₦airaland Forum

Eliba: Am Elizabeth,a student of unical,my hobbies re reading,singing and cooking,i admire people who are honest,hardworking nd faithful,i disdain lies nd lazyness,am here to make friends

7C1D74EA

Male 31..am handsome.friendly,tall,loving and fun to be with ...need beautiful,tall,friendly,loving and mature minded lady for a good relationship! 7C1D74EA

Male 31..am handsome.friendly,tall,loving and fun to be with ...need beautiful,tall,friendly,loving and mature minded lady for a good relationship! 7C1D74EA

The Principle of
Freedom
What we are saying
is that the believer in
Yeshua Hamashiach is
free from the
necessity of keeping
any commandment of the Law of Moses.
But it is crucial to
note that he is also
free to keep parts of
the Mosaic Law if he
so desires. The biblical basis for
this freedom to keep
the Law is evident in
the actions of Paul,
the greatest
exponent of freedom from the Law. His
vow in Acts 18:18 is
based on
Numbers 6:2, 5, 9 and
18. His desire to be in
Jerusalem for Pentecost in
Acts 20:16 is based on
Deuteronomy 16:16.
The strongest
example is
Acts 21:17-26, where we see Paul himself
keeping the Law. So, if a Jewish
believer feels the
need to refrain from
eating pork, for
example, he is free to
do so. The same is true for all the other
commandments.
However, there are
two dangers that
must be avoided by
the Messianic Jew who chooses to keep
portions of the Law
of Moses: One is the
belief that one who
does so is
contributing to his own justification and
sanctification. This is
false and must be
avoided. The second
danger is that one
may demand or expect others to also
keep the Law. This is
equally wrong and
borders on legalism.
The one who
exercises his freedom to keep the Law
must recognize and
respect another’s
freedom not to do
the same.

The Jewish Believer Is
Under A New Law The Law of Moses has
been done away
with, and we are
now under a new
law. This new law is
called the Law of Christ in Galatians 6:2,
and the Law of the
Spirit of Life in
Romans 8:2. This is a
brand new law
totally separate from the Law of Moses. The
Law of Christ
contains all the
commandments
applicable to a New
Testament believer. The reason there is so
much confusion over
the relationship of
the Law of Moses and
the Law of Christ is
that the two have many similar
commandments,
prompting many to
conclude that certain
sections of the Law
have, therefore, been retained. But we
have already shown
that this cannot be so,
and the explanation
for the sameness of
the commandments is to be found
elsewhere. First, we must realize
that there are a
number of covenants
in the Bible, including
the Edenic, Adamic,
Noahic, Mosaic, and New. A new
covenant will always
contain some of the
same commandments
as the previous
covenant, but this does not mean that
the previous
covenant is still in
effect. While certain
commandments of
the Adamic Covenant were also part of the
earlier Edenic
Covenant, it does not
mean that the Edenic
Covenant was still
partially in force; on the contrary, it
ceased to function
with the Fall of man.
The same is true
when we compare
the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ.
There are many
similar
commandments. For
example, nine of the
Ten Commandments are to be found in the
Law of Christ, but
this does not mean
that the Law of
Moses is still in force. Let me illustrate this
by using an example
which you may have
also experienced. I
received my first
driver’s license in the State of California; as
long as I drove in
California, I was
subject to the traffic
laws of that state.
But two years later, I moved to New York.
Once I left California, I
ceased to be under
California’s traffic
laws. The traffic laws
of that state were rendered inoperative
in my case. Now my
driving was subject
to a new law – the
traffic laws of the
State of New York. There were many
laws that were
different: In
California, I was
permitted to make a
right turn at a red light after stopping
and yielding the
right-of-way. But in
New York this was
not permitted. On the
other hand, there were many similar
laws between the
two states, such as
the edict to stop at
red lights. However,
when I stopped for a red light in New
York, I did not do so
in obedience to the
State of California as I
once had, but in
obedience to the State of New York.
Likewise, if I went
through a red light
without stopping, I
was not guilty of
breaking California law but New York
law. Many laws were
similar, but they
were, nevertheless,
under two distinctly
different systems. The Law of Moses has
been nullified, and we
are now under the
Law of Christ. There
are many different
commandments: The Law of Moses did not
permit one to eat
pork, but the Law of
Christ does. There are
many similar
commandments as well, but they are in
two separate
systems. If we do
not kill or steal, this is
not because of the
Law of Moses but because of the Law of
Christ. Conversely, if I
do steal, I am not
guilty of breaking
the Law of Moses but
the Law of Christ. For believers, this
understanding can
resolve many issues –
such as women
wearing pants, the
Sabbath, and tithing. As the
commandments
concerning these
things are based on
the Law of Moses,
then they have no validity for the New
Testament believer.
The Law of Christ is
now the rule of life
for the individual
New Testament believer.

