Abolition of the Law?

[Esaias]

Many say it - 'the law is done away with, we are not under the law', etc.

What does this mean?

In studying about this subject I find I have several questions...

1. Jesus said he did not come to abolish or do away with the law, we are not to think he came to do away with or abolish the law, not one tiniest part of the law would be done away with while the world continues, those who keep and teach others to keep the least of the commandments would be called great in the kingdom.... He kept all the law, and we are to walk as he himself walked (according to John)... that sounds like Christians are expected to keep all the commandments of the law, from the Big Ten down to the fringes on the garments and everything in between, doesn't it?

2. Paul taught Gentiles, he never commanded or taught them to wear fringes, no mixed fibers, or get circumcised, was opposed to 'Judaizers' who were saying Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the whole law, taught circumcision and uncircumcision were irrelevant, etc... that sounds like regardless of whether Jews were to keep the law Gentiles were not expected to, doesn't it?

3. BUT although circumcision and uncircumcision were irrelevant, what WAS relevant was 'keeping the commandments'????? Isn't circumcision a commandment? Fringes? etc...???

4. The Jerusalem council (the First General Conference I guess?) decided that Gentile Christians were required to abstain from idolatry, blood, things strangled, and fornication or sexual immorality. Was this a 'church order' or law imposed by the church? How far does church authority extend? Was this merely an affirmation of Jewish ideas of 'Noachide laws/righteous Gentiles' concept being accepted by the church and put into practice as authoritative? And what about that 'for Moses is preached in the synagogues every sabbath' bit? Does that imply that Gentiles were expected to be learning the entirety of God's law, and thus become conformed to it and start practicing it, as time went on?

5. Paul preached against those gentiles who got circumcised to please the Judaizers, saying they had fallen away/fallen from grace, and that they were debtors to do the entire law... as if keeping God's commandments was a bad thing... yet in Romans and other places he speaks about the necessity of keeping God's commandments... does God have multiple sets of commandments, one of which is good and necessary and a sign of grace in a person's life, and the other a source of bondage and legalism and not binding on Christians? Where is this 'double set of laws' actually explained in scripture?

6. Why does it seem that so many people and so many churches hold to various opinions on these things, yet do not seem to have actual solid scriptural backing for their views, one way or the other? For example, people say 'well there is the law of Moses, done away with, and the law of God, still binding'. Yet there is not one passage anywhere that directly addresses the issue of 'there were two laws, one of God, and one of Moses, and the Moses one was done away with, and consisted of abc xyz, vs God's law, consisting of abc xyz...' It seems like there is way too much assuming about things, and having an interpretation and a doctrine, and then just cherry picking verses and then just interpreting those verses to mean this or that, while claiming the verses TEACH this or that... ie circular reasoning?

And that last point applies to a WHOLE lot of things and doctrines, by the way....

The NT seems to be written in such a way, AS IF this subject wasn't really hard at all... YET it seems so clouded in unanswered questions...

Anyway, I'm just thinking aloud, questioning, pondering...

[thaddaeus417]

There are 613 laws (some debate about that number) broken into 248 Positive Commandments (do) and 365 Negative Commandments (don't). The following is copied from an ebook I have, "The message of Colossians and Philemon; David K. Bernard."

The church today is not under God’s covenant with
Israel as epitomized by the Ten Commandments but
under the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Romans
7:5-6; Galatians 3:23-25; 4:21-31; Hebrews 8:6-13). As a
result, the church no longer observes the physical signs
and ceremonies of the old covenant, such as circumcision
(Galatians 6:15). God and His Word are unchanging, but
some of His commands relate only to certain people or a
certain time. While God’s moral law never changes,
Christians are not subject to the ceremonial law of the

