1. Hebrews 10:4-11 points out that all law founded in animal sacrifice and offerings end at the cross.
2. Only 3 of the Lev 23 annual Sabbaths were mandatory for all Jews even in the OT - so some were clearly optional back then.
In figuring out divisions of the law in the old covenant we are not primarily concerned with changes due to the new such as Hebrews. But since you raised the issue, Hebrews 10 indicates that the old covenant sacrifices could never take away sins and that they were shadows, of which Jesus is the reality. His one sacrifice for sins was sufficient, which we agree on.
However, the Jewish believers went on performing sacrifices and keeping the portions of the law that applied to them per Acts 21, viewing Jesus as the fulfillment, but still following the Torah.
The Acts council decision in Acts 15 was not to decide whether the Jewish believers would stop following all the law, but what to do with the gentiles. And no, I am not suggesting that the requirements at the council were the totality of gentile requirements, there are many imperatives in the NT.
But James and the rest were zealous for the whole law.
3. There was never an OT command for gentiles to observe the Lev 23 ceremonial laws in the OT - by contrast in Isaiah 56:6-8 gentiles are specifically singled out for weekly Sabbath keeping.
We agree that they were never commanded to keep the appointed times. Though there is a bit more to it. They were not allowed to keep the passover at all unless they were circumcised. But those who wanted to join themselves to the Lord would normally be circumcised and then keep the portions of the law that applied to them, entering the old covenant. So saying that they would not have to keep what they were not commanded is true, except that usually they would once they followed the Lord under the old law. Now of course, what is required under the new covenant is what we will be discussing, but for now we are looking at your divisions of the law in the old covenant.
As to the Sabbath, you don't have to go as far as Isaiah, the commandment itself speaks of the stranger in thy gates.
And regarding Isaiah, again, note the phrasing. It was for those who joined themselves to the covenant.
6 And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord
to minister to him,
to love the name of the Lord,
and to be his servants,
all who keep the SabbathS)" without desecrating it
and who hold fast to my covenant—
In the OT times you would join yourself to the old covenant, and to Israel.
Now the question is how that relates to the new covenant, and did anything change. But first we are looking at your division of moral law.
4. If we were all living before the time of the cross and a Jew asked me if it would be a sin for them to ignore the Passover I would say "yes".
Yes, that was what I was asking about. And it would also be for a stranger who joined himself to the Lord and His covenant, and was circumcised.
So how was it not "moral" if it was a sin to not do it?
Good that we have a baseline of what the better promises were, and that the torah on the heart is the better implementation.
Gal 1:6-9 only ONE gospel - whether NT or OT - there is only that one.
Gal 3:8 that one Gospel was "preached to Abraham"
John 8 "Abraham saw My day and was glad".
All are heirs of the promises of Abraham of the seed to come.
So the LAW of God known to Jeremiah and his readers (exegesis again) is the context for the New Covenant Law written on the heart. And that most certainly includes the TEN - as you have already agreed -- but it is not limited to the TEN.
Correct. And it included everything for Jewish believers, which is the point Adventists often don't care for. But we see it in Acts 21. They were zealous for the entire law, with vows, sacrifices, etc.
The difficulty is what changed for gentiles. We seem to both agree circumcision was not required for gentiles, due to a number of clear texts including Acts 15, Galatians, Romans, etc.
They are heirs of the promises to Abraham, who is the father of both those who have faith and are circumcised, and those who do not have faith and are circumcised.
But that is a key distinction because that would normally be what would accompany their dedication to the whole law through joining the covenant. Hence at the council the point under discussion was that some wanted to require the gentiles to be circumcised, and to keep the law of Moses. Essentially they wanted them to do what gentiles would normally do when joining themselves to the Lord under the old covenant.
Acts 15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
They council of course ruled not to require them to be circumcised and keep the whole law. So now we are back to asking what was required of gentiles. The Jewish believers kept the entire law, but now instead of depending on their own promise to do all that the Lord commanded, they have the law written on their heart, and God is the one who puts it in their mind.
Here is the letter containing the decision:
Acts 15:24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.
Now as I mentioned, the list is not exhaustive. We see a number of commands for gentiles in the NT. And in fact Paul states in I Timothy 1:
5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, 6 from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.
8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.
Now this points out that the role of the law was to increase transgression, and the law was to point out sin, as we see in Romans. Being written down it made it plain what was required. Yet in the new covenant the law is not the primary guide of righteousness, but Christ living in us by His Spirit which produces fruit. Against such there is no law, per Galatians.
But this does raise some issues. If the Gentiles were not required to be circumcised, and keep the whole law, what were they required to do?
And this is usually where we start to see divergence. Some Messianics propose that Acts 15 was saying that they did have to be circumcised and keep the whole law, but they were just given a few requirements as training wheels. Other denominations propose division of moral and ceremonial requirements, as you noted. Some propose only the ten. But I think we can rule out only the ten based on specific statements in the NT towards primarily gentile churches. And then some propose that they don't have to keep any of the law, but that they have died to the law and by the Spirit they live out the righteous requirements of the law. Under this notion the Acts 15 requirements are usually seen as a compromise for worship together, or Noahide requirements, and the imperatives in the NT practical applications of the Spirit.
To me the quotations of various points of the law indicate moral principles, so I tend to agree with you that the concept of the law written on the heart in Romans 3 suggests that the moral requirements are what are enjoined.
However, I wish it were more clearly stated as to the divisions of the law, because they all seemed required, morally binding, and some are stated to be an everlasting covenant.
To me this is partly resolved by noting that the Jewish believers continued to keep all of it, but seeing Christ as the fulfillment. And this actually made sense for outreach purposes as well. Jews would not have much interest in Torah-less faith. But they were interested in a faith that saw Jesus as the fulfillment of the law given to them. And they were interested in the new covenant that gave better promises, and wrote the Torah on their heart and placed it in their minds.
Gentiles were not as interested in circumcision and being joined to every requirement of the Jewish law, and they did not need to be. In this regard I see the Acts council as meeting both needs. The Jewish believers were zealous for the law (Acts 21), and the gentiles were not required to be circumcised and keep all of it, but were still bound by moral requirements.
