***This might usefully take us back to what the [first question in this series](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/107548/10672) pointed to – Paul’s explanation to Christians*** in Galatians 3:10-12. That last verse is connected to Leviticus 18:5. And perhaps 1 Peter 3:18 might show God’s plan of saving humanity from this curse of the law. But I don’t want to cramp your answers, just so long as they actually stick to the confines of this last series of questions – if you don’t mind! Is it reasonable to suggest that justification cannot be obtained through human efforts; that faith in the work of Christ avails for salvation, and that reliance to any degree on works excludes trust in the finished work of Christ? This question is scoped for any Christians who believe perfect obedience to God’s laws are the goal all Christians should, and could, aspire to, to be justified; but as there may be very few such individuals on this site, to also seek answers from those who say such a thing is impossible, but that there are aspects of God’s law Christians must follow, albeit not with salvation in view, but to please and honour him.

### Introduction The Law of Moses/Torah of Moses are a body of commandments and laws which were given to the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai by God. Observant Jews continue to follow these laws as understood through rabbinic traditions and interpretations, while most major Christian denominations more or less do not. The Old Testament/Hebrew Bible contains many scriptures which seem to indicate that the Mosaic law is eternal and uses the same word used elsewhere that describes God being eternal: **Exodus 31:16–17 (NRSV)** indicates observance of the Sabbath is an eternal activity: > Therefore the Israelites shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a **perpetual covenant**. It is a sign **forever** between me and the Israelites that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. **Leviticus 16:29-34** indicates Yom Kippur should be observed forever: > This shall be a statute to you **forever**: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall humble yourselves ... This shall be an **everlasting statute** for you, to make atonement for the Israelites once in the year for all their sins. And Moses did as the Lord had commanded him. **Deuteronomy 29:29** seems to indicate that all the words of the law should be followed for all time by the children of Israel: > The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the revealed things belong to us and to our children **forever**, to observe all the words of this law. **Jeremiah 31:31** makes a promise that the Jews will have the Mosaic law written on their heart in the future: > The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: **I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts**, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another or say to each other, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more. ### Question Do Christians believe that the Hebrew Bible prophesied that the commandments it called eternal would one day end? Is there an Old Testament basis for believing observance of the Mosaic law would not be forever? Views from all denominations welcome.

Deuteronomy speaks several times of a curse attached to God’s law given to Moses, especially in the book of Deuteronomy (e.g. 11:26-30 & 27:4-26.) It is also mentioned elsewhere in the O.T. and Paul goes into this curse to help Christians avoid it (e.g. Galatians 3:10-12). In principle, the law of Moses could bring either a blessing or a curse. That was its very nature. But **this question is only interested in what ‘the curse of the law’ is.** Because this is so vast a topic, I have posted 2 separate follow-up questions, to prevent massive answers, or a debate arising, or lots of comments. The other 2 ask ***‘[Who lie under the curse?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/107549/who-lie-under-the-curse-of-the-law-of-moses-2nd-of-3-questions-on-this-topic)’*** and then, ***‘[What are the consequences of the curse?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/107550/what-are-the-consequences-of-the-curse-attached-to-the-law-of-moses-3rd-of-3-q)’*** This question is scoped for any Christians who believe perfect obedience to God’s laws are the goal all Christians should, and could, aspire to, to be justified; but as there may be very few such individuals on this site, to also seek answers from those who say such a thing is impossible, but that there are aspects of God’s law Christians must follow, albeit not with salvation in view, but to please and honour him.

Who did it apply to in the time of Moses, then in the time of Christ what did Paul say about Gentiles also being cursed in their rebellion (disobedience)? (e.g. Romans 1:18-23 & 2:14-15 & 3:9). Does this mean that the curse rested not only upon the Jews, who had the written law, but also on all men seeking acceptance with God through works of law-keeping? ***The 3rd question in this series asks about [what the consequences of the curse are](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/107550/10672).*** This question is scoped for any Christians who believe perfect obedience to God’s laws are the goal all Christians should, and could, aspire to, to be justified; but as there may be very few such individuals on this site, to also seek answers from those who say such a thing is impossible, but that there are aspects of God’s law Christians must follow, albeit not with salvation in view, but to please and honour him. LINK to 1st question in series: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/107548/what-is-the-curse-of-the-law-of-moses-1st-of-3-questions-on-this-topic/107619#107619

