian Deception

Let me state, categorically, that had the Founding Fathers of America been antinomian in their thinking, there could not have been a rebellion against George III and the Bank of England. The Founders, who were all Bible-believing Christians, were ardent believers in biblical law. Had they been mere “mental Christians,” not “active Christians,” then there would have been no American Revolution. There would be no America today. Like the modern, antinomian, distortionist churches of today’s lukewarm dispensation, they would have allowed inactive belief to replace true faithfulness. On the contrary, the Founding Fathers practiced their faith, putting their principles into action. This is what Yahshua taught us to do. How is it possible that this philosophy has been so badly perverted?

I contend that the doctrine of antinomianism is a deliberately conceived, sophisticated ploy, a tactic, which True Israel’s enemies have used to get us True Israelites to fall asleep in our Faith. With such doctrines as antinomianism, “faith-only,” “don’t offend the sinner,” the distortionists have turned us into zombies, so that we have become Christian couch potatoes, do-nothing “Christians.” This tactic has worked with remarkable success, as so many modern “Christians” support denominations that have created a non-resistance to evil, as if merely believing in Jesus Christ is all that is required from the Christian. And the rest will take care of itself! The ostrich is in the pulpit.

Paul clearly tells us that Yahshua is our example. An example must be imitated, not merely observed. “Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.” – I Corin. 10:6. See also John 13:15. Christ was our example. An example must be followed. Christianity has never, until recently, been a spectator sport. The fact is that the antinomians, and their ilk, are standing on the sidelines, watching the game, while REAL CHRISTIANS are on the field, building the Kingdom, and engaging the enemy.

There is no doubt that Christianity has been deliberately emasculated and depoliticized, so that the international Zionist agenda could go forward without any moral outrage from either the pulpits or the pews. The anti-Christ has succeeded in turning Christians into zombies; and the night of living dead will surely be the result.

James tells us, “Resist the devil and he will flee from you.” Why don’t the appeasers of evil ever quote this verse? It’s because this verse is unequivocal in its opposition to appeasement. The distortionists love to quote Matthew 5, where He says, “Resist not evil.” But the distortionists interpret this verse from their universalistic context, which assumes that Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount to ALL PEOPLE. This is incorrect. The Sermon on the Mount was exclusively for True Israel. “I come not but unto the lost [exiled] sheep of the House of Israel.” (Matt. 15:24; 10:6.) It was not intended for those of the other races of the world. The proof of this is contained in Matthew 13:10-17, where the Apostles asked Yahshua, “Why speak you in parables”?

His answer was that there are people whom He does not want to understand the Gospel, because the doctrine is only intended for True Israelites. This is clearly what He says. He does not want non-Israelites to understand, lest they pervert the Gospel. Christians are doing a good enough job of that already! Speaking to the mixed multitude of contemporary Judea, Yahshua had to couch His teachings in symbolism and parables, which could only be grasped and implemented by the sons and daughters of the Covenants.

Understanding the exclusivity of Christ’s words on the Mount gives the Sermon the correct CONTEXT, which is about how we Israelites are supposed to behave TOWARDS ONE ANOTHER. It has nothing to do with outsiders. The proof of this is Yahshua’s command to the Apostles that they should carry a sword with them, when they go out to spread the Gospel. If an enemy soldier draws his sword against you, are you to wait until he slashes your cheek with his sword, before you begin to defend yourself?

Luke 22:35-38: 35 [Jesus] asked them [the eleven apostles], “When I sent you out without a purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “No, not a thing.”36 He said to them, “But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered among the lawless’; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.”38 They [the disciples] said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.””It is enough,” he replied. (NRSV)

Jesus was NOT a pacifist. When Yahshua said, at Matt. 5:39, “resist not evil,” He meant it in a completely different context from the words of the Apostle James. To be precise, He meant “Resist not the evil coming from your fellow Israelite, your neighbor who accuses you or slaps you on the cheek.” His meaning was, “If you are offended by a fellow Israelite, you are NOT to retaliate in kind, evil for evil.”

The true meaning is not obvious from these three words alone, taken out of context, so the context must be considered. Let’s look at this quotation again, this time adding some more of the verse: “But I say to you, that you resist not evil.” Another way this quotation is taken out of context is by not quoting the whole verse. They simply take that isolated idea, which is part of a larger thought, without reference to the WHOLE SENTENCE, which states: “But I say to you that you resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Verses 40-47 continue the same line of thought, always stressing that we are NOT TO RETURN EVIL FOR EVIL. Two wrongs don’t make a right! Whosoever of our brethren does us a moral wrong must be confronted with reason and moral indignation, but we are never to retaliate in kind. In other words, we are not to take the law into our own hands. We must first inquire as to why our brother is injuring us. And we must be ready to forgive the offender, even though he has unjustly persecuted us. Paul completely confirms this principle at Romans 12:17-21. None of this applies to non-Israelites. Nor does it apply to someone who attacks you with a sword or any weapon besides his hand. There was a reason why Yahshua told His Apostles to carry their swords with them. They were to use them when violently attacked. We are to be peacemakers within our own community; but this idea does not apply to an invading army that has been sent to destroy us.

In Matt. 5, verses 38 through 48 are the context within which verse 39 must be understood. To snatch verse 39 out its proper context is poor scholarship and lousy religion. Then, Verse 48 sums it up: “Be ye therefore PERFECT, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.” Has He not forgiven us time and time again, when He could have executed swift, just punishment? This is also why He tells us that we must forgive our brethren 70 times 7 times, in order to demonstrate that His Will, among the brethren of our community, is acting in us. Hence, when we violate our brethren, we violate Him. (Matt. 25:31-46.)

When He said, “Resist not evil,” Yahshua was talking about fellow Israelites. James, on the other hand, was talking about the devil, the deceiver, and those who do his bidding. Yahshua was talking about your kinsmen, those of your community. We absolutely MUST resist the devil and his children, the Jews. Our attitude to our kinsmen must be shaped by the Law, which states, “Love one another.” Nowhere does Scripture command us to love the Edomite Jews. Scripture unequivocally tells us to have nothing to do with them. Our response to our Brethren, who are part of the True Israelite community, must be tempered with love and restraint, so that we do not perpetuate an injustice, or make it worse by knee-jerk retaliation. If our response to an injustice is to commit another injustice, we are not only violating the Law, we are violating our brothers and sisters

Covenant Theology Versus Universalism

Let me repeat the operating principle here: In real estate, the important factor is location, location, location. The better the location, the higher the value. In Bible scholarship, the important factor is context, context, context. By taking words, phrases and verses out of context, the Judeo-churches have developed non-Biblical and anti-Biblical doctrine. The universalists, in particular, have developed an overarching philosophy of Scripture, which recognizes no principle but universalism. Thus, they recognize no contextual distinctions in Scripture, even though the Bible demands that we distinguish between Israelites and non-Israelites, between the Covenant People and those who are outside of the Covenants. They ignore the historical differences between Israelites and non-Israelites. They ignore racial differences. They ignore the anti-Christian outbursts of those who they are trying to “convert,” and they ignore the abject failures of these efforts. They ignore the specificity of the Covenants.

Only Christian Identity teaches that the exclusive, Covenant relationship between Israel and Yahweh is eternal. This is what the Bible actually teaches (Jer. 31:35-37). All of the other churches teach that the Covenants were transferred from the Israelites to the “church,” or to “spiritual Israel.” We are the REAL “old-time religion.” The rest is modernism. Modern Churchianity has become apostate. CI is the only biblical theology left. As Paul said, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.” II Tim. 4:3. That time is now.

From this unsound, universalistic perspective, their itching ears wish to hear only statements that can be applied to everyone, everywhere, since they are willing to “convert” anyone or anything to their universalistic religion. A subtle imperialism, is it not? Christian Identity is the ONLY Covenant theology in existence. The rest is apostasy. The reality is that the Bible is to, by, for and about the Covenant people, exclusively. We must therefore expose the false context of the distortionists and read the Scriptures in the light of the EXCLUSIVE COVENANTS, which pertain to no other people than True Israel. (Romans 11:25-27.) Because of this artificially expanded context, the universalists have created the racial and social quagmire that exists today, which is a cesspool of immorality and error. Also, they are unable to explain very specific prophecies, which have been fulfilled only by True (Caucasian) Israel. Hence, they must ignore these very specific prophecies or reinterpret them according to their false context. The Bible speaks only of an exclusive dispensationalism. True, Biblical Dispensationalism actually tells us that this modern world of Apostianity is like vomit in His mouth, as the Last Church Age of Revelation, the church of Laodicea, the lukewarm church, will be spewed out of His mouth. (Rev. 3:14-22.) Have you ever seen so many lukewarm zombies walking around? They call themselves “Christians.”

What Is the Meaning of “Not Under the Law”?

It is obvious that the antinomians believe that the expression, “not under the law,” means that the law no longer exists. But this cannot be, as Paul would be hopelessly contradicting himself. What’s going on? Let’s see how a couple of different commentators handle this language. First, let’s hear from the Judeo-Christian perspective, Mr. Vance Stinson. Referring to Psalms 119:97-112, Mr. Stinson says,

Paul affirms that “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good” (Romans 7:12).

Like the Psalmist, Paul internalizes God’s commandments. “For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self,” (verse 22).

The apostle strongly denounces the idea that Christians, through faith, “overthrow the law,” declaring instead that “we uphold the law” (Romans 3:31).

The Psalmist declares that God’s “word” – His revealed will as expressed through His law- “is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (Psalm 119:105). It informs its hearers of the attitudes and actions that please and displease God.

Similarly, Paul affirms that: “All scripture” (which certainly includes the Torah, or section known as “the Law”) is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

The law, then, is God’s moral and ethical standard, the means through which His good and perfect will is revealed. Meditation upon the law and obedience to its commandments result in wisdom, knowledge, insight, and understanding. It is indeed a “lamp to our feet” and “light to our path.” It teaches us how to live!

The term Torah, translated “law” in the Old Testament, literally means “teaching.” The name itself indicates that the primary purpose of the law is to teach! This is precisely the function of the law the Psalmist has in mind in his poetic descriptions of the law as the source of knowledge, wisdom, and instruction in righteousness. This is the educative role of the law.

However, the law has another function – and understanding this function is vital to a correct understanding of the “hard sayings” of Paul’s epistles. This second function is best described as the judicial role of the law.

In its second function, the law acts as a “custodian“, but only for those who are not “in Christ.” It is this role of the law Paul has in mind when he says, “You are not under the law but under grace” (Romans 6:14), and when he describes the law as a “custodian” that kept us under its power “until Christ came” (Galatians 3:24).

To understand the judicial role of the law, it is first necessary to understand the relationship between the law and sin. Paul writes,

“What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I should not have known sin. I should not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’ But sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead” (Romans 7:7,8).

If there were no law, sin would not exist. But because there is a law, sin does exist. Therefore, it is through the law that we become aware that we are sinners; it is “through the commandment” that sin “become[s] sinful beyond measure” (Romans 7:13). It is this relationship between sin and the law that Paul has in view when he says,

“The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law” (1Corinthians 15:56)

and when he explains that our “sinful passions” were “aroused by the law” (Romans 7:5).

Paul points out that sin entered the world through Adam’s trespass, and that the

“Law came in, to increase the trespass” (Romans 5:20).

Again, notice the relationship between sin and the law. By identifying sin, and by making us aware that we are sinners and therefore under condemnation, the law informs us of our need for a Savior – One who can blot out our record of sins and deliver us from the sentence of death. But until we come to the Savior, the law holds us in custody, declaring us sinners and pronouncing the death sentence upon us. In this limited sense, the law is a curse to us.

