Should Christians observe the OT feasts?

[Drew]

We are not commanded to keep the Jewish feasts, indeed they were never meant for Gentiles.

I agree. The Law of Moses was only ever for Jews and Jews only.

 

[Drew]

(This comment is meant, not only for kiwimac, but also for all others who feel the same way.)

We are not commanded to keep Christmas, Good Friday, Easter or Pentecost (aka the Feast of Weeks), either. Yet, many Christians keep all of those, and nobody tells them that they are not required to do so for their salvation. Do you keep these days, which the Bible does not command you to keep?

Not the right argument to make. The feasts of the Law of Moses were given to Jews and Jews only. In Leviticus, if not in other places, God tells us that the Law functions to set Israel apart from the nations. And it is clear from Romans that Paul understands the Law of Moses - which includes these feasts - as being something that only applied to Jews.

Unlike these feasts, there is no Biblical mandate that only a certain set of people should observe Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, etc.

As to the "we are grafted onto Israel" argument: I agree that this is true, but it is still clear that that Law of Moses has been retired. Paul is crystal clear about this in places like Ephesians 2 (assuming Paul wrote Ephesians, which is debatable), Galatians 3, and other places. So even though we are grafted into Israel, the Law of Moses no longer applies - to anyone.

 

[Webers_Home]

Re: Lists of Apostate Preachers

.

Rather than doing away with the biblical festivals and telling Gentiles that they were not required to keep them, Paul shows that they have a special meaning for Christians, and encourages Gentiles to "keep the feast".

Well; first off, right out of the box, if Christian Jews were to literally keep the feast it would entail cannibalism because their lamb isn't an animal, but rather one of their fellow men; viz : a human being.

†. John 1:29 . .The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said : Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

†. 1Cor 5:7 . . For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us

In order for Christian Jews to literally keep the feast, would require that they slay Christ again and again every year at passover; but the Bible says the Lord was slain once and never to be slain again.

†. Rom 6:10 . . For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.

†. Heb 7:27 . . Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

Along with the crucial issue of a human lamb is the fact that Passover law has no jurisdiction over Christian Jews because they've undergone one of the supernatural births about which the Lord spoke at John 3:3-8. That birth transfers a Jew out of the current scheme of things and puts him into a scheme of things totally brand new.

†. 2Cor 5:17 . . If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come.

†. Gal 6:14-16 . . May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.

Another reason is because Christianity is lethal. On the books, Christian Jews are executed and gone to heaven before they even get there.

†. Rom 6:3 . . Don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

†. Rom 6:6 . . Our old self was crucified with him

†. Gal 2:20 . . I am crucified with Christ

†. Col 3:3 . . For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God.

†. Col 1:13 . . For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the son He loves.

Dead Jews are no longer under the jurisdiction of Old Testament law; for example :

†. Rom 7:1-2 . . Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

It's paradoxical that a religion that puts Jews to death also gives them life.

†. Rom 6:4 . . We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

†. Gal 2:19 . . For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

†. Col 2:16-17 . . Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

C.L.I.F.F.
|

 

[Theofilus]

Funny how you turned the words of Paul around to make them appear to say the exact OPPOSITE of what they are actually saying. The context is clear that Paul was telling christians not to let anyone judge you because you do not have to practice a holyday,or new moon,or the sabbath days.

Actually, it is you (and most other Christians, who also make the same mistake) that are twisting Paul's words. You are interpreting them in light of modern church doctrines, instead of understanding them in light of the situation as it existed at the time Paul was writing. The first Christians were all Jews. They didn't split off and form a new religion and then tell everybody that they had to stop being Jews and join this new cult they had formed. They were simply a sect of Judaism that believed the the promised Messiah had come. The first Gentile believers were not joining a new religion, but a sect of Judaism. Paul was not a Christian telling other Christians how evil Judaism was and to avoid taking part in any Jewish customs or rituals. He was a Jew telling Gentile believers in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and in the Jewish Messiah how to live as Jews.

Paul is believed to have died about 67 AD, before the destruction of the Temple. The split between Christianity and the rest of Judaism didn't happen overnight and didn't even begin to happen until after the destruction of the temple. The first Christians to deny that they were Jews did so abotu 80 AD, and it was not because of some theological issues that they derived from Paul's or some other apostle's writings, but as a result of Rome's persecution of Jews because of their rebellion against Caesar. Most Christians, however, continued to observe the festivals, Sabbaths and other biblical commands. Even after the split between Christianity and the rest of Judaism was complete, many churches kept the feasts according tot he biblical commands. It is interesting, in light of the fact that so many people say that Paul was clearly against such observances, that the churches Paul founded were the ones that continued observing these things the longest. The last of them didn't stop celebrating Passover and other biblical festivals until well into the third century.

