Hi all. I've had a look at a few threads here which deal with the old law and how it correlates to the new testament. There seems to be a growing number of people today who want to go back to the old law as though the old ways are superior to what Jesus taught. I believe this video does a pretty good job of explaining why we should not keep going back to the law because Jesus is the fulfillment of all the promises to Abraham. I'd like to hear what others think and I look forward to discussing the issues.
All of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160) and God's ways are eternal (Habakkuk 3:6), so none of them will ever become old. In John 14:24, Jesus said that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father, so he taught the same law and how to walk in the same ways. Jesus set sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he would have still taught full obedience to it by example even if he had said nothing, including keeping the Sabbath holy, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6). Furthermore, he did not hypocritically preach something other than what he practiced, but rather he began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand (Matthew 4:17-23). The Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is an integral part of the Gospel of the Kingdom, which he prophesied would be proclaims to all of the nations (Matthew 24:12-14).
So everything that Jesus taught by word and by example was how to obey the Mosaic Law, which means that he was much more zealous for obedience to it than the Pharisees. He did not stretch of ignore the Sabbath, but he did disagree with a group of them about how to correctly keep the Sabbath. Jesus never criticized the Pharisees for keeping the Mosaic Law, but he did criticized them for not obeying it correct. For example, in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that tithing was something that they ought to be doing while not neglecting weightier matters of the law of justice, mercy, and faithfulness, so he was not coming against the law, but rather he was calling them to a fuller obedience to it. His purpose of criticizing the Pharisees was not in order to get them to stop obeying what God had commanded them to do.
Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in contrast with saying that he came not to abolish it, so you should not interpret that as meaning essentially the same thing, especially if you don't consistently interpret fulfilling the Law of Christ in Galatians 6:2 as abolishing it. Likewise, in Romans 15:18-19, Paul fulfilling the Gospel of Christ does not refer to abolishing it, but to fully preaching it. If you stop at a stop sign, then you have fulfilled that law, but you have not ended it. Rather, "to fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will as made known in His law to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfillment" (NAS Greek Lexicon pleroo 2c3). After Jesus said he came to fulfill the law in Matthew 5, he proceeded to fulfill it six times throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly obey it or by completing our understanding of it. In Galatians 5:14, loving our neighbor fulfills the entire law, so it refers to something that countless people have done, not to something unique that only Jesus did. Jesus said that not a jot or tittle would disappear from the law until heaven and earth passed away and all is accomplished, neither of which has happened yet, both of which won't happen until end times.
In Romans 9:30-10:4, the Israelites had a zeal for God, but it was not based on knowledge because they did not understand that the righteousness of God only comes through faith in Christ. So they failed to obtain righteousness because they pursued the Law as through righteousness were by works in an effort to establish their own instead of pursuing the Law as through righteousness were by faith, for Christ is the goal of the Law for righteousness for everyone who has faith. In Romans 10:5-10, Paul quoted Deuteronomy 30:11-16, in regard to this faith saying that God's Law is not too difficult for us to obey, that the one who obeys it will obtain life by it, and in regard to what it means to submit to Jesus as Lord. So there is nothing in the context of this verse that even remotely suggests that Christ is ending his eternal Law, but just the opposite.
In Acts 18:18, Paul took a Nazarite vow, which involved making sin offerings (Numbers 6) and in Acts 21:20-24, Paul was on his way to pay for and join the purification rites of others who had taken a similar vow in order to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against the Law and to show that he continued to live in obedience to it. In Hebrews 8:4, it speaks about offerings that were still being made in accordance with the Law. Furthermore, it says that Jesus would not be a priest if he were still on earth, and if the Law were no longer in effect, then it would have no power to do prevent that. So offerings did not stop with the death or resurrection of Jesus, but only stopped because of the destruction of the temple. However, the Bible prophesies of a time when a third temple will be built and when offerings will resume, so those laws have not gone anywhere (Ezekiel 44-46).
I've read a Hebrew manuscript with vowel points that clearly states the name of God as Yehovah and the name of Messiah as Yeshua, so that is what it was known to be as far as the Masoretes were concerned, and that is good enough for me. The Spring Festivals were prophetic in regard to Christ's first coming while the Fall Festivals are prophetic in regard to his second coming. Our salvation is from sin and sin is the transgression of the Mosaic Law, so there is no sense in someone wanting salvation from living in disobedience to the Mosaic Law while wanting nothing to do with repenting and living in obedience to it by faith. Jesus said in John 5:46-47 that if they believed Moses, then they would believe him because Moses wrote about him, but if they don't believe what he wrote, then how can they believe his words, so we can't believe in Jesus without also believing in Moses.
The phrase "Law and the Prophets" straightforwardly refers to everything in the Law and the Prophets. Jesus did not teach anything that wasn't in accordance with the Mosaic Law in Matthew 5. In Leviticus 19:17, we are instructed not to hate our brother, so that was nothing brand new. If you think that God made the Sabbath for man, then you should regard it as a precious gift from God, not spurn it.
You speak about holiness and righteousness are if they are somehow negative character traits, when they are never treated as such in the Bible. In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct, which straightforwardly includes keeping God's Sabbaths holy (Leviticus 19:2-3) and refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:4-45), so following those instructions is about testifying to nations about the holiness of our God. Likewise, in 1 Peter 2:9-10, Gentiles are included as part of God's chosen people, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and a treasure of God's own possession, which as all terms used to describe Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6), so Gentiles also have the delight of getting to obey the instructions that God gave for how to fulfill those roles.
Sin is the transgression of the law, and we have been set free from sin in order to be free to obey God's law, not the other way around (Romans 8:3-4). In John 1:16-17, it says grace upon grace, so the grace of Christ was added upon the grace of the law, and there is not "but" in verse 17 in the Greek. The way to serve the Lord Jesus Christ is not by refusing to follow the Law that he followed and spent his ministry teaching his followers how to obey by word and by example.