Should we obey the Law of Moses? Lynn Martin

Good morning, everyone. Good to see you all here. Um, and it's really great to hear that Trevor is out of the hospital. Um, yeah, just really good news. Today I am going to talk about the Law of Moses and how Christians should view the Law of Moses today.

So what was the Law of Moses? It's also known as the Mosaic Law, um, and also as the Torah, which just means instruction or teaching. And it can refer to the Pentateuch, which is the five books that Moses wrote. But, but I'm going to be referring, um, primarily using the term to refer to the commandments that God gave to Israel through Moses, um, that particular law.

So in this message, we're going to talk about what the purpose of the Law of Moses was, um, what changed in the New Testament, because we're in the New Testament rather than the Old, and do Christians need to obey the Law of Moses today? Is it binding on us?

So first, what is the purpose of the law? I'm going to start out to explain this. I'm going to start out by kind of giving the story, the overall story that the Old Testament gives. Um, obviously it starts with creation, but most of the Old Testament is about, um, the mess that humanity is in, um, and is.

So humanity just, it, we were falling short of what God required. We weren't living in obedience to God. Um, all sorts of sin and evil and violence was in the world because of us. But God wanted to bring salvation to everybody. So to do that, he started out by picking one people group as his people, and he worked with them especially to prepare the way for the Messiah, who could then bring salvation to all.

So he, there are multiple covenants in the Old Testament, um, that where God made an agreement with, with humanity. God said, I'm going to do this, um, and I want you to do this in return. Um, except in the case of the covenant with Noah, in which God simply said, um, well, actually he did require something in return, I believe as well, um, there as well. But anyway, we won't talk about the covenant with Noah especially here. We're going to talk about these three covenants, the ones with Abraham, Moses, and David.

So when God made his covenant with Abraham, he promised that through Abraham, all the nations would be blessed. So this covenant is pointing forward, this agreement with Abraham, the whole point of this agreement was to point forward to a time in the future when all nations would be, would be blessed through Abraham and through Abraham's offspring.

So then God made a covenant with Moses, with the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, um, through a covenant through Moses to with the people of Israel. Um, he, he set them apart as his treasured possession, as a kingdom of priests, a holy nation.

Um, and in a bit, we'll answer the question, does this covenant also point forward to a future time, or was this covenant intended to go on forever? Then later, God made a covenant with David, the king, and he promised David an eternal kingdom. And, um, that promise pointed forward to the Messiah, who would be a king who would bring justice, mercy, and peace, and, um, and his throne wouldn't ever end, um, his reign wouldn't ever end. And so that also points forward to a future time.

So let's talk about the covenant with Moses specifically. So I'd like to point out that this covenant and the law that went with it, the law that the Israelites needed to follow, it wasn't intended to be universal. It was given in a specific context and to specific people. And the people that God gave this law to was the nation or ethnicity of ancient Israel, a kind of, it, um, the reason I say nation and ethnicity both is that they were a nation, but they were a nation of kind of a homogenous people group and ethnicity. Um, and not all of them were necessarily, um, direct descendants of Abraham. You know, there's Rahab, et cetera. So people could join into this people group or ethnicity, but it acted as one specific, um, earthly people group or ethnicity.

And so the ethnicity or nation of ancient Israel is who received the law. And those people were at that time, God's chosen people, God's own people. So the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, never had the covenant with Moses or the law of Moses.

Um, Paul points out in Romans, the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. So Abraham's covenant wasn't about this law. It was about his commitment of faithfulness to God.

And the law came centuries later, Paul also points out. The patriarchs served God faithfully without the law of Moses. So the law is not God's, um, perfect way of doing things. The law, um, the way God wanted to do things was to have faithful people who, um, who were righteous, faithful to him, et cetera. And that's what, that's what was the case with the patriarchs. The law also looked forward to something better, just like those other two covenants. Here's an example.

Moses tells the children of Israel, "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers. It is to him you shall listen, just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, or see this great fire anymore, lest I die.' And the Lord said to me, 'They are right in what they have spoken.

