"Moral" Law vs "Ceremonial" Law

[OllieFranz]

This is a point that comes up frequently on DoH, but I'm posting it here to get a more general viewpoint.

What, exactly, is the difference between a "moral" law and a "ceremonial" one? I can't find anywhere in the Torah that there is such a distinction made.

Nor is there a distinction made in Acts, or in the letters of Paul and James. In Acts 15, only four restrictions are placed on Christians: Three kinds of "unclean" meat and fornication. Paul's letters make it clear that the restriction on "fornication" includes at least one othr form of sexual immorality, but it also makes clear that the restiction on unclean meat is based on the conscience of the idividual: if you are not convinced that it is not sinful, then it is sinful -- for you; If your brother is not convinced that it is not sinful, don't flaunt your freedom and tempt him into participating in an action which is sinful for him.

So where does this supposed distinction between "moral law" and "ceremonial law" come from? And how do you determine whether a given law is "ceremonial" or "moral"?

For example, are the following violations of ceremonial law or moral law?

• Eating unclean meat
• Cross-dressing
• Working on Sunday
• Having sex with a woman in her niddah
• Sharing a meal with non-believers

Please explain exactly why or why not.

 

[ShermanN]

It really depends on what your definition of moral and ceremonial are. I prefer to divide the Laws of Moses into 3 categories that correspond with the authority over those issues - moral/domestic (personal/family), civil (judges), religious (priests). We have to remember, not only was Moses the "father" of a religion (Judaism), but he was also the "father" of a nation (Israel), and he also taught concerning personal issues concerning health, relationships, and lifestyle.

Dietary rules, family & relationship guidelines were primarily under personal authority with little, if any religious or civil oversight; thus they would be considered moral teachings (as most people use the world "moral" today, implying a personal decision).

Marriage, divorce, remarriage, some fornication issues, adultery, homosexuality, murder, stealing, etc. were under civil authority.

Sacrifices, priesthood, tabernacle/temple worship, etc. were under religious authority. I would call these "ceremonial".

Of course, there is some cross-over between categories; and the various authority structures are in tension, struggling to increase and protect their "turf" with each influencing the other.

Also, concerning the three things mentioned in the letter to the Gentiles, it's very likely they were particularizations (an outline) of much more detailed teachings. Not eating blood or strangled meat would be a specific example of a much more full teaching on healthy eating according to Moses (dietary rules). Fornication was a broad term referencing both immoral and illegal sexual relationships (moral & civil rules). Not eating meat sacrificed to idols (religious rules).

But of course, even though these were given, such was based upon the understanding that salvation, purification of one's heart was through the Spirit by faith.

 

[oldsage]

This is a point that comes up frequently on DoH, but I'm posting it here to get a more general viewpoint.

What, exactly, is the difference between a "moral" law and a "ceremonial" one? I can't find anywhere in the Torah that there is such a distinction made.

I think the distinction is in most people head. Moral and ceremonial distinction are in two different venues.

All laws are either moral or immoral. If God says do this and you do you are doing a moral thing, if God says don't do this and you do then you are doing an immoral thing.

If God says keep this ceremony and you do then you are doing a morally good thing, but if you don't then you are doing an immoral thing.

There may be several classifications of laws, such as ceremonial, civil, natural and such, but Moral is a different category above those subcategories. Breaking the civil law is immoral, breaking a ceremonial law is immoral.

Medicine is kicking in, I have a cold, so I may be rambling. Anyway, I think you get my point.

Chris

 

[tulc]

Well one thing I've noticed is: if it interferes with something I like? It's usually ceremonial and ended at the cross,. If it's something I don't like? There's a very good chance it was moral and is still in force for today.
tulc(well that's what I've found anyway)

 

[ebia]

Well one thing I've noticed is: if it interferes with something I like? It's usually ceremonial and ended at the cross,. If it's something I don't like? There's a very good chance it was moral and is still in force for today.
tulc(well that's what I've found anyway)

What he said.

