Debate: Is the Mosaic law still binding

1. Be civil. No ad hominem or image thumbnails intended to personally mock other editors!
2. Do not insert off-topic remarks in replies or they will be removed. Insertions that attempt to divert a main point without it placed under a new subsection in a specifically designated, distinct "digression" area, will be removed.
3. Do not remove, collapse, or otherwise censor relevant comments for trivial reasons.
4. Do not add or remove to these rules, or otherwise strictly enforce a pointlessly arbitrary, nonsensically Pharisaic decree.

—LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Monday, 09:04, September 18, 2023 (EDT)

Until recently, I believed, as just about all Christians do, that the Mosaic law was only for the Jews and entirely rendered obsolete by the New Covenant. Even as a Seventh-day Adventist for some time, I believed that while the Ten Commandments are intact, the Mosaic law is not, as this site purports. While the mainstream Protestant view (both the Ten Commandments and the rest of the Mosaic law are abolished) and the Adventist view (the Ten Commandments remain, rest of the Mosaic law part of "ceremonial" law and therefore obsolete) differ in their interpretation of the Ten Commandments, namely the fourth, neither support upholding the Mosaic law.

The Apostle Paul's main Epistles explain plenty on the law, although he does not explain exactly what the law entails: only the Ten Commandments? Only Jesus's two "great commandments"? (Mark 12:29–31) All the Mosaic law? The answer is in the Epistle to the Hebrews. (as for Pauline authorship of Hebrews, that is a separate subject) Hebrews, written to Jewish Christians in the 1st-century church, was eloquently intended to encourage them to continue in the faith and way of life established by the New Covenant and recognize Jesus as the ultimate fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies and ordinances.

According to Hebrews 9:1, "ordinances of divine service" were of the first covenant. The letter never implies that the moral aspect of the law was abolished; verses 10:4–6 indicate that the decrees rendered obsolete by the New Covenant are only the ceremonial ordinances pertaining to sacrifice! Later, in verses 16–17: "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more."

The Bible does not contradict itself. If the law is written in the heart, then what is abolished must only be the ceremonial ordinances while the moral pillar of the Mosaic law is actually exemplified by the New Covenant rather than abolished. In essence, the laws in the Torah can be generically divided into two main distinct categories: moral laws and ceremonial sacrificial ordinances. The purpose of the sacrificial ordinances were as atonements for sin (see 1 John 3:4 for parallelism), because the moral laws were violated. However, because the animal sacrifices could never take away sins (Hebrews 10:4), that means they were a shadow fulfilled by Jesus. (Hebrews 9:13–15)

Hence, a defining characteristic of the New Covenant, commonly misunderstood, was not to render obsolete the moral aspect of the Mosaic law. It was actually to reinforce it (Hebrews 8:10), because Christ's better offering and reign as High Priest (Hebrews 6:20, 8:1) is superior to the Old Covenant's earthly ministry that simply served as a shadow. Jesus Christ, the High Priest of the heavenly sanctuary (Hebrews 8:2), knows the thoughts of every individual and is superior to every ordinary Jewish high priest in the times of the Old Testament.

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." (Matthew 22:37) "If you love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15) And no, the argument that "the Ten Commandments were given by God and the Mosaic law by Moses" is not proper. Did Moses invent the Mosaic law of his own self-accord? No! God told him exactly what to say to the children of Israel, so they were ultimately from God. Hence, when Paul talks of the "the law" which he says only doers of are justified (Romans 2:13), it is not exegetical to assume that he is only referring to the Ten Commandments. The false dichotomy, propagated by Adventists and some other Sabbatarian groups, which assumes that every Pauline verse that appears to be positive towards the law is about the Ten Commandments while every seemingly negative verse is about the Mosaic law, is a man-made interpretation. Galatians 3 is not talking about a different law than Romans 2—the reason Paul emphasizes it differently was because he wrote to different audiences for different specific reasons. And Paul never said that "not under under law" implies we have no need to keep the law, rather making it clear as daylight that believers are expected to uphold the law. (Romans 3:31, 6:15) This puts to bed the classic "we don't need to keep the law because we're not under the law" argument pervasively common in Protestant circles.

Since it is therefore established that only the ceremonial ordinances pertaining primarily to animal sacrifices for sin were abolished, and not the moral aspect of the Mosaic law along with it, Paul's exhortation to keep the law indicates that the Torah is still binding on Christians, albeit in a spiritual way. The law is ultimately to be written in the heart and kept in accordance with the basic concept of love for God and love for one's neighbor. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Monday, 09:04, September 18, 2023 (EDT)

LT, your analysis is thoughtful. A quibble I have is with the somewhat arbitrary distinction between ceremonial and moral aspects of the Mosaic law.