Once you realize what the situation was at the time, it becomes clear what Paul was saying. He was telling former Pagans not to let it bother them when their Pagan friends criticized them for being different and following different customs than the Pagan society in which they lived. They were experiencing the same thing that I and other's like me experience today, when the paganized church judges us for keeping God's commandments.

Hey, if you want to practice them then practice them,just be careful you do not slip off into the deception that you are being accepted by God because you practice them, other wise you could fall from grace.

Whenever I mention the fact that I celebrate Passover, eat only kosher food and so on, I always get an anwer similar to this. I've asked about it, but I've never recieved a direct answer. Niether I, nor anyone else here has claimed to be saved by keeping Passover. Nobody has even implied that they are a better Christian than others as a result of keeping these commandments. Yet, opponents of obeying God in these areas always seem to think that people are doing it to try to earn their salvation. Why is that? Why do you make the connection between obeying God and earning one's salvation, when nobody who is keeping Passover has mentioned such a connection?

About christians KEEPING christmas,ect. These are AMERICAN HOLIDAYS that we have all been brought up to participate in.

A little history lesson might be in order. In 1776, thirteen colonies in North America declared their independence from England and formed the United States (which is what I assume you mean by "America"). This summer will mark the 235th aniversary of that event. According to Wikipedia, "The earliest known reference to the date of the nativity as December 25 is found in the Chronography of 354, an illuminated manuscript compiled in Rome." That's over 1400 years before the Declaration of Independence was written. The same day (Dec. 25th) was celebrated under different names by many cultures for thousands of years before that. I'm sorry to have to inform you of this, but Christmas is not an American holiday. The same can be said for the other days I mentioned.







..no one is KEEPING anything,as christians we celebrate in our hearts the birth and resurrection of Christ, however we do not KEEP christmas and easter in the sense of following a command of God because we all know that there is no command of God to celebrate christmas and easter,they are American holidays and no christian is keeping them as a command from God. On the other hand the Jewish days were commands to Jewish people and they were part of the law that was fulfilled in Christ,they were part of the law that lead us to Christ,once you are in Christ it seems a little silly to go back and practice what was leading you to Christ. Like getting a HS diploma and then going back into the third grade...ole well, whatever rings your bell, but just be careful.[/QUOTE]

 

[Sparkey]

Re: Lists of Apostate Preachers

AP it is! Here we go...

Is the topic split?

Can we have a link here to the new thread please?

 

[reba]

Whenever I mention the fact that I celebrate Passover, eat only kosher food and so on, I always get an anwer similar to this. I've asked about it, but I've never recieved a direct answer. Niether I, nor anyone else here has claimed to be saved by keeping Passover. Nobody has even implied that they are a better Christian than others as a result of keeping these commandments. Yet, opponents of obeying God in these areas always seem to think that people are doing it to try to earn their salvation. Why is that? Why do you make the connection between obeying God and earning one's salvation, when nobody who is keeping Passover has mentioned such a connection?

Thanks Theo you made the point i was trying to make clear....

 

[Elijah674]

I agree. The Law of Moses was only ever for Jews and Jews only.

Hi, I do agree that Moses law was no longer needed after Christ died, I do not think that the Jew only had that requirement of God though. I see it as from Adam on (such as Cain's permanent flaw!) by direct communciation from God. Even to the point of the High Priest appointed of God.

We see the souls Abe got in Harem. (Gen. 12:1-5) Gentile ones as was Abe at that time. But in Lev. 17:8-9 the 'gentile' surely was 'a soul' won to Christ in order to be 'cut off' if he was no longer obedient!

And in Gen. 26:1-5 God told Isaac why Abe was CALLED OF HIM in the First Place. See verse 5! Most folks understand that God spoke directly with Him (even Cain in Gen. 4:7) before the Mount's pleading of the children of Israel asking moses to have Him not to do so?

Even the clean & unclean creation were known in the pre/flood day before entering the Ark. And it was also told after the flood what eating the clean would do to man. And if it was unclean then, how did that ever change, surely one would not eat a rat??