Old Testament (Acts 11:5-9; 15:1-29).
Specifically, Christians are not compelled to obey the
dietary laws (Mark 7:14-19; Acts 10:11-16; I Timothy
4:1-3). Nor is physical Sabbath keeping a requirement
under the new covenant (Romans 14:5-6, 13; Galatians
4:9-11).
The Sabbath was given uniquely to the nation of Israel
(Exodus 31:13; Deuteronomy 5:15; Ezekiel 20:12-13). It
was ceremonial in nature, not inherently moral. (See
Isaiah 1:10-20; Matthew 12:1-13.) Jesus and Paul
affirmed the moral law of the Old Testament; they
referred to some of the Ten Commandments as stating
eternal moral standards, but it is notable that they did not
mention the Sabbath law in these references (Mark
10:19; 12:28-31; Romans 13:8-10).
Of course, Christians are to be faithful to local church
meetings whenever they are held (Hebrews 10:25), and
from the earliest times, Christians have usually conducted
their main worship services on Sunday (Acts 20:7;
I Corinthians 16:2). Early believers chose the day of
Christ’s resurrection to emphasize that they were not
under the old covenant, which the Sabbath symbolized,
but under the new covenant, which His resurrection instituted.
Nevertheless, any day is appropriate for a special
spiritual observance (Romans 14:5-6).
Verse 17 explains the purpose of these superseded
ceremonial laws. Literally, they were a shadow of things
coming; they were prophetic or typological. (See Hebrews
8:5; 10:1.) Like the shadow cast ahead of someone who is
walking around a corner, they provided significant preliminary
information about the One who was coming.
The body (substance, reality) is of Christ. He is the

One who cast the shadow ahead of Him. Now that we possess
the reality, we no longer need the shadow. Now that
we can learn of Him directly, we no longer need to participate
in rituals that teach about Him indirectly and
incompletely. God used the ceremonial law—including
blood sacrifices, dietary laws, circumcision, Sabbaths,
and feasts—as types of truth to be found in Christ and His
gospel. Since we now have the substance, we no longer
need to observe the types and shadows.
In particular, the dietary laws separated the Israelites
from all other nations and taught Israel a clear distinction
between the clean and unclean, the holy and profane.
(See Leviticus 11:47; Ezekiel 22:26.) These principles of
separation and distinction are vitally important in a spiritual
sense today (II Corinthians 6:14-7:1).
The Sabbath provided a weekly day of rest for Israel
and also served to separate it from all other nations. It
pointed to the spiritual rest that Jesus provides and that
we enjoy every day under the new covenant (Matthew
11:28-30; Hebrews 4:9-11). We partake of that rest today
through the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial sign
of tongues. (See Isaiah 28:11-12; Acts 2:38; 3:19.) We
also receive sanctification, or power to separate from sin
and identify with Christ, through the indwelling Holy
Spirit (II Thessalonians 2:13; I Peter 1:2).
Just as the physical Sabbath provided physical rest
and sanctification for the Israelites under the old covenant,
so the indwelling Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Jesus
Christ, provides spiritual rest and sanctification for the
church under the new covenant. Just as the Sabbath was
a constant reminder of Israel’s deliverance from bondage
and of their covenant relationship with God, so the Holy

Spirit is a constant reminder of our deliverance from sin
and of our new covenant relationship with God. The Spirit
gives us power over sin (Acts 1:8; Romans 8:4), and the
Spirit effects the new covenant in our hearts (II Corinthians
3:3; Hebrews 8:8-11). By living in the Spirit, we
enjoy the true Sabbath every day.

[renee819]

Esaias Wrote

Many say it - 'the law is done away with, we are not under the law', etc.

What does this mean?

In studying about this subject I find I have several questions...

1. Jesus said he did not come to abolish or do away with the law, we are not to think he came to do away with or abolish the law, not one tiniest part of the law would be done away with while the world continues, those who keep and teach others to keep the least of the commandments would be called great in the kingdom.... He kept all the law, and we are to walk as he himself walked (according to John)... that sounds like Christians are expected to keep all the commandments of the law, from the Big Ten down to the fringes on the garments and everything in between, doesn't it?

NO! We are not to keep all of he Commandments of the Law.

But you are right! Jesus, didn't do away or abolish the Law. He finished, fulfilled the Law. But they were still under the Law, until Jesus went to the Cross, and declared, “IT IS FINISHED.” And at that time the Temple Vial was torn from top to bottom.