The law, then, has two roles:

First, it is our instructor (the educative role), revealing to us God’s way of life-the path He desires that we follow. It expresses the good and perfect will of God, not only explicitly through its many commandments, statutes, and judgments, but implicitly through the creation and historical narratives.

Second, the law acts as our custodian (the judicial role), but only until we come to conversion through faith in Christ. By identifying us as sinners and demanding punishment for our sins, the law holds us in custody. Knowledge of the law’s high standards increases our moral awareness and personal responsibility, thus eliminating ignorance as an excuse. Now, sin becomes exceedingly sinful.

But when we come to conversion through faith in Christ, the law’s role as custodian is abolished. No longer can the law demand our death, for God has declared us “Not guilty!” No longer can the law declare us transgressors, for the record of our sins has been blotted out. The curse of the law has been removed (Galatians 3:13).

Knowledge of the two roles of the law sheds significant light on the seemingly contradictory passages of Paul’s epistles. We should now be able to see how Paul can insist upon meeting the requirements of the law (as in Galatians 5:13-21), while, without contradiction, speaking of the law’s transitory role (Galatians 3:19, 24-25). {Source:

http://www.biblestudy.org/apostlepaul/what-did-paul-teach-about-the-law-of-god.html }

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the custodian role is “abolished” by grace. Its function will certainly return if we fall away from His Will. Under the old “eye for an eye” system, punishment was swift and often fatal. The Law was EXTERNAL. It was FORCE. The priests and the councils of elders were obligated to execute justice. Under the New Covenant, we ourselves are expected to be custodians of the Law. If we accept the Law as written in our hearts, we are no longer “under the law” (subject to its penalties). If we internalize the Law, we are the Law. And this is precisely what Yahshua meant when He said, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.” The only way you can know Yahweh is by obeying His Law. By doing this, you gradually get to know Him. The more you know Him, the more you become LIKE HIM, which is the objective of the New Covenant, as specifically prophesied in Jer. 31.

To put it another way, if you want to have a personal relationship with Yahshua, try obeying His Laws. You can’t possibly know Him if you’re a sinner. “If you love Me, keep my commandments.” (John 14:15. Also John 14:21; 15:10; I Cor. 7:19.)

Our second commentator is from the non-seedline camp of Identity. Stephen Jones, in his book, The Secrets of Time, deals with the subject of how Yahweh’s laws and punishments have been and are being fulfilled according to His prescribed cycles of time. The Law of Return is commonly understood as “what goes around, comes around.” Paul actually teaches this, when he says, ‘God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.’ (Gal. 6:7.) Isn’t it clear that, if we sin, we will reap the consequences of that sin? And if we do good, we will reap the consequences of that good? How then can anyone say that Paul is teaching that good works are of no consequence? They can’t, because he is not saying that. Nor is he saying that the law has been abolished. Nor is he saying that sin no longer exists.

In asking the question, “Has any part of the Law been put away?” Stephen Jones says this:

“Your view of the Law will determine your view of sin. Many Christians believe that God legalized all sin; others believe that He legalized only certain sins, but upheld a few – the Ten Commandments. Either view is what the Bible calls a “Lawless” attitude. No Laws were repealed; but some did change form. No longer is it necessary to sacrifice a lamb at the Temple to receive forgiveness of sins…As a general rule, the moral Laws remained intact. Only the means of Justification or purification from sin were altered. The things done in the Tabernacle or Temple were changed, but all the Laws dealing with our fellow men outside of the Tabernacle or Temple have remained to define sin and make sin sinful. There is no crime unless there is a Law to make it a crime.”

“This does not mean that anyone is obligated to obey the Jewish laws. Jewish law is Talmudic, rather than Biblical. Talmudic law is what Jesus called “the tradition of men” (Mark 7:8) or “the tradition of the elders” (Matt. 15:2). These were Jewish interpretations of the Law which were not only incorrect, but they actually rendered God’s Law void. Jesus had harsh words for the Pharisees for putting away God’s Law through their traditions.”

“Jesus put away many Jewish legal interpretations because they made void the Law of God. But Jesus never once put away God’s Law. He knew the intent of the Lawmaker, and He gave its interpretation according to what His Father intended from the beginning.” – p. 2, The Secrets of Time.

I totally agree with these statements that Yahweh’s Moral Law has not been altered in any way. The only thing that was changed was how the punishments and penalties are to be administered. To put it succinctly, the priestly ordinances of blood sacrifices, as a means of expiating sin, were removed. In the Old Testament, the punishments and remedies for sin were codified into the sacrificial rituals of the Levitical priesthood. Since there is no longer a Levitical priesthood to perform ritual sacrifices for the remissions of sins, it is incumbent upon us to establish justice among ourselves, because Yahweh’s coming Kingdom will be a Kingdom of Law, not a kingdom of feel-good lawlessness. How do we do this? By following Yahshua’s example! This is why Paul repeatedly admonishes us to practice “righteousness.” Righteousness is justice, lawfulness. Unrighteousness is lawlessness. And there can be no justice without Law. Otherwise, we are back to the opinions of men, and we know how miserably that fails. This is why antinomianism is creating a lawless, evil world. The blind cannot see the consequences of their blindness…until the hammer of justice hits home.

They may have accepted “Jesus,” but they haven’t accepted the Savior. Yahshua has guaranteed that, at His Second Advent, He will come back with the scales of Justice in His hands. Jesus will return in order to rescue Israel, defeat the Antichrist (Rev. 19:11-21), judge the nations (Matt. 25:31-46) and the wicked in Israel (Ezek. 20:33-38), and rule over the Messianic Kingdom (Matt. 19:28; Rev. 20:1-6). These versus are talking about righteous government, folks. There can be no such thing as righteous government without Yahweh’s Moral Laws. The fruits of antinomianism are evident in the rampant lawlessness in the churches today. It is the doctrine of good intentions, without responsibility for our actions. As James said, “Faith without works is dead.” (James 2:14-24.) The modern churches are dead. They teach delusion instead of Truth.

Tabula Rasa or Carte Blanche?

Stephen Jones asks a follow-up question, namely, “Under the Law: What Did Paul Mean?”

“The phrase “under the Law” refers to the Law’s attitude toward you, not your attitude toward the Law. A sinner who is convicted of sin (crime) is “under the Law,” and the Law will stand over him to force him to pay restitution to his victims. A sinner who has been released from his sentence – either by paying the debt in full, or working it off, or having a near kinsman redeem him from debt – is “under Grace.” In such a case, the court closes his case, because it has no further work to do and has no further interest in him. The Law has no jurisdiction over those who are under Grace. It only gains jurisdiction when a person commits a crime (sin).” – p. 3.

The mistake that the antinomians have made is to assume that the concept of “grace” is an extra-legal concept. On the contrary, grace does not abolish the Law at all. Grace is the legal acceptance of the redemption. Grace does not imply that the Law has been abolished. It only means that we have been pardoned. We are no longer under the penalties or the curses of the Law, which applied to our ancestors, Adam and Eve, who were the first to violate the law. These penalties were even more strictly enforced and applied to our ancestors, the children of Israel, when they violated the Mosaic Covenant. The crimes committed under the old system were forgiven at Mt. Calvary. Nothing else was forgiven; and we are fully responsible for any sin debt that we incur for our own actions. This is what Paul means when he says, “What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the Law, but under Grace? God forbid!” (Romans, 6:15.)

Somehow, the Paul deifiers manage to twist his words and interpret him to mean, “We can no longer sin, because the law has been done away with.” Itchy ears, and lying lips, as well!

Grace is NOT a license to sin. It is NOT permission to commit sins or to disregard the moral laws. Rather, it consists in two favors that Yahweh has bestowed upon us. 1.) The forgiveness of past sins. (Rom. 3:25, #4266, proginomai (past); 2 Peter 1:9, #3819, palai (old). 2.) The elimination of the system of ritual sacrifices, and, necessarily, the elimination of the Levitical priesthood, which officiated these sacrifices. In this new reality of the New Covenant, our responsibility to avoid sin is EVEN GREATER THAN BEFORE! How so? Because we no longer have the sacrificial rituals to fall back on. Now, our responsibility is DIRECTLY to Yahweh, who expects us to be righteous. We have been given a two thousand year Grace Period in which to internalize His Laws. This situation will not last forever. When He comes again, He will bring Judgment with him, so it is incumbent upon us to write the Law into our hearts with brotherly love and with a wealth of experience. Paul says exactly this:

“What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law? God forbid!! Know ye not that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are to whom you obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience to righteousness?” – Romans, 6:15, 16.

Will you yield yourself to lawlessness or righteousness? It’s really a very simple proposition, but theologians and distortionists have made it very confusing. We have been given a clean slate, not a license to kill

Paul’s Historical Message To the House of Judah

Modern Judeo-Christians fail to understand that, when he was speaking to Israelites of the House of Judah, Paul was trying to get these Judeans (not Jews) to understand that Christ’s sacrifice had done away with the Levitical priesthood and blood sacrifices. We have to understand that this sacrificial system had been in place for nearly fifteen hundred years! Paul was trying to get these Judahites to understand that the Passover Sacrifice of Christ was the LAST SACRIFICE, as prophesied by their very own Scriptures. Old habits die hard!!!

Today’s universalists falsely assume that Paul was talking to everyone who will ever read his words. That is not true. Paul’s epistles were correspondence, after all, addressed to specific groups of Israelites; and they often addressed the very particular concerns of the addressee. (The word ‘Gentile’ does not mean “non-Israelite.” This is another false teaching of the universalists. The true definition of the Latin word ‘gentilis’ is “kinsman.”)

With respect to the Law, the universalists assume that Paul was arguing against the WHOLE LAW, including the Ten Commandments. On the contrary, Paul NEVER argued against keeping the moral laws. He constantly admonished the Judeans and Israelites of the Dispersion to AVOID SIN. Indeed, at the end of Romans 3, he says, “For the wages of sin is DEATH.” (Rom. 3:23.) He does not say, “For the wages of sin, in days gone by, used to be death.” He says, “The wages of sin IS DEATH.” Does the present tense mean anything, grammatically?

Let’s get this straight: never once did Paul say that, “The Law has been done away with.” I defy anyone to find this statement anywhere in Scripture. Colossians 2:14 is the only verse that even comes close; and I will later prove that the antinomian interpretation of that verse is a blatant distortion of language.

Getting back to the historical perspective: Having eliminated the Levitical priesthood, we Israelites no longer have available to us that easy means of forgiving sin. No longer will a dove or a shekel count for forgiveness. We are expected NOT TO SIN, otherwise Yahweh will definitely judge us harshly at the Judgment Day. Speaking of the hypocrites of his day, Paul says:

“And think you this, O man, that judges them which do such things, and does the same, that you shall escape the judgment of God? Or despise the riches of His goodness and forebearance and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to REPENTANCE. But after your hardness and impenitent heart treasure up to yourself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render every man ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.” – Rom. 2: 3-6.

In somewhat circumlocutionary language, Paul is saying: “Repent and be saved”!! Rather than teaching pacifism and passivism, Paul is preaching judgment, children. Let us not ignore his warnings, which are just as stern as those of James, John, Peter and even Yahshua. Is not Paul also saying that we will be judged according to our works? We will analyze Paul’s teachings on this subject in greater detail a bit later.

The Law AND the Covenants

Another major mistake the churches make is to equate the Mosaic Law with the Covenants. When they use the term “Old Covenant,” they mean the Mosaic Law; but this is a simplistic equation. The Mosaic Covenant was not the only Covenant of the Old Testament. There were many others that had no relationship to the Covenant at Mt. Sinai.