--Elijah

 

[Drew]

Actually, it is you (and most other Christians, who also make the same mistake) that are twisting Paul's words. You are interpreting them in light of modern church doctrines, instead of understanding them in light of the situation as it existed at the time Paul was writing. The first Christians were all Jews. They didn't split off and form a new religion and then tell everybody that they had to stop being Jews and join this new cult they had formed. They were simply a sect of Judaism that believed the the promised Messiah had come. The first Gentile believers were not joining a new religion, but a sect of Judaism. Paul was not a Christian telling other Christians how evil Judaism was and to avoid taking part in any Jewish customs or rituals. He was a Jew telling Gentile believers in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and in the Jewish Messiah how to live as Jews.

This is not really correct, I suggest. Yes, the first Christians were Jews, but Paul is quite clear about this: the Law of Moses has been retired:

For He Himself is (AR)our peace, (AS)who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15by (AT)abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is (AU)the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might (AV)make the two into (AW)one new man, thus establishing (AX)peace,

A clear assertion from Paul about the Law of Moses. Does Paul say "Law of Moses" here? No. But it is clear that this is what he means. How do we know this? Precisely because this text, and the material that surrounds is all about God has made one family out of Jews and Gentiles. And what is it that would otherwise mark out the Jew from the Gentile? The Law of Moses, of course. So there is no doubt -this is a declaration that the Law of Moses has come to an end.

And there are many other texts that support this view as well. Yes, there is a sense in which we are grafted into Israel. But this "new" Israel is to leave the Law of Moses behind as the "essence" of this Law has been written onto the hearts of all members of God's family.

Paul sees the Law of Moses as serving a particular function in the narrative. And at the cross, that function was completed. So there is every reason to "retire" the Law of Moses at that point. And this is what Paul argues in all sorts of places, not least Galatians, Romans, and Ephesians (if Paul is the real author of Ephesians).

And by the way, Paul certainly does not need to believe that Judaism was "evil" or "bad" to come to the conclusion that the Law of Moses had reached the time where it is to be retired.

There is a sense, of course, in which something related to the Law of Moses is still in force (e.g. Romans 3:31). But the "law" that we are to follow (even now), whatever it is, is not the written code of the Law of Moses:

But now we have been (I)released from the Law, having (J)died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in (K)newness of (L)the [a]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

 

[Drew]

Hi, I do agree that Moses law was no longer needed after Christ died, I do not think that the Jew only had that requirement of God though. I see it as from Adam on (such as Cain's permanent flaw!) by direct communciation from God. Even to the point of the High Priest appointed of God.

I am talking specifically about the Law of Moses, which most certainly was not in place in any sense at the time of Adam:

13for until the Law sin was in the world, but (AA)sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses,....

The person who wrote these words clearly believe that the Law of Moses was not in force before the time of Moses.

 

[Drew]

Even after the split between Christianity and the rest of Judaism was complete, many churches kept the feasts according tot he biblical commands. It is interesting, in light of the fact that so many people say that Paul was clearly against such observances, that the churches Paul founded were the ones that continued observing these things the longest. The last of them didn't stop celebrating Passover and other biblical festivals until well into the third century.

Maybe so, but I do not see how this is an argument for keeping these feasts. It is perhaps not surprising that it took centuries to "accept" what I see as a clear Biblical teaching that the Law of Moses - including the feasts - has been retired.

And by the way, not all of us who think the Law of Moses has been retired think that those who still keep the Law are doing so to "get saved". I happen to think that it is Biblically a mistake to keep to the written code of the Law of Moses. But this certainly does not mean that I think that those who believe otherwise are keeping it in order to be saved.

 

[Prince]

I agree. The Law of Moses was only ever for Jews and Jews only.

Hello Drew I disagree,

When the Law of Moses was presented there were no Jews - the term Jew comed from Judah, and you dont see it utilized ountil the book of Kings.

2 Kings 16:6
At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day.

Not to split hairs here but its much easier to keep the terms seperate as Moses was a Hebrew and the law was for the Israelites, then later we would get the term Jew as the tribe of Benjamin Judah and some Levitical priest broke of from the other nothern tribes. Documentation for this can be found in 1 Kings 12.

 

[Drew]

Hello Drew I disagree,

When the Law of Moses was presented there were no Jews - the term Jew comed from Judah, and you dont see it utilized ountil the book of Kings.

2 Kings 16:6
At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day.

This issue comes up a lot. The term "Jew" is used in different ways - it is clear that Paul generally uses the term to refer to all 12 tribes.

