But the NT does not seem to treat all the Mosaic law as a whole.
Romans 13:8-10 specifically states which of the Decalogue the law of Christ fulfills. Christ's law does not fulfill the whole law.
Galatians 4:10 specifies which of the ceremonial law is being observed.
In neither of these cases, are the regulations called just "the law" and treated as a single unit.
Circumcision was necessary to enter the covenant of Abraham, to which the Mosaic covenant was simply a temporary addition (Galatians 3:19; Romans 5:20).
Circumcision was a sign (Genesis 17:11) of putting/cutting off the flesh (consecration to God)--as I see baptism to be in the new covenant (Colossians 2:11-12), which consecration was the condition of the Abrahamic covenant to be their God (Genesis 17:7), and which sign was then reiterated in the purification laws of Sinai because they were still under the Abrahamic covenant.
I'm not getting the connection between circumcision and love of neighbor here.
I really like your unified view.
But the NT does not seem to treat all the Mosaic law as a whole.
And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day? (ex 4:8)
And this is the law which Moses set before the children of Israel: These are the testimonies, and the statutes, and the judgments, which Moses spake unto the children of Israel, after they came forth out of Egypt. (Deut 4:44-45)
Those testimonies, statutes, and judgments were written in stone with the ten commandments and the ordinances of the tabernacle and priesthood of Aaron: all being concluded as the law, which made the priesthood of Aaron by God in the mount, and was given under that priesthood to the people by Moses in the wilderness. (Heb 7:11,16)
God's law is always to be treated as whole:
all the law as a whole. (2 Chron 33:8)(Gal 5:3)(James 2:10)
All the law of the God of Israel was given to Moses for the first covenant, which ended at the cross with His crucifixion, and all the law of the risen God of Israel is given to the apostles for the second covenant, which began with His resurrection.
Romans 13:8-10 specifically states which of the Decalogue the law of Christ fulfills.
I can accept 'which of the Decalogue', or
some of the decalogue being in the law of Christ, which is fulfilled by the great commandment.
Therefore, there would only remain a very tiny little fine line of verbal difference between us, though the results are the same:
I say, the 'Decalogue':
the words of the covenant, the ten commandments written on stone (Ex 34:28) ended with that covenant at the cross per 2 Cor 3. I.e. there is no more 'Decalogue', even as there is no more law of Moses nor first covenant of God.
God has completely changed His law; however, as you point out there are commandments written in the Law of Christ by the apostles, which were also written in the law of God by Moses:
Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old. (Matthew 13)
Even as some of Israel after the flesh are graft in again to the house of Israel of God, so is some of the law of Moses written in again to the law of Christ. But the old man and the law of old had to be crucified first and done away, as in
sins that are past, before all things could become new and of God in Christ Jesus.
When they crucified their own Lawgiver, whom they rejected, they also crucified their law, which they idolized above the Lawgiver.
Christ's law does not fulfill the whole law. Galatians 4:10 specifies which of the ceremonial law is being observed.
Is the law of Christ partner to the law of Moses to become the whole law of God with the new covenant?
Is this not taken out of context and used to mean something entirely opposite?
But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
Paul specifies which of the law of Moses is being observed, and
rebukes them for it. He was not acknowledging their observances of days as good Christian practise, much less commending it, but rather plainly rebuking it, even as that of outward circumcision.
The law of Christ is inward circumcision, and there is no observance of days to be kept. Trying to be 'Jewish Christians' is not being Jesus Christ Christians.
Paul is warning Christians against trying to do so in keeping any law of Moses for law of God in Christ Jesus. To do so is to beggar ourselves from worshipping and walking after the Spirit, and to be in danger of falling from grace, so that the labor of the ministry of Christ is made vain to us.
Circumcision was necessary to enter the covenant of Abraham, to which the Mosaic covenant was simply a temporary addition (Galatians 3:19; Romans 5:20).
Not temporary so long as the law of Moses was in effect: no more circumcision on the 8th day, no more law of Moses, which was the significance of the battle of Judaism: they wanted to retain law of Moses as necessary in living for Christ.
I say, the whole first covenant made by law was purposely temporary, so that God could bring circumcision into law. And when that law was done away at the cross, then no more people of born of flesh could rightly be called a people of promise to Abraham, because they could no more be confirmed in that promise by outward circumcision.
Circumcision of flesh was purposely put into law, so that with ending of that law would be the ending of that circumcision (Rom 2:28). The first covenant made by law of Moses was the Lord's plan of carrying outward circumcision to the grave with His dead body.
He rose again, but left the old and outward to decay and vanish away as a dead corpse of carnal flesh (Heb 8:13). But the Jews religion of so-called 'Messianic Judaism' has prevented it from vanishing of the face of the earth, by willfully abiding in unbelief, and blinding themselves to Jesus Christ by an idolatry of Moses and carnal law of circumcision.
I'm not getting the connection between circumcision and love of neighbor here.
The law of Moses could never be fulfilled, which means fully kept, by the great commandment, because that law commanded 8th day outward circumcision. A child of Israel in the first covenant could never even begin to practise the great commandment, if not first circumcised the 8th day, because that soul would be cut off from the people of Israel.
I.e. how could a first covenant child of Israel ever have the law of Moses fulfilled without 8th day circumcision, no matter how much they tried to 'love their neighbor'?
Now, the law of Christ is fulfilled by the great commandment, because no such law of carnal obedience is written in order to be accepted into the body of Christ, which is with circumcision of the Spirit, not with hands of men.
I really like your unified view.
I.e. you appreciate the consistency of my argument, as I do you, even if we don't agree in every detail. Such as my unified view of the whole law...