Whatever misunderstandings have occurred from Paul’s writings, it is not possible to honestly argue that Paul’s words mean that “the Law has been abolished” or that “there is no more sin for those under Grace.” These are false conclusions derived from some bad translations of Paul’s writings and from the universalistic interpretations of most churches today. What I don’t understand is how the words “God forbid!” can be misunderstood. Today’s churches are doing exactly what God forbids, practicing lawlessness, even according to Paul. Typically, the antinomians will quote Romans 6:1-14, but then they will conveniently omit Verse 15 from their sermons, because Verse 15 absolutely refutes their interpretation of the meaning of “we are not under the Law.”

What Paul is saying is that we are no longer under the penalties of the Old Covenant, which involved the rituals of the Levitical priesthood. Since all the modern interpretations of the Holy Scriptures ignore their historical context, it is easy to miss the point that Paul repeatedly makes elsewhere, which is that the penalties incurred under the Law Covenant have been forgiven by the promises made to Abraham even before the Law was given to us through Moses at Mt. Sinai.

Galatians 3:17-18: “What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on Law, it is no longer based on promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of promise.”

From this statement, many interpreters have falsely concluded that there was no Law before Moses wrote it down; and many ministers teach this false doctrine. It is directly refuted by Gen. 26:5: “Because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws…” When Paul speaks of the faith of Abraham, he is speaking of Abraham’s faithfulness to Yahweh’s laws, plus his reliance on Yahweh’s promises, which were often independent of any laws. When Yahweh makes a promise, He keeps it.

In the Book of Galatians, it is clear that the CONTEXT of the epistle is the Covenants given to Israel. The Mosaic Covenant of Sinai is not the only Covenant of the Old Testament. Again, the universalists confuse terms that should not be confused.

Our INHERITANCE, which was instituted under the New Covenant, was not a matter of Law. It was a matter of Yahweh’s Promise. This is why Paul repeatedly cautions us not to boast of our law-keeping, because our forgiveness was made manifest by Yahweh’s keeping of His promises to Abraham on our behalf. This does not mean that we should not keep the Law. The Israelites kept the Old Covenant very poorly, at best; and very little has changed in that regard. The New Covenant has nothing to do with the abolition of any laws except the ritual sacrifices. We find also, in the Book of Hebrews, that the Levitical priesthood is to be replaced by the priesthood of the Order of Melchizedek. This priesthood existed long before the Levitical priesthood was established; so, the New Covenant re-established the original priesthood. Abraham was a member of this priesthood, which most definitely had Yahweh’s Moral Law, although it had not yet been written down. Abraham even paid tithes to the High Priest of this Order (Gen. 14:18-20).

The book of Daniel is very specific about what part of the Law will be abolished:

“The sacrifices and oblation shall cease.” – Dan. 9:27. (An oblation was a donation or offering, as opposed to a blood sacrifice.)

This New Covenant is very clearly spelled out in Jeremiah 31:31-37.

“The days are coming, saith Yahweh, when I shall ESTABLISH A NEW COVENANT, with the people of Israel and Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them out of Egypt, a covenant they broke, though I was patient with them, saith Yahweh. For this is the COVENANT I shall establish with the Israelites after those days, saith Yahweh: I shall SET MY LAW WITHIN THEM, WRITING IT ON THEIR HEARTS; I shall be their Elohim, and they will be My People. No longer need they teach one another, neighbor or brother, to know Yahweh. All of them, high an low alike, will know Me, saith Yahweh, for I shall forgive their wrongdoing, and their sin I shall call to mind no more. These are the words of Yahweh, who gave the sun for a light by day and the moon and stars in their courses for a light by night, who cleft the sea and its waves roared; Yahweh of Hosts is His Name. Israel could no more cease to be a nation in My sight, saith Yahweh, than could this fixed order vanish before my eyes. These are the words of Yahweh: I could no more spurn the whole of Israel because of what they have done, than anyone could measure the heaven above or fathom the depths of the earth beneath. This is the word of Yahweh. ” (Revised English Version.)

None of the Dispensationalists ever refer to this passage, because it refutes their entire doctrine, which states that the Nation of Israel will be replaced their own multicultural “church” and that the Law is no longer in effect. Numerous Old Testament prophecies guarantee that Israel will NEVER CEASE FROM BEING A FLESH AND BLOOD NATION. Jeremiah 31 is only one of the many. Beyond any doubt, Israel will not cease to be a nation forever; and the Law will be WRITTEN ON OUR HEARTS, not “done away with.” This one verse, by itself, demolishes the “Replacement Theology” of the modern churches. The fact that the Law is NOT abolished is absolutely crucial in understanding the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. As Stephen Jones stated above, only the form of observance has changed. Instead of offering sacrifices, “Confess your sins to one another.” – James 5:16.

You see, sin is still with us. What has vanished is the Levitical priesthood, along with its bloody rituals.

With this understanding that the New Covenant means that THE LAW WILL BE WRITTEN IN OUR HEARTS, how can anyone possibly teach that the Law will be abolished? Of course, many of the antinomians also teach that the Old Testament is “obsolete.” This self-serving doctrine allows them to ignore the prophetic significance of the New Covenant, as contained in the Old Testament. Thus, they ignore Dan. 9:27 and Jeremiah 31:31, as if these verses have no bearing on the terms of the New Covenant.

(This article, entitled “Law Versus Lawlessness, #5,” expands on the differences between the Law and the covenants: http://www.livingcog.com/lawvslaw5.htm )

In addition, nowhere does Paul explicitly state that, “The Law has been abolished.” This is strictly a matter of interpretation; and most of these interpretations go out of their way to avoid the context of the passages involved. In picking and choosing verses that seem to make their case, they studiously avoid verses that refute their opinion; and this is pure dishonesty. There is a solid principle of justice that cannot be ignored. It is this: “The Truth, the WHOLE TRUTH, and nothing but the Truth.” The antinomians go out of their way to avoid dealing with the Whole Truth. It is their piecemeal approach to Paul’s writings, which are the foundation of antinomianism, universalism, and modern dispensationalism. Later in this essay, we will cite the words of Paul, which clearly say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the antinomians teach. Their failure to address these verses clearly demonstrates their dishonesty. Whenever there is an apparent contradiction in Scripture, this must be resolved by intensive study. There is no excuse for avoiding difficult verses in Scripture. If there is an apparent contradiction, it must be resolved. Yahweh does not contradict Himself. His words are true. If Paul failed to explain Yahweh’s intentions for Israel, then shame on him. We will see that the antinomian misunderstanding of Paul is based on a combination of poor translation and horrible interpretation; and both of these are exacerbated by poor scholarship.

The Founding Fathers of America, all of whom were devout Christians, never once questioned the applicability of Yahweh’s Laws. In fact, the Constitution of the United States would have been inconceivable under the delusion of antinomianism. Thomas Jefferson, who also believed that Paul was an antinomian, even went to the extent of tearing Paul’s Epistles out of his Bible, because he could not accept what he perceived as Paul’s antinomianism. {See this link for an article on this subject: http://www.discoveret.org/lcoc/news/00n0504.htm } Nor should we accept it.

Does Paul Teach Against the Law?

On this question, the most heated debate occurs. The Antinomians insist that Paul openly declares that the Law has been abolished. The Nomians insist that Paul did no such thing. And the Anti-Paulians agree with the Antinomian interpretations of Paul and want all of his writings thrown out of the New Testament. This is the state of affairs, as it exists at this moment (Aug. 2010). Is there any way of getting out of this quandary? Although the antinomian heresy is nothing new, its peak has been achieved in this modern era of televangelism. Their bully pulpit reeks with the repetitions of such phrases as “The law has been done away with” and “We are not under the Law, but under Grace,” etc. etc. Antinomianism is a cult, a devilish cult, to be sure. Let’s examine some of their delusions.

Firstly, I would say that any antinomian has created a serious dilemma for himself by siding with Paul against the Son of God. Let us quote Matt. 5:17:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am come not to destroy, but to fulfill.”

The passage says “the law and the prophets” must be fulfilled. The Old Testament is replete with prophecies concerning the Judgment Day and many latter day prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled. Even if it were granted that the “law has been fulfilled,” whatever that would mean, it is certainly NOT true that these end time prophecies have been fulfilled. Matt. 24 is all about the end of this world order, the Second Coming, and the establishment of the kingdom of heaven. Certainly, none of these prophecies have been fulfilled as of this writing.

If there is indeed a contradiction between the teachings of Paul and Jesus, the question is this: “Whom do you believe, Paul or Jesus?”

Do I need to provide an answer to this question?

Also, Paul’s contemporaries, such as Peter, James and John, are on record as unequivocally opposing antinomianism. By what rule or logic would Paul’s supposed antinomianism supercede that of Yahshua or the other Apostles? It was not Paul who “reinvented Christianity.” It was his interpreters.

In addition, the Apocalypse, which was the last book written, clearly declares, in Chapter 22, and in many other places, that we will all be judged according to our works, not just by our beliefs. So, it is NOT TRUE that our good works do not matter. It is obvious to me that Paul’s interpreters have jumped on his translated prose and have run off half-cocked, preaching a number of very dubious doctrines, which are very much opposed by the rest of Scripture, both OT and NT. If Paul is indeed responsible for this confusion, then he is to blame. But if his words have been mistranslated and misused, by either the ignorant or the insincere, then we must give him the benefit of the doubt. By this standard, it is up to the Paul Cult to prove that the other authors of the New Testament, none of whom teach anything that can be even remotely considered to be antinomian, are somehow wrong and their version of Paul is correct.

Of course, no antinomian has ever tried such an exercise – except for a couple of non-Paul passages, which we will consider below – because it is Scripturally and logically impossible to do so, even though many antinomians, I’m sure, have searched high and low for evidence of such doctrine in the other books of the New Testament.

I will begin by citing passages from Paul, which clearly teach his acceptance of the Law and its various punishments. Then we will consider some of the more difficult passages, which the Antinomians use as their “best evidence.” We will find that, upon close inspection of the original Greek, Paul is not the straightforward antinomian that the Paul Cult assumes.

The Law Syllogism

(A syllogism is a formal proof in logic. In a Syllogism, the Premises are listed first, then the Conclusion, which follows from the Premises, if the logic is correct and the premises are true.)

A typical syllogistic argument is this:

Syllogism A:

All Shemites are White.

All Israelites are Shemites.

THEREFORE, all Israelites are White.

If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true, because the two premises declare an equality, first, between Whites and Shemites and, second, between Israelites and Shemites. But, let’s reverse the meaning of the premises and see what happens:

Syllogism B:

All Whites are Shemites.

All Shemites are Israelites.

THEREFORE, all Whites are Israelites.

Since both premises are false, the conclusion must be false, because a true conclusion cannot possibly be derived from any false premises, except by accident. We know that there are many tribes and nations of the Adamic Race, which are not of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. All Israelites are Whites; but not all Whites are Israelites. These exclusive categories must be kept in mind. If there is any confusion of categories – most of which occur because of false and confusing definitions – then the conclusions drawn from such statements will necessarily be false.

Here, then, is what I call the Law Syllogism:

“Sin is transgression of the Law.” (I John 3:4; Lev. 4:13.)

“The wages of sin is death.” (Romans 6:23.)

The last time I looked around, people are still dying!

THEREFORE: The Law is still in effect!

