I fully affirm Christ�s ultimate authority as the supreme lawgiver. Christ is the fulfillment of the Law. However, in response to part of the initial post, I wonder if Jesus was giving new commands that were unknown in the Old Testament? Consider the following texts in light of just 2 examples from the �sermon on the mount� passage:

1. Adultery of the Heart

Matthew 5:27-28
You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Did no one understand that lust was wrong in the Mosaic Covenant? Notice in the verses that follow that Solomon and Job also knew that lust was wrong. Does this therefore mean that Solomon or Job were �new and better lawgivers� than Moses?

Proverbs 6:25
Do not desire her beauty in your heart, and do not let her capture you with her eyelashes

Job 31:1
I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin?

Job 31:9-11
If my heart has been enticed toward a woman, and I have lain in wait at my neighbor's door, 10 then let my wife grind for another, and let others bow down on her. 11 For that would be a heinous crime; that would be an iniquity to be punished by the judges.

It is quite interesting that many (not all) scholars date the writing of Job to pre-Mosaic times.

2. Turning the Other Cheek

Matthew 5:38-42
You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Jeremiah recorded the following�

Lamentations 3:30
Let him give his cheek to the one who strikes, and let him be filled with insults.

I am also a bit confused with something that came up later in the post. �We are called to �fulfill� the Law, but not actually �do� the Law.� I am wondering what this looks like? What is the difference between �fulfilling� and �doing�? Specifically in reference to Galatians 5:14 & Romans 13:8-10, how do we love our neighbor? Is this something we do? Or fulfill? both? do we fulfill it by doing it?

If believers are still expected to comply with the law�s moral demands, then what role does the Law play? Are God�s commands and Law the same thing? What commandments do we need to keep?

John 14:15
If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

John 14:21
Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.

1 John 5:1-3
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.

Lucas,

I don't think it is the content of Jesus' commands that make him the new law-giver (though that is important), but the authority he claimed in delivering the commands - "You have heard it said...but I say unto you..."

Aaron, are you suggesting that the content of Moses' Law and Christ's Law are the same? or different?

What or who do you think Christ is referring to when he says "you have heard it said..."? And does Jesus then bring a new Law? or reinforce the Law that God (Jesus, aka: the WORD) gave to Moses?

Lucas, I can't speak for Roger or Jim Congdon, but...

"are you suggesting that the content of Moses' Law and Christ's Law are the same? or different?"

Strictly speaking, I don't think there is a "Christ's Law." This is where the Reformed distinction between civil, ceremonial and moral laws is helpful. The Moral Law is universal and unchanging, and this is specifically the aspect of the Mosaic Law that Christ is addressing in passages like the ones you quoted. Also, He is speaking primarily to an audience that knew the Mosaic Law well, BUT who also thought (at least many of them) that as long as you didn't actually have a sex with a woman who was not your wife, you could look at her lustfully and still be keeping the Law (even perfectly). Job and Solomon might have understood (rightly) that lust was morally wrong, but technically it wasn't in the Mosaic Law, making it easy for legalistic Jews to lust and still consider themselves nearly perfect. So Christ isn't bringing anything new, he's merely making explicit what was always there.

"What or who do you think Christ is referring to when he says "you have heard it said..."?"

The Mosaic Law.

"And does Jesus then bring a new Law? or reinforce the Law that God (Jesus, aka: the WORD) gave to Moses?"

Neither, really. He doesn't reinstate the Mosaic Law in its entirety (including civil and ceremonial laws which were only provisional and temporary). But neither does he bring something new, in the sense of something that no one ever knew before (like you said, Job and Solomon knew about lust). The point is that the Mosaic Law is fulfilled in the person of Christ Himself, not in any particular teaching that He gave. He is the final sacrifice. He is the final high priest. He is the final Davidic king, etc.

Thanks David. Your response was very helpful.

