The Application of Old Testament Law to New Covenant Believers

You're right. Not technically tattoos, but changing the body (whether by God or man) is usually associated with a curse.
God changed the process of child-birthing so that it would be painful. That probably entailed some physical adjustment, and it was a result of the curse.
Physical decay ( the change the body from good to bad, healthy to not) is a result of the curse.
Death (the change of the body from living to non-living) is a result of the curse.
Cain had a mark put on his forehead. It was a curse.
The prophets of Baal cut themselves in worship. They were killed just minutes afterward.

The list could go on.

Hey, hey, hey, I didn't REFORM my views. I hardly changed them at all! I said I "shifted a little." Not much. I think pretty much the exact same thing that I thought at the beginning of this conversation! And I am not at all saying this because I don't want to look like I've been beaten!

–Mr. Sarcasm

I return to the original question: what Old Testament laws are applicable to New Covenant believers today?

The short answer: all of them.

Why?

What is the New Covenant? What does the New Covenant say about the Law? What does the entirety of Scripture say about it?

God defines the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a NEW COVENANT with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But THIS shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD,

I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts;

and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD. ~ Jeremiah 31:31-37

"Oh," one might say, "This is in the Old Testament. You can't define the New Covenant by the Old Testament."
The Old Testament is Scripture. God does not change. "Those ordinances" still have not "departed from before" Him.
But in case you need New Testament/Covenant support, God repeats Himself:

This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. ~ Hebrews 10:16-17

The New Covenant is God putting His law in our hearts and writing it in our minds!
Again, He repeats it more clearly (yes, it is a long passage - but please read it. It is God's Word! :).

For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. ~ Hebrews 8:4-12

We are no longer under the law. No more. Instead, we now have a much more intimate relationship with the Law! Now the law is written in our hearts and our minds. God has made it part of us! The elements of the Old Covenants all pointed directly at the New Covenant. The pattern showed to Moses in the mountain was the pattern of Jesus Christ. The Old Covenants and covenant laws are not "done away with" - the only problem that the Old Covenant had is that we/people could not keep covenant in our flesh (see the book of Galatians). In the New Covenant, Christ is our Mediator who gathers us up into Himself and keeps covenant for, through, and in us. The concept that the Law was "done away with" is not in Scripture.

Instead, Christ declared:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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." (Matthew 5:17-18)
"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." (Luke 6:17)

Last I checked, heaven and earth are still here.

Scripture also declares:

"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." (Romans 3:31)

Often we make the issue "law versus grace." This is a false dilemma. Paul wrote, "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." (Galatians 2:21). To “frustrate” is to “do away with, set aside, nullify.” One way to nullify the grace of God is by getting rid of the law. Without the law, grace is not needed, for there is no law to keep. Without the law, we can live however we feel like living – and we do not need any help with that! Our flesh can live how we feel like living on its own just fine. Therefore, when we do away with the law, we do away with grace. We nullify it. If we say that the law is done away with because we are under grace, then we have also nullified the grace of God. We are really under nothing but ourselves.

Why do we as Christians condemn the world for lawlessness when we ourselves have said that God's law is void and does not apply to us today? Unfortunately, in many places, the Psalmist's words are appropriate towards much of today's "church." "It is time for thee, LORD, to work, for they [the church!] have made void thy law." (Psalm 119:126). No one is truly free without law. What do we have against that which is lawful? We are quick to scream, "LEGALISM!" but we never worry about lawlessness. ("Legalism" is not listed in Scripture as sin. Lawlessness [living without Law] is.) Jesus declared, "Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness" (Matthew 7:23). Those He speaks to are those who thought they were working for God but had rejected His law. God repeatedly defines "loving Him" as "keeping [placing a guard around, watching carefully, meditating upon] His commandments (law)" (John 14:21, John 15).

What about the specific laws of the Old Testament? They are part of the Law that is within us. Are some of them hard to understand? Yes. They were not intended to be understood with our fleshly minds anyway. However, the vast majority of the laws are very clear. Do we have something against laws to not curse the deaf (Leviticus 19:14), maintaining cleanliness, not smiting, cursing, or stealing from parents (Exodus 21:15-17), not raising a false report (Exodus 23:1), or providing for the poor (Deut. 15)?

Other types of laws should not be hard to live with, either - even if we do not understand them. Are you tempted to fry a bat, vulture, or pelican for dinner (Deut. 14)? Is boiling a goat kid in the milk of his mother an overwhelming desire in your life (Exodus 23:19, 34:26)? Has someone died from falling off your roof recently (Deut. 22:8)?

Our fleshly nature cannot obey the law. It is impossible. Living in the flesh, we WILL disobey the law. We cannot help it. Once Christ lives within us, however, HE obeys the law in and through us! He obeyed the law perfectly - and that is transferred to us! As we seek Him with all our heart, He leads us in paths of rightness for His name's sake. When we desire Him alone, we have no desire to do anything against the law. When we abide in Him through keeping a watch upon His words/law, the Spirit produces much of His own fruit in our lives - and "against such there is no law" (Galatians 5 - love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, gentleness, faith, meekness, and temperance are all lawful!).

This, then, is the question for us: are we guarding His law carefully? Are we watching over it? Are we treating it as precious and most valuable? Ponder John 14-17 and Psalm 119 for God's perspective on His law. Can you exclaim with the Psalmist: "O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day!" (Psalm 119:97).

