We like to do something we call 'extend the logic,' which shows weaknesses (or strengths) in someone's concept of the truth. Truth is something that stays constant and does not change with the circumstances (and matches the Word of Yahuweh), so extending the logic means to try out the so-called 'truth' in different ways to see if the 'truth' holds up. For instance, when someone tells you we "cannot do" the Law, it is easy to disprove this by doing one of the commands, such as having a lamb dinner on Passover. Obviously, this proves we can 'do' the Law, so something must be wrong with their logic or interpretation of the Word. This person might go back and try to tell you we cannot do the Law 'perfectly,' which may be true, but then go on to say that we therefore should not 'do' what is even within our ability to do. You can see the weakness with this, I'm sure. Besides, the Word itself says that we can 'do' the Word (see the section on Law below).

First, fulfill doesn't mean to eliminate. The word means to 'fill up full' like a cargo ship (Matthew 5:17-19). Obviously, fulfill is also set off as opposite of abolish, which would mean to establish. While it is true that Jesus followed the Law perfectly, and we are only saved through His sacrifice, the Law as part of Yahuweh's Word could never be eliminated (John 10:35). Second, how are we to understand 'have to?' Yahuweh did not 'have to' give His Son for us, but He loved us so much that He did. Our loving response is to find out what He wants us to do and do it. If that includes what some think of as 'The Law' then so be it.

Equally obvious is the fact that "heaven and earth" passing away is equivalent to "all is accomplished." Some people want to make "all is accomplished" equal to His death on the execution stake, but Y’shua disabuses us of this notion before we even get started. Then He goes on to teach us about teach them and keep (do) them. The hard work here is in messing up the clear statements of our Lord, not in simply reading and doing what He tells us.

This one can really chap your hide. First, the labels 'Old' and 'New' were slapped on the Book by some people around the third century. The Word itself makes no such distinctions concerning what God has instructed. Second, the very fact that God gives the Law is part of His Grace. Law and Grace are not opposite ideas, they are the same. Yahuweh does not have to intrude on our merry slide into hell, but He chooses to reveal Himself and let us know how we should behave. His Grace was evident in Law right from the Garden when He told Adam and Eve not to eat of the wrong tree. We suppose He could have kept His mouth shut and let them guess the standard. The problem has never been with the Law, it has been with the refusal of people to obey His Word in whatever form it took.

The Law Is Jewish

This myth is actually circulated by Jews as well as Christians. However, the Law is neither Jewish nor Gentile (or Christian). There are no Jews in the first five books of the Bible, and Christians don't even appear until around the first century (and very late in the Apostolic Scriptures (NT)). The Bible is the Word of Yahuweh (God), not the word of the Jews. Oh certainly, our Jewish brothers and sisters have the lead role in receiving and preserving His Words. They have developed a lot of wonderful ways of living them out in a daily walk. They even understand them perhaps better than Christians in some ways. Without a doubt in our minds they have the lead role in helping to understand and disseminate His Words. But that doesn't mean that the Word of Yahuweh becomes Jewish words. Some people have the idea that the 'Hebraic' or 'Jewish' roots teachings unfortunately give the impression that the root is the Jews, when in fact the Root is Moshiach (Messiah) (although He was a Jew also, as a matter of fact more pointedly so because He is from the tribe of Judah).

The Law or Word of Yahuweh (God) is delivered to any person who desires to follow Him. Any person who follows Him is part of His remnant. This remnant has existed from the beginning and is composed of all sorts of people including Jews, Gentiles, and Christians. Membership in the remnant is based solely on receiving God's Words by grace through faith (trusting obedience), not on genetics, religion, or culture. The Law is for all of His people, regardless of limitation.

We don't need a 'tutor' anymore

This is a nicely contrived myth based on Galatians 3:23-25.

At first glance this seems to be a fairly straightforward truth, and it looks like the myth-makers are right. However, as usual with the Bible text, things are not always what they seem, especially if one merely 'yanks and twists' a verse out of context. So let's look at the context, and see if we can't pick up some clues as to the proper interpretation of this section.

