When Saul converted to Christianity, he left the law of Moses and Judaism to become a Christian and was under law to Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21) not under law to Moses. Paul condemned those in Galatia for leaving the NT and going back to the OT pointing out it was sinful, Galatians 5:4; Romans 7:1-6.
Paul never stopped identifying as either a Jew (Acts 21:39, 22:3) or as Pharisee (Acts 23:6). Jesus is Jesus did not come to start his own religion following a different God, but rather he came to bring fullness to Judaism as its Jewish Messiah in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. Christ practiced Judaism by living in sinless obedience to the Torah and he taught his followers how to practice it by word and by example, so it doesn't make sense to think that the Law of Christ was something other than what Christ taught. In Acts 21:20, they were rejoicing that tens of thousands of Jews were coming to faith who were all zealous for the Torah, so Jews who were coming to faith were not ceasing to obey it and were not considering themselves to be converting to a different religion. In Acts 21:20-24, Paul took steps to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against the Torah and to show that he continued to live in obedience to it, so all Christians were Torah observant Jews for roughly the first 7-15 years after Christ's resurrection up until the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10, so Christianity at its origin was the form of Judaism that recognized Jesus as its prophases Messiah.
All throughout the Bible, God wanted His people to repent and to return to obedience to His law, and even Christ began his ministry with that message, so it doesn't make sense to interpret Galatians 5:4 as Paul warning us against following Christ and saying that we will be cut off from Christ if we follow Christ. In Psalms 119:29, David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, so that is how God is gracious to us, not the way to fall form grace. Paul's problem in Galatians was not with those who were teaching Gentiles how to follow Christ, but with those who were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of the law in order to become justified.
In Romans 7:22, Paul delighted in obeying God's law, but contrasted that with the law of sin that held him captive, so if Romans 7:4-6 were referring to God's law, then that would mean that Paul was speaking against obeying a law that he delighted in obeying, that he delighted in stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, and that he delighted in being held captive, which is absurd, but rather it is the law of sin that he described as holding him captive.
Circumcision being nothing implies the OT law is nothing, it is not necessary to salvation nor does it dicatate, direct NT Christianity. Romans 2:25 says nothing at all about people today having to keep the OT law. In the context of Romans chapter 1 and 2 Paul is proving all, both Gentile and Jew, are sinners. After proving Gentiles are sinners in chapter 1 Paul turns his attention to the Jews in chapter 2. The Jews were given their own law which gave them an advantage over the Gentile, (Romans 3:1-2). Even though it was an advantage to the Jew, being given that OT law obligated the Jew to also keep it, obey it...which they did not. Paul pointed out the Jews hypcrisy under that OT law "thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?" The Jews accused others of stealing when they stole themselves, they robbed from God (Malachi 3:8-9). Paul's point therefore in Romans 2:25 is that even though the Jews were given their own law and it came with certain privileges as circumcision, they were obligated to keep that law which they did not....they sinned therefore proving Paul's point that Jews are also sinners just as the Gentiles therefore no better than the Gentiles, (Romans 3:9).
So in Romans 2 Paul's point is NOT trying to prove that the OT law is to be kept by men today but rather Paul's point was to prove Gentile and Jews are both sinners and Paul demonstrates the Jews did not keep the OT law given them thereby making them sinners proving his point. The point remains, circumcision is nothing thereby the OT law is nothing.
The Mosaic Law is the commandments of God, so unless you are only interested in quote mining, Paul saying that circumcision has not value and that what matters is obeying the commandments of God could not be interpreted as saying that the commandments of God count for nothing. Paul also said that circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2) and he conditionally said that circumcision has value if we obey the Mosaic Law (Romans 2:25), so it should be clear that there are conditions where circumcision has value and where it does not, and the deciding factor is whether we obey the Mosaic Law. In Romans 2:26, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by their obedience to the Mosaic Law, which is the same way to tell for a Jew. Our salvation is from sin and God's law is how we know what sin is (1 John 3:4), so it is contradictory for someone to think that they need salvation from living in transgression of God's law while also thinking that they aren't obligated to obey it.
Many Jews did keep the Mosaic Law, such as Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:5-6), so Paul calling out the hypocrisy of some Jews does not mean that all Jews were acting that way or that there were no Jews obeying the Mosaic Law. The fact that Paul was criticizing people for their hypocrisy does not negate what he said.
David did love the OT law and kept it for it ws the law he lived under. But we today are not under the OT but are to love and keep Christ's NT that can justify which that OT law David lived under could not do. Psalms 66:13-15 David offered animal sacrifices as the OT law required. Are you offering these sacrifices as David? THose under the law are bound to keep the WHOLE law for just one offense brings the curse of the law upon one.
The same God who gave the law to Moses also sent Jesus, who set a sinless example for us to follow, and who did not hypocritically preach something other than what he practiced, so there is no disagreement. Jesus did not establish the New Covenant in order to undermine anything that he spent his ministry teaching by word or by example, but rather it still involves following the God's law (Hebrews 8:10).
The Israelites were given instructions for what to do once they had entered the land while they were still wandering the desert, so there is nothing wrong with not following laws that can't currently be followed. Likewise, when they were in exile in Babylon, the condition for their return to the land was to first return to obedience to His law, which required them to have access to the temple, which they didn't have while they were in exile, when if there is a law that we can't obey, then God honors it when we are faithful to obey as much as we can. In Deuteronomy 11:26-32, the difference between being under God's blessing or His curse is based on whether to we follow God or chase after others gods, not based on whether or not we have perfect obedience. Living in complete disobedience to God's law is not an available option to avoid coming under God's curse.