I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers, and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.'" So God promises to send a prophet like Moses, who is going to speak his words. And so the law itself, the law of Moses, was actually looking forward to this future time when they would hear again directly from God. I think, um, yeah.

Yeah. Here's an example in the prophets where the Lord tells Israel that he's going to give a new covenant. "Behold, the days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. My covenant that they broke, that I was their husband," declares the Lord. "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the Lord. "I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the Lord. "For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." So God promised to the prophets, um, even who were still under that old covenant, that a new covenant is coming.

So then why these laws? Why did God give a set of laws just to Israel? And why did God choose these laws, um, rather than other ones? He could have given them, you know, any laws that he wanted if they, if they aren't reflecting his perfect will for all of humanity. He could have, you know, made a different set of laws. Why this set of laws? And why was the law so necessary in preparing for Christ?

Well, here's what I believe the law was important for. God was, um, there are a few different reasons for it. One of them was that God wanted to create a people group that he could work with. Some of the laws that he gave made clear boundaries between Israel and the other evil nations, like the requirement of circumcision, the laws about intermarriage, et cetera. God wanted a people group that was distinct from the other people groups, a people group that was his people. Um, some laws prevented evil practices that were common in the nations of the day, um, such as idolatry and incest and the idea that might makes right. A lot of the laws of that day, um, had a different law for the rich people than for the poor people, or for the masters than for the slaves.

So if you, um, if you were one of the higher ups in society and somebody killed you, well, maybe them and their whole family would have to die. But if you were, uh, just kind of the, uh, poor person or a beggar or something, and a rich person happened to kill you, well, maybe they only were fined or something like that. So I'm not, I'm not sure if these, these are exact examples of some of the laws, but that's, that's the kind of sense you get from the other laws, that ancient laws that were common in those days. This is God is preventing these evil practices in, um, his people of Israel.

Also, God made them a kingdom of priests. This was a special nation that was dedicated to God's service and to God's worship. And, um, we'll get into that just a little bit more in the next slide. And a culture that would pay attention when God spoke. Paul points out that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. God wanted people who would actually listen when he said things.

Another purpose of the law was to instill a consciousness of their need for holiness. So for example, there are a lot of laws about, um, dedicating things as holy to God. So the first, the firstborn child, um, was to be dedicated to the Lord. And obviously there was the tabernacle that was a place where God could dwell among them. Nazarites could dedicate themselves to the Lord.

There were laws about ritual cleanness and uncleanness. And there were very stringent requirements in many cases that reminded the Israelites kind of of this gap of holiness between them and what they should be. They should be like God, but they weren't like God. But these, these laws were reminding them of that.

And there were, of course, lots of commandments about sacrifices, reminding them of their need of repentance and mercy, pointing toward the need for forgiveness, making a way for them to actually voluntarily give sacrifices to God. And they also pointed toward Jesus. So these sacrifices, they didn't actually take away, the sacrifices themselves didn't actually take away the sins of the people. They reminded people of their sins and of the forgiveness that they needed to receive from God.

And, you know, if you had to, um, for, you know, for the children of Israel, maybe you had to, um, sacrifice a bull whenever you sinned, a sacrifice of bull for your sins. Well, okay, um, how many of us have bulls to sacrifice for when we sin? Um, but in that culture, that was kind of the currency that they had. That was the, that was their livelihood, was their livestock and, um, their grain, et cetera. That was what they lived off of. And so it actually was a real, um, sacrifice to give up a bull or a sheep or something, um, whenever you sin. So I tried thinking of examples, supposing that every time I sinned, I needed to, um, destroy my phone or something, and then I'd need to buy another one later, or maybe my car, or maybe if I sinned really badly, um, my house or something, you know, that kind of thing was what was required of them.

If I had to do that every time I sinned, that would really remind me, um, that sin is a very, um, very problematic thing. So that's the point of the sacrifices.

And also some of these laws for, were, well, the, the system of laws were to overcome Israel's obstinacy. Um, Israel didn't want to obey God. Israel didn't end up obeying God. And Paul points out that the law was given because of transgressions. Um, Jesus talks about how Moses allowed divorce because of, because of the hardness of their hearts.

