Lets say you are visiting a friend in an unfamiliar city. You are driving at 55mph and pass through a school zone sign while looking for your friend's street. You continue to go 55 in a 25mph zone. You get pulled over and ticketed.
You appear before the judge. The judge looks at the law and finds you guilty of breaking the law.
Then your friend (who happens to be the judge's son) steps in and says, "Judge, I know my friend broke the law. He knows he broke the law. He was new to the area and was ignorant of the law. He assures me that he will be more careful to watch for the speed limit signs in the future. Let me give grace to my friend and pay his fine for him". And so, your friend pulls out his wallet and pays the court $200.00.
This is similar to what the Messiah did at the cross. He did not abolish the law. He paid the penalty for breaking the law.
Now, lets say you are visiting the same friend and you now think that since your friend is the judge's son and he got you out of paying the ticket the first time that the law in that town does not apply to you. You think that you can speed as much as you want. Do you think the son will continue to pay your fines?
What if you appeared before the same judge for the 6th time and you said something like, "yes, I broke the law, but this law must not apply to me because I always break it and never have to pay a dime." Do you think the judge will let his son continue to pay the fines for you? Do you think because you know the judge's son, that you are above the law no matter what or that the law does not apply to you? (The penalty being of having to appear before the judge and the judge continually fining you should prove that the law does apply to you. Also, the fact that the Judge's son continually has to pay your fine should also prove to you that the law still applies to you).
Romans 6:14-15
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
What then? shall we sin (transgress the law), because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
(See: What does Paul mean we are not "Under the Law")
Romans 3:31
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
When I found out that there were some 'cults' running around keeping the law of God, I wanted to prove through the bible why they were wrong ("Prove all things" 1 Thessalonians 5:21) So I bought several speckled notebooks and titled them with things like, "Is the Sabbath for Today?" "Is Tithing for today?", "Is the law abolished?" etc. I then started in Matthew and read the gospels and started to write down all the verses for or against those topics. I found that that the Messiah was undoubtedly pro-law (as you can see in my articles: "Jesus instructed from the law" and "Was Jesus for or against the law" and "All the Law Hangs on these two Commandments). Then I got to Acts, and saw that the disciples were still keeping the law after Jesus died on the cross (see my article titled: Law Commentary on Acts). Then I got to Romans and after the first couple of chapters I was convinced that Paul too was pro-law. Then I started reading further and it appeared that Paul was against the law (contrasting his statements in Romans 2 and in Acts). Then later I saw verses from him that were pro-law again. After I got through Romans, I was honestly beginning to think Paul was a little schizo. It wasn't until I got to Peter that I realized why I couldn't understand Paul.
Peter says that Paul’s epistles are hard to understand for those who don’t know the scriptures (at the time I was researching this topic, I, like most Christians, was very ignorant of the law and the Old Testament).
2 Peter 3:16-17
as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. You therefore beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked;
The word translated “wicked” is the Greek word “athesmos” which means lawless or one who breaks the law. Here is Strong’s only definition:
1) one who breaks through the restraint of law and gratifies his lusts
So Peter here is saying, Paul’s epistles are hard to understand for people who are untaught in the rest of the scriptures… (then right after he says)….Beware of the lawless.
When reading Paul’s epistles, it sometimes appears that he is pro-law, and sometimes appears that he is anti-law. This is why the Jews were so confused about Paul’s writings. They even wanted to make sure Paul was still keeping the law and told Paul to prove that he still keeps the law by making offerings for some vows, which Paul did to show the Jews that he still kept the law (Acts 21:21-26).
Anyway since it is clear that Paul’s epistles are not clear and appear to go either way, how did I come to the conclusion that Paul was actually pro-law?
1. Peter says that it is hard for them to understand for those who don’t understand the rest of the scriptures. I have been to many Christian churches. I went to a Baptist church a while back. There was about 50 older adults there (average age probably 45). When my dad said that there were other Sabbaths besides the weekly Sabbath not one of them knew that. When I made a few other comments about the law, not one of them had a clue what I was talking about. Once, I was talking to a Christian girl that been to church all her life (she was in her 20s) and she didn’t know who Abraham was. Just recently, I was talking to a woman (about 47 years old) she has been going to church almost all her life. She didn’t know that David came after Moses. I would easily say that they do not know “the rest of the scriptures”. But they think they know Paul. They will quote real fast, “we are not under the law but under grace”. But Peter says that it is hard for those who don’t know the rest of the scriptures. Just go to any Christian chat room that allows a multitude of people from a multitude of religions and see which ones know the OT better. Or start going to a Baptist or Pentecostal or Catholic Church (pick one…I haven’t found one that knows much of the Old Testament). Even though I trust no one and I am not affiliated with any church, if I knew no scripture but just this one verse from Peter and I had to blindly pick who had the correct interpretation of Paul’s epistles by looking at Peter’s comments, I would have to pick the people who know the law and the OT. (See: Understanding the Scriptures ).