While Jesus was with them, He had to teach the Law. Although He taught more on, the spirit of the Law. And telling the people that the "Kingdom of heaven is at hand."

One of the reasons that Jesus came was to fulfill/finish the Law.

Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord

.

Hebrews 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second

.

Jesus took away the First Covenant, the Law, in order that He could establish the second. The New Covenant, or the New Birth.

What happened to the Law?

Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

How will this happen?” When a person receives the Holy Ghost, the spirit of Truth, God places those Laws in the heart and mind.
“ I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts:”

We no longer keep any of the rituals of the OT. Law. And YES, I believe that those that try to keep the Law and have received the Holy Ghost, have fallen from grace, because they do not understand that ,

The Kingdom of God is within.

That Jesus is our Rest. There are no certain Holy Days. Every day 24/7 should be Holy to the Lord.

Hebrews 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God

.

Esaias wrote,

2. Paul taught Gentiles, he never commanded or taught them to wear fringes, no mixed fibers, or get circumcised, was opposed to 'Judaizers' who were saying Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the whole law, taught circumcision and uncircumcision were irrelevant, etc... that sounds like regardless of whether Jews were to keep the law Gentiles were not expected to, doesn't it?

Unsaved Jews, still kept the Law. There wasn't two gospels, one for the Gentiles and one for the Jews. When they came under the New Covenant, they were no longer under the Old

3. BUT although circumcision and uncircumcision were irrelevant, what WAS relevant was 'keeping the commandments'????? Isn't circumcision a commandment? Fringes? Etc...???

What Commandments? Those of the Old Covenant, or Jesus's Commandments?

4. The Jerusalem council (the First General Conference I guess?) decided that Gentile Christians were required to abstain from idolatry, blood, things strangled, and fornication or sexual immorality. Was this a 'church order' or law imposed by the church? How far does church authority extend? Was this merely an affirmation of Jewish ideas of 'Noachide laws/righteous Gentiles' concept being accepted by the church and put into practice as authoritative? And what about that 'for Moses is preached in the synagogues every sabbath' bit? Does that imply that Gentiles were expected to be learning the entirety of God's law, and thus become conformed to it and start practicing it, as time went on?

No, it was not just a 'church order.”

Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

5. Paul preached against those gentiles who got circumcised to please the Judaizers, saying they had fallen away/fallen from grace, and that they were debtors to do the entire law... as if keeping God's commandments was a bad thing... yet in Romans and other places he speaks about the necessity of keeping God's commandments... does God have multiple sets of commandments, one of which is good and necessary and a sign of grace in a person's life, and the other a source of bondage and legalism and not binding on Christians? Where is this 'double set of laws' actually explained in scripture?

No, today, there is only one gospel. One set of laws, explained in the NT

Hebrews 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second

.

6. Why does it seem that so many people and so many churches hold to various opinions on these things, yet do not seem to have actual solid scriptural backing for their views, one way or the other? For example, people say 'well there is the law of Moses, done away with, and the law of God, still binding'. Yet there is not one passage anywhere that directly addresses the issue of 'there were two laws, one of God, and one of Moses, and the Moses one was done away with, and consisted of abc xyz, vs God's law, consisting of abc xyz...' It seems like there is way too much assuming about things, and having an interpretation and a doctrine, and then just cherry picking verses and then just interpreting those verses to mean this or that, while claiming the verses TEACH this or that... ie circular reasoning?

Because they will not dig into the deeper things and teach it.

[renee819]

Originally Posted by thaddaeus417

There are 613 laws (some debate about that number) broken into 248 Positive Commandments (do) and 365 Negative Commandments (don't). The following is copied from an ebook I have, "The message of Colossians and Philemon; David K. Bernard."