In any event, the Law of Moses was delivered to all 12 tribes at Sinai and it is quite clear (from texts such as Leviticus 20 where God tells the nation of Israel to eat special foods to "set them apart from the nations) that the Law of Moses was for the 12 tribes of Israel, and not for Gentiles.

There were no Gentiles at the foot of Mount Sinai when Moses descended with the Law of Moses.

 

[Theofilus]

Maybe so, but I do not see how this is an argument for keeping these feasts.

It isn't meant to be an argument for keeping the feasts. God told us to keep these feasts. That's enough for me. I don't need any more "argument to keep the feasts". What you do need is an argument for justifying disobedience of God's clear commands. You provided such an argument, and I'm merely showing that that argument doesn't work.

It is perhaps not surprising that it took centuries to "accept" what I see as a clear Biblical teaching that the Law of Moses - including the feasts - has been retired.

I find it very surprising. If Paul himself was so much against these things, why didn't he make it clearer, so there would be no doubt about it? He had every oportunity, not only to write, but to speak about these things, so that people would know exactly what he believed. But he didn't do that. Instead, it took centuries for the church to develop a theology about this that totallly rejected everything in the Old Testament.

And by the way, not all of us who think the Law of Moses has been retired think that those who still keep the Law are doing so to "get saved". I happen to think that it is Biblically a mistake to keep to the written code of the Law of Moses. But this certainly does not mean that I think that those who believe otherwise are keeping it in order to be saved.

I'm glad you don't think that. I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you said. It's just that it is a very common conclusion to which people jump at the first mention of keeping the feasts.

 

[Drew]

It isn't meant to be an argument for keeping the feasts. God told us to keep these feasts. That's enough for me. I don't need any more "argument to keep the feasts". What you do need is an argument for justifying disobedience of God's clear commands. You provided such an argument, and I'm merely showing that that argument doesn't work.

I do not see your argument - you appear to ignoring the arguments that the Law of Moses - which includes the feast - has been retired.

Obviously I recognize that some people (Jews) were instructed to keep feasts as per the Law of Moses. And I am equally aware, and substantially agree with the "we are grafted into Israel" line. But, and this is the key point, I see no reason why God cannot choose to bring the Law of Moses to an end. This "new Israel" - including Gentiles as of the cross - does not require the continued existence of the Law of Moses.

So its not as simple as "God tells us to keep the feasts". The reality, I suggest, is that God told ethnic Jews to keep the feasts and even though Gentiles have been grafted into Israel, the Law of Moses is retired at the cross. Paul is quite clear about this.

 

[Drew]

I find it very surprising. If Paul himself was so much against these things, why didn't he make it clearer, so there would be no doubt about it? He had every oportunity, not only to write, but to speak about these things, so that people would know exactly what he believed. But he didn't do that. Instead, it took centuries for the church to develop a theology about this that totallly rejected everything in the Old Testament.

I have already provided one argument, from Ephesians 2, that shows that whoever wrote Ephesians thought the Law of Moses has been retired. I can, and probably will provide many others. Here is an expansion on the Ephesians 2 argument:

11Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit

First, let us address the matter of identifying the two groups described in this passage. I think that the two peoples that are "divided" here are the Jews and the Gentiles. One group is described as "Gentiles in the flesh", and "uncircumcision". Clearly this is the Gentiles. Paul contrasts this group with another group - the "circumcision in the flesh" people. Clearly, this second group is the Jews. He goes on to say that the first group - the Gentiles - are "excluded from Israel and foreigners to the covenants". This is a clear reference to the Jew-Gentile distinction. It is the Jew - the one circumcised in the flesh - who is under the covenant promises. So I can not see ambiguity here - Paul is describing a Jew-Gentile distinction.

Consider verse 12. Why was the Gentile excluded from citizenship in Israel? I suggest that the reason is the Law of Moses (the Torah) - the Torah was effectively a national charter for the Jews, it is Torah that would be understood to mark out "citizenship in Israel". It is the abolition of the Torah that supports a sensible interpretation of the material from 14 on to 18, material which is all about the newly achieved unity of Jew and Gentile. How would one naturally bring Jew and Gentile together? Obviously by getting rid of the complex set of practices, ceremonies, and rituals which are for Jew and Jew only. The Torah, being for Jews only, effectively excluded the Gentile from membership in God's true family (Israel). After all, it is the Torah that marked the Jew out from her pagan neighbour.

 

[Prince]

This issue comes up a lot. The term "Jew" is used in different ways - it is clear that Paul generally uses the term to refer to all 12 tribes.