Paul is clearly telling us that sin causes death. He also teaches that immortality will eventually be bequeathed to Israel, but only when sin itself is vanquished. (I Cor. 15:49-58.) Incorruption is the only antidote for death! In the meantime, sin and death are still with us.

This conclusion is easily drawn from Scripture. So, why is there so much confusion on this subject, and why are there so many advocates of a different conclusion? It is because these people have been influenced by the worldview of the distortionists; and we have seen, in Parts 1 & 2, how they have corrupted the Holy Scriptures in numerous ways. Now, we are going to deal with specific passages of Paul’s writings, in order to show both deliberate mistranslation (interpolation) and misguided interpretation (eisogesis), with respect to Paul’s teachings on the Law. We might call this “shake and bake” theology; and there’s a whole lot of shakin’ and bakin’ going on!!!

Martin Luther’s Mistake

With respect to the laws of Yahweh, we will see, later, that the Judeo-churches have made a great mistake in equating the expression “works of the law” with “good works.” The former have been abolished. The latter are mandatory! How can Paul argue that we will be judged according to our deeds, while at the same time argue that our “works” do not afford “salvation”? That’s because the “works of the law” are not the same as the “good deeds” or “good works” that Christians are duty-bound to perform. The KJV has done a miserable job of translating these expressions, thus causing great confusion.

Paul’s message is no different from that of the other authors of the New Testament: Repent and be saved. If there is no more sin, what is the purpose of repentance? If Paul is saying that the Whole Law has been abolished, then there is no need for repentance; but he is NOT saying this. This error began with Martin Luther, as is explained by this article: http://theunhiddenbible.org/

The Hebrew word that is translated as ‘faith’ at Hab. 2:4 is Strong’s # 530, emuwnah, which means trustworthiness, steadfastness, stability, fidelity, firmness. All of these definitions imply the reliability of faithfulness. Faithfulness is displayed in a person’s moral character. It means reliability. It is proven by actions, not by mere belief. The Anglo-Saxon world has a word for it: HONOR. Honor is something that is demonstrated by keeping one’s word. On the other hand, the modern idea of “faith” has been watered down to mean mere belief in something. In this sense, the word ‘faith’ can be construed to justify a lack of action, which is almost the exact opposite of the meaning of the Hebrew word!!! Indeed, it can be construed to mean that actions are irrelevant or unnecessary; and that is how most of the modern distortionists use the term.

Furthermore, this strong emphasis on mere belief is most definitely an UNSCRIPTURAL attitude. There is a vast difference between belief and knowledge; and Scripture emphasizes knowledge. “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” And because the modern apostians have no interest in knowledge – they want that “feel good” religion – they avoid knowledge as if it were a hindrance to their religion, which it is!!! Because of this irrational attitude, they have invented a myriad of self-contradictory propositions, and Paul has gotten the blame. Unfortunately, outsiders perceive that all of Christianity is therefore irrational, precisely because of the bogus junk that is being preached by these apostians.

According to my Strong’s Concordance, the Hebrew word emuwah is used 18 times to mean faithfulness. Only once is it translated as the weaker word, ‘faith.’ Why is this? As explained in the above link, the reason is because Yahshua quotes this verse from Habakkuk 2:4; and since the watered down version of the New Testament must not appear to be contradicted by the Old Testament, the KJV translators went back into the OT and replaced ‘faithfulness’ with ‘faith,’ so as to dilute Yahshua’s quotation of Hab. 2:4 as well. Was this a deliberate deception on Martin Luther’s part, or was it an honest mistake? Mistakes happen; and heretical denominations are the result. Few distortionists ever point out such discrepancies. A theology is at stake. That no action is required on the part of the “believer” for his “salvation” is a fundamental assertion of this heresy. It already happened at the Cross!! Christ did it for us, therefore, we have no obligation to perform righteousness…or so they believe! From this logic flows the concept that good works are not necessary for “salvation.”

Peter tells us, “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God; and if it first begin with us (True Israel), what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to Him in well doing, as to a faithful Creator.” – I Peter 5:17-19.

The concept of doing good deeds and behaving morally are absolutely central to the Holy Scriptures. How can the hundreds, if not thousands, of Scriptures that tell us to behave accordingly, be overruled by the antinomians? In an article entitled, “How to Interpret the Bible,” author Paul Danielson has this to say:

“Now just as no individual has the right to interpret Scripture for himself, so also no verse or truth of Scripture stands alone, but finds its illumination from one or more other passages. Yet how easy it is to select certain detached verses of Scripture and then combine them in the most arbitrary manner. In so doing we are using the very words of Scripture, yet at the same time they are only expressing our own thoughts, and not those of the Holy Spirit. So then, care must be taken that no verse can be explained in a way which will be in conflict with what is clearly taught in the bible as a whole.” – p. 455, Word of God, KJV Study Bible.

Subtle changes in meaning, applied to a great number of verses, are required to justify antinomianism. Over the centuries, numerous subtle changes have taken place in the language of Christianity. These subtle changes have created the abomination called “Judeo-Christianity,” which, in so many ways, is the exact opposite of the Faith taught to us by Yahshua Messiah. A faith is, after all, a doctrine. What kind of doctrine is it that does not require its adherents to demonstrate any objective proof that their doctrine is valid? Do you see how antagonistic this idea is to True Christianity?

Faith and faithfulness are two different concepts. One is mental and spiritual. The other requires actions that confirm that there is actual Faith in the soul of the Israelite!! Christianity is not isolated in a vacuum. The Gospel of the Kingdom is a social Gospel. It is the doctrine of good citizenship, with the True Christian modeling this citizenship by obeying the laws of the Kingdom. This is what James means when he says, “Faith without works is dead.” (James 2.)

Paul quotes Hab. 2:4 at Heb. 10:38. “The just shall live by faithfulness.” Does Paul mean what the antinomians claim he means; or is Paul talking about faithfulness, which requires a demonstration of good works and deeds? The rest of Hab. 2 speaks of the consequences of not practicing this “faith.” Let’s let Paul speak for himself:

“By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not as yet seen, moved with fear, PREPARED AN ARK, to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.” – Heb. 11:7. Did Noah take action, or didn’t he? Did Noah say to himself, as the modern, “do-nothing” apostians would say, “Not to worry, the ark will build itself”? Or did he take action?

Paul confirms the value of good works at Rom. 13:3, Eph. 2:10, I Timothy 2:10, 5:10, 6:18, II Tim. 3:17, Titus 1:16, Titus 2:7, 2:14, Titus 3:8, 14. Jesus also confirms that good works are necessary at Matt. 5:16, as does the Book of Revelation, in many places. Indeed, Paul confirms that we will be judged by Yahweh according to our good or evil deeds:

“But if any provide not for his own, and specially those of his own house, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” – I Tim. 5:8.

“Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them.” – Ephesians 5:11.

“For he is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid; for he bears not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of a God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil.” – Rom. 13:4. (See also I Peter 3:11-13.)

“Abhor that which is evil; cling to that which is good.” – Rom. 12:9.

In verses 9 through 14 of the same chapter, Paul enumerates a list of sins that we must avoid. Yet, the “we are all saved” crowd say that we need not heed such instruction. “Once saved, always saved” is another subtle fabrication, which has resulted in a tremendous change in Christian doctrine. John Calvin is the apostate who introduced this very subtle lie. This doctrine is not contained in Scripture. Peter refutes it (2 Peter 2:21-22) and Paul also refutes it at Hebrews 12:2-15. Paul is falsely accused of teaching it. It is the modernists, speaking in his name, who teach it.

I can say with great Scriptural confidence that anyone who teaches or believes this doctrine has already purchased an engagement in hell. There’s a section reserved for infidels!

 

Good Works Versus Works of the Law

In the writings of Paul, “the works of the law” must not be confused with “good works.” A careful reading of Paul’s epistles makes it very obvious that he teaches against the former and just as obviously is in favor of the latter. From this fact, we must logically conclude that there must be a real difference between the two concepts. Because the distortionists have not done their homework or because they have deliberately contrived to confuse this issue, little sense can be made out of equating these two concepts. The failure to address Hebrew and Greek idioms is responsible for many such misunderstandings. We cannot always take the language of Scripture literally. When contradictions arise, we MUST investigate the idioms that often help to clarify the intent of the author.

The idiomatic use of the expression, “works of the law,” will now be considered. But first, let us consider an example of the false ideas that have come about because of a failure to investigate Scriptural language. This statement, by an antinomian, pretty well sums up the distortionist delusion concerning “works” versus “grace”:

Salvation Cannot Be By Works and God’s Grace

‘Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he has saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.’ (Titus 3:5.) This Bible verse makes it plain and simple that good works will not save anyone. Listen to the message of Ephesians 2:8-9, ‘For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.” How many Scriptures does God need to put in front of our face before we get the idea – salvation is not by merit. ‘Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.’ (Galatians 2:16.) The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The plain teaching of the inspired word of God is that salvation is not by works. You just read the Scriptures for yourself.”

• Good Works Versus Grace, by David J. Stewart.

Obviously, Mr. Stewart holds this doctrine in all sincerity. I hate to burst Mr. Stewart’s bubble, but he utterly misunderstands what Paul is saying in these verses. It is not Mr. Stewart’s fault. It is the translators who have fallen far short of the mark, either by design or by the mediocrity of low expectations. It must be understood that Mr. Stewart’s vocabulary is loaded with universalistic assumptions, all of which are demonstrably false.

First of all, what Mr. Stewart means by “salvation” is not what the Bible means by salvation. The Bible almost never talks about “salvation” as a merely spiritual accomplishment. Nor does it speak of salvation in terms of “going to heaven after you die.” This spiritualization is an entirely modernist doctrine, invented by the evangelists for the purpose of “saving souls.” In fact, I am adamant in saying that this concept is actually foreign to Scripture, because the Bible is concerned, first and foremost, with saving the nation of Israel. In the OT, the word salvation is always applied to the physical preservation of the people of Israel. There, it has nothing to do with the afterlife. It is also doubtful that the concept refers to “spiritual” salvation in the NT either. If it does, it is only incidental to the physical and material salvation of the children of Israel. The Gospel of the Kingdom, as taught by Yahshua, is always directed at the physical NATION of Israel. (Rev. 21:24.) It is never concerned about “personal salvation” at all, except that the Kingdom requires that it must have qualified citizens. The Kingdom Parables are anecdotes about how Israelites are to behave – morally, that is – in order to get into the Kingdom that is to come. These parables – all of them – are morality tales, regarding our interpersonal relationships! Not a single one of them is concerned with personal salvation! Nor are they “belief tales.” They are tales of actions and behavior, that is, how we must behave in order to earn the rewards of the Kingdom. Our ultimate salvation is in the Kingdom, which will physically preserve the people of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, not in some made-up afterlife, but on this physical earth. (Rev. 21:9-12.) This national meaning of the word ‘salvation’ is just as important – yea, more important – as the individual meaning. Through the physical salvation of individual Israelites, the Nation is also preserved. The two go together.

Secondly, “grace” and “faith” are NOT replacements for the Law. They do not supercede the Law. Properly understood, these are actually legal concepts. If a judge gives you a light sentence for a crime, or lets you off with a warning, he has bestowed grace upon you. Showing such favor upon you does NOT in any way imply that the law books have been trashed.

Thirdly, Mr. Stewart falsely believes that the Last Passover forgave all of our sins for all time. This is nonsense. Peter and Paul clearly state that the Sacrifice at the Cross only forgave our PAST SINS. (Romans 3:25 and II Peter 1:9.) We cannot continue to sin and expect to gain entry into the Kingdom. Acts 3:19 confirms this, where we are told to repent and be converted, so that our sins MAY BE blotted out. Many evangelicals teach this absurd doctrine, which has no basis in Scripture. If that were true, the New Testament would not bother to tell us to repent of our sins, for there wouldn’t be any.