Roger (or anyone) I am still interested in any feedback from one of my other questions raised earlier:

I am also a bit confused with something that came up later in the post. �We are called to �fulfill� the Law, but not actually �do� the Law.� I am wondering what this looks like? What is the difference between �fulfilling� and �doing�? Specifically in reference to Galatians 5:14 & Romans 13:8-10, how do we love our neighbor? Is this something we do? Or fulfill? both? do we fulfill it by doing it?

If believers are still expected to comply with the law�s moral demands, then what role does the Law play? Are God�s commands and Law the same thing? What commandments do we need to keep?

Hey Lucas,

"I wonder if Jesus was giving new commands that were unknown in the Old Testament?"

This is a misunderstanding of the position that's been presented. No one I've read or talked with believes that many (if not all) Jesus' commandments were not known in OT times. So to point to passages that relate to Jesus' commandments is to argue against a straw man.

Everyone I've read and talked with about this issue believes that the elect of all times and peoples are saved under the conditions of the new covenant (NC). So "new" in "new covenant" does not mean it was not present before it's full revelation. Similarly, "new" in reference to Christ's law does not mean that it was not known before He gave it. Rather, "new" refers to the extent of the revelation in comparison to what was given before. Lust has always been wrong, but the NC provides the clearest and highest revelation pertaining to the sinfulness of lust. One cannot look to the Mosaic law, especially the ten commandments, to find such a clear or high standard against lust.

Here is Jim's explanation of "fulfilling" the law without "doing" it:

"A foreign exchange student from Greece enrolls in Introductory Greek at a school in the States. The instructor soon realizes that the student more than adequately 'fulfills' the requirements of the course, and releases her from 'doing' the assignments. According to Paul, the Christian who walks by the Holy Spirit in love bears a similar relationship to the Law. Romans 7:5-6 is definitive. Believers have been set free from the Law (the 'moral' law is included, v.7), so that they now serve God in the new way of the Spirit rather than in the old way of the written code. Paradoxically, the results of the new way--fulfillment of the Law, service in love (Rom 8:4, Gal 5:13)-- are better than the results of the old way--sinful passions, disobedience, and death (Rom 7:5, 2 Cor 3:6, Gal 3:19)."

"How do we love our neighbor? Is this something we do?"

Yes, but we do not do it because of the Mosaic law which is obsolete, as though we are striving for righteousness according to the law. We do so because of the Spirit's work in us in relation to the higher standard of God's eternal law as revealed in the NC.

"Are God�s commands and Law the same thing?"

For reference, here's a summary of where my studies have led me to this point (note that I do not believe I've arrived at any sort of final position):

God's righteousness is an eternal standard for morality regardless of time or location. All people are judged according to this standard and are found guilty. All laws and commandments given in the Bible reflect this standard in some way. Some are given independently (e.g. Gen 9:6), though most are given in the context of covenants.

The Ten Commandments are part of the Mosaic law which is the essence of the old covenant (OC). This set of laws was given to Israel through Moses as a reflection of God�s eternal standard as it pertains to the governing of that physical nation. The OC cannot be understood without the Mosaic law. Hebrews speaks of Christ mediating a better covenant and refers to the OC as obsolete. This would be meaningless if the exact laws given to the nation of Israel are still in force on a spiritual people who are under a different covenant.

So to answer your question, I believe God�s commandments and laws are the same thing. We are to keep the commandments or laws that most accurately reflect God�s eternal righteousness within the covenant to which we are bound. Since those who follow Christ are bound to the NC, we are to obey the clearer and higher revelation given by God in the NC.

This clearer and higher revelation is not always in opposition to previous revelation (e.g. lust has always been wrong). We should expect, as the Bible demonstrates, that since God�s holiness is always the same, much of His instruction will be essentially the same regardless of the covenant in which we receive it. However, He has clearly given some commandments that are specific only to particular covenants (e.g. not eating unclean food in the OC).