In any event, the Law of Moses was delivered to all 12 tribes at Sinai and it is quite clear (from texts such as Leviticus 20 where God tells the nation of Israel to eat special foods to "set them apart from the nations) that the Law of Moses was for the 12 tribes of Israel, and not for Gentiles.

There were no Gentiles at the foot of Mount Sinai when Moses descended with the Law of Moses.

There were no Gentiles at the foot of Mount Sinai when Moses descended with the Law of Moses

You might be right but how can you be sure? Were there others slaves in Eygpt besides the Hebrews?

If so did any of those slaves leave when the Hebrews left?

 

[Theofilus]

I do not see your argument - you appear to ignoring the arguments that the Law of Moses - which includes the feast - has been retired.

Then let me clarify my position. God gave His law to His people. If you read the account in Exodus, you will see that the order of events is somewheat different from what you would expect, and from what most people seem to believe. The order was:

God chose His people.
God asked His people whether they would accept His law
God's people said they would obey whatever He said
God gave His law to His people

This is important to know, since many people say that the law is only for sinners, and that , after we are saved, we no longer need to obey it. If that were true, God would have declared His law over everybody, and then exempted His people from following it, but that's not what happened. He gave His law to people who had already accepted Him as their God and had already agreed to obey His commandments. God's law is for God's people. Since Gentile believers in Messiah are part of God's people, it seems logical to me that God's law is also for us.

With human laws, nobody can change or invalidate a law, except the one who made the law, or someone with a higher authority than the one who made the law. I believe that the same applies to God's law but, since nobody has higher authority than God, then He is the only one who can change His law. So, unless it can be shown clearly in Scripture that God has invalidated His law, then I assume that His law is still valid for His people.

I have yet to see any Scripture verse that clearly states that God has invalidated His law, without, as I mentioned earlier, having to interpret the Bible in light of church doctrines that came centuries later to arrive at such a conclusion. I believe that, if we simply take what the Bible says at face value and in context, then there is nothing in the New Testament that does away with God's law, neither for Gentiles nor anyone else. I have already explained why I believe that the verse about not letting men judge us is incorrectly understood. I will address your refrence to the dividing wall being broken in another post.

Obviously I recognize that some people (Jews) were instructed to keep feasts as per the Law of Moses. And I am equally aware, and substantially agree with the "we are grafted into Israel" line. But, and this is the key point, I see no reason why God cannot choose to bring the Law of Moses to an end.

How about because He said it would be eternal. Do you think that it is possible that God changed His mind?

So its not as simple as "God tells us to keep the feasts". The reality, I suggest, is that God told ethnic Jews to keep the feasts and even though Gentiles have been grafted into Israel, the Law of Moses is retired at the cross. Paul is quite clear about this.

And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children. And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle. (Ex. 12:37-38 KJV)​

The people who recieved the law at Mt. Sinai weren't only ethnic Jews, but also Egyptians who had seen the power of God and were convinced that He was the one to follow, rather than the Egyptian gods, whom He had judged. Since there were Gentiles present, we cannot say that it was only for ethnic Jews.

 

[Drew]

You might be right but how can you be sure? Were there others slaves in Eygpt besides the Hebrews?

If so did any of those slaves leave when the Hebrews left?

Are you suggesting that the Law of Moses was not given to Jews only? I suggest that this a decidedly untenable position for a range of reasons. Here, in Leviticus 20, God clearly shows that the kosher laws functioned to mark the Jew out from the rest of the world:

You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean. 26'Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy; and I (Z)have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.

 

[Drew]

Then let me clarify my position. God gave His law to His people. If you read the account in Exodus, you will see that the order of events is somewheat different from what you would expect, and from what most people seem to believe. The order was:

God chose His people.
God asked His people whether they would accept His law
God's people said they would obey whatever He said
God gave His law to His people

This is important to know, since many people say that the law is only for sinners, and that , after we are saved, we no longer need to obey it.

First, I am not sure that God ever "asked" his people whether they would accept His Law, but I am not sure this is relevant anyway.

Second, and as per my last post and as per my argument from Ephesians, the Law of Moses was for Jews only. It was not for "sinners in general", it was for Jewish sinners. Are you suggesting that the Law of Moses - the written code handed down at Sinai was intended by God to be followed by the whole world? I do not see such a position can be sustained, and we can discuss this if you like.