Fourthly, Mr. Stewart confuses the “works of the law” with “good works.” The two are not the same. The first three objections will be dealt with in greater detail in Exoneration, Part 4. Here I will deal with objection #4.

When Paul uses the expression, “works of the law,” he is NOT referring to the good works that we are expected to do according to Yahweh’s laws. Rather, he is in fact very specifically referring to the SACRIFICIAL RITUALS of the OT priesthood. It is apparent to me that Paul also condemns the rabbinical (Pharisaical) perversions (Col.2:16-22; compare Matt. 15:9) of those rituals, as he frequently condemns the “doctrines of men,” just as Yahshua did. Recent translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that this is the correct way to understand this phrase, as it used by Paul. This is a very important subject, so I will quote this paper at length:

This paper is the last in the series on the law. It concerns the concept of the works of the law to which Paul refers. There has been an attack on the church made worldwide, over an extensive period, trying to do away with the concept that the law exists, and using Paul’s comments in Galatians and Romans as the basis. The arguments are spurious, but they are not well understood.

Romans 3:20 For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. (RSV)

Paul uses a term called the works of the law. Most modern Christians have assumed that what he is talking about is the law of Moses. They are assuming that he is saying the law is done away. The works of the law are of no avail, and the works of the law are not part of the system. Everyone then writes those comments back to the Old Testament generally, and says the works of the law have no relevance to us. That argument is not correct because of the arguments in the paper Distinction in the Law (No. 96). In that paper it was shown how God’s laws were eternal, and they proceeded from His nature. It was also shown that the sacrificial law was the thing that was nailed to cross and not the Moral law of the commandments. There is another aspect, called the works of the law, which relates to the sacrificial law, and relates to the law of God only in an indirect way. The works of the law have not been understood, and it is only now, through archaeological evidence, that we are able to understand what Paul was actually addressing. We can now demonstrate that Paul was actually talking about a body of writings, which became prevalent in Judaic sectarianism, based around Qumran, and which had no part in rabbinical Judaism. [I think the author is confusing rabbinical Judaism with the Mosaic tradition. Rabbinical (Talmudic) Judaism was just being formalized at this time, but its perversions of Scripture had already been condemned by Jesus in the New Testament. There is no doubt that Qumran community was an anti-Pharisaic, anti-Talmudic group of Judahites, who rebelled against the Herodian usurpation of the Kingdom of Judah by the Edomites. Their primary motivation was to preserve the Mosaic tradition from rabbinical distortions. As such, they were Mosaic traditionalists. We must understand that these two antagonistic traditions existed in the days of Paul. The Essene tradition tried to preserve the laws of Moses in their purity. The rabbis were merely using the Mosaic tradition as a cover for their developing perversions of Scripture, known today as the Talmud. – Eli] It was used because the Essene and others had rejected the Talmud and the Temple system and priesthood. They were the Bible-only groups of the first centuries BC/AD. We will see that Paul’s term the works of the law refers to a sectarian analysis of ritual purifications which have no basis in salvation. They do not refer to the laws of God for spiritual salvation at all. They refer, only indirectly, to the Holy Days. They refer to sacrifice and cleansing, i.e. ritual purifications. We will see, from the sequence, what was involved. In Romans 3:20 we have the first comment of this nature. It says therefore by the deeds of the law. Some versions translate the text the works of the law.

Romans 3:20-27 For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. ²¹ But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, ²² the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; ²³ since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴ they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, ²⁵ whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; ²⁶ it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus. ²⁷ Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith. (RSV)

Here Paul is saying, in effect, by what law? of works no, but of the principle of faith. This is the central or pivotal hinge of the extension of salvation to mankind. Yet Paul upholds the law.

Romans 3:28-31 ²⁸ For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. ²⁹ Or is God the God of Jews [sic, Judah] only? Is he not the God of Gentiles [sic, exiled Israel] also? Yes, of Gentiles also, ³⁰ since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith. ³¹ Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. (RSV)

So Paul is establishing the law in the Roman Church, yet he is saying that the works of the law here are not correct. They do not confer any salvation. Salvation is only through faith in Jesus Christ. Why did Paul become involved in this argument? Many, because of the clear conflict in the terms, have assumed that he was dealing with the sacrificial law against those who were trying to defend the law. There is a problem with Paul’s statements and the cohesiveness of the Bible, because there are clear contradictions in what Paul is saying. On one hand he is saying one must uphold the commandments, and on the other hand, he is saying that these works of the law confer no advantage. This apparent conflict had to be resolved. [Indeed! – Eli] The final answer, apart from the clear distinction between the Moral and sacrificial law we have addressed in the Distinction in the Law paper, lay in a body of writings, of which we were unaware. The term he used is ergoon nomou, (in the Romanised Greek), meaning the works of the law. That translates a Hebrew term, we have found now from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The term is Miqsat Ma’ase Ha-Torah, or MMT, the translation of which, by Strugnell and Qimron, is Some of the Precepts of Torah. It is found nowhere in rabbinic Judaism. It did not become normative and the understanding was hence lost. However, miqsat does not mean simply some. When used in MMT it does not refer to some random laws. An understanding can be gleaned from its use in the Talmud. Thus Martin Abegg considers (Paul, Works of the Law and MMT, Biblical Archaeology Review, Nov.-Dec. 1994, pp. 52 ff), that we might translate the word as some important or pertinent. Strugnell and Qimron translate the phrase ma’ase ha torah as precepts of Torah. Lawrence Schiffman suggests legal rulings of Torah (from Abegg ibid). Perhaps that is more generally translated as the specifics of the law. But its use in the Greek has been translated as ergoon nomou. This term was used in the Septuagint to translate the term ma’ase ha torah. The term ergoon nomou is the term used by Paul and which is translated into English as the works of the law. It is becoming obvious that Paul was actually talking about a view of the law which the Qumran sect held, and which became current in non-rabbinical Judaism in the first century and did not become part of Talmudic tradition and translation. It did not become part of what we understand as general Judaic thought. It then passed away. We had to wait until the Dead Sea Scrolls to see the copies recovered and translated. From those finds we could then properly understand Paul. We will go through some of these texts, and then go through what the actual Dead Sea Scrolls say the regulations are. We will get a feel for the sort of things that Paul is attacking. We will see what he is saying is done away with. It confers no benefit. It has nothing to do with our view of salvation, of the regulations in the Old Testament, covering us. It is concerned with the sacrificial and the ceremonial purification laws. It confers righteousness by works through a misreading of a text.

There has been a court case fought in America over the rights of the Works of the Law or translations of the MMT, as they call it. Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell have produced the text. They are trying to retain the rights of the Qumran texts. You may say “What does it matter to us? What does it matter whether they dig up a paper in Qumran? And how does that affect our faith?” The answer is that it gives us another tool, a weapon or shield, against those who try to tear down the faith and the law. Once you do away with the law, you do away with the concept of sin, and you do away with the concept of the Holy Days of Unleavened Bread. You attack the very basis of God’s plan of salvation. The obscuring of the meaning makes it difficult for us to understand what Christ is doing with us, and how he is taking us forward.

Discussion about what Paul said in Romans and Galatians can be defended and explained through the increased understanding. The explanation is that he was talking about the Works of the Law – the Miqsat ma’ase ha-torah or MMT, which is specifically a writing of the Qumran sects, which entered sectarian Judaism in the first century, and disappeared from the second, third and fourth centuries.

Now the term works of the law has generally been taken to have meaning from the two words as, the workings of the law, but in fact it is, as we see, a title, Works of the Law, which translate the Hebrew title Miqsat ma’ase ha-torah. From now on, we can identify this as a title of a Judaic work of the first century, which tries to convey some justification by works. Galatians 3:1-14 gives further explanation.

Galatians 3:1-14 ¹ O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? ² Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? ³ Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? ⁴ Did you experience so many things in vain? — if it really is in vain. ⁵ Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? ⁶ Thus Abraham “believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” ⁷ So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham. ⁸ And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” ⁹ So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith. ¹⁰ For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them.” ¹¹Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law; for “He who through faith is righteous shall live”; ¹² but the law does not rest on faith, for “He who does them shall live by them.” ¹³ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us — for it is written, “Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree” — ¹⁴ that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (RSV)

Paul refers to Abraham in the text in Galatians, because Abraham was reckoned righteous, from the texts in Genesis. The whole composition of the righteousness of Abraham was from Genesis 22:16 where Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac at God’s command. And Abegg raises this as a point (ibid). He thinks that there is one possibility, and it is a very strong possibility, otherwise Paul would not have used the reference in relation to this text. He would not have spoken about the works of the law, and used the example of Abraham, unless that example was specific to action and reckoning to righteousness. The fact was that he was reckoned righteous by what he had done. Abegg makes a very good point, and it appears correct, that the basis of the works of the law conferring righteousness was perhaps also taken from Psalm 106:30-31.

Psalm 106:30-31 ³⁰ Then Phin’ehas stood up and interposed, and the plague was stayed. ³¹ And that has been reckoned to him as righteousness from generation to generation for ever. (RSV)

What contemporary Judaism, and then the Church, had done is taken this concept where Phinehas stood up, and through his action, by what he did, was counted righteous for all generations. So the Qumran sect and the MMT, and the groups who thought that the law could confer righteousness by works, took this text and applied it as being the justification for righteousness being conferred through the actions of individuals. The Sons of Zadok was the title the Qumran sect used. That Zadok, high priest under David and Solomon, was the direct descendant of Phinehas supports this view. Paul said that no man is justified before God by the law. He who through faith is righteous shall live.

Thus righteousness is obedience to the commandments through faith. Adherence to the law without faith in a higher system is nothing. That is the concept being attacked. This physical view of righteousness was held despite the fact that there are many biblical texts in Isaiah, particularly Isaiah 9:1-6, talking about Messiah, and Isaiah 53, talking about his suffering and the taking away of sin. All of those texts pointed towards the expiatory sacrifice of the Messiah to remove sin. Yet these people thought that through works they could achieve righteousness. As Paul said Oh foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you? Did you receive the spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?” And then he dealt with Abraham. Paul saw that their position derived from the two texts, although he didn’t mention Phinehas. However it seems certain that the text of Abraham being justified by his obedience and his works in the sacrifice of Isaac, was the basis of their thinking. – The Works of the Law Text, Or MMT (No. 104)

http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p104.html

So, Paul was not arguing against good works at all. He was actually arguing against the empty rituals of the Old Covenant, the very sacrificial rituals that Daniel said would be abolished in Daniel 9:27!!!! The expression, “works of the law,” has no greater context than these sacrificial rituals. Recall Mr. Stewart’s passionate belief that good works are not required of Christians. He is confusing two entirely different concepts. The confusion is understandable because of the similarity of the words; but it is still confusion.

The apparent contradictions in terms are resolved when we understand that the expression, “works of the law” is a direct reference to sacrificial rituals and has nothing to do with good deeds, which are absolutely required of us as Christians, such as performing the Ten Commandments and the rest of the moral laws of Yahweh. Understanding this, the apparent contradictions of Paul’s statements are resolved.