I believe the Reformed distinction (that as far as I can tell originated with Roman Catholic Thomas Aquinas) between types of law (moral, civil, and ceremonial) cannot be justified by scripture and do great harm to our understanding of God�s commandments. All of God�s commandments are moral, and few can be clearly defined into only one of the three categories. No one in the Bible made such a distinction. As Jim Congdon pointed out, Jesus referred to the whole law in Matthew 5. Either it is entirely binding on Christians today, and you should never trim the corners of your beard as was instructed in the OC, or Jesus meant something other than to perpetuate the Mosaic law on members of the NC.

Thanks for your answers here Roger.

God's righteousness is an eternal standard for morality regardless of time or location... The Ten Commandments are part of the Mosaic law which is the essence of the old covenant (OC). This set of laws was given to Israel through Moses as a reflection of God�s eternal standard as it pertains to the governing of that physical nation.

The extent to which a law of God is relevant only to a particular time and place is the extent to which that law is not a reflection of God's unchanging righteousness.

All people are judged according to this standard and are found guilty.

You imply here that people are judged by the same standard, but clearly you do not believe they are for you go on to describe God's changing standard according to various covenants. Am I missing something here?

Were members of the Old Covenant judged by the 10 commandments or by "the law of Christ"? If the "law of Christ" is a fuller reflection of God's righteous character, then how could God hold any man to a lesser standard?

"The extent to which a law of God is relevant only to a particular time and place is the extent to which that law is not a reflection of God's unchanging righteousness."

You would agree that there are at least some laws that are in forced at a specific time, right? I think not eating unclean food or not cutting the corners of your beard are clear examples we should be able to agree upon. Do you think these laws given as part of the OC were not a reflection of God's unchanging righteousness and holiness?

"Were members of the Old Covenant judged by the 10 commandments or by "the law of Christ"?"

This is an area where I don't have a refined answer for you. My instinct is to say that members of the OC were judged by the laws of the OC (which includes the ten commandments) as it was the fullest extent of God's law (or law of Christ) that had been revealed to that point. It's not as though they are two completely different standards- for the OC member the OC law and God's law were one in the same.

Do you think these laws given as part of the OC were not a reflection of God's unchanging righteousness and holiness?

Correct.

My instinct is to say that members of the OC were judged by the laws of the OC (which includes the ten commandments) as it was the fullest extent of God's law (or law of Christ) that had been revealed to that point.

Ok. So if a member of the OC perfectly obeyed all of the OC law, including the 10 commandments, yet they hated or lusted in their heart, would they be judged righteous?

"Correct."

So what do you make of Lev. 11:1-47? It seems clear to me that God's command not to eat unclean animals is related to His holiness.

"So if a member of the OC perfectly obeyed all of the OC law, including the 10 commandments, yet they hated or lusted in their heart, would they be judged righteous?"

I think I need to back up a step here, keeping in mind I'm still working this out. There is one standard by which all are judged at the end of time: God's eternal righteousness and holiness. All are found guilty against this standard. God gave specific laws to govern a physical people in the OC. Even if someone were to keep the OC laws (I don't think it happened), they would be guilty against God's higher law for hatred and lust. This is all tentative for me- as I said I'm still working it out, and I realize this comment appears contradictory to my last one.

Thanks for Lev 11. I've been thinking about it for the last few days. The word holy means "separate." Berkhoff refers to God's "majesty-holiness" as his complete separateness. I think that Lev. 20:22-26 shows us what Lev 11 means:

22 �You shall therefore keep all my statutes and all my rules and do them, that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. 23 And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them. 24 But I have said to you, �You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey.� I am the Lord your God, who has separated you from the peoples. 25 You shall therefore separate the clean beast from the unclean, and the unclean bird from the clean. You shall not make yourselves detestable by beast or by bird or by anything with which the ground crawls, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean. 26 You shall be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine.

The emphasis here is on separating God's people from the rest of the world, because He is separate from the rest of the world. This is different from the moral law of God (I know you reject the distinction), which is a reflection of His character.