But they are no
longer in force, as the
Law has passed away
(vv. 7, 11). The Greek
word used is
katargeo, meaning “to render
inoperative.” Since
this passage’s
emphasis is on the
Ten Commandments,
this means that the Ten Commandments
have passed away.
The thrust is very
clear. The Law of
Moses, and especially
the Ten Commandments, is no
longer in effect. In
fact, the superiority
of the Law of Christ is
seen by the fact that
it will never be rendered inoperative. Paul sheds more light
on this in his letter to
the
Ephesians (2:11-16;
3:6), explaining that
God has made certain covenants with the
Jewish people. (In
fact, God made four
unconditional, eternal
covenants with
Israel: the Abrahamic, the Palestinian, the
Davidic, and New
Covenants.) All of
God’s blessings, both
material and spiritual,
are mediated by means of these four
Jewish covenants,
which are eternal, as
well as unconditional. At the same time,
Paul points out that
God added a fifth
covenant: temporary
and conditional, this is
the Mosaic Covenant containing the Mosaic
Law. According to
Paul, the Mosaic Law
served as a wall of
partition (Eph. 2:15).
And this is yet another purpose of
the Law (one which
we alluded to earlier):
to serve as a wall of
partition to keep
Gentiles, as Gentiles, from enjoying
Jewish spiritual
blessings. In the Old
Testament, if a Gentile
wished to become a
recipient of Jewish spiritual blessings, he
would need to take
upon himself the
entire obligation of
the Law – from
circumcision to living as every other Jew
lived. Only a Gentile
who converted to
Judaism could enjoy
the blessings of the
Jewish covenants. If the Mosaic Law were
still in effect, there
would still be a wall
of partition to
maintain this
distinction between Jews and Gentiles.
But the wall of
partition was broken
down with the death
of Christ; again, the
wall of partition was the Mosaic Law, and
so the Law of Moses
was rendered
inoperative. Now,
Gentiles as Gentiles,
on the basis of faith, can and do enjoy
Jewish spiritual
(though not physical)
blessings by
becoming fellow-
partakers of the promise in Christ
Jesus. To summarize, the
Law is a unit
comprised of 613
commandments, and
all of it has been
invalidated. No commandment has
continued beyond the
cross of Yeshua. The
Law exists and can be
used as a teaching
tool to show God’s standard of
righteousness and our
sinfulness and need of
substitutionary
atonement. It can be
used to point one to Christ (Gal. 3:23-25). It
has, however,
completely ceased to
function as an
authority over
individuals. Hebrews 8:1-13 draws a parallel
between the Mosaic
Law and the New
Covenant: The writer,
quoting Jeremiah
31:31-34, states that as soon as a “new”
covenant was
enacted, it rendered
the Mosaic Covenant
the “old” one – and
that which is old is nigh unto vanishing
away (v. 13). The
Mosaic Law grew old
under Jeremiah and
vanished away when
Messiah died.