And, um, Paul points out in 1 Timothy, the law is not laid down for the just, but for the lawless and disobedient. So Abraham didn't need this law because he was obeying God, but those who were just always going to go after other gods, um, they needed, they needed a law. And I would point out the law was intended to work with people where they were. It was intended to slowly guide them to a better condition.

God wasn't content to leave people where they were. Here's another interesting reality about the law that I don't fully understand myself, but it's pretty clear in the New Testament. So in the Old Testament, um, in Deuteronomy, it says that God assigned the nations, all the different nations to be ruled by lesser spiritual beings. When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But the Lord's portion is his people, Jacob, his allotted heritage. So he kind of, um, proctored these nations among other lesser spiritual beings, but he chose Israel as his people. But the New Testament even points out that Israel was under the power of a lesser reality.

Paul says, why then the law? It was added because of transgressions until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made. And it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Um, he says, now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then the law was our guardian until Christ came in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Jesus, in Christ Jesus, you are all sons of God through faith. We also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world.

Um, formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world whose slaves you want to be once more? So even the law was kind of this intermediary or put in place through an intermediary between God and man.

It couldn't fully bring people to God. So here's my summary of the purpose of the law. So the bad news is that humanity is deeply sinful and separated from God, but the good news is that God is willing to help us return to him. And Jesus is the way of return to God.

The law was put in place through angels by an intermediary. It was a guardian to prepare for Christ. And it was intended to create Israel as a holy nation who had actually listened to God, not as an eternal reality.

So the next question is, did the law achieve its purpose?

Well, Israel constantly missed the point. They, um, a lot of them felt like they could do whatever they wanted, and then they could appease God with sacrifices. But, but God pointed out that's not what he wanted. He cared first about their morality, and their sacrifices were a means of bringing about that, that morality.

Also, the law couldn't remove sin. Paul says, all both Jews and Greeks are under sin. And also that God forgave sins simply because he was merciful, not because of the law. In his divine forbearance, God had passed over former sins.

However, the law did fulfill its purpose. It did prepare the way for Christ. And by the time Jesus came, this is actually really amazing that Israel had developed a strong national identity as God's people. If you look through the Old Testament, most of the Old Testament, that's not the way they act.

And there were many people who were ready to receive the Messiah, the prophet and king who had been foretold. There were many who were zealous about following the law and obeying God. Some of them even too zealous about following the law.

And there were, um, the sins like idolatry, serving false gods. It seems like they were mostly stamped out in Israel by the time Jesus came. So the law did amazing things for the children of Israel, even though it was a lesser reality.

So what happened in the New Testament? In the New Testament, God made good on his promises. He brought salvation for all. He brought a new covenant. He, and he established an eternal king in David's line. So he answered all of those three covenants that I mentioned.

And the new covenant is a much better covenant. The writer of Hebrews says, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old, as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

So what, what is better? We have a better way to be connected to God and to be part of his family. We can be identified with Christ and have the Holy Spirit. We also have a higher set of moral teachings than the law gave. Jesus gave us moral teachings that will make us significantly more moral than the requirements of the law did.

We also have salvation from bondage to earthly powers, from sin and from death. And there is inclusion for all based on our choice rather than our ethnicity. So if we have faith in God, we can be saved, whether we are part of this, you know, ethnicity of Israel or not.

So what happened to the Old Testament when the New Testament came into being? And what happened to the law? Is it destroyed or abolished? No, Jesus points out, do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot will pass from the law until all is accomplished. He also says, the law and the prophets were until John. Since then, the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the law to become void.

So every word of the New Testament is still true and meaningful. God continues to speak through his word, through these scriptures, through every age and for all time. But what did happen to the law then? Well, Jesus fulfilled the law.

Um, earlier it says, he has, he has not come to abolish, but to fulfill. The word there, um, used for fulfill typically means something like fill up or complete. But how do you complete a law? How do you fill up a law?