In regards to what standard members of the OC were judged by: I know you are still working it out, but it is a central issue. Were all members of the OC aware of this higher standard that they were judged by? Are they surprised to stand before the throne of God and hear their lives judged by a standard they had never heard of? God promised that by following these statutes they would live (Deut. 4:1). Would it not then be unjust to use a different standard?

"The emphasis here is on separating God's people from the rest of the world, because He is separate from the rest of the world."

I agree that that is the emphasis, but verse 22 seems to indicate that this applies to "all my statutes and all my rules."

"This is different from the moral law of God (I know you reject the distinction), which is a reflection of His character. "

So this was not a moral law? Those who broke it were not immoral?

"Were all members of the OC aware of this higher standard that they were judged by?"

I know we have disagreed on this in the past, but I think Romans 1 & 2 clearly teaches that the law is written on all people's hearts and "their conscience also bears witness." No one will be surprised about God's law regardless of how much they've suppressed the truth.

"God promised that by following these statutes they would live (Deut. 4:1). Would it not then be unjust to use a different standard?"

I think you're right. However, this is an impractical hypothetical. Only one person fulfilled the Mosaic law and He also kept God's higher law perfectly. In theory, could a man born of flesh have kept the Mosaic law and inherited eternal law? No, original sin has assured that no one can earn their righteousness by any law.

I think Romans 1 & 2 clearly teaches that the law is written on all people's hearts and "their conscience also bears witness."

Which law?

However, this is an impractical hypothetical.

Nice try, can't squirm out of it that easy.

I believe the Reformed distinction (that as far as I can tell originated with Roman Catholic Thomas Aquinas) between types of law (moral, civil, and ceremonial) cannot be justified by scripture and do great harm to our understanding of God�s commandments.

Have you figured out a reason yet why God distinguished between the various laws when they were given?

Where did God divide the laws as moral, civil and ceremonial?

There is a very clear distinction between the 10 Commandments and the rest of the Mosaic laws:

1. They alone were spoken by the voice of God
2. They alone were written by the finger of God
3. They alone were placed in the ark of God
4. They alone were accompanied by the terror of God on Mount Sinai
5. They alone were inscribed in stone

This has nothing to do with the Reformed distinction I brought up. I asked where God divided the law into moral, civil and ceremonial laws.

Maybe I've misread the Torah, but I'm pretty sure all of the Mosaic law was spoken by God. I agree that they alone were written by God in stone and alone placed in the ark of the covenant. The ark of the covenant is the important part- as those tablets represent the covenant God made with Israel. Maybe you can point it out for me, but I haven't seen any other reason in the Bible for the tablets being written in stone by God.

Maybe you can point it out for me, but I haven't seen any other reason in the Bible for the tablets being written in stone by God.

I must have missed it, did you give a reason? Are you saying God wrote the 10 Commandments in stone because they represent the covenant God made with Israel? If so, why do only the 10 Commandments represent the whole covenant? Why not put the entire Mosaic law in the ark, especially if it is unbiblical to make any distinction between anything in the Mosaic covenant?

Maybe I've misread the Torah, but I'm pretty sure all of the Mosaic law was spoken by God.

Yes, you have misread the Torah. Only the 10 Commandments were spoken directly by God to the whole assembly.

Deut. 5:4 The Lord spoke with you face to face at the mountain, out of the midst of the fire, 5 while I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the Lord. For you were afraid because of the fire, and you did not go up into the mountain. He said:

6 “‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

7 “‘You shall have no other gods before me.

8 “‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 9 You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 10 but showing steadfast love to thousands [2] of those who love me and keep my commandments.

11 “‘You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.

12 “‘Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. 15 You shall remember that you were a slave [3] in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.

16 “‘Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you, that your days may be long, and that it may go well with you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

17 “‘You shall not murder.

18 “‘And you shall not commit adultery.