First, there are at least two important points Paul makes prior to this. One is that in 3:19 Paul explains that the Law was added because of transgressions, which is why even now our secular government adds laws. In other words, people keep coming up with creative new ways to break the law, so a law has to be made by the legislature to keep people from using the loophole to do what they want. You've heard of the phrase, "there's no law against it," which means that unless we are told exactly and specifically that something is wrong we feel 'free' to do it. The second important point to note is that in 3:21 Paul says that the Law is not contrary to the promise of God. The Promise of the Messiah is a huge part of Paul's gospel and can be found all throughout his writings, and if you have the eyes and ears all throughout the entire Bible too, including the Law.

In the broader context, that of the whole letter, Paul is referring to justification by faith as opposed to justification by earning it. He contrasts the opposing ideas of faith (trusting God and doing what He says) and works (doing something and expecting a wage or reward for doing it). See also Romans 4:4.

Granted, the Law cannot save (justify) anyone and never has. That's why Paul says in 3:21 that a law hasn't been given that imparts life. This is because it was never meant for justification, but for a lifestyle after one is justified. Given these points, and the ones above, it seems clear that the Law is not bad or eliminated, but misused to gain merit before God. Paul is dealing with the heart and the motivation for following God, not with the validity of the Law.

A tutor is someone who guards a youngster against his or her own foolishness, until the time he or she thoroughly learns the adult principles (which the tutor teaches) they need to live by. After a child moves on from the custody of the tutor (becomes an adult), the principles that the tutor taught are still in force. The difference is that an adult lives by them without having to be forced, while a child has to continue to be forced by the tutor. In this way the Law functions as both the adult lifestyle and the tutor, because it contains both the principles and the penalties. When we are small we learn that we shouldn't play with an electrical outlet. When we are adults we still do not play with an outlet, we just don't have to be smacked for trying. The principle (of the Law) is still in effect, we just relate to it differently when we reach maturity.

Most youngsters think that being 'grown up' means you can do what you want. If they are fortunate they learn very soon that the privileges of being an adult also come with heavy responsibilities. Being 'free' in Christ doesn't mean there are no rules, but it does mean hopefully that the externally imposed principles are now internal, and what once was forced behavior is now natural. In many ways the followers of our God and Messiah still need the help of the Law as they pursue maturity. We don't know of a person on the planet who can truly say they are so mature they don't need the Word. We certainly don't see a bunch of people getting translated like Enoch because they are 'walking with God' perfectly. How sad it is when people are so arrogant that they think true maturity is the absence of God's Word!

Believers are not 'under the OT' but under the 'New Covenant.'

Wrong again. Usually this statement is used to dismiss the Old Covenant as 'Law.' But 'Law' is part and parcel of the New Covenant. If you hear this from someone, just ask them if they know what the New Covenant is and where it is found. We haven't run across anyone yet that can answer correctly. The reason they can't answer is that they just use this idea (it's just something they heard) to avoid obedience, and stop short of actually studying the Word and doing the Word. The New Covenant is found in the Old Testament (the Tanakh) in Jeremiah 31:31-34 which says,

New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

This scripture is kind of a drag for people who want to believe they don't have to change their actions. First, the parties involved are Yahuweh, Israel, and Judah. If you'll notice, Gentiles are not mentioned. This does not mean we can't be included by grafting in (by grace through faith) like Paul discusses in Romans 11 (and this ministry thinks that we are all 'children of Israel'), but we do not displace anyone and can in fact be displaced ourselves if we are not careful. Second, as part of the new covenant God is going to write His Law on our hearts. Whoops, so much for not under Law, huh? Third, the 'new' part of the covenant is that everyone will know Him. Nationally, Israel will obey for once.

If Paul converted to some supposed 'new religion' and taught that Judaism had been replaced then he was a hypocrite worse than he accused Peter of being. A cursory examination of the book of Acts shows Paul observing feasts (20:6,16), and fasts (27:9); making vows (18:18; 21:23-26); observing Sabbath (13:14,42,44, 16:13, 17:2, 18:4); participating in circumcision (16:3) and temple worship (22:17, 24:11,17,18); teaching from the Law and the Prophets (28:23), and keeping the Law (21:24, 22:3, 23:6, 24:14).