Well, it's easy if you're Jesus. It's not easy if you're me. I don't know how I would do it, but Jesus did it this way. He brought the law to its intended fulfillment. He fulfilled the law. And in so doing, bringing it to its intended end, he completed it. And the way he did this was he brought about the blessings and truths that the law had begun to bring. He filled it up. He, yeah.

So now that the old is complete and filled up, God moves forward with his new and much better paradigm for dealing with his people. Hebrews points out, in speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. So it's forever obsolete as a covenant, but it's forever meaningful as scripture.

Jesus is the perfect fulfillment of the law. From the beginning and throughout all time, the law points to Christ and his new and better covenant. And also, Jesus himself does perfectly what the law intended to do imperfectly. He teaches us holiness. He makes us God's people. He makes us a kingdom of priests and brings a true connection to God and right standing before him for anyone who follows him as king and high priest. So no longer do we have, do we have this lesser reality between us and God. We have a mediator who himself is divine and who brings us an actual connection to God.

So then what's the law's purpose today? Well, the law's commandments aren't binding on Christians. So to answer that question, it was given in a specific context to the ethnicity or nation of ancient Israel, who were then God's chosen people, but now God's people are those who accept the Messiah and his kingdom of heaven.

And, um, and the church now is the continuation of the ancient nation of Israel. Jesus was the Messiah over Israel. We're all coming in under the Messiah, basically joining the nation of Israel, but those who did not accept the Messiah are no longer part of the nation of Israel.

So the law also has been fulfilled. Jesus brought the law to its intended fulfillment by bringing about the blessings and truths that the law had begun to bring, as I, um, said earlier. So to return to the law would be foolish. If you've graduated, why return to grade school?

And Jesus has given us commandments that supersede the law. So here, um, here's where Jesus gave us those commandments that, um, we need to follow rather than the law. Jesus, Jesus says of these commandments, therefore, whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

And here are some examples of the contrast between what had been given and what Jesus now gave. The law said, don't murder. Jesus says that even to be angry with your brother is a problem. The law said to swear truly, but Jesus says to not swear at all. The law prescribed fair punishments, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but Jesus said, don't even retaliate. So in some examples, Jesus is saying, okay, this, what was there was good, but it's not nearly good enough. And in some cases, he's saying what was there was just, um, a lesser reality that instead this is where we really need to go. It was good for a time, but this is, this is what I'm telling for you.

The New Testament here, a few passages from the New Testament on obedience to the law. The law was our guardian until Christ came, but now we are no longer under a guardian. So if we remain dependent on our parents or guardians after we come of age, are we really adults? No. So no, we don't need to go back to the law. The law was an earlier paradigm that no longer matters under Christ. And if we try to go back to it, Paul says, Christ won't be of any use to you if you, um, go back to the law.

And again, I think a good example of this is if we go back to grade school after graduation, does our diploma mean anything? So I have, um, I have a college diploma. If I went back and started at the 101 classes, really, am I living like I have a college diploma? Certainly not.

The, um, the New Testament also goes on. The apostles clarified that the Gentiles, Gentiles don't need to convert to the law. Um, Paul calls the law a ministry of death that was being brought to an end. I don't know if I would dare do that myself, but Paul did that. So, um, the law, as I pointed out, was merely an intermediary. Um, and Peter points out that the Jews have now been ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers. And also Hebrews says, we have a new law for a new priesthood.

We no longer need to keep festivals and abstain from unclean meats. Paul writes, one person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. So these festivals, if someone wants to keep these festivals to God's honor, great. But if someone doesn't want to, then no, like that's just fine.

And he says, therefore, let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. So no longer are we required to do these things. This is, this was for the Mosaic law. This is not for Christians today.

Also, Jesus talks about the law as their law or your law, not as our law or my law. Um, he, in talking to the Jews, he says, your law says such and such. Um, not God's law says such and such. Um, when talking to his disciples, he says, their law says such and such.

And I would point out these cases refer to the Old Testament. They aren't just referring to Pharisaical traditions. If you look in the context that Jesus said these. So I'd like to finish by answering some objections that people bring up, um, to this view that the law is no longer binding on us.