19 “‘And you shall not steal.

20 “‘And you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

21 “‘And you shall not covet your neighbor's wife. And you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his male servant, or his female servant, his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.’

22 These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me.

God clearly added more law to the Mosaic covenant. So why does v22 say He added no more?

The same thing is seen in Exodus 20:

1 And God spoke all these words, saying,

He speaks the 10 words, then:

22 And the Lord said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the people of Israel: ‘You have seen for yourselves that I have talked with you from heaven. 23 You shall not make gods of silver to be with me, nor shall you make for yourselves gods of gold. 24 An altar of earth you shall make for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen. In every place where I cause my name to be remembered I will come to you and bless you...

While the 10 Commandments were spoken directly by God to all, the rest of the law was mediated through Moses, and he wrote them in a book, not in stone (Ex 24:4).

Hi Brandon,

It seems that the 10 Commandments were mediated through Moses, too:

Deut. 5:4 The Lord spoke with you face to face at the mountain, out of the midst of the fire, 5 while I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the Lord. For you were afraid because of the fire, and you did not go up into the mountain.

Aaron, that would appear to be Moses' purpose in going up to the mountain. And he did declare to them the word of the Lord later. But it is very, very clear that God spoke directly to the people, not through Moses when He gave the 10 Commandments.

These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice

Roger, did you get a chance to speak with the author at all? I would be interested to know if Greg Welty's refutation of Carson's interpretation of Matthew 5 was part of his reading list when writing his paper.

http://www.the-highway.com/mosaic-law_Welty.html

Hey Brandon,

I did get to speak to Jim for a bit. He did cite Carson's commentary in his paper, but since I was unaware of Welty's attempted refutation at the time, I didn't ask him about it. I'll email him and see if he'll post here or allow me to post a response from him.

That would be great, thanks.

Good Lord, what's a good gentile like me to do.? There are too many commandments to remember much less to keep. That's not good news. What a hassle. Just love God & man and don't forget to put the seat back down.

You're right- the law is not good news. The good news is that those who are saved are free from the law (Rom 7:6, 10:4). However, we should also be clear that there is a law we must follow. Jesus said that if we love Him we will keep His commandments (John 14:15). At the very least, we should all agree that we are required to follow what Jesus referred to as the greatest commandment: "Love your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." He also said "the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Matt 22:37-39) James 2:8 refers to loving our neighbors as the "royal law." Certainly love must be the focal point of Christian action.

Christian, God has helped us by summarizing His law in 10 words. It's not that hard to remember them.

Roger, yes, James says Christians must obey the royal law. But what else does he say right after verse 8?

9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty.

James says if we fail to love our neighbor as ourself, we are guilty of breaking the whole law, which specifically includes the 6th and 7th commandments, among the other 8. Roger, it seems to me you are introducing an unwarranted division into the law of God. James seems to see it as a whole ;-)

You're assuming that by the "whole law" James meant the ten commandments, but I think that's a faulty assumption. James, or any other NC writer (I only know of Moses in the OC who distingusihed them), does not distinguish the ten commandments from the rest of the Mosaic law. Furthermore, the "royal law" isn't in the ten commandments. You're also assuming that James wasn't simply referring to what Jesus commanded, and I think that's faulty as well.

My assumption when I read this passage, is that James is referring to what Jesus commanded. Hebrews 7:12 states that "when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well." Given that Christ is the new high priest and mediator of a better covenant, and that James is writing to members of the NC, I think it's a warranted assumption that James was referring to the commandments given by the priest of this NC. My intention, and I don't see where I've strayed from this, is to divide the law only where the Bible does so. It claims that there is a change in the law under the new high priest, and that He makes the OC obsolete (Heb 8:13), and the OC means nothing without the "tables of the covenant" (Deut 9:9-11).

You're assuming that by the "whole law" James meant the ten commandments, but I think that's a faulty assumption.

Ok, then all NC members must still be under all of the Mosaic law.