It is often stated that it is impossible for us to Keep the Law - or at least it must be impossible without first receiving the Holy Spirit. Studying the OT closely, I keep finding scriptures that assert otherwise (like Moses’ speech in Deuteronomy 30). King Saul not only continues to sin after receiving the HS, but sins so greatly that God revokes his Spirit from Saul! (So much for once saved always saved). And even King David - who is otherwise treated as the Gold Standard for OT Kings - commits sins that the Law demands death for after receiving the HS. After completing another read-through of 2 Kings, I found what appears to be the perfect counter example: Josiah. After learning of the Book of the Law, Josiah re-instates the Covenant and carries out his duties to rid the land of the worship of foreign gods and other sinful practices. No fault is listed against him, and in the final analysis he is raised up even over King David: 2 Kings 23:25 > Before [Josiah] there was no king like him who turned to the Lord with all his heart, all his soul, and all his might, in conformity to all the Law of Moses; nor did any like him arise after him. It is worth noting that not only did Josiah perfectly follow the Law, but he also did so without having been blessed with the HS as his predecessors Saul and David had been. How do those that maintain that only Christ and/or only those that have the HS can keep the Law reconcile that with King Josiah?

What does teaching morality result in?

I am researching *substantiated references to statements from Presbyterian Denominations* ; I am not seeking 'biblical responses' or individual opinions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Many Presbyterian Denominations uphold the Westminster Confession and other 'statements of faith' which follow on from it. As a result, many promote the law as being the 'rule of life' for the Christian believer. But this does not appear to me to be what Paul the apostle is advocating in Galatians 5:22-25. > But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: ***against such there is no law***. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also ***walk in the Spirit***. [Galatians 5:22-25 KJV] Paul, here, states that Christian believers have 'crucified the flesh'. Clearly this is a spiritual matter not a physical one. *Their faith aligns them with Christ.* Thus, as Paul says in another place, God ... hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, Ephesians 2:5,6. These things are not physical, but spiritual and a *matter of believing.* Thus, if their flesh is crucified (by faith in Christ) the law is no longer held before them. ***For the law has nothing to say to someone who is dead.*** The law has seen a just conclusion to sin, in that death. >For he that is dead is freed from sin. [Romans 6:7 KJV] Rather, in his epistle to the churches of Galatia, Paul points the Galatian believers to the working of the indwelling Spirit (not to an external rule of law). And he emphasises that the workings of the Holy Spirit produce in them : love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. If such is within them, says Paul, there is no law that will condemn them. Against such, he says, there is no law. As he says in yet another place : >There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. [Romans 8:1,2 KJV] Or, if I remove the translated English ambiguity from the Greek text, and then translate the Greek word, *nomos*, with another one of the legitimate English word translations : >... the rule of the Spirit (of life in Christ Jesus) hath made me free from the rule of sin and death. What do Presbyterian Denominations say in regard to Galatians 5:22-25 to support their idea that the law is the 'rule of life' for the believer ? --------------------------------- EXTRACTS from the Westminster Confession, Chapter 19 : - The moral law doth **forever [sic] bind all**, as well justified persons [sic] as others , to the obedience thereof. - Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, **as a rule of life,** informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly ... - ... and **the threatenings of it** serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, Westminster Confession - Chapter 19 --------------------------------------------------------------- All scriptural quotes and references are to the KJV and the Received Text.

I am wondering if there are any statements in the Old Testament which either: A) Foretell a time when the Law of Moses will be abrogated (in the way Christ does in the NT) or B) States that some of the Laws within Deuteronomy were given for the 'Hardness of Heart', as Jesus claims - or some paraphrase of that idea. Notes: I am Catholic, so I'll accept any references coming from Deuterocanonical books. The Laws I am most concerned about are the usual controversial ones which seem to our modern outlook violent or less than perfect.

Cornelius à Lapide, S.J., commentating on John 18:31 ("It is not lawful for us to put any man to death"), writes: >it was specially the practice of the sect of the Pharisees not to condemn any one to death (see Josephus Ben-Gorion, *Hist. Jud.* iv. 6). But weren't the Pharisees known for following the letter of the law, such as Ex. 22:18 : "Malefactors thou shalt not suffer to live"? They considered Jesus a great seducer, sorcerer, malefactor.

> Matthew 22:24 (KJV) Saying, "Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother." In general do Christians believe it is OK to marry the wife of a deceased brother? How about if she has already children from the first marriage?

Deuteronomy 13:1-4 [states](http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0513.htm) : >1. All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. > > 2. If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams--and he give thee a sign or a wonder, > > 3. and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee--saying: 'Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them'; > > 4. thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God putteth you to proof, to know whether ye do love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. My understanding is that Christians believe that Jesus abrogated the Mosaic law (e.g. keeping the Sabbath, dietary restrictions, etc.) and they no longer feel bound by them. How, then, do they understand the above passage, which states that one may not subtract commandments from the Law, and which seems to imply that a true prophet will not do so?