William Finck, in an independent study of this expression, confirms this as a Scriptural fact:

To James, the idea of faith was separate from the idea of works, or good deeds,

as evident at chapter 2 vv. 14-26 of his epistle. To Paul, the idea of faith included the

idea of works, or good deeds. Often Paul contrasts faith to the “works of the law” (as

the A.V. translates the phrase literally). Yet the “works of the law” are actually the

“ rituals of the law ,” as the phrase is rendered in both my own translation of Paul ’s

letters, and in Ferrar Fenton’s version published about a hundred years ago. The

“works ” or “ rituals ” of the law are mentioned by Paul at Rom. 3:20, 27, 28; 4:2, 6;

9:11, 32; 11:6; Gal. 2:16 (trice); 3:2, 5, 10; Heb. 6:1 and 9:14. Paul, in the context of

these chapters, certainly means those rituals which the law prescribed in ordinances

and which have been done away with (Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14; Heb. 9:1-10).

Source: http://anglo-saxonisrael.com/docHeresy/FinckvsPaulbashers.pdf

Also, William Finck has determined that the same Greek expression, as used in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament, also means “rituals of the law,” especially since the idea of not doing any good works or rituals was completely foreign to the OT Israelites. Hence, we have several proofs that the expression “works of the law” cannot be equated with “good works.” It’s just wishful thinking on the part of the antinomians.

Paul does not contradict James when he says that the works of the law are no longer of any benefit, because he is talking about a completely different type of “works,” namely, the sacrificial rituals of the Levitical priesthood.

Furthermore, one of the main distinguishing features of difference between Israelites and Jews is this: “By their fruits shall ye know them!” (Matt. 7:20.) Well, this applies to us, too, as we are expected to NOT behave like Jews! If we behave like Jews, we will be gathered up with the tares at the Judgment Day! (Matt. 13:24-30.) How are we to recognize a miscegenated Jew in our midst? By the “fruits” of his actions! These antinomian Judeo-Christians will never be able to recognize the usurper in our midst, because they ignore all works, good or evil. How silly is this?

From this discussion, it is apparent that the true context of the entire epistle to the Galatians is the sacrificial rituals, i.e., “works of the law.” Paul NEVER argues against doing good works. That is a Judeo-Christian heresy. Wherever you see this expression in the NT, you should immediately understand that Paul is talking about the sacrificial rituals, which were indeed done away with. No such statement can be made about Yahweh’s moral laws and the good works that they require of us.

Modernist definitions of Hebrew and Greek words and terms are the true reason why Paul is so badly misunderstood. Had “works of the law” been correctly translated as “rituals of the law,” as Ferrar Fenton does in his translation, this antinomian confusion might have been prevented.

Colossians 2:14

One of the most horribly translated verses of Scripture is Col. 2:14. Virtually every televangelist refers to this verse as the main justification for antinomianism.

“Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross.”

This verse, as translated in the KJV, is used by the antinomians to trumpet their cause. It is the foundation of the antinomian principle, “The Law has been done away with,” because it was “nailed to the cross”! But was the Law nailed to the Cross? Or was it something else? As we will shortly see, the antinomians have taken a poor translation and turned it, via sloppy scholarship and anti-Scriptural interpretation, into one the biggest heresies of all time. I would go far as to say that the antinomian interpretation of Col. 2:14 is one of the most glaring examples of Judeo-Christian folly extant. A careful analysis of the words of this pericope will prove, conclusively, that a grossly erroneous tradition of men has replaced its true meaning.

In jumping to this false conclusion, the antinomians have jumped right over the cliff…into a no man’s land of self-deception. The false leap of logic, that has been committed by the entire antinomian world, is that the word ‘handwriting’ can be equated with the Ten Commandments or with the Whole Law. As you will see shortly, this is absolute nonsense.

Here is a list of parallel translations, many of which do a much better job of translating this verse than the KJV. I will highlight the alternate translations of the word ‘handwriting,’ so you will get a better idea of what Paul is actually talking about:

New International Version (©1984) having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. New Living Translation (©2007) He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross. English Standard Version (©2001) by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. New American Standard Bible (©1995) having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. International Standard Version (©2008) having erased the charges that were brought against us, along with their obligations that were hostile to us. He took those charges away when he nailed them to the cross. GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995) He did this by erasing the charges that were brought against us by the written laws God had established. He took the charges away by nailing them to the cross. American Standard Version having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out that way, nailing it to the cross; Bible in Basic English Having put an end to the handwriting of the law which was against us, taking it out of the way by nailing it to his cross; Douay-Rheims Bible Blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us. And he hath taken the same out of the way, fastening it to the cross: English Revised Version having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross; Weymouth New Testament The bond, with its requirements, which was in force against us and was hostile to us, He cancelled, and cleared it out of the way, nailing it to His Cross. World English Bible wiping out the handwriting in ordinances which was against us; and he has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross; Young’s Literal Translation having blotted out the handwriting in the ordinances that is against us, that was contrary to us, and he hath taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross;

From the above alternate translations, it can be easily seen that what Paul is referring to is the LIST OF CHARGES, which were then held against the nation of Israel, both in Judea (House of Judah) and in the Dispersion (House of Israel). This list of charges, in modern language, is called an INDICTMENT. It was the indictment, which was against us, not the moral laws, that was nailed to the Cross. In no way can this verse be honestly interpreted to mean that the WHOLE LAW was done away with, or even the Ten Commandments. That is simply poor scholarship and lousy interpretation.

Some Nomian Arguments From the New Testament

The antinomians of the Paul Cult actually believe that Paul contradicts Jesus Christ, where He says, “Think Not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” (Matt. 5:17.)

I can guarantee you that those Christians, who have been influenced by the antinomian theology, have rarely taken seriously the following quotations from the New Testament:

“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” The law is established, not done away with.

Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that commiteth fornication sinneth against his own body.” Fornication is a sin; and sin can only be defined in terms of an existing law.

‘Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” – Rom. 7:12.

“That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. – Rom. 8:4.

“And having a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.” Our Israelite community must be ready to punish these offenders in such ways that they compensate those whom they have injured.

“Therefore, put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” – I Cor. 6:18.

“And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.” – II Cor. 10:6. We are to excommunicate those repeat offenders, who refuse to repent.

“Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strifes, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders drunkenness, and such like: of the which I tell before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” These sins are obviously still being committed by Israelites; and those Israelites who continue to commit such sins will NOT inherit the Kingdom of Yahweh. Can this be any clearer?

“Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”

Obedience is required for “salvation.” It is not just a question of “faith.” Faith is PART OF the equation. It is not something that overrules the Law. It is an ADDITION to the Law. The Faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is our confidence that Yahweh will perform His side of the bargain, if we perform ours. That’s real faith, or faithfulness.

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” We must BEWARE OF these “traditions of men.” If we are not aware of these false traditions, we will be led astray.

‘Let no corrupt communication come out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. – Eph. 4:29.

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” – Colossians, 2:8.

“But now ye also put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. – Co. 3:8.

“For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus Christ. For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that you should abstain from fornication.”

“Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.”

“Comfort your hearts and stablish you in every good word and work.”

“Let everyone that nameth the name of God depart from iniquity.”

“He that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself.”

“That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus.”

“Therefore, we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every trespass and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him.”

“Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” – Philippians, 2:12.

“For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus Christ. For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that you should abstain from fornication.” – I Thessalonians 4:2-3.

“Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.” – II Thes. 2:17.

“Comfort your hearts and stablish you in every good word and work.” – I Timothy 5:20.

“Let everyone that nameth the name of God depart from iniquity.” – II Tim. 2:19.

“He that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself.” – Titus 3:11.

“That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus.” – Philemon 6.

“Therefore, we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every trespass and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him.” – Hebrews 2:1-3.

All of these quotations, including the ones listed without references, come from the same author in the New Testament. Who is this writer who condemns sin, expects obedience, and upholds the law?

Folks, all of these quotations are the words of Paul, who is NOT an antinomian. Contrary to what Paul’s critics say, Paul did not “reinvent Christianity.” His deifiers are the ones who reinvented Christianity. Let the blame fall upon the true, modernist culprits.

Now, take the various antinomian assertions already mentioned and compare them with the above quotations, all of which come from the writings of Paul. The unreferenced citations also are the words of Paul. In order, they come from Romans 3:31, I Corinthians 5:13, I Cor. 6:18, II Cor. 10:6, Galatians 3:19-21, Philippians, 2:12, Colossians, 2:8, I Thessalonians 4:2-3, II Thes. 2:17, I Timothy 5:20, II Tim. 2:19, Titus 3:11, Philemon 6, Hebrews 2:1-3.

Antinomian Subterfuge

You must understand that the Holy Scriptures have been rendered obsolete by these distorters of Paul. Some of these distortions can be chalked up to ignorance; but the vast majority of these distortions are due to willful neglect of the Truth.

Anyone can take a series of quotations out of context and make it appear as though the writer is teaching something completely different from what he is actually saying. I could take selective quotes from Mein Kampf and make it appear that Hitler loves Jews! All I would have to do is take partial quotations and reassemble them to suit my needs! The resulting little book would be called, “How Much I Love the Jews,” by Adolf Hitler. Admittedly, it would be a small book, but so is the “book of antinomianism”!!!

Too few Christians have any awareness of the subtle word games that have been employed to destroy Scripture. In reading the works of Paul’s distorters, one thing stands out: they never quote those passages, such as the ones above, which contradict their assertions about Paul. Folks, THIS IS DISHONESTY. In addition, the Roman Catholic Church has had far too much influence in determining the meanings of certain words and how they are translated. The word catholic means “universal.” And it is indeed the case that the Roman Catholic Church has always striven to be all things to all people. During most of the RCC’s history, this also meant that they endeavored to establish a world dictatorship. In other words, the Catholic Church has always used the Bible as a tool for promoting its own imperialism; but this was brought to an end by the Protestant Reformation.

The distorters of Paul have engaged in a systematic and well-coordinated process of SELECTIVE EDITING; and they have used this editorial process to paint a completely false picture of Paul’s writings. When analyzing an author’s words, it is not sufficient to quote only those passages, which appear to be in your favor. A true theologian will always take into consideration passages which appear to contradict his point of view. A deceiver will avoid those passages, precisely because he does not want you to even know about them. We have a TRADITION of Christian Jurisprudence, which states that we must hear “The Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.” Also, we must hear BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY. In this essay, you have heard the other side of the story. I hope also to have provided a better grasp of the whole truth.

True Scholarship Versus Guesswork

In interpreting the words of someone else, it is not enough to quote those passages which support your analysis. By avoiding non-supportive passages, the interpreter conveys the impression that there are no such passages; and this is tantamount to DECEPTION. The distortionists have completely failed to present the totality of Paul; and they are, therefore, engaging in SYSTEMATIC DECEPTION.

And, to make matters worse, the antinomian distortionists, by teaching that the Whole Law is no longer valid, are just as guilty of teaching lies as are the Pharisees. “You have made the law of none effect by your tradition.” (Matt. 15:3, 6.) These are the words that Yahshua Messiah spoke to the Pharisees, the original Jews who invented Judaism. But these words also apply to those “Christian” Pharisees, the priests of the Great Apostasy, those who teach that the law has been done away with, that there is no more sin, and that faith and grace have replaced the Law. In all of these assertions, they are most definitely wrong, for their ignorance is exceeded only by their zeal to make “converts,” which is further exceeded by their hypocrisy and deceit.

“Beware the leaven of the Pharisees, which is HYPOCRISY!” – Luke 12:1.

In this sermon I believe I have conclusively proven that the antinomian interpretations of Paul are based on serious flaws in scholarship, translation and interpretation. Also, there is no doubt that deliberate deceit is involved in these pastors for hire, who teach lies from the pulpits. Most of their contentions are totally false and the various priesthoods that teach these things are the agents of the devil himself, and that the various distortions of the Holy Scriptures in the world today constitute the Great Apostasy of Christendom, which is a herald of the Judgment Day, Yahweh’s Day of Wrath.