You're also assuming that James wasn't simply referring to what Jesus commanded, and I think that's faulty as well.

Jesus never said "Do not commit adultery" and "Do not murder." Jesus said "Do not lust" and "Do not hate." If James was referring to a new law given by Jesus, he wouldn't quote the OC, he would quote Jesus.

Before we get to the question of law keeping I think we should first establish which laws are ' on the books'.
Is it the 10 or the 613 commandments? What about the Mishnah, the oral torah. What about the laws handed down by the Church through the years? Granted, the Misnah and the Ecclesiatical laws may be supergogatory or they may be the dictums of the elders sitting in the seat of Moses. You never know! You reply "just the written stuff baby!" Ok, but be aware that many attempts to apply the law of God contemporaneously will result in its alteration through both amplification and conflation. Let's not talk about those 'Blue book' laws of the Bible that have been abrogated. Maybe some other time. At any rate the written text doesn't always hit the mark. When there is no explicit command against this or that moral and ethical dilemma should we then adjust the law accordingly? Or do we remain silent becasue the text we cling to is silent? Is God then silent? It would seem to me that the law of God would have to evolve in order to remain relevant to a socially evolving humanity. Too much hassle if you ask me.
The simple Nazerene was asked a question about the law and basically factored it down to just 2. Love God and people. Works for me. Thank God. because I do love my bacon and eggs made on Saturday morning.

Christian,

Remember that when Jesus responded "Love God and your neighbor" he said that those 2 commands were always represented by the Law in the OT. They were the summary of the Law. So again, the point is not that Jesus gave us a brand new law and chucked the old one. But you're quite right that we no longer have to obey the many civil and ceremonial laws that were given to the Jews, because those were always meant to be temporary and provisional. But, as far as I can tell, no one here is disagreeing with you on that. The only current debate seems to be whether or not there is something unique about the 10 Commandments, and what that uniqueness might imply. So I'm curious who exactly you are responding to with your comment?

My reply is more of a general remark than a particular one. I believe the law of God given on Mt. Sinai is provisional. It reveals the unchanging righteousness of God in the ever changing ethos of human existence. The 10 commandments are a chronos -conditioned incursion of God's everlasting righteousness. It spoke directly to moral and ethical matters than were relevent at that time such as idol worship, coveting slaves etc. Some of the commandments are no longer relevant in our time. God's righteousness remains unchanged but the contermporary incursion of that holiness manifested by law does change. Thats the beauty of Christ commandments. They're grounded in the eternal righteousness of God yet express themselves in the ever changing fluidity of human existence. Yippee. Blessings.

I don't completely understand what the argument is here. Are we trying to figure out whether or not there is to be a distinction between moral, ceremonial and civil law? Or are we looking at the believer's responsibility to the law? Or is there something else I am missing?

Regardless, I believe we must keep in mind that God hasn't changed...He can't change by His very nature. Therefore, the requirements of God haven't changed for us. God is love, and as a result, He invites us to return that love to Him...freely, faithfully, fully and fruitfully. This love isn't to be abstract, especially since the Incarnation. Is it possible that God's love has been revealed in different ways? Giving Adam and Eve the command to "not eat of the fruit" was an act of love. The 10 commandments were another act of love. All of the ceremonial laws were an act of love similar to an intervention...God says to Abraham, "so you want to have a child of the flesh with an Egyptian? Then you are going to circumcise the child when he is 13 just like the Egyptians do and circumcision is going to be a constant reminder that only obedience through the spirit is acceptable." He also says to Israel, "so you want to worship cows and goats and eat the pig like the Egyptians? Then here is what you are going to do: kill the cows and stay away from the pork." The ceremonial law wasn't necessarily different from the moral...it was a reminder of what not to do and how to stay away from it. That is why God always told Israel to wipe out the gentile nations.