God's law is for God's people. Since Gentile believers in Messiah are part of God's people, it seems logical to me that God's law is also for us.

This is really a kind of circular argument. You assume one of the the very things that is at issue here - whether the Law of Moses is for Jews only. I have made a detailed argument from Ephesians 2 that the author of that letter must understand the Law of Moses as functioning to divide the Jew from Gentile.

Please engage that argument as you have suggested you will - cannot be left unaddressed if you wish to argue that the Law of Moses was given to all humanity.

With human laws, nobody can change or invalidate a law, except the one who made the law, or someone with a higher authority than the one who made the law. I believe that the same applies to God's law but, since nobody has higher authority than God, then He is the only one who can change His law. So, unless it can be shown clearly in Scripture that God has invalidated His law, then I assume that His law is still valid for His people.

Well it is indeed clear that Jesus overturns the Law. In Mark (and the other synoptics) Jesus clearly says that what you eat does not make you unclean. This is in direct contradiction to the Law of Moses which clearly states that certain foods do indeed make the Jew unclean. What is Jesus doing? He is cryptically declaring that the Law of Moses is coming to an end. And as "God the Son" He does indeed have that authority.

And Jesus does other things that declare the imminent of the Law of Moses. He suggests that He is the new temple - this is a carefully crafted way of saying that the temple cult is coming to an end. And there are many others - Jesus says things and does things that clearly signify that the time of the Law of Moses is indeed coming to an end.

The people who recieved the law at Mt. Sinai weren't only ethnic Jews, but also Egyptians who had seen the power of God and were convinced that He was the one to follow, rather than the Egyptian gods, whom He had judged. Since there were Gentiles present, we cannot say that it was only for ethnic Jews.

I had said previously that the Law of Moses was for Jews only. I deliberately did not qualify this by adding that it also applied to those Gentiles who were deeply integrated into the Jewish community. But this was a very small number of people. I politely suggest that the position that the Law of Moses is for all the world is clearly not a supportable position for a wide range of reasons. Paul, for example reasons in Romans 3 that if people are justified by the Law of Moses, then only Jews would be justified - this clearly shows that Paul sees the Law of Moses as applicable to only Jews (with the minor qualification I have added). No person would write these words if that person believed that Gentiles in general were under the Law of Moses:

For (AT)we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
29Or (AU)is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

This text, by itself I suggest, shows that Paul believes only Jews are under the Law of Moses, precisely because he argues that if the Law of Moses had the ability to justify, only Jews would be justified by it.

 

[Theofilus]

I said I would address Drew's comments about the second chapter of Ephesians. Before I say anything, let's take a closer look at the verses in question.

For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace (Eph. 2:14-15 NASB)

For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace (Eph. 2:14-15 ESV)​

These are pretty different translations - "which is the law" and "by abolishing the law". This is not just about symantics. The meanings are completely different. The NASB version means that the law is enmity, while the ESV has the law and enmity as two different things, but abolishing one does away with the other. How can people reach such different conclusions, if they were translating from the same text? What does the original text actually say - "which is" or "by abolishing"? And how can anyone confuse the two?

The fact is that the original manuscripts say neither "which is" nor "by abolishing". Those words aren't in the original manuscripts, and neither are "even", as we see in the KJV, nor other words that some other translations insert. These were all inserted by the translators, to make the text fit what they thought it should say.

But even if we ignore these words, which were inserted by the translators, it is still clear that something was abolished. But what was it? Let's start by looking at the reason why it was abolished, and see if that can help us.

For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: and he came and preached peace to you that were far off, and peace to them that were nigh: for through him we both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father. (Eph. 2:14-18 ASV)​

Before Christ came, the Gentiles had no hope for salvation. The only way to obtain salvation was through God's covenants, and Gentiles had no access to those covenants. To obtain salvation, therefore, they would have to join themselves to God's people. The Old Testament doesn't tell us how to do that, but the Jews made their own rules about it, and they purposely made it difficult. It was these rules that were keeping the Gentiles from obtaining salvation. The annual festivals, weekly Sabbath and dietary rules didn't keep them out, but man-made rules did. To bring Gentiles into a covenant relationship with God, He didn't have to do away with the covenant, but with the rules that were keeping them out.

God's law does not keep people away. God's law welcomes all Gentiles who have faith in God. It was the man-made, pharisaic oral law that kept the Gentiles out, and it was that law and those ordinances that Christ abolished. It was the Pharisaic law that created enmity between Jews and Gentiles. That was the wall that was broken down.