The bible doesn't distinguish. Indeed it says quite forcably that there are no categories.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Paul's letters make it clear that the restriction on "fornication" includes at least one othr form of sexual immorality, but it also makes clear that the restiction on unclean meat is based on the conscience of the idividual: if you are not convinced that it is not sinful, then it is sinful -- for you; If your brother is not convinced that it is not sinful, don't flaunt your freedom and tempt him into participating in an action which is sinful for him.

Hi Ollie,

I just wanted to touch on this part of your post (forum willing). The unclean meat reference you gave, in specific, is dealing with meat sacrificed to idols. since a knowledgeable Christian knows that idols are nothing more than mere wood and stone, then they know they are not worshiping that false god by eating of it. However, a less knowledgeable christian may see this and consider it a sin for him to do so, and be tempted, or stumble because of it.

That being said, how does it apply to sexual conduct? Most christians find same-sex sex in error, but lets say they are less knowledgeable than a professing gay christian. Wouldn't that professing gay christian become a stumbling block to them by flaunting his freedom in front of them?

 

[OllieFranz]

Hi Ollie,

I just wanted to touch on this part of your post (forum willing). The unclean meat reference you gave, in specific, is dealing with meat sacrificed to idols. since a knowledgeable Christian knows that idols are nothing more than mere wood and stone, then they know they are not worshiping that false god by eating of it. However, a less knowledgeable christian may see this and consider it a sin for him to do so, and be tempted, or stumble because of it.

That being said, how does it apply to sexual conduct? Most christians find same-sex sex in error, but lets say they are less knowledgeable than a professing gay christian. Wouldn't that professing gay christian become a stumbling block to them by flaunting his freedom in front of them?

I was hoping to keep this more on the question posed in my OP. But since you asked a direct question, it deserves a direct answer.

First, remember that the word "flaunting" was mine, not Paul's. It was a(n) (over)simplification of Paul's message. Let us look at what Paul said, and did, and at what he did not say or do. And then compare that with analogous treatment of the other subject.

[BIBLE]Romans 14:1-4[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]1 Corinthians 8:1-13[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]1 Corinthians 8:4-8[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Colossians 2:16-17[/BIBLE]
and also
[BIBLE]Galatians 2:11-16[/BIBLE]

Paul openly proclaims eating the meat not to be sinful. So the mere knowledge that another brother interprets the command differently is not the stumbling block Paul warns against.

When Peter stopped eating (presumably non-kosher meals) with the Gentile converts of Antioch "so as not to offend" the Jewish Christians visiting from Jerusalem and his example led to all of the other Jewish-born Antiochian Christians likewise deserting their Gentile bretheren, Paul took him to task for the implied condemnation of the Gentile Christians' lifestyle. So not only is it that mere knowledge of a difference in philosophy, but also knowledge of a difference in lifestyle is not enough to be a stumbling-block.

Paul said that the meat is not forbidden. He said that if a "weaker brother" is avoiding the meat, then he will not eat it either (clearly the context is concerning either dining in public or sharing a meal with the weaker brother -- it would be a contradiction to say that there is nothing wrong with eating the meat if you are still forbidden to eat it).

But he also admonishes the weaker brother not to judge another brother who understands the commandment differently. It is not for anoher servant to judge, but for the Master.

So for a Christian to proclaim that his understanding of the Scriptures teaches that it is not a sin to be gay is not placing a stumbling block before the "weaker breteren." Nor is it for a Christian to be openly gay. So at what point would it become a stumbling block?

Obviously if he were to engage in "forbidden" sex in public or even in a semi-private situation where the "weaker brother" was expected to watch, or even participate. (These would be the extreme equivalents of dining on unclean meat in public or serving unclean meat at a dinner which included a "weaker brother.") But there is a huge gap between these actions and those described in the last paragraph.