The church today is not under God’s covenant with
Israel as epitomized by the Ten Commandments but
under the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Romans
7:5-6; Galatians 3:23-25; 4:21-31; Hebrews 8:6-13). As a
result, the church no longer observes the physical signs
and ceremonies of the old covenant, such as circumcision
(Galatians 6:15). God and His Word are unchanging, but
some of His commands relate only to certain people or a
certain time. While God’s moral law never changes,
Christians are not subject to the ceremonial law of the

Old Testament (Acts 11:5-9; 15:1-29).
Specifically, Christians are not compelled to obey the
dietary laws (Mark 7:14-19; Acts 10:11-16; I Timothy
4:1-3). Nor is physical Sabbath keeping a requirement
under the new covenant (Romans 14:5-6, 13; Galatians
4:9-11).
The Sabbath was given uniquely to the nation of Israel
(Exodus 31:13; Deuteronomy 5:15; Ezekiel 20:12-13). It
was ceremonial in nature, not inherently moral. (See
Isaiah 1:10-20; Matthew 12:1-13.) Jesus and Paul
affirmed the moral law of the Old Testament; they
referred to some of the Ten Commandments as stating
eternal moral standards, but it is notable that they did not
mention the Sabbath law in these references (Mark
10:19; 12:28-31; Romans 13:8-10).
Of course, Christians are to be faithful to local church
meetings whenever they are held (Hebrews 10:25), and
from the earliest times, Christians have usually conducted
their main worship services on Sunday (Acts 20:7;
I Corinthians 16:2). Early believers chose the day of
Christ’s resurrection to emphasize that they were not
under the old covenant, which the Sabbath symbolized,
but under the new covenant, which His resurrection instituted.
Nevertheless, any day is appropriate for a special
spiritual observance (Romans 14:5-6).
Verse 17 explains the purpose of these superseded
ceremonial laws. Literally, they were a shadow of things
coming; they were prophetic or typological. (See Hebrews
8:5; 10:1.) Like the shadow cast ahead of someone who is
walking around a corner, they provided significant preliminary
information about the One who was coming.
The body (substance, reality) is of Christ. He is the

One who cast the shadow ahead of Him. Now that we possess
the reality, we no longer need the shadow. Now that
we can learn of Him directly, we no longer need to participate
in rituals that teach about Him indirectly and
incompletely. God used the ceremonial law—including
blood sacrifices, dietary laws, circumcision, Sabbaths,
and feasts—as types of truth to be found in Christ and His
gospel. Since we now have the substance, we no longer
need to observe the types and shadows.
In particular, the dietary laws separated the Israelites
from all other nations and taught Israel a clear distinction
between the clean and unclean, the holy and profane.
(See Leviticus 11:47; Ezekiel 22:26.) These principles of
separation and distinction are vitally important in a spiritual
sense today (II Corinthians 6:14-7:1).
The Sabbath provided a weekly day of rest for Israel
and also served to separate it from all other nations. It
pointed to the spiritual rest that Jesus provides and that
we enjoy every day under the new covenant (Matthew
11:28-30; Hebrews 4:9-11). We partake of that rest today
through the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial sign
of tongues. (See Isaiah 28:11-12; Acts 2:38; 3:19.) We
also receive sanctification, or power to separate from sin
and identify with Christ, through the indwelling Holy
Spirit (II Thessalonians 2:13; I Peter 1:2).
Just as the physical Sabbath provided physical rest
and sanctification for the Israelites under the old covenant,
so the indwelling Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Jesus
Christ, provides spiritual rest and sanctification for the
church under the new covenant. Just as the Sabbath was
a constant reminder of Israel’s deliverance from bondage
and of their covenant relationship with God, so the Holy

Spirit is a constant reminder of our deliverance from sin
and of our new covenant relationship with God. The Spirit
gives us power over sin (Acts 1:8; Romans 8:4), and the
Spirit effects the new covenant in our hearts (II Corinthians
3:3; Hebrews 8:8-11). By living in the Spirit, we
enjoy the true Sabbath every day.

TRUE!!!!!

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Many say it - 'the law is done away with, we are not under the law', etc.

What does this mean?

In studying about this subject I find I have several questions...

1. Jesus said he did not come to abolish or do away with the law, we are not to think he came to do away with or abolish the law, not one tiniest part of the law would be done away with while the world continues, those who keep and teach others to keep the least of the commandments would be called great in the kingdom.... He kept all the law, and we are to walk as he himself walked (according to John)... that sounds like Christians are expected to keep all the commandments of the law, from the Big Ten down to the fringes on the garments and everything in between, doesn't it?