In Christ, there is no need for the reminders because the reminders were always there to point us to something else. That something else is Christ. Before Christ, the law was like a road map. Now that Christ has come, it is like having the destination in the car with you. No need for a map anymore. Christ is the law. Follow Christ, then you follow the law. The beauty is that he even gives us the grace we need to follow him. The goal has always been, as Christian so eloquently stated, "Love God and man and remember to put the seat back down."

I pretty much agree with your post. My point is more directed at the believers responsibility to the law, which I think is out of sync with the spirit of grace. Divinely revealed laws of all categories are good only for a certain time and place. I make a hard distinction between the nature of God and his revealed laws to man which are provisional on account of the vicissitudes of man.
Therefore I think appealing to any revealed divine law as a present guide for righteous living today is potenially regressive. Slavery was not condemned but accepted as a social reality that needn't be challenged. It made God's top ten list but wasn't demonized. Yipes! Our Southern ancestors looked to scripture and found warrant for slavery. I think our grey brothers confused the eternal holiness of God with his provisional laws said or did not say in the decalogue. Today, slavery is anathema even to the atheist. Most of mankind has socially progressed past the ancient commandments which provisionally spoke to men when and where they lived.
The law, all of it, however theologically categorized, is no longer needed. Moses is persona non grata.
Outwardly I may appear as an antinomian, but inwardly I'm living by that very Spirit who gave those outwardly revealed laws which were only applicable to certain men at certain times.

Why do you suppose that the believer's responsibility to the law is out of sync with the spirit of grace? Are you suggesting that the law and grace are mutually exclusive? Or are you saying that we simply have a difficult time understanding how the two go together? It seems like we are always trying to compartmenatlize things which creates an either/or false dichotomy. ie. Law or Grace, Old Covenant or New Covenant, etc. Why can't it be both/and? Why can't we walk in grace thereby fulfilling the law? How are we fulfulling the OC by walking in the NC? Reading the New Testament should illuminate the Old Testament and the OT should help us truly understand the NT. We think in linear terms...the new makes the old obsolete. God isn't linear. God is eternal and we keep trying to put him into our timelines. God entered the timeline in Jesus but that doesn't make God change; It changes us. The cosmos were a womb for humanity. Through the course of salvation history, Israel became a new womb for the purpose of a new humanity; a new creation (palingenesia).

I sort of agree, but I think the law is too low of a standard for righteousness. God's holiness is the standard for us. Grace doesn't lead us to meaure up to the law but to God's holiness. The law of God was the 'gold standard' in earlier redemptive history but has now been superseded. I guess I would say that we fullfill the law, but not through acts of intention but as a cosequence of living by the spirit of grace. Much in the way a high jumper who cleared a 7 foot bar consequentially clears all lower heights in that same jump.
We are no longer under the law. True, God is outside our timeline but his laws are within them. I believe the law is obsolete at our time in God's heilgeschichte. God's demands are no longer those codified in the Tanakh but in his very persona.
God's laws are explicit provisional demands on mankind, not explicit revelations of his eternal holiness, which has now become the 'gold standard' on account of the spirit of grace working within us.
Why fiddle faddle with the obsolete?

I can agree with that. I think, unfortunately, that when most people think of believers being free from the law, that means we now have license to do what we want because no matter what, God sees us a righteous. If walking in the Spirit means that we are actually now living to an even higher standard than the law would require, I don't think I have a problem with that.

My reference to God being outside of time was in reference to the fact that just because the law has "changed" doesn't mean that God's standard has changed. I view God's revelation to man as a father would raise a child. Natural law would be similar to how a baby responds to his environment...he is just wired a certain way to do certain things. The law given to Israel is like how one would raise a pre teen/teen ager..."do this, don't do that. Why? Because Dad says so!" The new covenant in Christ is how a parent hopes his adult child will make decisions for the rest of his life. Jesus says follow me. A father says, "I have shown you the standards by which you should live. No go and make good choices." There is a freedom in this, but a tremendous responsibility.