So who would object to this view? Well, there are some recent Christian movements. Um, one of them is, is called the Hebrew Roots Movement. That's kind of a large umbrella movement that teaches that obedience to the law is important. There are also skeptics who believe that there's a contradiction between the Old Testament and the New Testament. And the New Testament teaches, don't obey the law, but the Old Testament contradicts that. So we'll answer some objections of, of those as well. And then there are, um, there are some Protestants who believe that the law is actually still binding on us, but that Christ sets us free from needing to be righteous. So, um, that's why the law isn't binding.

That's, that's what they believe. But we'll answer these, some objections from these points of view here.

So first of all, does Matthew 5 teach obedience to the law? It might seem so from this passage. Let's read it. Jesus says, do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

So look, Jesus is saying, I'm not abolishing the law. Nothing will pass away from the law. Don't relax these commandments. Isn't that pretty clear? Doesn't it seem like we should obey the law? Well, I would point out that Jesus doesn't actually say, do not think I have come to abolish the law. He says, do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. So this phrase is a phrase that refers to the Old Testament texts. It's not specifically about the commands found in the law.

So Jesus is saying he's, he's come, he's talking in context of the Old Testament texts, not specifically the law of Moses. And this is also borne out when he talks about not an iota, not a dot will pass from the law. So that, um, that really suggests, since he's talking about letters, um, of the alphabet, which that's letters and marks for writing or what these are, the iota and the dot. He's talking about texts, not about commandments. If he meant that the commandments would be binding forever, he could have said things, he could have used terms like words or commandments or statutes or precepts. Like until heaven and earth pass away, not a word, not a precept will pass from the law or something like that.

But instead he says, not an iota, not a dot. So what commandments then is Jesus referring to here? Note that this is actually the first time Jesus is mentioning commandments in this passage. Earlier he's talking about texts. He's talking about the overarching texts, but now he's talking about commandments. Is he talking about the commandments that are found in those texts or is he talking about some other commandments?

Well, he also goes on to say, for I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. And in some cases, the Pharisaical traditions, they actually exceeded the law of Moses. So if we're supposed to exceed the Pharisees yet, then, um, that would, that would seem like he's not saying that you should follow the law of Moses to exceed, um, the Pharisees. So maybe Jesus is talking about some other commandments. Well, yes, I believe he is talking about other commandments because the very next verse begins the commandments section of the Sermon on the Mount, the very next verse after, um, verse 20. So verses 19 and 20, um, they're not a command to obey the Old Testament law.

Instead, they're kind of the first bookend for Jesus' commands to his people that immediately follow. And the other bookend is at the end of Matthew 7, where Jesus gives the story of the man who built this house on a rock. He says, be like this, um, obey my commandments. Everyone who hears these words of mine and does them will be like this wise man.

So Jesus is actually setting up in verses 19 and 20 for his replacement of the Mosaic commands with his own truly righteous commands from Matthew, um, 5:21 onward.

So another objection I came across was Matthew 19. Um, a man came up to Jesus saying, teacher, what good, what good deed must I do to have eternal life? And he said to him, why do you ask me about what is good? There's only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments. He said to him, which ones? And Jesus said, you shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, honor your father and mother, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself.

The young man, oops, okay. The young man said to him, all these I have kept. What do I still lack? Jesus said to him, if you would be perfect, go sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven and come follow me. When the young man heard, he went, heard this, he went away sorrowful because he had great possessions.

So doesn't this look like, you know, Jesus is quoting from the Old Testament saying, if you want to enter life, let's follow the Old Testament, right? Is that what he says? Well, it could sound that way, but note that Jesus says, if you would enter life, keep the commandments, not keep the law of Moses. So he's not tying righteousness to the law of Moses, but whatever commandments of God are in effect. So if the law of Moses is no longer in effect over us, then, um, he's talking, he's, then we would need to obey other commandments in order to enter life.