Plus, right after Peter says “his epistles are hard to understand…” he says, “beware of the lawless”. Hmmm…looks like he wanted us to beware of the ones that broke the law.
Plus, show me in the “rest of the scriptures” (the OT) where the law was going to be abolished before the millennium reign. (The “rest of the scriptures” does say over and over and over again that the law is forever .)
2. Paul’s Pro-law scriptures are very solid. Just take the first 2 chapters of Romans for example (See: My Walk Through Paul's Epistles Part One). While some of the verses that appear to be anti-law are “difficult to understand”, they can be explained MUCH easier than the very solid scriptures that are pro-law.
3. Jesus’ comments, God’s words from the OT, and basically the rest of the scriptures would be impossible to ignore. (See: The Law of God is Forever and Jesus instructed from the Law and Was Jesus For or Against the Law and All of the Law Hangs on the Two Great Commandments)
4. The Acts of the Apostles would be impossible to ignore (it is like Paul would be preaching one thing, but doing another) (See: Law Commentary on Acts )
5. The actions of Christ which is a very productive way of teaching and Christ lead his life as an example (1 Peter 2:21). Christ never transgressed the law. He kept all the law that applied to him(including the Sabbaths and Holy Days).
6. People that knew the law, loved the law. The scriptures talk about how wise and great the law is and how other nations would look upon the wise law and wonder how they got such a great and wise law. (See: How I Love thy Law and The Purpose of God's Law )
7. The law makes sense. It doesn’t make sense to abolish a law like a law that separates Lepers from healthy people. I do believe that God has a reason for every law (even if we can’t figure the reason out). (See: Making Sense of the Law).
8. Also, it doesn’t make sense for any lawmaker to make a law, and then when his son lives his life with out breaking the law, for that law to be abolished. If G.W.Bush was king and he had a son that died at 33, without a criminal offense, would that be your defense in court for breaking the law? Would you say, “Your Honor, this law was fulfilled by G.W. Bush’s son; therefore the law no longer applies to me”. That makes much less sense to me than going in front of the Judge and saying, “Yes, I have broken the law, and I have repented” (see: The True Meaning of "Repentance" ) and then the son of the King steps in and pays your fine. (Paying one’s penalty for a crime proves that the law is in place).
9. There is no NT law. Some just count all the laws mentioned in the NT and say that these are our new laws. For one, who made up that rule? Does it make sense to say that the King’s son has to repeat all the law for it to stay in effect? And since the NT was not put together until many years after Jesus’ death (and canonized much later than that) what laws would be in place until one could get access to the whole NT? (These same people who claim to just count the NT laws usually over look the command to keep Passover 1 Cor 5:7-8 not to mention the instructions of Jesus)
10. It does not make since for God to establish a law, then abolish it, then re-establish it again [like the feast of Tabernacles (Zec 14:16-19) and the Sabbath (Isaiah 66:23)] (See: Questions for Those Who Think the Law of God is Abolished Does God want us to keep the Feast days Does God want us to keep the Sabbath ).
11. The feasts and Sabbaths were set up to point to the Messiah and his redemption plan of God’s people (See: Christ our Passover). Since the Messiah has not fulfilled all these feasts and the shadow of the Sabbath (See: The Shadow of the Seventh Day Sabbath), it does not make since for His people to stop practicing these. Also, we were told to keep the Passover in 1 Cor 5:7-8 (See: Passover Warning) and in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25.
12. If God’s law is abolished, then why are we and all the other nations having so many curses? How can someone suffer the penalty for breaking the speed limit (a traffic ticket) if the speed limit no longer applied? The fact that someone can suffer the penalty for breaking a law proves that the law applies to that person (Do you think that it is possible that the reason why our farmland's topsoil is depleting is because we do not practice the land sabbath or the reason why our money is becoming more and more worthless is because we are using "unjust weights and measures" (See: Unjust Weights and Measures) or the reason why we have so much evil, crime, and fear of terrorism in our country is because we do not enforce God's laws? See The Laws of Yahweh vs the Laws of the United States ).