Okay, well you haven't ever been as adamantly for tattoos as WM. Thank you for 'shifting you views' even ever so slightly toward a view that shuns tattoos as unChristlike.

Galatians 5:22-23 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law."
No mention of tattooing, Mr. Wretched Man.
And besides, there is a law against tattooing, even though it be antiquated and non-applicable to us, there is still a law against them. But against the fruits of the Spirit, on the other hand , there is NO LAW. NONE. ZILCH. NADA. NONE.

1 Corinthians 10:23 ""All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up."
And if it doesn't build up other Christians, but rather, tears them down, if it is not helpful to them, but rather is unhelpful and a hindrance, it is sin for you to do such.

1 Corinthians 6:12 "“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything."
Again, if it doesn't help other Christians, if it is a hindrance to them, it is sin for you to do such. (To him who knows the good he should do, and does not do it, for him it is sin.) Here we see a law against addictions: "I will not be dominated by anything". (That doesn't really have anything to do with tattooing, however)

In all your walk as a Christian, if you have a tattoo, you WILL come across a Christian who disagrees with them, or whose conscience is stricken because of you; it is a hindrance to that one. It is inevitable that you will come across such a person. So to get a tattoo, even a "God-honoring" tattoo, which is inevitably unhelpful to other Christians, is sinful. It may be lawful for you personally to get a tattoo (something which I think is rare to non-existent) but because it will not help other Christians, but rather be a stumbling block to them, and may destroy or hinder your relationship with them, it is sinful.

Oh, okay, I see the light now! NOT!

1) The OT only outlaws what can be construed to be tattoos according to today's vernacular, but only insofar as they were like the markings of the pagan nations around Israel by which they would appease or identify with their false gods in their false religions. IF this ban was still in effect today, then the verse preceding it would also HAVE TO still be in effect:

Leviticus 19:27-28 –

27 You shall not shave around the sides of your head, nor shall you disfigure the edges of your beard. 28 You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the Lord.

According to this, Mr. Octo Sideburns, YOU SHOULD BE STONED …. TONIGHT …… AT CHURCH!!

The prophets of Baal with Elijah is an example of what the OT was aiming at outlawing for ethnic Israel; it was NOT an extended example of banning tattoos. They weren't trying to tattoo themselves to bring fire down from heaven; they were cutting their bodies as part of their ritualistic practices.

2) Since tattoos and head-shaving do NOT carry pagan ritual undertones in today's culture, in addition to the fact that we are NOT under the civil laws of OT Israel, these practices must be governed by NT principles of Christian liberties – all under the umbrella of giving glory to God in whatever we think, say & do – for which several Scriptures, both "for" and "against" these liberties, have been provided.

3) A Christian getting and wearing a conspicuous tattoo today doesn't just have to be for evangelistic purposes (on which many of you continue to harp!); it can also be used for personal piety purposes. For instance, if I am having trouble using my right hand as an instrument for unrighteousness rather than righteousness, Matthew 5 tells me to cut it off. (Yes! I know it's figurative here, Mr. Twister!) But, maybe for my own personal strivings, with the power of the Holy Spirit, to remain committed to this purity, what if I get a tattoo all around my right wrist of a dashed line, similar to that on paper where it indicates the line that I am supposed to cut with scissors, but, for my wrist, it would be a constant reminder of cutting my hand off (in my mind) when it comes to fighting temptation, mortifying my flesh, and making my right hand a member for righteousness?? (Maybe I could even have a small message above the dashed line that says something like: "cut here during temptation" or "apply axe here to sever the sin"??) OR what if I'm wanting to have a visual reminder with me throughout the day everyday to pray or thank God or re-focus or glorify God? Having a small tattoo on the back of my left or right hand, between my thumb and pointer finger, could help me in my personal daily struggles of forgetting to be in ceaseless prayer, forgetting to thank God in every circumstance. getting easily distracted with irrelevant things (you know, like long, drawn-out blogposts!) or forgetting to give God the glory and praise, respectively. (Even concocting these ideas in my head make me want to get a tattoo just to assist me in these very struggles that I have. Struggles that cannot be easily overcome by cognitive reminders alone!)

4) I guess it might all come down to this: Will I cause you to stumble and/or offend you in your convictions if I get and wear a tattoo in your presence, even if my conscience is clear, just as Paul's was with eating meat previously served to idols? If you can honestly say so, then I will/would refrain from getting one for your (or someone else's) sake, just as Paul would never eat meat again in that offended brother's presence. Well, what say ye?

Finally, let's say I got a tattoo regardless, and you were offended by it. Would you confront me about it, because I was not concerned about your sensitivities? Or would you stew about it, not mentioning it to me, though? Your answer should cause you to pause and assess whether anyone else in our current church is wearing anything that is similarly offensive to you; and if so, what have you already done about it? If you've chosen to do nothing, then why can't I get a tattoo, since you should stay consistent and do nothing with me as well? Or are these questions making you wonder whether you need to alert anyone about your being offended with their flaunting of their Christian liberty without their considering the consciences of professing brothers and sisters around them?

