Are we still required to follow Mosaic law?

[Kurieuo]

Are we still required to follow Mosaic Law?

Is like asking, "Do you still beat your wife?"

WE were never required to follow mosaic law. Mosaic law was given to Israel, not to US.

WE never were required to follow Mosaic law. Including the 10 commandments which can't be separated from the rest of the Law.

Well, actually... whether or not we are to follow the Mosaic Law depends upon whether we're circumcised according to Paul.

Galatians 5:2-4:

• 2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

And if you're preaching circumcision well, Paul basically says: "I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" (Gal 5:12 NIV)

[RickD]

Are we still required to follow Mosaic Law?

Is like asking, "Do you still beat your wife?"

WE were never required to follow mosaic law. Mosaic law was given to Israel, not to US.

WE never were required to follow Mosaic law. Including the 10 commandments which can't be separated from the rest of the Law.

Well, actually... whether or not we are to follow the Mosaic Law depends upon whether we're circumcised according to Paul.

Galatians 5:2-4:

• 2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

And if you're preaching circumcision well, Paul basically says: "I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" (Gal 5:12 NIV)

Then I guess that means I'm required to keep the whole law, because I was circumcised as a baby!

Oh woe is me! No foreskin, and I am obligated to keep the whole law!!!!

[Byblos]

Starhunter wrote:
I differ in my view of the law, I think it's perfect, because it covers all bases from worship to God through to coveting. But I get where you are coming from, and appreciate your sharing.

If the law was perfect, there would've been no need for Christ. I know you don't realize it, but by saying the law is perfect, you are trampling on the cross of Christ.

I don't know about that Rick. Theoretically it is possible for one to be saved by the law (if kept perfectly) so the law must be perfect. It just so happens that in our fallen nature no one is perfect so no one can be saved by the law. It is not a trampling on the cross to call the law perfect, perhaps only that one can be saved by the law (the imperfection is in us, not the law).

Galatians 2:16
"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified".

Galatians 2:21
21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

Galatians 3:11
"Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, ‘The righteous man shall life by faith'".

Acts 13:38-39
"Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes if freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses".

And of course I agree with all of that. It's just that none of it says that the law is imperfect but points to our inability to be justified by it.

[Kurieuo]

Are we still required to follow Mosaic Law?

Is like asking, "Do you still beat your wife?"

WE were never required to follow mosaic law. Mosaic law was given to Israel, not to US.

WE never were required to follow Mosaic law. Including the 10 commandments which can't be separated from the rest of the Law.

Well, actually... whether or not we are to follow the Mosaic Law depends upon whether we're circumcised according to Paul.

Galatians 5:2-4:

• 2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

And if you're preaching circumcision well, Paul basically says: "I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" (Gal 5:12 NIV)

Then I guess that means I'm required to keep the whole law, because I was circumcised as a baby!

Oh woe is me! No foreskin, and I am obligated to keep the whole law!!!!

I'm remaining silent as to my own status there.

[RickD]

Byblos wrote:
And of course I agree with all of that. It's just that none of it says that the law is imperfect but points to our inability to be justified by it.

Byblos,

Maybe there's a disagreement between you and me on what "perfect" means in this instance. The law cannot justify anyone. Obeying the law cannot save anyone. The law is incomplete in at least that regard. Therefore it's not perfect. The law was perfect in as much as it was perfect for Israel to be set apart from the other nations. The law is perfect in pointing all to Christ.

If the law was perfect(could save anyone) then there's no need for Christ. So by saying the law is perfect(is completely able to save), then it's the same as saying the cross of Christ is unnecessary.

[Byblos]

Byblos wrote:
And of course I agree with all of that. It's just that none of it says that the law is imperfect but points to our inability to be justified by it.

Byblos,

Maybe there's a disagreement between you and me on what "perfect" means in this instance. The law cannot justify anyone. Obeying the law cannot save anyone. The law is incomplete in at least that regard. Therefore it's not perfect. The law was perfect in as much as it was perfect for Israel to be set apart from the other nations. The law is perfect in pointing all to Christ.

If the law was perfect(could save anyone) then there's no need for Christ. So by saying the law is perfect(is completely able to save), then it's the same as saying the cross of Christ is unnecessary.

We're more in agreement than not. I think I'm chasing semantics insofar as perfection (more the lack of) is meaningful only when ascribed to human traits, that is all.

[neo-x]

Starhunter wrote:
I differ in my view of the law, I think it's perfect, because it covers all bases from worship to God through to coveting. But I get where you are coming from, and appreciate your sharing.

If the law was perfect, there would've been no need for Christ. I know you don't realize it, but by saying the law is perfect, you are trampling on the cross of Christ.

I don't know about that Rick. Theoretically it is possible for one to be saved by the law (if kept perfectly) so the law must be perfect. It just so happens that in our fallen nature no one is perfect so no one can be saved by the law. It is not a trampling on the cross to call the law perfect, perhaps only that one can be saved by the law (the imperfection is in us, not the law).

I think that its not even theoretically possible to be saved by the law even if you kept it perfectly, remember the rich young man and Christ? he kept the law and its written that Christ saw that he was telling the truth, but he still lacked. I say this regardless of the fact that no one can keep the whole law. But even if someone does that does not mean they are saved because the sinful nature in them can't be renewed by the law. In other words they are never born in the spirit by keeping the law and hence are not children of God in Christ.