First off, I admit that I am not entirely sure if there is a term/title for a theological framework that suggest we must keep the Torah. Does one exist (similar to we have titles like "Reformed Theology" or "Dispensationalism")? With this, I see there are many tangential questions to the topic of Acts 15, but the questions at the end of my post here have not been addressed so I do not believe this to be a duplicate post. That said, Acts 15 appears to directly address the matter of whether Gentiles are required to keep the law of Moses, and the council’s decision seems to clearly oppose that idea. I have seen individuals suggest that this is *not* the topic/discussion within Acts 15, however, the chapter seems fairly straight forward. Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be how the chapter unfolds: 1. **The Dispute Leading to the Council** Certain individuals come to Antioch, teaching that Gentiles must be circumcised to be saved. This creates a significant dispute, leading Paul and Barnabas to travel to Jerusalem to address the issue. - **Acts 15:1-2** > “And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” 2. **The Council Begins Discussion** Upon arrival in Jerusalem, the matter is raised again. Certain believers of the Pharisees (also?) insist that Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, prompting a formal discussion among the apostles and elders. - **Acts 15:5-6* > “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.” 3. **Peter’s Speech and the Yoke** Peter addresses the council, reminding them that God has already shown His acceptance of the Gentiles by giving them the Holy Ghost, and argues against placing a yoke upon them that neither their ancestors nor they could bear. - **Acts 15:10-11** > “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.” 4. **The Council’s Decision and the Letter** The apostles and elders decide to write to the Gentile believers, acknowledging that some had troubled them by teaching circumcision and Torah observance without the church’s authority. They instead advise Gentiles to avoid certain practices linked to pagan worship. - **Acts 15:24-29** > “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: > … For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.” **My Question(s):** How do those who uphold Torah Observance reconcile their position with Acts 15? Specifically: - How is Peter’s argument in verses 10-11, which describes the law as an unbearable "yoke" and emphasizes salvation through grace, understood within the framework of Torah Observance? - How is the statement in the letter (verse 24) that teachings about circumcision and keeping the law of Moses were troubling and unauthorized by the apostles addressed? - How is verse 28, which lists only a few "necessary things," interpreted in light of the earlier claims that Gentiles must keep the law of Moses? Does this not contradict such a requirement? Bible verses are KJV. Thank you and God bless.

How can the following verses be reconciled? Matthew 5:18-20: >“Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 23:1-3: >”Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice” Matthew 12:1-4: >”At that time Jesus was going through a field of grain on the sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “See, your disciples are doing what is unlawful to do on the sabbath.” He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry, how he went into the house of God and ate the bread of offering, which neither he nor his companions but only the priests could lawfully eat?”

Jesus and His disciples follow Jesus' interpretation of the Mosaic law rather than that of the Pharisees on several occasions. How does this fit with Matthew 23:2-3?

In Acts 15:19-29, were the Apostles of The Jerusalem Council acting in accordance with the Law of Moses, where each violation of the Torah equated to a "cutting off" of the community? Further, aren't three of the four dietary restrictions? The Four detailed prohibitions (Acts 15:19) are: 1) That they abstain from foods sacrificed to idols (dietary), as described in Leviticus 17:7-9. Note Leviticus specifically addresses the alien (Heb. *Ger*) shall be "cut off". 2) That they abstain from fornication, which is associated with Idolatry. (ref. Leviticus 18:26, 29). Here too both the native and the alien are addressed (vs 26), violations of such equate to a "cutting off" (vs. 29) removal from the Covenant. 3) That they abstain from consuming blood (Dietary, ref. Lev. 17:10-12). Verse 10 specifically states that both Native Israelites and Aliens who consume blood will be "cut off". 4) That they abstain from eating foods strangled. (Dietary, ref. Leviticus 17:12-14) The Torah specifically instructs the community to pour out the blood and cover it with earth which is not done in slaughters performed by strangulation. Note once again that those who do such are "cut off" - ref. vs. 14 Is this practice not associated with the idolatry of the surrounding nations and religion according to Leviticus 18:24-25? If the apostles are not standing upon the authority of the Law of Moses, being led by the Holy Spirit, where did they derive such an arbitrary set of conditions for new believers to enter the synagogue (vs. 21)?