Just some points to ponder. Just hurry and be quick with your answers, because I have a tattoo parlor appointment for today at 3pm. :P

"1) The OT only outlaws what can be construed to be tattoos according to today's vernacular, but only insofar as they were like the markings of the pagan nations around Israel by which they would appease or identify with their false gods in their false religions. IF this ban was still in effect today, then the verse preceding it would also HAVE TO still be in effect:

Leviticus 19:27-28 –

27 You shall not shave around the sides of your head, nor shall you disfigure the edges of your beard. 28 You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the Lord.

According to this, Mr. Octo Sideburns, YOU SHOULD BE STONED …. TONIGHT …… AT CHURCH!!"
You can join me in the middle of the stoning party, WM.
I never said they were still in effect only on the basis that they are mentioned in the OT.
The shaving law would NOT have to still be in effect, because that principle is not repeated in the NT. However, concerning tattoos, the NT in no way commends bringing risk to your health to worship God (in a purposefully unnecessary way; Paul spent himself for the Gospel, brought risk to his health, but as a result of the Great Commission; there is no command to tattoo, so we don't bring risk to our health that way).
Shaving neither harms you nor permanently disfigures your body. That's why it's lawful for us today. But tattoos, on the other hand….

"The prophets of Baal with Elijah is an example of what the OT was aiming at outlawing for ethnic Israel; it was NOT an extended example of banning tattoos. They weren't trying to tattoo themselves to bring fire down from heaven; they were cutting their bodies as part of their ritualistic practices."

Okay, then Elijah's prayer is just an "example of what the OT was aiming at [commanding/commending] for ethnic Israel; [his prayer] was NOT an extended example of [commending prayer]."
No, that's crazy. Of course they are both EXTENDED examples! If the pagan practice is not an extended example, then neither is Elijah's practice! Just use logic.
You're right. They weren't tattooing themselves. They were 'just' cutting themselves. But a tattoo cuts you, too. Otherwise, the ink couldn't get under your skin. And even more than cutting you, it injects ink in you.
So a tattoo is even worse than what they were doing. They cut themselves in worship of Baal. You cut yourself and get ink put in you to worship the LORD? Uh-uh. God must command it. The only forms of worship that we are to use in worshiping God are those he has expressly set down. Think what happened to Eleazar and Phinehas when they brought "strange fire" before the Lord. They got fried!
What did they do wrong? They were not worshiping God the way He had commanded. They were trying to worship God. They were sincerely worshiping Him. But since it was not the way He had commanded…BANG! they're gone.
I have never and will never see in Scripture any command to worship God by getting a tattoo. So you better watch out if you're trying to worship Him with a tattoo.
You never know…maybe a lightning-bolt one day…

"2) Since tattoos and head-shaving do NOT carry pagan ritual undertones in today's culture, in addition to the fact that we are NOT under the civil laws of OT Israel, these practices must be governed by NT principles of Christian liberties – all under the umbrella of giving glory to God in whatever we think, say & do – for which several Scriptures, both "for" and "against" these liberties, have been provided."
You're right, they don't carry pagan RITUAL undertones today, but..THEY SURE DO carry pagan OVERtones!!!
What's wrong with you? Where are you from?
What's the whole point of getting a tattoo (in the world's eyes)? To show yourself off! What's that called? Idolatry of the human body! Exchanging the glory of the incorruptible with the shame of the creature! It's body-worship! Just like an immodest bathing-suit, though to a lesser degree, it's body-worship!!! And if body-worship isn't pagan, I don't know what it is.
Don't you dare repeat that tattoos don't carry pagan undertones.

"3) A Christian getting and wearing a conspicuous tattoo today doesn't just have to be for evangelistic purposes (on which many of you continue to harp!); it can also be used for personal piety purposes. For instance, if I am having trouble using my right hand as an instrument for unrighteousness rather than righteousness, Matthew 5 tells me to cut it off. (Yes! I know it's figurative here, Mr. Twister!) But, maybe for my own personal strivings, with the power of the Holy Spirit, to remain committed to this purity, what if I get a tattoo all around my right wrist of a dashed line, similar to that on paper where it indicates the line that I am supposed to cut with scissors, but, for my wrist, it would be a constant reminder of cutting my hand off (in my mind) when it comes to fighting temptation, mortifying my flesh, and making my right hand a member for righteousness?? (Maybe I could even have a small message above the dashed line that says something like: "cut here during temptation" or "apply axe here to sever the sin"??) OR what if I'm wanting to have a visual reminder with me throughout the day everyday to pray or thank God or re-focus or glorify God? Having a small tattoo on the back of my left or right hand, between my thumb and pointer finger, could help me in my personal daily struggles of forgetting to be in ceaseless prayer, forgetting to thank God in every circumstance. getting easily distracted with irrelevant things (you know, like long, drawn-out blogposts!) or forgetting to give God the glory and praise, respectively. (Even concocting these ideas in my head make me want to get a tattoo just to assist me in these very struggles that I have. Struggles that cannot be easily overcome by cognitive reminders alone!)"
Again, you're bringing "strange fire" before the LORD by trying to worship Him or help yourself in your walk with Him by a tattoo.
You make it sound so pious and good and upright. That's probably what Aaron's sons thought just seconds before the fire came out from before the LORD and fried them into hell (well, assuming that they ended up there). A "God-honoring" tattoo is an inherent contradiction, an oxymoron, using the wrong means to a good end; it's STRANGE FIRE!!!!!!