When Paul spoke of 'bondage" or "yolk of bondage" he was for a fact referring to the OT law. False Judaizing teachers lead away some Christians at Galatia away from the NT (Galatians 1:6-7) back to the OT trying to make them keep the OT law. Paul clearly refers to the OT law as "bondage", how those Galatians left freedom in Christ found in the NT and lead back to "bondage" of the OT law, Galatians 2:4. Paul says in returning back to the OT law those Galatians were returning refers to the "weak & beggerly" as Paul calls the OT, Galatians 4:9. Leaving Christ and the NT gospel, they were returning back to bondage of the OT law (Galatians 5:1). The OT law is called bondage for it 'bound' one to sin. To be justified before God under the OT law, that law required perfect, flawless law keeping which the Jew could not do, the Jew would always sin thereby leaving the Jew in "bondage" to sin.
Paul was speaking about works of the law being bondage, not God's law. In Romans 3:31, Paul said that our faith upholds God's law, so there is a law that he spoke again and a law that he was in favor of keeping, and you don't bother to determine which law he was speaking about, then you are guaranteed to misunderstand him. In Galatians 4:8, Paul addressed those verses to those who formerly did not know God, so they were not formerly keeping God's law, which means that he could not have been criticizing them for returning to it. You should be more careful not to take something that was only said against man as being against obeying God.
The view that we have of the Mosaic Law matches the view that we have of the Lawgiver. For example, God is trustworthy, therefore His law is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7), and a law that isn't trustworthy can't come from a God who is trustworthy. The Psalms express an extremely positive view of the Mosaic Law, which certainly matched his view of the Lawgiver, so if you have such a poor view of the Mosaic Law that you consider it to be bondage, then you must have an equally poor view of the Lawgiver. Paul also delighted in obeying God's law (Romans 7:22) and that is incompatible with viewing it as being bondage.
Romans 6:19-23 there is nothing here at all about men today having to keep any of the OT law. Paul's point in Romans 7:1-6 still stands in it being sinful to return back to the OT law. Paul uses the insitution of marriage to make his point. If a woman is already married yet marries another man then she is an adulteress being married to 2 men at the same time. This is parallel to the Christian who is married to Christ and His NT, it the Christian goes back to keep thereby 'marry' himself to the OT law then he is committing spiritual adultery against Christ. Yet if the woman's first husband is dead she is free from the law to marry another man. This is parallel to Christ Who took the all OT law out of the way on the cross freeing men from having to keep that law and therefore can keep Christ's NT law without committing spiritual adultery in keeping both laws. Paul's point about it being sinful (spiritual adultery) to go back to the OT law is very simple and straightforward here.
In Romans 6, those Romans being freed from sin turning to serve righteousness came about as a result of their obeying the NT gospel, not the OT law. The doctrine delivered them which they obeyed (Romans 6:17) was the NT gospel. Again, the OT law and its strict requirment in keeping ALL the law flawlessly and perfectly could not justify for the Jew would always sinned. If the OT law and its sacrifices could perfectly justify then there would have been no need for Christ to come to earth and die and bring His NT gospel that does justify, Hebrews 10:1-4 if that OT law come make the comers unto it perfect then there would be no reason for that law to cease making Christ's death in vain Galatians 2:21..."for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain"
Everything in Romans 6 is speaking in favor of obedience to God and against sin. We need to die to sin in order to rise with Christ in newness of life in obedience God, not the other way around. God's law is His instructions for how to serve righteousness. It is completely absurd to think that is is sinful to obey God's law, especially when sin is defined as the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4). At no point was the man ever set free from needing to obey any of God's laws, so there is nothing that leads to the same conclusion that in the same way it now sinful to obey God's laws. It is absurd to think that we need to reject God's instructions for how to bear fruit for Him in order to be free to bear fruit for him, or to think that the way to have unity with Christ is by refusing to follow what he spent his ministry teaching by word and by example. Christ didn't teach any laws in the NT that weren't in accordance with the OT and he was not in disagreement with what the Father commanded.
In Romans 3:21-22, it does not say that the Law and the Prophets testify that the righteousness of God comes through perfect obedience, but rather they testify that it comes through faith in Christ for all who believe, so this has always been the one and only way to become righteous. Even if someone managed to live in perfect obedience to the Mosaic Law, then they still would not earn their justification because our justification is not something that can be earned as a wage (Romans 4:4-5), so that has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of why we should obey God's law. It is not as though the fact that we aren't made righteous by obeying God means that we don't need to obey God.
The NT is what guides the Christian, not the OT law. THe NT guides the Christian in how he is to worship, not the OT law. In Hebrews chapter 9 and 10 Paul shows the difference between these 2 laws. Worship under the OT law was carnal in nature "which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation" (Hebrews 9:10). Whereas NT worship is done is spirit (John 4:23-24). Note the word "until" in Hebrews 9:10. Until is a time limiting word, the OT law was to be kept UNTIL a time of reformation ('time of refreshing' Acts of the Apostles 3:19) which came with Christ and His NT gospel. There was no 'time of refeshing" under the OT law where sins could be wiped out completely, (Hebrews 10:3-4) for that could only happen under the NT gospel and the blood of Christ.
Christ should be who guides Christians, and he taught obedience to the Mosaic Law by word and by example. When the NT teaches us to repent from our sins, it is teaching us to obey the Mosaic Law because it was given to teach what sin is. Hebrews 9:10 is referring to regulations in regard to the body, not to the carnal nature of God's law because carnal works are always those done in disobedience to it. For example, in Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who have minds on the flesh who refuse to submit God's law. In Galatians 5:19-22, everything listed as carnal works that are against the Spirit are also against the Mosaic Law, while all of the fruits of the Spirit are in accordance with it. The time of the reformation is when conditions are restores to how they were in the Garden.