To add further consternation to those who insist that Paul converted to a new religion, he teaches traditions to the Corinthians (I Corinthians 11:2), the Galatians (Galatians 1:14), and the Thessalonians (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6). It seems plain from Galatians 1:14 that he must be teaching them his 'ancestral' traditions, that is, his people's traditions, probably those that held closely to the written Word rather than the word or doctrines of men.

Nothing could be further from the truth than this myth. The word for 'church' (in Greek ekklesia, Hebrew kahall), means a gathering of people or 'congregation.' Stephen tells us that the gathering of Israel at the foot of Mt. Sinai was the 'congregation (ekklesia) in the wilderness' (Acts 7:38). Hebrews 4:2 tells us that this group had the 'good news' (gospel) preached to them also. There is only one remnant and one method of salvation. The remnant of Yahuweh's people has always existed and has such illustrious members as Noah, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Gideon, the Apostles and so on. All who have ever trusted and obeyed Yahuweh are a part. To teach that there is a separate group from this called the 'church' just isn't scriptural.

This is more of a logic problem than a scriptural problem. It sounds good, at first, until you think about it a little. This myth assumes that once a person knows how much you care they will instantly respond in the best way possible to what you know. The implication is that the person is basically good and loving but just needs to know you are too. It also does an excellent job of blame shifting, because if they don't respond then it must be because you don't care. Let's face it, most people know how much God cares. There's Christmas stories and songs, Easter stories, and if nothing else almost everyone has seen the reference for John 3:16 between the goal posts. Does knowing how much God cares mean instant repentance for these people?

All myths have some poison in them, but this is a myth that has a particularly virulent form. The reason is that both terms are misunderstood, so to make them equivalent is impossible unless they are defined according to the Word of God. In this modern age belief means a mere 'mental agreement' to some principle or other. This robs faith of it's substance and value. But Biblical belief or faith includes both mental agreement AND an action resulting from the mental assent.

Biblical belief or faith includes a commitment to action, as well as mental understanding. Faith is 'trusting obedience,' which encompasses both. If you were to find yourself standing on some train tracks, and you believed (or had faith) that a train was coming, then your belief (or faith) should cause you to get off the tracks. If you refused to move, then one would have to assume you did not really believe (have faith). We trust Yahuweh (believe) in the same way. Because we know Him, and we believe His Word to us, it would follow that we would change our actions to accommodate this belief. If no change in actions were forthcoming, one could reasonably assume that our belief (or faith) was worthless.

Faith is only meaningful when it is placed in Yahuweh. We can have faith in something else but it will not last, nor will it continue to be effective.

Another hugely false Christian myth is sometimes stated obliquely instead of directly. It is found, for example, in statements such as those frequently heard in defense of a person's Christmas practices, after being informed of, and acknowledging, the paganism in the practices. "As long as I think about Jesus, it's okay," goes the defense (and the myth). So, according to this thought, as long as one is thinking of Jesus then it's okay to do whatever one wants. We are apparently allowed to do wrong as long as we think right. With this kind of thinking who needs logic? (Or the Scriptures for that matter).

Does this mean that as long as a guy is thinking of his wife it's okay for him to commit adultery? Can we justify stealing as long as we tithe part of the money? Is murder okay as long as we do it 'in His name?' Let us get this straight. As long as we 'think right' we don't have to 'do right?' Where does one draw the line? This emphasis on right thinking over right doing has been one of the primary causes of the demise of the professing Church (they're dead, they just don't know it yet). The Scriptures grant no such license to act any way we choose as long as we think right. As a matter of fact it should be plain that if one is thinking this way, one is definitely not 'thinking right' in the first place. Our God requires right actions, and takes the time to spell out for us what those right actions are. Including avoiding pagan practices such as those in Christmas and Easter, even if we are emotionally attached to them.