"4) I guess it might all come down to this: Will I cause you to stumble and/or offend you in your convictions if I get and wear a tattoo in your presence, even if my conscience is clear, just as Paul's was with eating meat previously served to idols? If you can honestly say so, then I will/would refrain from getting one for your (or someone else's) sake, just as Paul would never eat meat again in that offended brother's presence. Well, what say ye?"
Yes. You would make me stumble. I would sincerely believe you to be in sin, to be bringing "strange fire" before the LORD.

"Finally, let's say I got a tattoo regardless, and you were offended by it. Would you confront me about it, because I was not concerned about your sensitivities? Or would you stew about it, not mentioning it to me, though? Your answer should cause you to pause and assess whether anyone else in our current church is wearing anything that is similarly offensive to you; and if so, what have you already done about it? If you've chosen to do nothing, then why can't I get a tattoo, since you should stay consistent and do nothing with me as well? Or are these questions making you wonder whether you need to alert anyone about your being offended with their flaunting of their Christian liberty without their considering the consciences of professing brothers and sisters around them?"
I probably would not confront you about it. It might not be my place, because I'm a kid and you're an adult. I might appeal to my dad, or Pastor, however. It's kind of like if a girl at church has an immodest shirt on. Is it my place as a boy to go and confront her about it? It'd probably be more distracting; the girl's mother or my mother or another lady at church would be a better person for the job.
If you get a tattoo, would it be my place to confront you about it? I'm not sure. Probably, because you would take it so easily, but I'm still not sure.

"Just some points to ponder. Just hurry and be quick with your answers, because I have a tattoo parlor appointment for today at 3pm. :P"
Wait a minute, don't go there. Just stay at home and do it yourself with a knife. The scar would be reminder enough, and you wouldn't have the health risk of getting hepatitis. I mean, cummon, what's the difference?

P.S. I seriously like that: Mr. Octo Sideburns.

Okay, though I could say a lot about your post, I know WM will, so I'll only say one thing. Eleazar and Phinehas were not the one's who were destroyed by fire. It was Nadab and Abihu. :P

Sometimes, you're so close & other times, so far off into space, dude!

You said: "Okay, then Elijah's prayer is just an "example of what the OT was aiming at [commanding/commending] for ethnic Israel; [his prayer] was NOT an extended example of [commending prayer]."

"No, that's crazy. Of course they are both EXTENDED examples! If the pagan practice is not an extended example, then neither is Elijah's practice! Just use logic."

I say: Mr. Twister, could use mangle that passage any more to achieve your distorted ends? Let's stay focused on the priests of Baal and their antics, and leave Elijah and his prayer out of it (you don't happen to enjoy "Straw Man-Making 101" as one of your hobbies, do you??), before I, in an even more silly, twisted-hermeneutical manner, start arguing that we should start re-instituting altar sacrifices (only ceremonially), pouring water on and all around them, and calling down fire from heaven. STICK WITH THE ISSUE! Or go get some more lessons on actual Logic.

You said: "You cut yourself and get ink put in you to worship the LORD? Uh-uh. God must command it. The only forms of worship that we are to use in worshiping God are those he has expressly set down. Think what happened to Eleazar and Phinehas when they brought "strange fire" before the Lord. The got fried!
What did they do wrong? They were not worshiping God the way He had commanded. They were trying to worship God. They were sincerely worshiping Him. But since it was not the way He had commanded…BANG! they're gone."

I say: I should've known you'd try to go to Nadab & Abihu at some point in this, and while I do believe their example is an excellent proof for the Normative Principle of Worship, it is NOT APPLICABLE here!! What they did was in the tabernacle; was against prescribed Levitical laws governing their priestly roles; and was all part of the overall services of the newly established tabernacle. (Wait a second! Could the King of Straw Man-Making be constructing another straw man here?!?)

Seriously!?! Are you really trying to equate getting/wearing tattoos with the prescription for how we should conduct our worship services for when the body of Christ assembles ON THE LORD'S DAY?!? Really?!? Seriously?!? REALLY!!??!! (As John McEnroe used to say: "You CANNOT be serious?!")

The two cannot be compared. According to Romans 12:1, I am a living sacrifice, and, according to 1 Corinthians 3 & 6, I am the temple of God: but I am not bound to the Lord's Day Worship Services prescription 24-7, or else we should all be struck down by lightning or consumed with fire.

Lame.

You said: "Don't you dare repeat that tattoos don't carry pagan undertones."

I say: Tattoos don't [have to] carry pagan undertones. «Check out our discussions over in the Music Forum. You're trying to use the same tired reasoning that if the world and pagans dominate a certain genre of music, that MUST make it pagan. Sorry, it doesn't work there, and it ain't workin' here! We can take what most pagans use wrongly and sinfully, and make it holy to the Lord! Let's make tattoos a Christian practice, everyone! What do ya' say?!?»

You said: "You would make me stumble. I would sincerely believe you to be in sin, to be bringing "strange fire" before the LORD."

I say: In spite of your insane hermeneutics and exegesis, I will cancel my parlor appointment, and refrain from "carving out" another avenue in my life where I could more powerfully and tangibly glorify God. For your sake (and pretty much my whole family's, your whole family's, and countless others' at church).