Also note that when the young man asks which commandments, Jesus only lists commands that are specifically reiterated in the rest of the New Testament. So he says not to murder, commit adultery or steal, bear false witness. He says to honor your parents and love your neighbor. Those are all commands that appear in the New Testament. He doesn't mention commands that, uh, that aren't reiterated in the New Testament for Christians today, like circumcision or the Sabbaths or sacrifices or festivals or purifications. So he's not actually, um, teaching that he's not actually teaching that we need to obey the law. He's teaching that no matter which testament we are under, we need to obey God.

So another objection, um, is that the law is eternal. The, the, the Old Testament teaches that the law is eternal. Um, um, so here a few passages observe this day throughout your generations as a statute forever. I believe that's about Passover. Or there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations.

The things that are revealed belong to us and our children forever that we may do all the words of this law. Um, and, and the statutes and the rules and the law and the commandment that he wrote for you, you shall always be careful to do.

So I don't think that these passages teach that the law is actually eternal. So when we say that something is permanent or for always, we typically mean that in a context. So I moved to Pennsylvania. I'm a, I moved here permanently, but I could still move somewhere else.

The U.S. Constitution is permanent for the U.S., but if the U.S. were to fall, it's just a piece of paper. So if humans can, can change permanent things, then I think God can as well. These laws were given to the ethnicity or nation of ancient Israel, who are then God's chosen people. But long ago, God changed the way he determines who his people were. Jesus brought that change. And what was permanent for the old covenant is not permanent to the kingdom of heaven.

And I think that these passages actually also hint at the context in which they were given, the context in which they're permanent, rather than saying that they are, um, permanent for all of time. So for example, note that these passages say throughout your generations or, uh, these are given to us and to our children, as in the ethnicity of Israel or the commandment that he wrote for you.

So I think, um, the law was permanent in a certain context, but as we saw, the law always pointed forward to something else and God is able to change his requirements. And also that the New Testament clearly teaches that the law is no longer binding. It's very clear from the New Testament.

So here's another question. Should Jewish Christians obey the law? We know from Acts 15 that Gentile Christians don't need to obey the law, but should Jewish Christians obey the law? Well, there are a lot of Messianic Jews who actually believe that Gentiles don't need to keep the law of Moses, but that Jewish Christians do need to. At least that's my understanding of what Messianic Jews tend to believe.

I may be wrong. However, I think the New Testament teaches that the law is not binding on Jewish Christians. So the kingdom of God is a new paradigm that takes up where ancient Israel left off. God's people are accounted through faith in Christ, not through ethnicity. Jew and Gentile are the same in Christ. So here are some passages in the New Testament that teach this. Christ has made us both one. That's talking of Jews and Gentiles. Created in himself one new man in place of the two. Reconciled us both to God in one body. Do you see any distinctions between Jews and Gentiles in the requirements for them in those passages?

In Christ Jesus, you are all sons of God through faith. There is neither Jew nor Greek, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you're Abraham's offspring. So Abraham's offspring is not counted according to who was biologically descended from Abraham or ethnically his descendant. It's now counted as who has the faith of Abraham.

Also, Peter writing to the Jews in his first epistle says that they have now been ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers. Um, Mark points out that Jesus, uh, declared all foods clean. And Jesus talks, talking to the woman at the well, remarks on the differences between Samaritan and Jewish worship. He says, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. But the hour is coming and is now here when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. So all the indications here are that the law is no longer even for Jewish Christians.

So then why did the early Jewish Christians keep the law if they, if it wasn't binding on them? So we see that throughout the New Testament, the Jews were keeping the law of Moses. Well, I believe that's because they were keeping the law as a way of preferring their brothers. They didn't want to stumble the Jews who were weak in the faith and didn't realize that the law was no longer necessary. And they also wanted to help other Jews come to Christ because Israel then had this very, very distinct sense of identity and they still do, um, as, as a very distinct people group. And, and it was just a bitter pill to swallow that this law of Moses was only temporary and that Jesus came to bring in the Gentiles and Jews alike, no matter, like it no longer mattered whether you were part of the special people group or not.

You needed to actually have faith in Christ in order to be one of God's people. And this was just a big change and it was hard a bitter pill to swallow. So the apostles and the Jewish Christians were very careful to, um, not offend people as much as they could in this way.