From the above quotations, it is obvious that the Yahweh fully intended to institute a New Covenant for Israel. None of these prophecies have any universal, multi-racial, or antinomian intent. Jeremiah couldn’t be any clearer: THE LAW WILL BE WRITTEN IN OUR HEARTS. This is a far cry from “the law has been done away with.” In fact, Paul affirms Jeremiah 31 in many places in his Epistles, especially at Heb. 8:10. If the Law is to be written in our hearts, should we then completely ignore it?

Conclusion

The antinomians have erected a house of cards. Some of their doctrine is based on simple error in translation, but most of it is based on a hard-headed denial of the words of Christ and a complete failure to try to reconcile the contradictions between the nomian language of both Paul and Christ versus the perceived antinomian language of Paul.

In this essay, I have exposed a number of these errors. They include:

1.) The deliberate ignoring of the hundreds of nomian statements by Paul, which have been documented herein.

2.) Martin Luther’s mistake, and its and further development by the antinomian crowd, which is responsible for the false doctrine that good works are not necessary for “salvation.”

3.) That FAITH is not a passive, mental attitude. It is, as the “faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” a way of life, which must be practiced, not just imagined.

4.) We are to resist evil coming from outside of our communities and from the devil. In fact, we are in a state of WAR against these forces, so the morality of Matt. 5 cannot possibly apply to these spiritual and physical enemies. With respect to our exclusive brotherhood communities, we are to have a “turn the other cheek” attitude towards our brethren, not returning evil for evil.

5.) “Not under the law” means “not subject to its penalties.” This is not because the Law no longer exists, but because we have been pardoned of our past sins. At Calvary, we were given a clean slate and considered sinless by Yahweh, as He promised to us. But we are expected maintain this clean slate and not botch it up with more sin.

6.) “Works of the Law” means “rituals of the law.” It has nothing to do with “good works.”

7.) Grace is not a carte blanche to do as you please. It is, first and foremost, our forgiveness at Calvary. It is the pardoning of our past sins. If we sin again, we are still obligated to make restitution and sin no more.

8.) Since the wages of sin is death, and we are still subject to death, there is no doubt that the principle of sin, which is the violation of Yahweh’s laws, is still in effect. A brief perusal of the curses of Deut. 28 will instantly prove that all of these curses, for violating His laws, are fully in effect in the world today.

9.) Col. 2:14 has been horribly translated and even more horribly misinterpreted. There is NO WAY that this verse is saying that the LAW has been nailed to the Cross. That proposition is theological rubbish.

10.) True scholarship demands that the subject of lawlessness versus lawfulness be given full theological treatment. The antinomians have presented a completely one-sided picture, deliberately ignoring Paul’s pro-nomian statements and the rest of Scripture, which is, except for these poorly translated verses, entirely pro-nomian. It is to be expected that this type of deception is part of the philosophy of antinomianism. Ironically, the antinomians practice this lawless philosophy with great enthusiasm!!!!

Matt. 5:17

Perhaps the greatest perversion of Scripture is what the antinomians have done to Matt. 5:17. Let’s consider this verse out of its context and see how it has been perverted:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.”

The clear intent of this verse is to say that Yahshua came not to destroy the law or the teachings of the prophets, but to fulfill them. But the antinomians have an incredibly subtle spin on this verse, suggesting that the law and the prophets were “fulfilled” at Calvary, when, according to their false view of Col. 2:14, the “law was nailed to the Cross.” In other words, they make this verse say that the law WAS DESTROYED on the Cross, even though Jesus clearly says He did not come to do that!!! This is very clever interpretation, indeed. I have to give these pundits an A++ for effort in coming up with this distortion of Scripture.

Let us now consider this verse in its full context, and see if this interpretation is justified by the surrounding verses:

“You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it gives light to all that are in the house. Let you light so shine before men, THAT THEY MAY SEE YOUR GOOD WORKS, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Think not that I cam come to destroy the law and the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” – Matt. 5:14-18.

Has all prophecy been fulfilled? I don’t think so. The Battle of Armageddon has not happened yet. The book of Revelation had not even been written yet, so it is not possible that “all was fulfilled” at Calvary. Have heaven and earth passed away? And since the New Jerusalem will descend upon the earth to institute His Government forever, the moral law will never pass away, as long as the heavens and the earth still exist.

The antinomians love to tinker with Matt. 5:17, but verse 18 is hard to gainsay. Even more difficult to gainsay are verses 19 and 20, which complete the thought:

“Whosoever therefore shall break one of these commandments, AND SHALL TEACH MEN SO [Are you listening, antinomians?], he shall be called THE LEAST in the Kingdom of heaven [If they manage to get in!]: but whosever SHALL DO AND TEACH THEM, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, YOU SHALL IN NO CASE ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.” The antinomians have done a great disservice to Christianity. They have ripped its spine from off its back. They have annulled what Yahshua clearly says will never be annulled. Using tricky language and outright deception, the antinomians have turned their flocks of sheep into prey for the wolves. In erecting this strange façade of twisted Scripture, they “Strain at a gnat (lawfulness) and swallow a camel (lawlessness).” (Matt. 23:24) The antinomian clergy, like the lying priests of Ezekiel 13, have erected a high mountain false theology. They teach it and swallow it every day. Given this Great Delusion, a simple question comes to mind: What part of “keep my commandments” don’t you understand?

These distortionists can interpret Paul any way they want, but they cannot do so without directly contradicting the clear, unambiguous, nomian language used by Jesus Christ Himself. Failing to reconcile these contradictions, they simply opt in favor of their own distortions of Paul and throw out the clear language of Yahshua, pretending that the contradictions either do not exist or do not matter. Well, they DO exist and the DO matter. Yahshua – indeed, all of Scripture – warns us not to follow the paths of lawlessness. And those Christians, who have gone down this path of irrational “faith,” have not bothered to do the necessary homework, that would clear up these issues. “Study to show thyself approved.” On the contrary, they have twisted the language of every verse they can possibly pervert and have deliberately IGNORED all of the evidence which contradicts their preferred delusion. Thus, they have propped up a fictitious entity, the law-denying Paul, and used that mythological character to negate the words of the Messiah. If a mere man contradicts the words of the Son of God, whose Word should you take? Are not the antinomians deifying Paul and demoting Christ?

“Unless thy law had been my comfort, I would have died in misery; never shall I forget thy laws, for they put new life into me.” – Psalm 119:93. (Moffat)

“But if you will enter into life, keep the commandments.” – Matt. 19:17.

“…and the dead were judged out of those things that were written in the books according to their works.” – Rev. 20:12

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. – Rom. 8:2. (Paul is clearly saying that the Spirit of life that is in Jesus Christ is also based on law. Do antinomians think that Yahshua lives in a heavenly realm that has no laws governing it? Wouldn’t that be chaos? What is that “rod of iron” that He will come back with, by which He will rule all nations?)

He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. – I John 2:4.

I would not want to be counted among the lawless at the Judgment Day.

HalleluYah!

Pastor Eli James

Appendix 1: Christian Identity Is Not a Judaizing Doctrine

Often, we in Identity are accused of being “judaizers” because we advocate the full existence and practice of the Law of Moses – except for the sacrificial rituals. It is incorrect to call us “judaizers” because the Jews NEVER practiced the Laws of Moses. The Jews have always been impostors to the names of Israel and Judah; and their religion has always been Talmudism, which was developed by the Edomites of Judea under Herod. This process of usurpation in Judah began around 125 BC, at the earliest. Before this time, there was no such thing as “Judaism.” {See my “Origin of Talmudism” for documentation of these facts: http://anglo-saxonisrael.com/site/node/118 }

Understanding the history of those days and the Jewish/Edomite usurpation of the House of Judah, we know that Paul cannot be considering those Edomite vessels of destruction as true Judeans. They had no part in OUR HISTORY. Nor do they have any part in OUR DESTINY. They are outside of our House. They represent Esau trying to regain, by deception and force, the birthright from Jacob, which Esau despised. Paul confirms this reality when he, in complete accord with both the Old and New Testaments, declares that these Edomite Jews are “vessels” destined for destruction by Yahweh. This confirmation is contained in Romans, Chapter 9. Unfortunately, the modern translations have been so horribly butchered that it is almost impossible to determine whom Paul is talking about.

I therefore offer this non-distortionist translation for your consideration:

Romans 9

 ¹I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,  ²That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.  ³For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:  ⁴Who are Israelites [The Application Study Bible, a pro-Edomite translation, has here the completely deceptive words, “My JEWISH brothers and sisters”!! Arrgh! Retch! – Eli]; to whom pertaineth the inheritance, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises [Contrary to his universalizers, Paul is declaring the EXLUSIVITY OF THE COVENANT PEOPLE, ISRAEL, IN THE FLESH, HIS KINSMEN!];  ⁵Whose are the [Israelite] fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. [No “Spiritual Israel” in these verses, Folks! Christ came for us “Israelites in the flesh.”]  ⁶Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel [Paul is here setting up his discussion of Israelites versus Edomites, who had, under the Herodians, mixed their company with the House of Judah. See I John 2:18-23, which uses similar language]:  ⁷Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children [See John 8:33-44]: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. [True Israel is known as the Anglo-Saxons, not as “Jews.”] ⁸That is, They which are the children of the flesh {Jews}, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise {Anglo-Saxon Israel} are counted for the seed. ⁹For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. [Isaac.]  ¹⁰And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;  ¹¹(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)  ¹²It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. [Esau had become the servant of Jacob because he had sold his birthright to Jacob.] ¹³As it is written, Jacob have I loved, [Now, pay attention, children!] but Esau have I hated.  ¹⁴What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.  ¹⁵For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.  ¹⁶So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.  ¹⁷For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.  ¹⁸Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.  ¹⁹Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? [Cain and Esau did!!] ²⁰Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?  ²¹Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour {the descendants of Isaac through Jacob-Israel}, and another unto dishonor {the Edomite Jews}?  ²²What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:  ²³And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,  ²⁴Even us [True Israel], whom he hath called, not of the Judeans only, but also of the Exiles?  ²⁵As he saith also in Hosea, I will call them my people, which were not my people; [When have the Jews ever admitted, as is true of Caucasian Israel, that we had become “Lo-ammi,” Not His people?] and her beloved, which was not beloved. [True Israel will be reclaimed after having been divorced. The Jews say that they are sinless “victims of persecution”! Does Yahweh speak of True Israel as innocent victims of persecution? Absolutely not! That is Jewish theology, not Bible theology. The Bible states, at least a thousand times, that Israel’s punishments are the just recompense for our disobedience. Nothing “innocent” about it!]  ²⁶And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. [Paul is quoting Hosea 1:9-11, which is an End Times prophecy that we forgetful Israelites will remember our Israelite heritage and come into remembrance of who we really are!!! See also II Sam. 7:10. This is about Caucasian Israel, folks, not the Jews! It is we True Israelites who were once referred to as non-Israelites, because of our ethnic amnesia and temporary blindness; but, thanks to Christian Identity, we are now being called the SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF ADAM, whose Father was the LIVING GOD, Yahweh. The Judeo-Christians cannot possibly comprehend the meaning of these verses!! – Eli] ²⁷Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:  ²⁸For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.  ²⁹And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.  ³⁰What shall we say then? That the Exiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.  ³¹But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.  ³²Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. [Rituals of sacrifice.] For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;  ³³As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Cutting through the Church Greek, it becomes obvious that Paul is talking to and about the True Israelites of both Houses. He is talking about the legitimate rituals of the Old Testament, not the Jewish perversions of them. Those “works of the law” have indeed been done away with! In addition, he identifies the Edomite Jews, the descendants of Esau, as “vessels fit for destruction,” which is fully in accord with all of the Old Testament prophecies that, in the End Times, these impostors will be exposed and destroyed, FOREVER. {Obadiah; Zech. 14:21.} Yahshua confirms this analysis in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. The Tares will rise up over us in these times, thus exposing themselves, and will then be gathered and burned. The Tares are the Jews, the descendants of Esau and Cain. But today’s “churches” are telling you that they are “God’s chosen people.” Have you caught on to the deception yet?