You said: "I probably would not confront you about it. It might not be my place, because I'm a kid and you're an adult. I might appeal to my dad, or Pastor, however. It's kind of like if a girl at church has an immodest shirt on. Is it my place as a boy to go and confront her about it? It'd probably be more distracting; the girl's mother or my mother or another lady at church would be a better person for the job.
If you get a tattoo, would it be my place to confront you about it? I'm not sure. Probably, because you would take it so easily, but I'm still not sure."

I say: Finally, some good points. I hope you would know as my brother in Christ that you can confront me anytime about anything. If you see me in sin (which I do not believe applies in this case, unless I got the tattoo and flaunted it before you, offending you), it is your duty to confront me, with love and humility.

As for others, and I'm being a total hypocrite, scaredy-cat in saying this, but you should also confront whoever else is offending you – in private, in love, and in humility. (Then, let me know how it goes, because I'm sadly too scared to do it myself, even though I know full well I should. Sad.)

Ooops! Big mistake. My bad. That's right, Nadab and Abihu.

@chiefofsinners and Octavius- Sorry. I didn't really think about that when I wrote my last comment.

You said "Mr. Twister, could use mangle that passage any more to achieve your distorted ends? Let's stay focused on the priests of Baal and their antics, and leave Elijah and his prayer out of it (you don't happen to enjoy "Straw Man-Making 101" as one of your hobbies, do you??), before I, in an even more silly, twisted-hermeneutical manner, start arguing that we should start re-instituting altar sacrifices (only ceremonially), pouring water on and all around them, and calling down fire from heaven. STICK WITH THE ISSUE! Or go get some more lessons on actual Logic."
I say: Did you miss my point? If what the prophets of Baal did is irrelevant to how we are to act today, what Elijah did should be as well. That's using YOUR logic. Of course what the prophets of Baal is relevant! And so also is what Elijah did. (About the sacrifice, look at Hebrews for a rebuttal of any arguments you may come up with. The ceremonial laws are not repeated in the NT.)
Maybe YOU need the lessons in logic. Mr. Twisted.

You said "I should've known you'd try to go to Nadab & Abihu at some point in this, and while I do believe their example is an excellent proof for the Normative Principle of Worship, it is NOT APPLICABLE here!! What they did was in the tabernacle; was against prescribed Levitical laws governing their priestly roles; and was all part of the overall services of the newly established tabernacle. (Wait a second! Could the King of Straw Man-Making be constructing another straw man here?!?)"
I say: So it doesn't matter what we do in worshiping God except on the Lord's Day? The rules only apply one day of the week? Sure. (I know, that's a straw man.)
But seriously. If we are only required to follow God's prescribed laws concerning how He will be worshiped on the Lord's Day, are there NO rules governing the rest of our week? Of course there are rules.
What we do every day is as the tabernacle of God, should not be against prescribed Pauline laws governing our roles as Christians, and is part of our overall service to the Lord in the Tabernacle.
This does not merely and only have bearing on the regulative principle.

You said "According to Romans 12:1, I am a living sacrifice, and, according to 1 Corinthians 3 & 6, I am the temple of God: but I am not bound to the Lord's Day Worship Services prescription 24-7, or else we should all be struck down by lightning or consumed with fire."
I say: I'm surprised you brought these verses up in reference to the Regulative Principle. These verses don't have anything to do with it. Are YOU serious????
I will join in with your chorus: Lame.
These verses show clearly that we are not to mess around with our bodies unless God tells us to because our bodies belong to Him, and Him alone. So we can only do with them what He tells us to do, and He doesn't tell us to tattoo ourselves.

You said: "Tattoos don't [have to] carry pagan undertones. «Check out our discussions over in the Music Forum. You're trying to use the same tired reasoning that if the world and pagans dominate a certain genre of music, that MUST make it pagan. Sorry, it doesn't work there, and it ain't workin' here! We can take what most pagans use wrongly and sinfully, and make it holy to the Lord! Let's make tattoos a Christian practice, everyone! What do ya' say?!?»"
I say: Just as those certain forms of music are more prone to becoming sinful because of making too much of the singer, so also a tattoo is prone to becoming sinful because it makes too much of the wearer.
I'm not using the reasoning you implied I was. Look:
TATTOOS MESS WITH YOUR BODY!
THEY CUT YOU!
THEY PUT INK IN YOU!
THEY HURT!
THEY BRING THE RISK OF INFECTION!
THEY BRING THE RISK OF HEPATITIS!
PEOPLE HAVE DIED FROM GETTING TATTOOS!!!!!!!!!
THEY
ARE
NOT
HEALTHY
And God doesn't want us worshiping Him in an unhealthy way!
IT'S SIMPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
«(Most music doesn't cause health problems….it can be redeemed. Cutting yourself and injecting ink into yourself purposefully can NEVER be redeemed! )»

You said "I will cancel my parlor appointment, and refrain from "carving out" another avenue in my life where I could more powerfully and tangibly glorify God. For your sake (and pretty much my whole family's, your whole family's, and countless others' at church)."
I say: You illustrate my point very well. If you cause another person to stumble because of what you do, it is sin for you to do it. Getting a tattoo is sure to make someone somewhere stumble. Therefore, it is sin. Unless you become a hermit and never see another human being again. But even then, it would still be the wrong way to glorify God.

How's "Martin the Mangler" sound as a new nickname?

C'mon! Really? Seriously? How can you equate our daily forms of personal worship as living sacrifices before God with those prescribed in the assembly of the saints in worship services on the Lord's Day?