In this gap, I can only suggest that the best guidelines are intent and effect. Take marriage, for example. Is a same-sex marriage a stumbling-block to the "weaker brother"? It can be if the intent or the effect is to proclaim "We are getting married in order to publically state that we are going to have sex."

But that is never the intent of a marriage. If a couple merely wanted to have sex, or even to advertise that they were having sex, they can do that without the trouble of a marriage ceremony. But what of the effect? Is the effect of a wedding the sudden realization on the part of the "weaker bretheren" that the couple will probably have sex? Normally not. And very often when it is, especially in the case of same-sex marriage, it is becaused the "weaker brother" has chosen to focus on that aspect of a marital relationship, specifically to pass judgment against it.

If you want to continue this discussion, I suggest you start a thread on the DoH board and I'll join you there.

In this thread, let's get back to the original purpose of determining how to tell which commandments we must still obey, and which were just for the Old Covenant.

 

[OllieFranz]

I have heard some serious attempts to make the distinctions that I have asked about here. For the most part, however, they mostly are neither Biblical, nor rigorous enough to make clear the distinction in every case. (Which is why I included the specific examples in the OP)

One approach is to say that the Torah specifically declares certain actions as "wicked" or "abominable" and others as merely "unclean" or bans them without editorializing at all. This approach says that the "wicked" and "abominable" actions are moral (and still forbidden) and the others are ceremonial (and not forbidden). But based on that criterion, the actions that are still forbidden include:

* Sharing a meal with Israelites is abominable to Egyptians (Gen 42:32)
* Daily association with foreign shepherds is abominable to the Egyptians (Gen 46:34)
* Hebrew sacrificial practices are abominable to the Egyptians (Exo 8:26)
* Lying with men (Lev 18:22 and 20:13)
* Foreign idols and the gold and silver that adorn them (Deut 7:25-26, 27:15)
* Child sacrifice and/or sacrifice to foreign gods (Deut 12:31, 13:12-17)
* The eating of unclean animals (Deut 14:3)
* Sacrificing diseased animals to the LORD (Deut 17:1)
* Certain (religious) practices of the Canaanites (Deut 18:9-12, 20:18, 32:16)
* Cross-dressing (Deut 22:5)
* Tithing with money earned in the (sexual) worship of foreign gods (Deut 23:18)
* Re-marrying a woman whom you divorced for sexual indecency (adultery?) and who was later married to someone else (and is now divorced again, or widowed) (Deut 24:1-4)
* Having sex with two women who are closely related (Lev 18:17, 20:14)
* Pimping your daughter, or otherwise forcing her to become a harlot (Lev 19:29)

and things that are merely "unclean" include

* Eating unclean animals (Lev 11, passim)
* Allowing abominable idols in the house (Deut 7:26)
* Objects that were offered in sacrifice to foreign idols (Deut 29:17, See also Acts 15:29)
​

Two problems surface immediately: 1) eating non-kosher is "unclean" but it is also abominable, and 2) some of the things specifically allowed in the letters of Paul are on the "forbidden" list. (Specifically sharing a meal with Gentiles)

The second approach is to proclaim that laws that carried the death penalty are moral (forbidden) and the rest are ceremonial (allowed). That runs into the same problems that the first approach did. Failure to keep the Sabbath was a capital offense, and yet Paul used exactly that as one of his examples of laws we are no longer bound by.

All of the approaches I have come across have similar flaws. There is only one I've heard that is both self-consistant and consistant with Scripture. And it is not a Christian approach, but a Jewish one. It is rooted in the idea of the Righteous Gentile and the distinction between the Law of Moses and the Law of Noah.

If a Gentile wished to honor the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, it was not necessary for him to convert to Judaism. To do so might even place him in unnecessary danger. Plus, it would subject him to the entire Law of Moses, parts of which might not be possible in a totally Gentile setting. Naaman was even told by the prophet Elisha that he could still bow down in the temple of Rimmon(2 Kings 5).