My thoughts. Let's start here:

2 Cor 3
2 You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men;
3 being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was,
8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory.

In 2 Cor 3, we see Paul contrasting the OLD COVENANT with the NEW COVENANT, calling the old covenant the "ministry of death, ministry of condemnation" as opposed to the new covenant, the ministry of the Spirit that gives life. To be exact, Paul said the OLD COVENANT (the ministry of death) was the covenant written on tablets of stone. What covenant was written on tablets of stone? The 10 COMMANDMENTS. And here, we see Paul calling it the ministry of death and condemnation which was being done AWAY with (2 Cor 3:11)

And we see the old covenant in Exodus 34:27
And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
28 And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.


Again, looking at Gal 4:

21 Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman.
23 But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise.
24 This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar.
25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.

In Gal 4, Paul contrasts the two covenants, specifically mentioning that the covenant given on MOUNT SINAI leads to bondage while the NEW COVENANT leads to liberty.

When we go back to Exodus 24 through Exodus 40, we see all the laws that were given to Israel on Mount Sinai including the 10 commandments and ceremonial laws. We do not see anywhere where a distinction is made between the "law of God" and "law of Moses".

Paul is pretty specific that the Law given on Mount Sinai by God (the entire OLD COVENANT consisting of Moral and Ceremonial) was the ministry of death, condemnation, and leads to bondage.

Thus, we see that when Paul referred to the law, he meant both the moral and ceremonial laws.

Having established what the old covenant entails and how it is the ministry of death, let's look at Jesus' sayings.

First, we need to realize that the old covenant was still in place while Jesus taught. Paul tells us in Gal 4:4 "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under [e]the Law…"
Also, Jesus mentioned the new covenant to be established upon his death in Luke 22:20 "…This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood…"
And another cross reference in Heb 9:16 "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth"

So we see that Jesus spoke these things while the old covenant was still in effect. Now, Jesus said Matt 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Notice Jesus said he came to FULFILL THE LAW. Then he said "heaven and earth shall not pass till ALL THE LAW is fulfilled." Jesus did NOT say "heaven and earth shall not pass away till YOU ALL fulfill the law". He only said the law will be fulfilled.

Now, we know Christ fulfilled the law. He fulfilled the moral law and the ceremonial law (Heb 8, Heb 9, Heb 10, John 1:29, 2 Cor 5:21). Not going to belabor that point, since every Christian believes Christ fulfilled the law…lol
Thus, we see that the law was fulfilled from the Big Ten to the fringes on the garment and everything in between (to use your words...lol). Thus, it is an established fact that the law was fulfilled by Christ.

Now, because Christ fulfilled the law, those who are in Christ are counted as
having fulfilled the entire law. We see this in Rom 8

Rom 8 (KJV)
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Notice, Paul says "the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in US" or like some other versions say "the requirements of the law is fulfilled in US" when we walk after the Spirit.

Notice in verse 3, Paul said "what the law COULD NOT DO due to our flesh…"

Having established previously what Paul means by the law, we realize that the old covenant given on Mount Sinai could not make us righteous although it required us to be righteous.

In Rom 7, Paul already established that it was through the law, he knew what sin was, giving the example of covetousness:
Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about [f]coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet

So, the law demanded righteousness, but due to our flesh (Rom 8:3), we could not fulfill the requirements of the law, but now the righteous requirements of the law is fulfilled in us if we are IN CHRIST.
Therefore, the admonition stands in Gal 5:4 "You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace"
And again: Rom 10:4 "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes.

I want to draw attention to the statement you made here:

Originally Posted by Esaias

He kept all the law, and we are to walk as he himself walked (according to John)... that sounds like Christians are expected to keep all the commandments of the law, from the Big Ten down to the fringes on the garments and everything in between, doesn't it?