According to that logic, we shouldn't work ANY day of the week; we should have the Word of God preached, read, and sung throughout every day (which could get in the way of my work responsibilities Mon-Sat, but, then again, I no longer have to work now); and I should be implementing the Sacraments throughout the week as well (maybe every other day).

Getting the point yet? Or still missing it like the trophy you'll be missing on Saturday after Blue annihilates Green on Saturday in soccer?! (Yes, @COS, will be so happy I'm throwing gasoline on your fire.)

Here are the only 2 commandments we have to follow (under which all other commandments and principles reside):

Love God
Love others, as you love yourself (and I do love myself far more than I should)

These are to govern my thoughts, words, and actions EVERYDAY. It is NOT the prescriptive content of the Lord's Day worship services that are to govern MY EVERY DAY!!

P.S. I can't even believe I'm giving this any more of my time, but here we go, Mangler:

Based on your logic about the antics of the priests of Baal and, therefore, Elijah's prayer should be brought under the same hermeneutical scrutiny, let's turn to the Levite towards the end of the book of Judges who distributes his concubine to the eleven tribes of Israel. This, like the account of the priests of Baal on Mount Carmel was a ONE TIME EVENT, while Elijah and prayer have several other records in Scripture. It's apples and oranges comparisons, Mr. Twister. You're trying to use a 1-time event to help give more OT support for your flimsy, borderline-legalistic argument; so maybe I should garner some support for some doctrines based on the Levites actions in Judges, according to your line of thinking. Leave Elijah and his prayer out of it–both have other records regarding them by which we can develop studies and doctrines about them, respectively. LAME.

You said earlier: "3) A Christian getting and wearing a conspicuous tattoo today doesn't just have to be for evangelistic purposes (on which many of you continue to harp!); it can also be used for personal piety purposes. For instance, if I am having trouble using my right hand as an instrument for unrighteousness rather than righteousness, Matthew 5 tells me to cut it off. (Yes! I know it's figurative here, Mr. Twister!) But, maybe for my own personal strivings, with the power of the Holy Spirit, to remain committed to this purity, what if I get a tattoo all around my right wrist of a dashed line, similar to that on paper where it indicates the line that I am supposed to cut with scissors, but, for my wrist, it would be a constant reminder of cutting my hand off (in my mind) when it comes to fighting temptation, mortifying my flesh, and making my right hand a member for righteousness?? (Maybe I could even have a small message above the dashed line that says something like: "cut here during temptation" or "apply axe here to sever the sin"??) OR what if I'm wanting to have a visual reminder with me throughout the day everyday to pray or thank God or re-focus or glorify God? Having a small tattoo on the back of my left or right hand, between my thumb and pointer finger, could help me in my personal daily struggles of forgetting to be in ceaseless prayer, forgetting to thank God in every circumstance. getting easily distracted with irrelevant things (you know, like long, drawn-out blogposts!) or forgetting to give God the glory and praise, respectively. (Even concocting these ideas in my head make me want to get a tattoo just to assist me in these very struggles that I have. Struggles that cannot be easily overcome by cognitive reminders alone!)"

To me, that sounds a lot like the externalization of religion that Jesus condemned in the Pharisees. The whole point of the sermon on the mount was to show that we must not only be externally righteous to keep God's commandments. However, the Pharisees saw religion as a merely external affair, wearing phylacteries and etc. Tattooing for reasons of personal piety sounds a lot like the same thing. Now of course, I know those tattoos would not be merely and only external, but in order to steer clear of such externalizations of religion, we must keep the word in our hearts. We must pray for a more tender conscience, not destroy the flesh!
If you aren't praying enough, if you aren't cutting of right hands, gouging out eyes, then PRAY THAT GOD WOULD GIVE YOU GRACE. Above all, my brother, DO NOT GET A TATTOO in order to help you. That precludes the necessity of Christ being the one to help us and give us grace. If a tattoo can remind us and help us, what is the use of Christ, what is the use of the Bible? If a tattoo is the means whereby we can be drawn closer to God through more cutting off of the flesh and more praying, what then is the use of Christ? If a tattoo does the job, of what use is our conscience?

Prayer is the answer to weakness, not piercing the flesh.
What did the monks do to themselves to help remember to pray and put away the flesh? They whipped themselves and starved themselves! And all for what reason? That they might remember to pray more and to put away temptation. That they would in their bodies have visible reminders urging them to prayer and good works. Getting a tattoo for the reasons you articulated sounds awfully similar.

I'm not equating the two. I'm just saying that there are universal laws that apply to both the regulative principle AND to our personal worship.

Mr. Mangled Wrangler:
If you love others, you do not want them to be offended by anything you do. That includes getting a tattoo.

Why can we not draw from the actions of Baal's prophets that cutting ourselves purposefully is wrong?

This is my basic question:
Why would God condone worshiping Him in a way that is unhealthy?

If you love others, you do not want them to be offended by anything you do. That includes getting a tattoo.

Umm… I think you're going to regret saying that. He's going to rip you apart for that sentence. :p

What I meant by "offend" would more properly be rendered "cause to stumble" or "smite the conscience of". And the context I was thinking was the neighbor being a Christian.
I think I know where you were going with that, COS. I know. The world is supposed to be offended by Christians. They are not supposed to like what we say and do, because it makes them feel guilty. That's not what I meant at all.