The Law of Moses
Rendered Inoperative
The clear-cut teaching
of the New
Testament is that the
Law of Moses has
been rendered
inoperative with the death of Messiah; in
other words, the Law
in its totality no
longer has authority
over any individual.
This is evident first of all from Romans 10:4,
with Paul telling us
that Christ is the end
of the law. Galatians
2:16 concurs, stating
that neither is there justification through
the Law.
Furthermore, there is
no sanctification or
perfection through
the Law (Heb. 7:19). A second important
point here is that the
Mosaic Law was
never meant to be a
permanent
administration, but a temporary one. In
the context of
Galatians 3:19, Paul
describes the Law of
Moses as an addition
to the Abrahamic Covenant. It was
added in order to
make sin very clear
so that all would
know they have
fallen short of God’s standard for
righteousness. It was
a temporary addition
until Christ . . . till the
seed should come;
now that He has come, the Law is
finished. Third, with Christ
there is a new
priesthood, according
to the order of
Melchizedek, instead
of the former order of Aaron. Whereas
the Law of Moses
provided the basis for
the Levitical
priesthood, this new
priesthood required a new law under
which it could
operate.
Hebrews 7:11-12
explains that only
one type of priesthood was
permitted and that
was the Levitical
priesthood. But the
Levitical priesthood –
and its sacrificial system of animal
blood – could not
bring perfection; only
the Messiah’s blood
could do that (Heb.
9:11-10:18). The Mosaic Law was the basis for
the Levitical
priesthood. But for
the Levitical
priesthood to be
replaced by a new priesthood, the
priesthood of
Melchizedek, a change
of the Law was
required. Was there a change of
the Law?
Hebrews 7:18 states
that the Mosaic Law
was disannulled.
Because it is no longer in effect, we can now
have a new
priesthood after the
order of Melchizedek.
If the Mosaic Law
was still in effect, Yeshua could not
function as a priest.
But the Mosaic Law is
no longer in effect,
and so Jesus can be a
priest after the order of Melchizedek. The fourth line of
evidence for the
annulment of the
Mosaic Law zeros
right in on the part of
the Law that most people want to retain
– the Ten
Commandments.
Second Corinthians
3:2-11 is very
significant here: First, we need to see what
Paul is saying in this
passage concerning
the Law of Moses. He
calls it both the
ministration of death and the ministration
of condemnation (vv.
7, 9) – both certainly
negative but valid
descriptions. In
addition, Paul is clearly emphasizing
the Ten
Commandments, as it
is these that are
engraven on stones.
The main point, then, is that the Law of
Moses, especially as
represented by the
Ten Commandments,
is a ministration of
death and a ministration of
condemnation. And
this would remain
true if the Ten
Commandments
were still in force today.

The Unity of the Law
of Moses
It must be
understood that the
Mosaic Law is viewed
in the Scriptures as a
unit. The word, Torah
or “Law,” is always singular when applied
to the Law of Moses,
although it contains
613 commandments.
The same is true of
the Greek word, Nomos, in the New
Testament. The
division of the Law
of Moses into
ceremonial, legal, and
moral parts is convenient for the
study of different
types of
commandments
contained within it,
but it is never divided this way by the
Scriptures
themselves. Neither is
there any scriptural
basis for separating
the Ten Commandments from
the whole 613 and
making only the Ten
perpetual. All 613
commandments are a
single unit comprising the Law of Moses. It is this principle of
the unity of the Law
of Moses that lies
behind the idea of
keeping the whole
law in James 2:10. The Apostle’s point here
is clearly that a
person needs only to
break one of the 613
commandments to be
guilty of breaking all of the Law of Moses.
And this can only be
true if the Mosaic Law
is a unit. If it were
not, the guilt would
lie only in the particular
commandment
violated and not in
the whole Law. In
other words, if one
breaks a legal commandment, he is
guilty of breaking
the ceremonial and
moral ones as well.
The same is true of
breaking a moral or ceremonial
commandment. To
bring the point closer
to home, a person
under the Law of
Moses who eats ham is guilty of breaking
the Ten
Commandments,
although none of the
Ten says anything
about ham. In order to clearly
understand the Law
of Moses and its
relationship to the
believer (Jew or
Gentile), it is necessary to view it
as do the Scriptures:
as a unit, one that
cannot be divided
into parts that are
nullified and parts that are kept. Nor can
certain
commandments be
separated in such a
way as to give them
a different status from other
commandments.

