Part two is another post on the Seek God forum about why one cannot keep the Mosaic Law.
Contributed by Vic and used with permission from:
http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=37&page=4
Quote:
The problem with saying one can only keep part of the law and they don’t advocate keeping it all, is that it violates the Scriptures regarding keeping the law – just as many in HR do. That is, they say they keep Torah and meaning the Law of Moses–then they say they keep what they can, and eliminate a vast majority–which if they really were keeping the law–would apply. And as I already stated, without being Jewish, without living in Israel, without the Temple–no one can please God with their attempts.
By claiming to keep parts of the law one is in fact not only violating God’s command concerning that in the OT, but also what the Apostles wrote after Christ died for our sins.
Deu 27:26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
There is no way to get around those verses concerning keeping the Mosaic law. None.
Nada. 
No way. 
HR suggests that one can choose to pick and choose what laws you will apply to one’s life and then violate the very scriptures you say they try to keep. There is no Scripture to support you trying to keep bits and pieces of the Mosaic law. 
Jesus quoted from the law, and showed new applications also–Before He died on the cross. Keeping the law of Moses was mandatory–with no excuses why they weren’t applied and carried out, including the judgments, such as stoning adulterers, etc. To have not, would have exiled them from the covenants and promises. In transitioning to the New Covenant we see examples of Jesus not enforcing the Mosaic covenant but showing mercy or giving what was to be part of the New Covenant. After Jesus Christ died the New Covenant was in place.
Most in HR are confused as to what that means. 
Call the Mosaic law the old covenant or contract between God and Israel. Israel broke the covenant. Then God showed He could change the covenant because of their disobedience–and He broke it so that a better way would be known. 
Zec 11:7 And I will feed the flock of slaughter, even you, O poor of the flock. And I took to me two staves; the one I called Beauty, and the other I called Bands; and I fed the flock. 8 Three shepherds also I cut off in one month; and my soul loathed them, and their soul also abhorred me. 9 Then said I, I will not feed you: that that dies, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another. 10 And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. 11 And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited on me knew that it was the word of the LORD.
People in HR say God does not change and would not have changed the law. They ignore what the Scriptures say and that includes the OT which they take as God’s truth, often renouncing the NT or saying it is just commentary or some of it’s ok but the rest is corrupted by pagans etc etc.
God does not change–He is perfect, omniscient, holy, and so much more. But the Scriptures show there were many covenants and God–being the author of those covenants, can change or overwrite any of them. Especially when the other contracting party did not keep their part of it. That’s the glory of His being God. Since Israel repeatedly showed they could not keep their end of it, He did what He has every right to do. He broke it from His side also so it became null —like any contract where the parties break it.
Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
In His love and mercy He provided a better way and promised a New Covenant–a new contract that was to be better than the old contract. Why? because mankind sins and could never keep the Old contract.
If one knows anything about writing contracts — many times concepts are carried forward from the old contract–which is why we see mention of things that reflect as being from the OT– not just the Law of Moses. Things one finds in the OT but now, rendered part of the NT. As we see in Matthew 5, Jesus presented many “You have heard it said” and then provided new understanding and hence new commandments, with, “but I say unto you.” We also see Him showing love, mercy and compassion instead of enforcing the judgements of the Mosaic law. ex: the woman taken in adultery; the woman with the issue of blood; touching dead bodies and so on. 
Fast forward to Jesus dying on the cross, rising on the third day and sits at the Right hand of the Father–ever making intercession for those who believe. The priesthood changed, as did the covenant with Israel and all mankind.
Heb 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. 19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. 20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: … 22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. …24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
Heb 9:14-19
(14) How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (15) And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
(16) For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. (17) For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. (18) Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
(19) For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, (20) Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
Heb 8:6-9 (6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. (7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: (9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:12-13 (12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. (13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
The New Testament encompasses that promised new covenant from God.
If one is on a journey do you leave and then at the end of each day of travel, return to the point of starting? The law was good and just when it was in force, but trying to go back under it is to return to what God has said is fulfilled in Christ. He wants our focus to be on serving Jesus Christ. Galatians is filled with all the excuses people try to use to reject the New and return to the Old. It goes against what God said in the Old–but that doesn’t matter to some. One can not straddle the fence with one foot in the old and one in the new. It doesn’t work that way at all.
It’s about Christ and following Him, not trying to keep under the schoolmaster that held no promise of eternal life.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is very clear and concise. Thanks so much for posting this. May those drawn to this blog have eyes to see the truth of the WORD and let go of false doctrine of man.
I’m not really sure how to begin with this….it’s so full of contextual misleadings and misinterpretation that I believe the only thing I can say is, I wish that you were looking at this from a first century context. You miss so much of what Messiah said because you’re interpreting from your 21st century mindset. Let me know if you have any questions about what I said.