Maybe this would be better, COS:
"Mr. Mangled Wrangler:
If you love others, you do not want your actions to cause them to stumble or their consciences to be afflicted. You don't want any brother in Christ to stumble because of your actions. That includes getting a tattoo."
And by the way, I repeat my questions:
Why can we not draw from the actions of Baal's prophets that cutting ourselves purposefully is wrong?
And…
Why would God condone worshiping Him in a way that is unhealthy?

I still don't get why you seem to think that the Nadab and Abihu case ONLY has reference to the regulative principle of worship. Why should it?
What's so important about them (Nadab and Abihu) being in the tabernacle? What's so important about them being priests? WE ARE the new tabernacle! WE ARE the new priests! So all the more, whether we are meeting on the Lord's Day or not, we should follow His rules. Sure, He has special rules for the Special Day. But that is not to say that He has NO RULES for the rest of the week.
That was my point. And yet you made a STRAW MAN out of what I said earlier.
Hey everybody out there, just so's ya know, Wretched Man would LOVE to join you anytime you are harvesting straw. But watch out or you'll have a bunch of straw men instead of straw bales. ;-)

@Everyone: For anyone unfamiliar with what a "Straw Man" argument is, we can thank @Octo I, II & IV for exemplifying it so clearly here:

Straw Man-Building 101 Lesson #1–

@Octo said: "But that is not to say that He has NO RULES for the rest of the week."

I encourage everyone to go through EVERY post I've EVER written on MemVerse, and see if you can squeeze out of ANY of them that I've EVER indicated, even remotely, the above statement that "God has NO RULES for the rest of the week." ANYWHERE!

THAT is a "Straw Man" statement: Manufacturing a reality that does not exist that is composed of contents that are easy for the fabricator to destroy. It is typically used when the manufacturer is struggling with REAL reality; thus, he must fabricate a new one (more to his liking and level of functioning) to assist him in rebuilding that damaged, weakened psyche he has incurred after interacting too frequently with everyone else's reality.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

SCREEEEECH.

Hope you don't mind I pulled the brakes, but I just have to say…

1) This thread is supposed to be about the application of Old Testament law to New Covenant believers. Instead, this topic seems to ONLY be about tattoos. I find this a little disappointing, because even though this subject is interesting, I really want to know more about the subject of how, exactly, Old Covenant law is relevant today. There's a lot of debate on this subject and I don't know exactly what to think myself, so I would be very pleased to read a discussion on this matter. It seems like most people think the Old just holds "general rules", but others think that some of the laws (not explicitly ceremonial or sacrificial laws, but other laws, such as the Ten Commandments and the command to not tattoo, for example) still apply.

As for discussing only tattoos…well, I'm not going to say this discussion is totally irrelevant, of course, but on the flip-side, how many Memverse users are going to get tattoos? It just seems like a broader outlook would be a bit more relevant, in my humble opinion.

2) I don't mean to accuse anyone, I'm just a young lady and have no authority over anyone in this topic…but it would be nice if people toned down the exclamation points, caps, name-calling, ad hominem, etc. I mean, it doesn't further God's kingdom to have us bicker in this manner. Of course, we can disagree and even debate…but we should discuss things in gentleness and respect, right? I mean, am I wrong?

I'll refrain from entering the subject for now, because I just think it's really important for us to be respectful to fellow believers, even if we disagree strongly with them. I think we should have a sane, reasonable discussion that looks at Scripture in a reasonable way, without losing our heads…in my eyes, that would be worth so much, and such a witness to the world. We can have strong opinions and convictions, but I just think that, as the light of the world, we need to be careful that what we say doesn't come off as rude. That's all. I desperately hope I wasn't rude in this post or came off as claiming to exercise spiritual authority over a man. I'm just saying what I think needs to be said, and I hope I did alright.

Just so you know, I don't think any of the stuff that looks like disrespect and hot-headedness is actually real. Wretched Man and Octavius were together last night, and there was no bitterness between them. I think they're both just very opinionated on this issue, and they both really want the other to see the light.

But I think that they'll stop now that you've expressed that desire. Just know that I don't think there are any real hard feelings between them, despite all of the caps and exclamation points. :)

Yes, it would be great if all the capitalization, exclamation points, and name-calling would come to an end… and you say that I should tone it down, Dad?? :P

I was not saying that you, Mr. Wretched Man (I will refrain from reciprocating any more names), were saying there are no rules on the rest of the days of the week. I was merely clarifying that there ARE rules. Not the same rules, but rules nonetheless. And one of those rules in paraphrase is "Thou shalt not destroy or harm My Temple in the praise of Me."

My words that you quoted were not a straw man. On the contrary, it was merely pointing out a fact. I was not trying to imply that you thought or were teaching that there no rules for the rest of the week.

Sorry if we seem like two gladiators, Talia. There are no hard feelings between us (on my end of the playing field). But as an excuse, have you ever tried to debate WM? He throws in all sorts of ad hominem attacks, calls you all sorts of names…[Oops, that's another ad hominem! I will stop now.] ;-)

To WM again: If you think I was making a straw man because I was "defeated" or "stuck" or "out-argued", why did you go to the great length of pointing it out? I mean, you did not respond to any of my questions. You basically ignored them. What you did was totally beside the point of this debate. And that shows that maybe you are the one that has no response!
If you really have all the answers to my questions, just put them up here for everybody to see!
But instead of that, you decided it would be more self-preservational to run down a rabbit trail and hope that all of us didn't notice that you never answered my questions.
Please answer them as soon as possible. Thank you.