If you only understand Church “Greek” and Judeo-Christian “Hebrew,” you will never understand what either Paul or Jesus are talking about.

Ultimately the Edomite Jews of the Intertestamental Period realized what a huge mistake Esau had made by despising his birthright; and they have been plotting their revenge against Jacob/Israel ever since. By falsely identifying themselves as Judah, the Jews have fooled generations of Christians. They are trying to take the Kingdom away from True Israel on behalf of their forefather, Esau.

Paul was trying to convert, exclusively, those REAL Judahites of the House of Judah, who were still coming out of the Levitical experience, and those REAL Israelites of the House of Israel, who were of the Exile. The so-called “Gentiles” are actually the Exiles of the Dispersion of 745 BC. So Paul never considered himself to be the “Apostle to the non-Israelites” of the world. That is just more confusion coming from the pulpits of Apostianity.

We in Identity are NOT Judaizers. We reject Judaism totally. We are NOT advocating a return to the sacrificial rituals, as the Jews are. We are only advocating the righteousness of the moral laws.

Appendix 2: The Meaning of the Expression, “Under the Law”

From the previous Appendix, we should understand that it was these True Judahites, who are properly called “Mosaic Traditionalists,” not Judaizers, who were Paul’s intended audience, when he was trying to explain that the ritual sacrifices had been abolished. The Jews, who are in reality Edomite impostors to the name of Judah, were actually trying to kill Paul; and, like Jesus, he avoided them like the plague.

In the following discussion, keep this proper discernment in mind where Mr. Traver uses the word ‘Jew.’

Knowledge and/or Compliance

Any law that exists, we relate to that law under one of the following basic criteria. First is knowledge. We either know the law or we don’t. Secondly is the matter of compliance. We either keep the law or we don’t. If we put these factors together into every possible configuration, we’ll come up with only these four.

We know the law and don’t keep it,

We know the law and do keep it,

We don’t know the law and don’t keep it,

We don’t know the law, yet do keep it.

This is fundamental logic. But is it Biblical?

Actually, the Apostle Paul, in his writings, uses four different terms for a person’s relationship to the Law. Do his four Biblical terms correlate to our logical terms? If not, then he must be identifying additional configurations of relationship to Law. But if there aren’t any but these four, then there must be direct correlation. Could that be? And, if so, does that tell us anything? Actually, there are two places where Paul uses three of his terms in the same verses! In one place, he uses three terms, and in another, three also, but while incorporating two of the former, he adds one that he doesn’t use in the first instance. Can we, from these, gain any insight into what he meant when he used the term ‘under the law’? Can Paul’s own writings provide us a clear definition of what he meant?

Those two places are:

Romans 2:12-15 “For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;…For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these having not the law, are a law unto themselves. Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing them witness…”

Here, we see three distinct situations presented:

Those having sinned without law,

Those having sinned in the law, and

Those without the law, but who keep it!

Before commenting, let’s look at the other place:

1 Corinthians 9:20-22 “I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” (end of verse 22). “And unto the Jews {sic, Judahites of Judea} I became as a Jew {sic}, that I might gain the Jews {sic}: to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (not being without law to God, but under* the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.” (* under in this one place is mis-translated: It should read: within)

Here, we see three distinct situations also, but set in a slightly different mix. Actually, these passages provide us a very revealing set of definitions and considerations. For example, note that he regards the Jew {sic, Judahites of Judea} as being distinct from the category of persons he regards as being ‘under the law’! He’s not saying the same thing twice!

Also, note the mistranslation in verse 21. The word ‘under’ in Paul’s parenthetical disclaimer is clearly a different word than the ‘under’ used elsewhere. Here it should read: within. (The Greek was En-nomos.) Paul uses distinct terms for the various intra-personal relationships toward God’s Law. In fact, we see him using three Greek words, but involving FOUR different situations. They are:

Under which is Strong’s #5259, “Hupo-nomos”

In, (within) which is Strong’s #1772, “En-nomos”

Without, (have not) which is #459, “A-nomos”

We have the person who is ‘under’ the law, we have the person who is ‘in or within‘ the law, and the person who is ‘without’ the law who doesn’t keep it as opposed to that rare situation of the person who is ‘without’ the law yet who does keep it! (He does acknowledge existence of that fourth, though exceptional, category in Rom. 2:15)

Do They Correlate?

So, we have four categories in Biblical terms also. The question posed earlier, Do Paul’s four terms correspond to the four logical terms? How could they not? That being the case, we need only to identify which Biblical term corresponds to which common or logical term. Doing so will give us a clear definition of what Paul MEANT when he used each one.

Let’s go to the easiest one first. The one identified as being ‘without, yet who keeps’. This would have to correspond to the person who doesn’t know the law, yet who keeps it. (#4 above). (There are people like that: People of inherently good character, who wouldn’t steal or lie or kill, rare though they might be.)

With that one in place, it makes it easy to identify that person who is ‘without’ the law, who presumably doesn’t keep it in that he doesn’t even know it. This one, then, would correspond to the person who doesn’t know the law and who doesn’t keep it. (#3 above).

This leaves only two to identify: Under and Within. And in our logical categories there are two: the person who knows the law and does keep it, and who knows it and doesn’t keep it. Which is which? We can see that the person who is ‘within’ must be that person who knows the law and who keeps it.

What Do You Mean “Under”?

That leaves us the final category of person, being that person who knows the law, and doesn’t keep it! That is the person who is ‘under’ the law. This gives us a clear definition of what Paul meant when he used that term: “Under the Law”. Someone who knows the law and doesn’t keep it! Is it any wonder then that Paul says, “We are not under the law”. In other words, we are not of that category of person who knows the law and who does not keep it! (Of course, we didn’t get that way by our incessant and perfect law-keeping. We got out from under (the law’s demand of a penalty) by God’s grace! This was the issue, not at all that the law doesn’t apply to those who are ‘under grace’.

What Paul said makes so much sense, when understood that way, that we’d say it ourselves even if he never did!

We are not of that category of people who know the law and who don’t keep it.

Our theologians want us to think the Jew {sic} remains under (obligation to keep) the law, while the Christian is exempt. That wasn’t what Paul was saying! And notice, Paul identifies the Jew {sic} as distinct and separate from that person who is ‘under’ the law. (Review again 1 Cor. 9:20) “And unto the Jews {sic} I became as a Jew {sic}, that I might gain the Jews {sic}: to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;…” These two are not the same.

That being the case, with the Jew {sic: sacrifice-keeping Judeans} being distinct from the category of person who is ‘under the law’, we can here see all four of those categories used together in this single passage.

One who knows the law and doesn’t keep it, “Under the Law” (Hupo-nomos)

One who knows the law and keeps it, “Within the Law” (The Jew) {sic} (En-nomos)

Doesn’t know the law and doesn’t keep it, “Without the Law” (A-nomos)

Doesn’t know the law and yet does keep it. “Without, yet keeps” (A-nomos)

But, We are Under Grace!

Now, we know that in order to not be “under the Law”, we need to have come “under grace”. Many rest in comfort with the idea that they’re not under the law without giving due concern to whether they’re truly ‘under grace’! God cannot extend grace to the willfully disobedient! (Gal. 2:17)

Two other verses explain other prerequisites: Being led of the Spirit: “Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that you cannot do the things that you would. But if you are led of the Spirit, you are not under the law.” (Gal. 5:16-18) So, why would we need to be led of the Spirit in doing what we are perfectly capable of doing on our own (sinning), if ‘not under the law’ meant free to continue sinning?

Another component is Faith: “But the scripture has concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith that should afterward be revealed.”

How could anyone conclude that Paul was saying that the law no longer had any applicability to those who have come under grace? Especially considering his next statement, that the suggestion of continuing sinning was “God forbidden”! No, the issue here isn’t applicability, as this concluding verse so plainly shows: “Now we know that what things soever the law says, it says to them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” Romans 3:19 It’s not a question of removing the standard, but of removing the guilt! It isn’t possible for anyone to be guilty before God of having broken a law that isn’t applicable.

Paul had no intention of suggesting God’s Law had no further applicability upon God’s True Saints. No, rather, he showed us plainly that the person who is ‘under the law’ is the person who remains ‘guilty’! His point is: That’s not us!

From Mr. Traver’s analysis, we can see that the expression “not under the Law” has a completely different meaning from what is commonly assumed. Rather than meaning those who need not obey the Law, it is actually a reference to those who are not subject to the penalties of the Law, precisely because they keep it!!!

We are not UNDER the Law because we are WITHIN the Law.

If you consciously stay within (obey) the rules of the road while driving, you will never be subject to any traffic fines (under) the law. Occasional lapses are often forgiven to those good citizens who consciously keep the law. But scofflaws are constantly receiving citations and fines, if they live to pay them. The next accident they have may be their last.

From this perspective, Paul’s words are seen as being very pragmatic in their application, very much within the realm of common sense, very far removed from the confusion of antinomianism.

Again, the antinomian technique of selective editing and taking words and expressions out of context has contributed greatly to misunderstanding these passages. Employing sloppy analysis and jumping to false conclusions has led to great error and an entirely grotesque theology, which is belied both by Paul’s clear statements in support of the Law and by his idiomatic language, which the KJV translators have botched up. Given the antinomian interpretation, either Paul is blatantly contradicting himself – and more importantly, the clear, pro-nomian statements of Jesus Christ – or there is something seriously wrong with the antinomian assumptions about Scripture. I think we have demonstrated herein that the latter is the case, not the former.

The antinomians falsely interpret Paul’s words to mean “the Law no longer exists.” The Truth is that the Law most certainly still exists, but those of us who keep it, whether deliberately or out of simple guilelessness, are not subject to the consequences of violating it. This is what Paul means when he says, “We are not under the Law.” Because the Law is written in our hearts, we keep it “automatically,” or, better, consciously, and in the correct spirit. But this implies that we must be filled with good will, compassion and forbearance towards our brethren who are not so inclined. This is the difference between the “Faith” of Israel versus the legalism of mere law-keeping. This is the point that Paul is constantly trying to get across to those Israelites who were brought up steeped in the rituals of the Law (the circumcision): that mere law-keeping, though well motivated, lacks an essential ingredient: BROTHERLY LOVE!!!

Final Thoughts:

In Romans, Chapter 3, Paul asks the question, “How can God judge the world if there is no law by which to judge it?” Verses 5 & 6: “But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who takes vengeance? (I speak as a man.) [Paul is speaking rhetorically for someone who would ask this question; and here is the answer:] God forbid: for how then shall God judge the world?”

There can be no Judgment without a Law to base this Judgment upon! Yahweh does not judge based upon “feelings.” He has a set Law, by which He judges. There is no other method of judgment; and Paul is acknowledging this.

The very Law that the antinomians deny will be used against them at the Judgment Day. These foolish virgins will be knocking on the door, demanding to be let in to the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, but Jesus will say to them, “I know ye not.” (Matt. 25:1-12.)