The Purpose of the
Law of Moses
It is important to
note that the
Scriptures clearly
state that the Law
was given to Israel
and not to the Gentiles or the Church
(Deut. 4:7-8; Ps.
147:19-20; Mal. 4:4).
Another thing to
point out is the
means by which the Mosaic Law was
given. Most know
that Moses received
the Law on Mount
Sinai from the Hand
of God. Ten of those commandments,
written on tablets of
stone, were written
with the Finger of
God. The Old
Testament indicates that the other 603
were written down
as Moses was
commanded by God. Let’s move on to
another area to
answer the question,
“What was the
purpose of the Mosaic
Law?” The Bible gives us several reasons for
the purpose of the
Mosaic Law. The first
purpose was to
reveal the holiness of
God, to reveal the standard of
righteousness that
God demanded for a
proper relationship
with Him. Let me
emphasize that at no time is it taught in
Scripture that the
Mosaic Law was the
means of salvation.
Such a concept would
make salvation by means of works. We
know, instead, that
salvation was always
by grace through
faith. The content of
faith has changed from age to age;
exactly what one had
to believe to be saved
differed from age to
age, depending on
progressive revelation (that
which God has
revealed over time).
But the means of
salvation never
changes, and the Mosaic Law was
never intended to
give the Jew a way
of salvation. It was
given to a people
already redeemed from Egypt, not in
order to redeem
them. A second purpose of
the Law was to
provide the means or
the rule of conduct
for the Old Testament
saints. We find this in Romans 3:20 and 28,
where Paul makes
clear that no man
was justified by the
works of the Law.
The Law was never, ever a means of
salvation. Rather, the
Law always had
other purposes, and,
in this case, it
provided the rule of life for the Old
Testament believer. Two more purposes
were: to keep the
Jews a distinct people
(Lev. 11:44-45; Deut.
7:6; 14:1-2); and, to
provide Israel with occasions for
individual and
corporate worship. A fifth purpose for
the Mosaic Law was
to reveal sin. Three
passages in Romans
point this out. In
Romans 3:19-20, Paul emphasizes that there
is no justification
through the Law. By
means of the Law no
Jewish person will be
justified. So what is the Law if not a way
of justification, a
way of salvation?
The Law is there to
give us the
knowledge of sin, to reveal exactly what
sin is, as Paul repeats
in Romans 5:20 and
7:7. Paul became
aware of his own
sinful state by searching the Law
and realizing that he
fell short of the
righteous standards
of God (an example
of the first and third purposes of the Law
at work together). Another purpose –
this one is strange but
true nevertheless – is
to make a person sin
more (Rom. 4:15;
5:20). Paul explains what he means by
this in Romans 7:7-13
and again in I
Corinthians 15:56,
where we read that
the power of sin is the Law. Basically, Paul is
saying here that a sin
nature needs a base
of operation;
furthermore, the sin
nature uses the Law as a base of
operation. Paul notes
that where there is
no Law, there is no
transgression. He did
not mean, of course, that there was no sin
before the Law was
given. Rather, the
term “transgression”
is a specific type of
sin violating a specific commandment. Men
were sinners before
the Law was given,
but they were not
transgressors of the
Law until the Law was given. Once the
Law was given, the
sin nature had a base
of operation, causing
the individual to
violate these commandments and
sin all the more. This last purpose led
to a seventh purpose,
which is to lead us to
absolute faith,
specifically faith in
Jesus the Messiah (Gal. 3:24). As hard as we
may try to keep the
Law perfectly, our sin
nature prevents us
from doing so, as Paul
describes in the seventh chapter of
Romans. There is yet
another purpose, but
this will be covered
more appropriately
later in this study.

If there is one
immediate problem
that seems to face the
new Jewish believer
in the Messiah, it is
this relationship to the Law of Moses. The
dilemma is: to what
extent is the
Messianic Jew to keep
the Law of Moses? Two factors have
developed in the
minds and teachings
of many Christians
that have contributed
to the creation of this problem. One is the
practice of dividing
the Law into
ceremonial, legal, and
moral
commandments. On the basis of this
division, many have
come to think that
the believer is free
from the ceremonial
and legal commandments but
is still under the
moral
commandments. The
second factor is the
belief that the Ten Commandments are
still valid today,
while the other 603
commandments are
not. When
confronted by a Seventh Day
Adventist, for
example, an
individual taking such
an approach runs into
problems concerning the fourth
commandment on
keeping the Sabbath.
At that point, the
believer begins
fudging or hedging around the issue, and
inconsistency results.
While many different
groups – both Jewish
and Gentile, Messianic
and non-Messianic – claim that we are still
under the Law, none
who say so actually
believe it! Everyone
who makes this claim
then proceeds to make major
adjustments to it, so
many changes, in
fact, that Moses
himself would not
recognize his own Law. No one who
claims such today
truly follows it as it is
written. The solution to this
problem lies in
discovering what the
Bible says about the
Messianic believer’s
relationship to the Law, especially the
Ten Commandments.
www.ariel.org/mbs006e.htm