[Tefillin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tefillin)1 are boxes containing Torah verses, worn by Jews on the head and the upper arm, in accordance with instructions in Exodus 13:9, 13:16, and Deuteronomy 6:8, 11:18. There is a great deal of commentary in the Talmud and elsewhere about exactly how this should be done. Jesus says that the Pharisees were ostentatious in their wearing of tefillin - Matthew 23:5 (NIV) reads: > Everything they do is done for people to see: they make their phylacteries1 wide and the tassels on their garments long. It seems from Mt 9:20, 14:36, Mk 6:56 that Jesus may have worn the same kind of fringes or tassels (tzitziyot), similarly commanded in the Law, albeit presumably his were not as long as those of the Pharisees. Would Jesus also have worn tefillin, and why/why not? If he did (and his disciples too?) then when did Christians stop? If he didn't, then was this unusual or scandalous? 1 Tefillin (תפילין), or totafot (טוטפת), or phylacteries (φυλακτήρια)

This question is in the context of Protestant Trinitarianism. There are two schools of thought within Protestant Trinitarianism : one, founded mainly in the Westminster Confession (or Savoy Declaration) which accepts that 'the Law is a rule of life for the Christian' and looks to the commandments (whether an expansion of ten, or whether two or whether one) as the 'Law' by which the Christian is to live. This school of thought can be seen set forth in the Westminster Confession The other school of thought accepts that salvation is by grace and that the Christian is 'freed from law' (that is to say, not just 'ceremonial law' but *all law*). The 'rule of the Spirit' is just that, they say - a governance of the Holy Spirit who brings the things of Christ and ministers them to the soul, whereby the believer receives the 'shedding abroad of the love of God' and is kept, in Spirit, walking in holiness by means of faith in Christ. This school of thought can be seen set forth in the pages of The Gospel Standard . I am interested in what the former school of thought teach, regarding Titus 2: 11-14 : >For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, (12) Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; (13) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (14) Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. There is no mention in these few verses of the Law being administered in order to achieve either holiness or preparation for the last day. The latter school of thought hold that the 'grace of God' refers to the Holy Spirit and that his ministrations result in sanctification. What, I would like to know, is the teaching of those who suggest that Christians are 'under the Law' (and the Westminster Confession states that this is as 'advice') in regard to these verses. Whose, exactly, is the 'grace' referred to ? And why, would they say, is Law completely missing from these exhortatory verses ?

I've been digging into "the new perspectives on Paul" and thinking that many of the "new perspectives" seem like, or lead to, traditional Catholic/Orthodox perspectives on Justification. Specifically, the idea that when Paul refers to "works of the law," he is referring exclusively to the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic law. This would seem to shatter all the Protestant go-to verses that supposedly prove sola fide. **TLDR:** If you read "works of the law" to mean works of the ceremonial Mosaic law (i.e., circumcision) exclusively, then what is left to support the doctrine of sola fide aside from Luther's Occam-inspired philosophy?

One of the implications of the [New Perspective on Paul](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul) (NPP), as I understand it, is that Paul's teachings regarding the "works of the law" (in [Galatians 2:16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians+2%3A16&version=ESV) , for example) are meant to refer only to "boundary marker" laws, that is, laws like circumcision, diet, and calendar, as opposed to all of God's law. This can have a significant impact on one's doctrine of justification, as it opens the door for other "works" (besides circumcision, etc.) to be part of the basis of one's salvation. One challenge to this aspect of the NPP that I've seen is based on other references to the "works of the law" in Paul's writings, where he uses the same phrase but appears to be referring to the entire law. For example, [Romans 3:20](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+3%3A20&version=ESV) : > For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. (ESV) Here, critics of the NPP say, Paul is clearly referring to the entire law, not just "boundary marker" laws, since elsewhere he recognizes many other sins besides failure to circumcise. But to me an even stronger passage appears to be [Galatians 3:10](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians+3%3A10&version=ESV) : > For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” (ESV) Here, quoting [Leviticus 18:5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus+18%3A5&version=ESV) , Paul's use of "*all* things written in the Book of the Law," as opposed to *some*, is seen as plain evidence that "works of the law" to him means more than just circumcision, etc. Thus, the question: **How do proponents of the New Perspective on Paul respond to challenges to their view of Paul's "works of the law" that are based on Galatians 3:10 and similar passages?**

> **Matthew 5:17-18 (KJV) ** > **17** Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. **18** For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. As I understand it, the Law of Moses is fulfilled in Christ. We don't make sacrifices anymore, and many other of the finer points in the Pentateuch are no longer preached. Yet, I still see people reference these books for doctrine (for example the 10 Commandments). How much of the Law of Moses still applies?