That is why the law is the dead husband, the task master, the shadow of better things to come, which is Christ.

[PaulSacramento]

I think that its not even theoretically possible to be saved by the law even if you kept it perfectly, remember the rich young man and Christ? he kept the law and its written that Christ saw that he was telling the truth, but he still lacked. I say this regardless of the fact that no one can keep the whole law. But even if someone does that does not mean they are saved because the sinful nature in them can't be renewed by the law. In other words they are never born in the spirit by keeping the law and hence are not children of God in Christ.

That is why the law is the dead husband, the task master, the shadow of better things to come, which is Christ.

Indeed, because the keeping of the Laws becomes an act in of itself, the end and not the means.
The intention is NOT to be "good for goodness sake" but to be good because you HAVE TO, or else.
The rich young man kept the law BUT His intentions was, by contrast, POOR.

[Starhunter]

You didn't answer my question.

Let me put it this way:

In your view, ONLY the 10 commandments are the ones that ALL must follow, Jew and Christian alike?

Yes, that is, if Jesus was referring to the ten in Matthew 5.

[Starhunter]

To state that the Law is perfect is to state that the Law is God since ONLY God is perfect.
IS that what you are doing? are you stating that the Law is EQUAL to God?, the SAME as God?

Yes, that seems to be the gist of the scriptures, that the law defines the boundaries of love - which God is.

"The law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul" Psalms 19:7.

If the law is not that, then of course I see the reason in dismissing the whole OT as the old covenant replaced by the new.

If God is true to those laws, He would be quite safe to live with. Killing is not part of His character, the OT calls it His "strange work" and the NT says He is "not willing that any should perish."

The law of adultery also applies to the way He has chosen to relate to His people as His bride, He will never be untrue to His loved ones. God is not covetous, never steals, Does He honor Mum and Dad? He respects the order of life, Does He take your name in vain? never, Does He make an image of us? No - loves us as we are now. And so on.

[Starhunter]

Byblos wrote:
And of course I agree with all of that. It's just that none of it says that the law is imperfect but points to our inability to be justified by it.

Byblos,

Maybe there's a disagreement between you and me on what "perfect" means in this instance. The law cannot justify anyone. Obeying the law cannot save anyone. The law is incomplete in at least that regard. Therefore it's not perfect. The law was perfect in as much as it was perfect for Israel to be set apart from the other nations. The law is perfect in pointing all to Christ.

If the law was perfect(could save anyone) then there's no need for Christ. So by saying the law is perfect(is completely able to save), then it's the same as saying the cross of Christ is unnecessary.

Yes, so far as salvation is concerned the law is death. It is perfect to do the job of destroying sin, but not in saving the poor sinner.

The presence of God upholds the universe, but if the universe gets some sort of rot in it, His presence will destroy the rot. But with the intervention of the plan of salvation, the rot in our case can be fixed without annihilating the sinner.

So the law is perfect on its own, and only useful if Christ identifies Himself with sinners, so that they can live in the presence of God without being destroyed by His brightness. It remains the standard of God's character and means of rule, but only the Living Christ can make that law part of His recreation of our hearts. "I will write my laws into their hearts."

The law condemns a heart of stone, but Love turns the heart to flesh, fulfilling the demands of the law.

While the stone tablets describe the outer limits and boundaries of love by negatives - "thou shalt not" - the spirituality of the law is a heart that does not want to kill, steal, cheat, etc. Not only that, but the heart of Christ is more than "not stealing," it fulfills the spirituality of the law which says "You will not steal, in fact, you are going to be really generous as well."

So the law defines the platform for the generous super abundant overrunning Love of God. That's why the Psalmist says "the law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul."

'Not stealing" is not a conversion proper, being generous is. Only the spiritual value of the law counts as Jesus pointed out to the Jews by saying "even by hating someone you have killed."

That's what the new covenant is "a new and better way" than the letter of the law.

[Starhunter]

I think that its not even theoretically possible to be saved by the law even if you kept it perfectly, remember the rich young man and Christ? he kept the law and its written that Christ saw that he was telling the truth, but he still lacked. I say this regardless of the fact that no one can keep the whole law. But even if someone does that does not mean they are saved because the sinful nature in them can't be renewed by the law. In other words they are never born in the spirit by keeping the law and hence are not children of God in Christ.

That is why the law is the dead husband, the task master, the shadow of better things to come, which is Christ.

Can you see that the rich young man did not fulfill the law or really keep it at all so long as there was another love above God? (The first commandment)

Only if the Love of Christ was shed abroad in his heart to the point that he could separate from the love of riches would he be fulfilling the law. Which is not possible as the disciples commented, yet Jesus immediately said "what is impossible for men is possible with God." Conversion is a miracle by Christ, which all sinners have to depend on for salvation.
Without that the works of the law, works of the flesh will be condemned by the law, and death is the wages of sin.

Diminishing the law only increases the guilt of the sinner even if they claim Christ's name, equally as the one who claims to uphold the law while denying his complete inability to keep it in spirituality as required.