A righteous Gentile was not subject to the Law of Moses, but he (and all Gentiles) was subject to the Law of Noah. As developed by the Talmdic scholars, the law of Noah consisted of seven commandments:

1. Prohibition of Idolatry: You shall not have any idols before God.
2. Prohibition of Murder: You shall not murder. (Genesis 9:6)
3. Prohibition of Theft: You shall not steal.
4. Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: You shall not commit adultery.
5. Prohibition of Blasphemy: You shall not blaspheme God's name.
6. Prohibition of Cruelty to Animals: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive. (Genesis 9:4)
7. Requirement to have just Laws: You shall set up an effective judiciary to fairly judge observance of the preceding six laws.

Since all cultures agree (in principle, if not always in practice) with Laws 2, 3, and 7 (and to varying degrees, 4), And a righteous Gentile would accept Laws 1 and 5, they would only have to be specifically taught number 6 and a stricter version of 4. That is, to avoid the meat from non-kosher butchers and to refrain from sexual immorality -- exactly the two restrictions mentioned in Acts 15.

The problem is that, taken literally, the seven Laws are either too specific (Don't eat meat that was butchered before the animal was dead) or too vague and general (don't be cruel to animals). It is necessary to interpret how to apply them in any given situation.
In terms of the examples in the OP:

• Eating unclean meat (Paul tells us that most forms of Uncleanness are OK, but what about actual cruelty duirng preparation and butchery [for example veal or pate de foie gras]?)
• Cross-dressing (Is this a sexual immorality command or a non-mixing command?)
• Working on Sunday (Is this placing a creature [your boss] over God?)
• Having sex with a woman in her niddah (Purity command or sexual immorality command?)
• Sharing a meal with non-believers (Paul's rebuke of Peter was for not eating with Gentile Christians, not random Gentiles. But does this foster non-belief?)

Simply listing the seven laws does not solve the problem of whether certain actions are forbidden or allowed.

In the end, there is nothing to guide us but our individual consciences, and the traditions of the Church.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Another way to look at this subject would be to ask:

Q. How did God separate Israel from the Gentile world?
A. Through his commandments, judgements, and statutes. The whole Law of Moses.

Q. How does God separate his church (the remnant) from Israel?
A. Through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, witnessing with our spirit and conscience.

Christ contrasted several OT laws with what we ought to be about doing, thereby diminishing or disanulling them. But he did confirm the Ten Commandments but in their greater spiritual application. For example he acknowledged that the woman caught in adultery was indeed guilty, but didn't condemn her according to the Law, but instead urged her to repent. At stake wasn't her physical life at the hand of the Law, but her (and ours by implication) salvation. This was the 'change' in the Law that Paul spoke of later.

owg

 

[Steve Petersen]

Would you eat another human being? The idea is repulsive to most people.

This shows that there is a moral component to eating.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Take a look at this list of commandments. Notice how moral, civil and ceremonial are all intermixed.

Lev 19 (KJV) And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy. 3 Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the LORD your God. 4 Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the LORD your God. 5 And if ye offer a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD, ye shall offer it at your own will. 6 It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if ought remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire. 7 And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is abominable; it shall not be accepted. 8 Therefore every one that eateth it shall bear his iniquity, because he hath profaned the hallowed thing of the LORD: and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 9 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. 10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God. 11 Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another. 12 And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. 13 Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning. 14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD. 15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. 16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD. 17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. 19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. 20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. 21 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. 22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him. 23 And when ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then ye shall count the fruit thereof as uncircumcised: three years shall it be as uncircumcised unto you: it shall not be eaten of. 24 But in the fourth year all the fruit thereof shall be holy to praise the LORD withal. 25 And in the fifth year shall ye eat of the fruit thereof, that it may yield unto you the increase thereof: I am the LORD your God. 26 Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times. 27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. 28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. 29 Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a harlot; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness. 30 Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD. 31 Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God. 32 Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the LORD. 33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. 35 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure. 36 Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt. 37 Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the LORD.