I think the Mosaic law is a good guide today, but there are many cultures worldwide to which Christianity should extend today without hindrance by this as a "law" rather than as a "guide". Also, Christianity is more forward-looking with constant forgiveness about the past, which is contrary to how most understand the nature of a "law" to be today.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:23, September 21, 2023 (EDT)

The law is our schoolmaster to bring us to salvation. It can only condemn and cannot bring us to eternal life. Only the grace of God and the blood of Jesus can do that. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 19:34, September 21, 2023 (EDT)

Jesus and the law are both necessary and point to each other: without Christ, we are condemned under the law with no hope. Without the law, there is no set of standards, and thus what we normally consider "transgressions" are no longer transgressions (Romans 4:15), and if there is no transgression, then there is no need for a Savior to atone for anything. The law, almost serving as a light, reveals the darkness within us, and convicts us to repent through faith and make Jesus the cornerstone of our life. With Christ in us, we then are able to become doers of the law through His perfection. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Friday, 20:23, September 21, 2023 (EDT)

I had not known sin except the law said, 'Thou shalt not covet'. IOWs, I would have gone on in my natural state as a human being coveting, envying, lying, stealing, hating, etc. unless the law had guided me. But no way can I meet all the standards of what God expects from me. Thank God I have an intercessor and advocate with the father. RobS^{Give Peace a Chance!} 19:39, September 21, 2023 (EDT)

Yeah, only with God within our hearts through faith can we have any hope at all. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Friday, 20:24, September 21, 2023 (EDT)

Thanks for your input, Andy—to reply, I'll first respond to the first half about the distinction I articulated seeming "arbitrary." I think I understand where you're coming from, as the writer of Hebrews doesn't formally and directly provide a contrast between what's ceremonial/sacrificial of the Torah and what isn't. My argument rests on what is heavily implied by the overall context and how it fits together to avoid contradictory conclusions: the New Covenant places the law in the heart (Heb. 8:10), though the law also is changed as a result of the priesthood changed (Heb. 7:12): the Old Covenant priesthood revolved around animal sacrifices for sin. What was taken away (Heb. 10:9) was the animal sacrificing and burnt offerings (Heb. 10:4–8), and in terms of what's abolished, that is all which is specified. Hence, that is why my argument concludes upon a sort of implied distinction between the Torah's non-ceremonial aspect (the moral pillar) and the ceremonial/sacrificial pillar. Of those two pillars, the ceremonial side served as atonements for sin, which is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), which must pertain primarily to the moral pillar. And the ceremonial pillar of the Old Covenant, being imperfect, was the part replaced and rendered obsolete in the New Covenant, in which Jesus's sacrifice was perfect. I know this is simply a reiteration of what I already articulated, though hopefully it renders the emphasis clearer to hopefully answer your quibble. :)

In terms of the Mosaic law as a guide, yes, I would concur that it provides a godly outline for living life—when I became a Christian and began reading the first Old Testament books in my early 10th grade days, I recall that the principles of the Torah inherently resonated with me amidst my daily stress, bitterness, and anguish dealing with life, wondering why my peers were utterly depraved and why I always continued to do what's right amidst reprisals from the abominable around me. Looking back in retrospect, I believe that was the witness of God's law written in my heart, convicting me to do what's right because I knew it in my conscience.

Okay, I can see your implied emphasis on "forward-looking." Often times, when Christians bring up the Mosaic law, they can easily be seen as looking backwards into an archaic, often needlessly strict view towards the law. Ultimately, at the end of the day, it's the underlying principles that matter, not a highly literal interpretation. We may not have the need to plow with oxen and donkeys nowadays (see Deut. 22:10), though the underlying principle of that command goes beyond farming: don't force two individuals of different physical capabilities to perform a task together at the same pace, because it is cruel to the weaker one. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Friday, 20:17, September 21, 2023 (EDT)

Hebrews 8 says that the Old Covenant is obsolete and ready to vanish.

"13In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."

Galatians 5:3 "And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."

Here, Saint Paul says anyone who tries to keep the ceremonial aspects of the OT law trying to be justified by them is cut off from Christ and fallen from Grace. In other words, is in mortal sin. It is forbidden for Christians to do it. NishantXavier^{For Christ the King} 20:29, September 21, 2023 (EDT)

Yes, for a person to say their own efforts of keeping the law justifies them, they are fallen from grace because they deny that it is God who ultimately justifies them from within. The problem in your argument, NishantXavier, is that you're misunderstanding what is and isn't abolished. Ceremonial ordinances pertained primarily/solely to sacrifices for sin. The weekly Sabbath was established at creation, and has nothing to do, in of itself, with sacrificial offerings.

As for circumcision, yes, it served simply as a shadow as part of the Old Covenant, though for a different purpose: distinguishing whether someone was part of literal Israel and saved, or not. It was a shadow because it points to the perfect nature of the New Covenant: a person must be circumcised in the heart by accepting Jesus as their Savior in order to be grafted into spiritual Israel. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Friday, 20:37, September 21, 2023 (EDT)

And no, Paul never said that circumcision is forbidden. Study the full context again, please. —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Friday, 20:38, September 21, 2023 (EDT)

"And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4You have become estranged from Christ" NishantXavier^{For Christ the King} 20:46, September 21, 2023 (EDT)

[EC] Again, NishantXavier, you are disregarding the full context of what Paul's saying. I will show you what you cherry-picked and what you left out:

By only quoting verses 5:3–4a and leaving out 4b, you are providing the impression that Paul says anyone who is circumcised automatically loses their salvation. That notion would be absurd—Paul himself circumcised Timothy. (Acts 16:3) —LT ^{Rev. 22:13} Friday, 20:50, September 21, 2023 (EDT)

Being circumcised for religious reasons is a sin, that's what St. Paul is saying. Timothy was circumcised as a concession to the Jews. Similarly, offering animal sacrifices today in the NT covenant period for religious reasons is a sin. So is keeping the OT Sabbath now in the New Covenant period for religious reasons, because that is Judaizing instead of Christianity. Btw, if you are under the law, you also ought to stone people who work on the Sabbath. NishantXavier^{For Christ the King} 21:24, September 21, 2023 (EDT)