Yes, Jesus kept all the law. But what does it mean to walk in the same manner Jesus walked? We've established already according to Rom 8:4 that by walking in the Spirit, we are fulfilling the requirements of the law. Thus to walk as Jesus walked is to be led by the Spirit of God.

Jesus himself said "God is Spirit, and true worshippers will worship in spirit and in truth." To walk as Jesus walked would be to yield to the Spirit like Jesus did thus bearing the fruit of the Spirit. (Cross ref: Gal 5:22, Phil 2, Eph 5, Col 3). Walking as Jesus walked does not mean wearing the same clothes Jesus wore or eating the food Jesus ate. We walk as Jesus walked when we yield to the Spirit of God living in us just like Jesus yielded to the Spirit of God while he was on earth.

Now, if the 10 commandments was the ministry of death and bondage, where do we get our morals from?
Like was established earlier, Christians are to be led by the Spirit.
That is where our "morals" come from. It's no longer a matter of keeping the Big Ten, but rather a matter of works of the flesh vs the Spirit (Gal 5). The thing though is if we yield to the Spirit, we'll be automatically keeping the intent of the Big ten.
In fact, John himself said this concerning God's commandments:
1 John 3
23 This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.
24 The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

And also Paul
Rom 13
8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves [e]his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
9 For this, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Love (verb) is the fulfillment of the law. We receive God's kind of love through the Spirit (Rom 5:5) Therefore, when we receive the Spirit of God and yield to the Spirit of God like Jesus did, we fulfill the law and walk like Jesus did.

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by Esaias

2. Paul taught Gentiles, he never commanded or taught them to wear fringes, no mixed fibers, or get circumcised, was opposed to 'Judaizers' who were saying Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the whole law, taught circumcision and uncircumcision were irrelevant, etc... that sounds like regardless of whether Jews were to keep the law Gentiles were not expected to, doesn't it?

Yes, gentiles were not expected to keep it.
In my understanding, Jews were not expected to keep it either, but they did not have the understanding of Christ being the end of the Law that Paul was presenting to them.

Rom 10
1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation.
2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge.
3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

The context of Rom 10 was Paul appealing to the Jews that Christ is the END OF THE LAW to everyone that believes in Christ, but the Jews did not have this knowledge according to the Paul.

Originally Posted by Esaias

3. BUT although circumcision and uncircumcision were irrelevant, what WAS relevant was 'keeping the commandments'????? Isn't circumcision a commandment? Fringes? etc...???

Gal 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

1 John 3
23 This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.

Rom 13:9 "…and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Not sure what scripture you're referring to in "what was relevant was keeping the commandments"

Originally Posted by Esaias

4. The Jerusalem council (the First General Conference I guess?) decided that Gentile Christians were required to abstain from idolatry, blood, things strangled, and fornication or sexual immorality. Was this a 'church order' or law imposed by the church? How far does church authority extend? Was this merely an affirmation of Jewish ideas of 'Noachide laws/righteous Gentiles' concept being accepted by the church and put into practice as authoritative? And what about that 'for Moses is preached in the synagogues every sabbath' bit? Does that imply that Gentiles were expected to be learning the entirety of God's law, and thus become conformed to it and start practicing it, as time went on?

Love the play on "First General Conference" lol.

The Jerusalem conference was something that was done in the early Christian movement. In context, there was still a lot that the early Christians (predominantly Jewish) did not know as far as the grafting in of the gentiles into the fold. We see some of their understanding in Acts 11.

Acts 11:19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

They were preaching the GOOD NEWS to Jews only…lol. We see that even the early Christians did not yet understand the grafting in of the gentiles. Thus it makes sense that they would want to impose Mosaic laws on new gentile converts after the gentiles were getting added to the Church.