 

[IronManMatt]

I think that the distinction between moral law and ceremonial law is completely man made since there is no such distinction in the Bible. I believe that people created this false distinction to justify saying things such as we no longer have to follow OT dietary laws but should still follow the 10 commandments. But we do not need to create a moral law versus ceremonial law distinction to avoid following some OT laws such as what we can eat and sacrificing animals to forgive our sins. All we need to do in follow what Jesus taught. Jesus said that not letter from the law or prophets shall pass away until all is fulfilled. But Jesus also changed, clarified, and deleted many OT laws, such as divorce, animal sacrifice and many others. Therefore we must follow all OT laws unless they were changed, clarified, or deleted by Jesus.
So we don’t have to decide for ourselves what OT laws to follow and we don’t have to create our own distinctions between moral and ceremonial laws. Jesus did all that work for us. Just one more reason to sing His praises.

 

[ebia]

I think that the distinction between moral law and ceremonial law is completely man made since there is no such distinction in the Bible. I believe that people created this false distinction to justify saying things such as we no longer have to follow OT dietary laws but should still follow the 10 commandments. But we do not need to create a moral law versus ceremonial law distinction to avoid following some OT laws such as what we can eat and sacrificing animals to forgive our sins. All we need to do in follow what Jesus taught. Jesus said that not letter from the law or prophets shall pass away until all is fulfilled. But Jesus also changed, clarified, and deleted many OT laws, such as divorce, animal sacrifice and many others. Therefore we must follow all OT laws unless they were changed, clarified, or deleted by Jesus.
So we don’t have to decide for ourselves what OT laws to follow and we don’t have to create our own distinctions between moral and ceremonial laws. Jesus did all that work for us. Just one more reason to sing His praises.

So you stone disrespectful children to death?

 

[david_x]

What, exactly, is the difference between a "moral" law and a "ceremonial" one?

Genneraly moral law is written and ceremonial law is passed down.

Like how "do not lie" is a moral law, while preaching in Latin or High German is ceremonial.

 

[seekthetruth909]

This is a point that comes up frequently on DoH, but I'm posting it here to get a more general viewpoint.

What, exactly, is the difference between a "moral" law and a "ceremonial" one? I can't find anywhere in the Torah that there is such a distinction made.

Nor is there a distinction made in Acts, or in the letters of Paul and James. In Acts 15, only four restrictions are placed on Christians: Three kinds of "unclean" meat and fornication. Paul's letters make it clear that the restriction on "fornication" includes at least one othr form of sexual immorality, but it also makes clear that the restiction on unclean meat is based on the conscience of the idividual: if you are not convinced that it is not sinful, then it is sinful -- for you; If your brother is not convinced that it is not sinful, don't flaunt your freedom and tempt him into participating in an action which is sinful for him.

So where does this supposed distinction between "moral law" and "ceremonial law" come from? And how do you determine whether a given law is "ceremonial" or "moral"?

For example, are the following violations of ceremonial law or moral law?

• Eating unclean meat
• Cross-dressing
• Working on Sunday
• Having sex with a woman in her niddah
• Sharing a meal with non-believers

Please explain exactly why or why not.

There is no distinction.Paul mentions the abolishment of the law numerous times but never makes a distinction.It is clear that all 613 old testament laws have been abolished, but some elements were incorporated into the new covenant.

The same debate over keeping moral and ceremonial law was debated by the apostles at the council of Jerusalem and it was decided that new believers should only follow three laws,abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. Acts 15

Jesus simplifies the law for us when he says that if we keep the two greatest commandments, love God and your neighbor, we are doing well. If you analyze the ten commandments, you realize that by disobeying the majority of them, you are not loving God or your neighbor.

Ephesians 2:15
"By 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."

Galatians 3:25 "Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law."

2 Corinthians 3:6 "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant-not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

Galatians 3:23 "Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed."

Galatians 3:11 "Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." [ Heb. 2:4]

Hebrews 8:7 "For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another."

Galatians 5:18 "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law."