So in Acts, we see Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. So he didn't circumcise him because God told him that this was like the way that all Jews must be. He circumcised him because of the Jews.

He, he knew that because Timothy's father was a Greek and Timothy's mother was a Jew, um, that people were going to ask, by the way, have you been circumcised? And he wanted Timothy to be able to say, yes, I've been circumcised.

Also, Paul teaches here in Romans, as for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything while the weak person eats only vegetables. Not, and this is not intended to be a slam on, on vegetarians, but, um, let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. So here were people who were weak in the faith and believe that these were necessary requirements.

And he's saying these, let's, let's bear with these people who are weak in the faith and not offend them. And if that requires keeping the law, then, then sure. He says to those under the law, I became as one under the law, though not being myself under the law, that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law, I became as one outside the law, not being outside the law of God, but under the law of Christ, that I might win those outside the law. I have become all things to all people. So note that he is under a law, just not the law of Moses. He's under the law of God, the law of Christ.

So he does have commandments that he needs to obey, but he's not under the law of Moses.

Not myself under the law, he says. So, um, let's finish this section by talking about the church at Jerusalem. So when, when Paul went finally back to Jerusalem before he was taken to Caesar, James told Paul about the new converts in Jerusalem. He said, you see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law. And these Jews, he says, had heard that Paul was teaching Jews not to obey the law. So, um, the answer was for Paul to perform an act of devotion, um, go to the temple with some Jewish brothers to prove that there is nothing, there's nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.

So this could sound at first blush like all Jews needed to obey the law, but it doesn't say that. It doesn't say that Jewish Christians must observe the law. It simply shows how careful the apostles were not to offend the Jews. And Paul himself was so careful not to offend the Jews that he actually went to his death to, this was this act of preferring his brother was actually what led to his death. What, um, because when he was in the temple, that was when he was, when he was, um, when the mob, um, attacked him and he was taken by the Romans.

So today the law is unnecessary for any objective purpose, but the apostles went to great inconvenience, even to death, not to offend the Jews. And they were successful. They kept a church of Jews and Christians who eventually integrated fully together.

I think that's an amazing example of how the apostles worked. So if you're a Jewish Christian and obeying the law will help you win other Jews, then follow their example. It's a wonderful example to follow, but don't think that the law will do you any more objective good than it will for a Gentile Christian.

So another view out there is that the law of Moses is important for sanctification. It's not, um, it can't save us, but it's valuable for making it valuable for making us more holy. However, when the New Testament talks about sanctification, it never mentions the law as a way to get here, get there. And here are some examples where the New Testament of this in the New Testament. Also, when the apostles exhort us on Christian living, they don't tell us to follow the law. And here are some examples of those passages. So the law of Moses is not the proper path to holiness.

Um, and also another view is that the New Testament criticizes the traditions of the Pharisees, not the law of Moses. Um, but the passages that I've given before are very clear. Some of them specifically speak about the law, like directly quoting Old Testament passages. Some of them say that all foods are clean. Some of them say that there's no need to observe festivals. Those are all responses to the law, not just to the Pharisees. And in some, some cases, there are contextual elements around what they're saying that actually mention the law, like circumcision or Moses or talking about Jew versus Greek. So no, this is not talking about the traditions of the Pharisees. This is about the law of Moses that is no longer binding on Christians.

Another view I heard, there are a lot of these out there, um, is that Jesus didn't fulfill the whole law yet. So parts of it are still in effect. Um, but the New Testament is clear that every aspect of the law is superseded. For example, the sacrificial system is superseded. The festivals are, are no longer binding. The rulings about cleanness and uncleanness and what to eat, those aren't binding. The civil punishments aren't binding. So nowhere do the apostles say that only part of the law was fulfilled. And so many aspects of the law, they say, no, this is no longer binding.

Um, and here are a few, few smaller objections. I've heard people say the New Testament teaches obedience to God's commands, so we should obey the law. Well, yes, we should obey whatever commands God has for us, but currently that is the law of Christ, not the law of Moses.