In fact, Peter speaking under inspiration in Acts 2:39 said "…the promise (Spirit of God) is unto you and your children (Israel), and to all them that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call (gentiles)".
Yet, Peter himself did not get the understanding of the gentiles being brought into the fold until Acts 10.
Funny that when disputes arose in Acts 11 and Acts 15, they always had to go back to the event of Acts 10 to PROVE that gentiles were part of God's plan.
My point is that, yes, even the early Christians still thought that the Mosaic law was binding. It was Paul who began teaching otherwise (perhaps one reason Peter said Paul's writings were difficult to grasp…just saying).
Anyhow, If you notice, Paul later corrected some of the teaching given by the Jerusalem Council. The council had said in Acts 15:29 "… But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."
Down the road, Paul comes to explain in 1 Cor 8 through 1 Cor 10 "that an idol is nothing, but if you esteem an object to be an idol, then your conscience will be defiled, etc"

So I do not believe that the gentiles were supposed to eventually follow the OLD COVENANT laws. Paul called it the ministry of death anyway.

Originally Posted by Esaias

5. Paul preached against those gentiles who got circumcised to please the Judaizers, saying they had fallen away/fallen from grace, and that they were debtors to do the entire law... as if keeping God's commandments was a bad thing... yet in Romans and other places he speaks about the necessity of keeping God's commandments... does God have multiple sets of commandments, one of which is good and necessary and a sign of grace in a person's life, and the other a source of bondage and legalism and not binding on Christians? Where is this 'double set of laws' actually explained in scripture?

I don't know where you are referring to in Romans where Paul spoke about the necessity of keeping God's commandments (I assume you mean old covenant commandments). Please, post it. However, what I see is Paul using the Law to prove that neither Jews nor gentiles kept it, thus "…all have sinned…" The one place I see him talking about the commandments to be obeyed under the new covenant is:

Rom 13
8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
And he basically said, the intent of the old covenant commands (And IF THERE BE ANY OTHER COMMAND) is summarized in "Love your neighbor as yourself".

So I am not sure where you are referring to as per keeping the old covenant commandments.

Originally Posted by Esaias

6. Why does it seem that so many people and so many churches hold to various opinions on these things, yet do not seem to have actual solid scriptural backing for their views, one way or the other? For example, people say 'well there is the law of Moses, done away with, and the law of God, still binding'. Yet there is not one passage anywhere that directly addresses the issue of 'there were two laws, one of God, and one of Moses, and the Moses one was done away with, and consisted of abc xyz, vs God's law, consisting of abc xyz...' It seems like there is way too much assuming about things, and having an interpretation and a doctrine, and then just cherry picking verses and then just interpreting those verses to mean this or that, while claiming the verses TEACH this or that... ie circular reasoning?

And that last point applies to a WHOLE lot of things and doctrines, by the way....

First, let me say, I do not see old covenant as being divided into the law of Moses and God. As I wrote earlier on, Paul specifically mentioned the law given on Mount Sinai as the one that was done away with. And that LOVE, walking by the Spirit is the new covenant way which is line with Jesus' statement of those that will worship God in the new covenant will do it in spirit and in truth. Hence, except, "a man is born again…"

As far as various opinions on this subject, I think like we see in the book of Acts, even some of the leaders in the early church did not agree on the issue of Mosaic laws still binding. Also, as Christians, we grow in grace and knowledge, so perhaps the reason why we don't see eye to eye on some of these things is different rates at which we grow. Take for instance, a person leaves the trinity belief for oneness. It took a while after conversion before that person came to the knowledge they have today. So that person's opinion has changed over time. Thus, churches will have various opinions on some things just because we grow differently.

Also, what the Lord might be working on in someone's life might be to help such person have self control, so a deep knowledge of some great mystery might not even help said person develop Christian character.

So, I would take what Jesus said "By this shall all men know you are my disciples if you love another" and Paul said "Though I have knowledge of all mystery, and have not love, it profits me nothing."
So if as Christians, we cultivate the love of God which is the summary of ALL commands, we'll do well.
We might not all see eye to eye (we know in part anyway, 1 Cor 13), but we can ALL manifest the love of Christ to each other and a hurting world.

Originally Posted by Esaias

The NT seems to be written in such a way, AS IF this subject wasn't really hard at all... YET it seems so clouded in unanswered questions...

Anyway, I'm just thinking aloud, questioning, pondering...

[renee819]

Amen---TGBTG

Agape love fulfills the Law.