Galatians 2:21 "I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

Galatians 3:2 " I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?"

Hebrews 10:8 First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made).

Galatians 5:3 "Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law."

Galatians 3:10 "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written:" "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."

Romans 7:2-4 "Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another -- to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God."

Romans 10.4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

2 Cor. 3.11 For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.

Colossians 2.14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Hebrews 10.9-10 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Hebrews 12.27Now this, "Yet once more," indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain.

Acts 13.39 and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

 

[seekthetruth909]

I think that the distinction between moral law and ceremonial law is completely man made since there is no such distinction in the Bible. I believe that people created this false distinction to justify saying things such as we no longer have to follow OT dietary laws but should still follow the 10 commandments. But we do not need to create a moral law versus ceremonial law distinction to avoid following some OT laws such as what we can eat and sacrificing animals to forgive our sins. All we need to do in follow what Jesus taught. Jesus said that not letter from the law or prophets shall pass away until all is fulfilled. But Jesus also changed, clarified, and deleted many OT laws, such as divorce, animal sacrifice and many others. Therefore we must follow all OT laws unless they were changed, clarified, or deleted by Jesus.
So we don’t have to decide for ourselves what OT laws to follow and we don’t have to create our own distinctions between moral and ceremonial laws. Jesus did all that work for us. Just one more reason to sing His praises.

Thank you for your input.
I understand what you are trying to say, but if that were the case, we would probably be required to obey about 600 of the old laws which Jesus never mentioned.
I look at it a different way. All the old testament laws were abolished.
A new covenant was made. Only the laws that are mentioned in the new testament are required for Christians.
Think of it like a mortgage.When your term expires you draw up a new contract. The new contract may include elements of the terms of the old contract.But because it is a new contract, there is no need to cancel terms of the old contract. The terms automaticlly ended with the first contract. Any old contract terms not mentioned in the new contract are abolished.
The old covenant between God and Israel ended. A new covenant through the blood of Christ on the cross has begun. It is between God and anyone who accepts Christ and believes.In this new covenant, terms of the old are incorporated into it.[Through the teachings of Christ and the apostles]There is no need in the New Testament to cancel all 613 terms of the old covenant. They were nailed to the cross.

God Bless

 

[Steve Petersen]

If Peter, (who was Paul's contemporary, spoke his language, and lived in his culture), had a hard time understanding Paul, what makes us think we can pick up and English translation of a 2000 year old epistle (written to mixed congregations of Jewish and Gentile believers meeting in largely unbelieving synagogues) and instantly understand what the issues were and who Pauls was addressing?

2 Pet 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

I'll take Jesus' word over Paul (rather your interpretation of Paul)

Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to lose authority.

If either Paul or Jesus did away with the Law, they are to be dismissed as False Prophets and should have been put to death:

Deu 13:1-11 (KJV) If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, 2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. 5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. 6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.

 

[tulc]

If either Paul or Jesus did away with the Law, they are to be dismissed as False Prophets and should have been put to death:

...actually...they were both put to death.
tulc(along with the Law)

 

[Steve Petersen]

...actually...they were both put to death.
tulc(along with the Law)

Nice try.

 

[ebia]

If Peter, (who was Paul's contemporary, spoke his language, and lived in his culture), had a hard time understanding Paul, what makes us think we can pick up and English translation of a 2000 year old epistle (written to mixed congregations of Jewish and Gentile believers meeting in largely unbelieving synagogues) and instantly understand what the issues were and who Pauls was addressing?

What makes you think anyone is expecting to instantly understand ... Paul? It's at least possible that some, or even many, of the views posted are based on serious scholarship.

I'll take Jesus' word over Paul (rather your interpretation of Paul)

Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to lose authority.

If either Paul or Jesus did away with the Law, they are to be dismissed as False Prophets and should have been put to death:

There's all the difference in the world between doing away with the Law, and fullfilling it. When you get to the destination it's no good still trying to still follow the signposts, but neither should you go back and dig them up.