Hello to you as well, brother.
Suffice of to say that we Christians in the 21st century lack the ability to properly interpret ‘Hebraisms’ (Hebrew idioms). One that is very incorrectly interpreted being circumcision. It’s not the snip snip part by itself that Paul or any Jew of his day would have been talking about. Circumcision included a sacrifice and another baptism, as well as ritualistic prayers and sayings that would have redefined converts as ‘traditional’ Jews. It seems that Paul’s beef was against accepting this ritualistic ticket into 1st century Judaism as you have already been “justified” by faith, as was Abraham. Paul’s polemic also included not being legalistic. He felt it was duty of love to keep Torah….but not all at once if you never have (i.e.-Gentiles) and not as salvation (i.e.-Jews and God-Fearers). Let me ask you this, what was Peter shown when God told Him to take of any animal on the sheet in the vision in Acts?
What do you think?
Jonah,
Circumcision is not a “Hebraic idiom”
It was a ritual that was done in the Old Testament to show that one was B’nai Israel. If one wants to explore this concept, the OT shows it clearly, as does a concordance without doctrinal bias.
Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise5243 [8804] the flesh1320 of your foreskin6190; and it shall be a token226 of the covenant1285 betwixt me and you.
The ritualistic baptism, prayers, sayings, etc are Rabbinical additions that were not practiced in the Tanakh or NT. It seems that your “Hebraic mind set” has clouded the truth for you, not clarified it
As far as Paul goes – this is what he said to Timothy:
1 Timothy 1:9-10 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10. For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
Peter was told by God that the animals in the sheet were unclean and he should no longer consider them as unclean, but to eat freely of them. Later, God also showed Peter that the Gentiles were not to be considered unclean as well.
In Christ,
sheep wrecked
Jonah,
It would be super if you actually asked a real question that gave a clue where you are coming from
Thanx!
sheep wrecked
Hi Jonah!
Exactly what am I missing from 21st century “mindset”? Please give specific examples – and please do not use the “evil eye” one – that one is so over worked it’s like beating a dead horse
. It seems to be the only example we “21st century mindset christians” have difficulty with – rolling eyes 
In Christ,
sheep wrecked
So….I typed that stuff from my iphone giving me the illusion that I completely typed all the things that I was trying to say, when, in reality, I did not. I apologize. You are correct. Circumcision is not necessarily a Hebrew idiom…..but, our inability to decipher the first century context does, in fact, leave out the ritualistic elements of the word used by Paul and others of the Jewish faith around the time. I see that your biblical exegesis is quite awesome….except you leave it to the text alone to completely explain the situation. If we do that, we have an issue that cannot be resolved: the fact that we do not know the questions that Paul or James or even Peter or John are answering. With that knowledge, we have take into account the context of the historical setting that these ‘answers’ were written.
sheep: I am not sure what you are referring to about “questions” that Paul, James, Peter and John were answering? But you are right, the Scripture tells us all that we need to know. The text is quite clear as to what circumcision is. I am not sure, when speaking of it what the issue is of “understanding” from your perspective. What is there that needs to be understood?
I do not believe that you truly understand the issues that I have written about….especially the issue of circumcision. Though the covenant was set up with Abraham it is most certainly something that was ‘ritualized’ during the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE and has continued since that time, though the sacrifice that accompanied the ritual has since been stopped due to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.
sheep: On what do you base that there was a ritual during the 2nd-3rd centuries BCE concerning circumcision? What documentation are you referring to? What sacrifice was to be done for circumcision?
It is interesting to me that you would say that the ritualistic aspects (as opposed to the relational aspects set up with Abraham) didn’t occur when Paul and Jesus were around…especially since there remains a very large amount of Jewish writings from the time period that quite extensively explain that the B’rit Milah is a man made addition to the institution of circumcision.
sheep: What “very large amount of Jewish writings from that time period” are you referring to? And what time period?
On to Paul-righteousness is perfection….I had no idea that you were perfect?!
Interesting…. I would also question your understanding of the sheet….Peter claims that the sheet was for seeing that no MAN shall be called unclean…..it seems that you have tried not to read anything into the Book and have read something out instead! 
sheep: The text clearly shows that God let down a sheet with unclean animals and told Peter to eat them because he was not to call them unclean because God had cleansed them. He not only told Peter that one time, but three. Later, Peter said that God also showed him not to call the gentiles unclean.
Act 11:7 And I heard a voice saying to me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat.
Act 11:8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean has at any time entered into my mouth.
Act 11:9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God has cleansed, that call not you common.
Act 11:10 And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven.
I didn’t know that I was going to ask you a question…..I just wanted to give you a little more to think about.
Thanks, man! May Adonai Bless.
sheep: Hope the info helped you some – you seem to not be real fond of looking in the Bible for answers – you might find it helpful
Where’d you go?