Are Old Testament law done away with?


Must Bible mention something by name and directly condemn it before we abstain from it?

It's actually unnecessary to be requesting for direct statement where Bible condemn something to be wrong. Anyone with such perspective is what I will describe as someone that has less or no knowledge to distinguish between right from wrong. And this is not some kind of my personal notion, the Bible actually tagged them "child" or "immatured".


Hebrew 5:13-14
HNV For everyone who lives on milk is not experienced in the word of righteousness, for he is a baby.

HNV But solid food is for those who are full grown, who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil.

If the Apostles believed Bible have to directly condemn something before it's declared wrong, then there won't be any need to be discerning. I believe I have proved beyond doubt that requesting for the verse where Bible directly condemn something is not the only valid criteria to distinguish between right and wrong.

I actually wanted to focus on the question raised, whether wearing rings or stuffs like that is good or not. I realized that, giving a direct answer won't help as some are accusing others for cherry picking or being selective as of the matter of the law or old testament.


Like one of my mentor would say, we will continue to encounter problems and generating diverse opinion on the matter of the law if will continue focusing on searching or trying to figure out which law has passed away.

To solve the entire problem, we should be focusing on understanding the law, not looking for which we should keep and which we should disregard.

2 Timothy 3:16-17, " All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
Instruction in righteousness : That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

I believe we all know Paul was actually referring to old testament here, because we would barely see any New testament document with the church at that time. The only complete book with them was Old testament.  If the New testament is asking us to go back to Old testament for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness, then we have some laws that are still valid which are laws that defines sin and righteousness. New testament doesn't define sin, the Old testament did and we are to return to Old testament.


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

 It's Grace that makes you who you are, but righteousness define who you are.
We are supposed to be living beyond the expectations of the Old testament law, not below it, and that's exactly what being rescued from the bondage of sin is all about.  Matthew 5, starting from 21 is an eye opener.

Acts 10:35, "But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness , is accepted with him."

Matthew 6:33, "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness ; and all these things shall be added unto you."

Matthew 7:21-23, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

In fact, Jesus was actually making things serious here:

[[Mat 5:20]] For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, there is no way you will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Like Ravi Zacharias would say, " law is like a mirror, and it's meant to show you your wrong, you need something more than the law to cleanse you" We shouldn't be taking Old testament as a lesser book, because new testament is absolute nonsense without Old testament.


And what we actually need is to be able to discern good and bad, which can be achieved by going back to Old testament and learn or figure out the meaning behind the law or the spirit of the law.

For example,

*[[1Co 9:9]] For it is written in the Torah of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” Is it for the oxen that God cares.

If your mindset is about figuring which law you should keep, you will probably say, " yeah, this one is gone... Nothing like this nowadays"
Is that true? Paul was actually applying the law in his teachings. You know what he did? He first understood the law.

The law is actually saying it's wrong to make someone work and refusing him his wages or preventing him from eating therein, and that's the spirit of the law.

[[1Ti 5:18]]  For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle the ox when it treads out the grain.” And, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”

What about this?

Deuteronomy 22:8, "When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof,"

You can actually think nothing concern us about this law. We are not building flat root houses. That's cool, though there are some houses with flat roofs, but that's not an argument. What we should be after is the meaning behind the law? What does it mean to make a battlement for flat roofs? It's simply for family and public safety.
When there's no battlement, there's a good chance people, especially kids, to fall from the rooftop. You got to protect people on your property. You may not have a flat roof that needs battlement, it may be stairways or patios, you got to protect people from falling. That's the spirit of the law.

Let me quickly attend to the issue at hand.
A man using earrings or whatever.


Deuteronomy 22:5, "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

I'm going to use the meaning behind this law to explain. Apparently, what God is actually saying here is that sexual identity should be retained and distinguished. And that's what I do tell people the verse is not a matter of skirt v's trouser. It's a matter of not wearing what belong to the opposite sex.    Men shouldn't dress or try to look like a woman, and vice versa. We got someone putting on women stuffs, it's either he's trying to look like a woman or doing it for fun. Whichever way it is, it's against the Bible teaching.
And that's exactly how stupidity and abomination gained ground in Christendom.
He's putting on earrings, right? What if he starts putting on eye lashes, using lip gloss, all these women's cosmetic? And he later changes shoes and clothes to that of a woman? What difference does it make?
 It's still the same as putting on earrings.
What about changing Sexual organ to that of opposite sex?
What about changing facial appearance?
To you, the Bible is silent....
Loss of Sexual identity... is the Bible silent on it?


And moreover, when a law is not about ritual, or ceremonial law. We should know it's probably dealing with right and wrong. Such law is a mirror.

Jesus shedding light to God's stand on the law regarding divorce helps a lot in biblical studies and figuring out what many laws mean. In fact, God's stand on divorce is inside Torah itself, it's embedded in the meaning behind the law. And God allowed it to avoid greater evil which is murder. When a man can't divorce his wife legally, it may resort to murder or maltreatment because the people are stiff-necked.

Though there are some laws I'm personally having a problem figuring out what they meant, especially why some food are not Kosher, but we have found out many and that has given clues on what others could probably meant.

Jesus said if they didn't listen to Moses or the prophet, they won't listen to who rose from the dead.