P.S. Talia, I realized I probably named this thread the wrong name after about three pages into this debate, but I haven't figured out how to change the title (if there is a way at all). We can make a page just for tattoo debates if that would clear up this page for more relevant discussions.

Yes, @Talia "FableTeller", I was devastatingly offended by your retort and rebuke, because you didn't use ANY (!!!!!) capitalizations, exclamations OR ad hominems in your post. Can't you tell that it's the ONLY way I know how to communicate. (Also, on a side note, did you happen to catch my infamous acrostic poem over in the "Poems" forum?? I think that really helps to explain me AND the approach people should take with me.)

P.S. I really liked and appreciated your YouTube video, @Talia(StoryMaker)

P.P.S. I think I correctly speak on behalf of our church (with maybe the exception of any unnamed LEGALISTS who seem to STILL be living in the OT today!!!!) that we very much believe that the 10 Commandments are still in effect for today. For believers, it is our guide for living the new life in Christ. For unbelievers, it is the mirror that reflects their depraved condition. (Yes, that means the Sabbath Day, too, except that it's now observed on the day Jesus rose from the dead, which is Sunday (Revelation 1:10)).

@Octo: Whatever!

@COS & @SBG: You're sooooo close to getting grounded again!

Talia and all -

A few days ago, I posted a rather lengthy discussion on the application of Old Testament law to New Covenant believers, but it was not automatically moderated - so it just today showed up. See the fifth post down from the top of the previous page.

I'd be interested in hearing any further discussion or feedback on that topic as well.

I agree with what you said if you make a small clarification: Is the law you are referring to only the 10 commandments, or is it the whole law (ceremonial and civil) that Moses gave to Israel?

You still have not answered my questions, Wretched Man.

I have answered your questions; you just can't comprehend my answers, @Octoplex.

Whoa, @Erika. Hold the phone!

There are three types of law in the OT: Civil law; Levitical/Ritual/Sacrificial law; and the Moral law.

When Romans 2 et al. talk about the law being written in our hearts, it is traditionally held that this is the Moral law (the 10 Commandments), not the others. When the rich young ruler inquired of Jesus what He needed to do to inherit eternal life, Jesus brought up some of the 10 Commandments, not any of the other laws. The Sermon on the Mount deals with the Moral law, not any of the Civil or Levitical laws.

Jesus fulfilled all 3 types of law, abolishing their condemning power over us, but His abolishing of the Civil and Levitical laws most impacted the Jews. The Moral law, however, summed up into the 2 Great Commandments, still has moral authority over us; it just has no condemning power over believers as it still does over unbelievers.

While there's not anything inherently wrong with many of the civil laws you mentioned, they are not an authority over us anymore. Case in point: when God gave Peter the vision in Acts three times about being able to now eat unclean animals, He was opening up the door for him to not be bound by the civil laws of Israel anymore, because the gospel was about to go to the Gentiles, as shown immediately with the conversion of Cornelius and his household by Peter.

Also, as you quoted parts of Galatians, the entire book is dedicated to shunning the false teacdhers who were trying to put the yoke of the law back on Jewish proselytes, as well as the new Gentile believers. However, Paul speaks nothing against the Moral law, nor do any of the other NT writers.

The Moral law alone wards off lawlessness. Enforcement of the Civil and/or Levitical laws yields legalism. You can still subscribe to them if you like, but they can't be a law for the rest of us (unless we choose to subscribe to them as well). The Moral law is the "Schoolmaster" Paul refers to in his epistles; it is what convicts the lost, not whether they abstained from eating the falcon or kite, nor whether they offered up their trespass offering with a tenth of a hin of oil.

Octavius, I am referring to "law" in the way that Scripture talks about it. I explain this more in my response below to Wretched Man.

WM, I agree that the Ten Commandments are definitely one of the most important parts of the Law. We could spend an entire lifetime and eternity meditating upon the richness included in the Ten Commandments.

However, there is more to Scripture and to the Law than the Ten Commandments. I am not making this up; God put other laws in Scripture whether we like it or not! I mentally understand your distinction between civil law, Levitical law, and moral law - however, can you point me to Scripture to back up the distinction you made there? I can accept your distinction at the logical and analytical levels but not on the same level as Scripture.

Even granting that God Himself divided His Law into those three parts (which is not Biblically certain), the fact remains that what you are calling "civil" and "Levitical" law still exists in Scripture. How do you define what belongs in each category? How can WE pick and choose pieces of God's Word, presuming to decide what parts of the Law/Torah apply to us and what parts we can throw out? To do so is to tread on very dangerous ground. It becomes man's arbitrary opinion based on man's fallen senses and perceptions.

The very question that was originally asked, "What Old Testament laws are applicable to us today?", is rather dangerous. Who are we as fallen, wretched human beings to pick and choose among God's words and laws? If God did not intend for it to apply to us today, why would He put it in Scripture? Why would we be stuck with Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and most of Exodus that have no relevance for us? God's Word is not that way; God's word will not return void; instead, it is alive, powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword. Why do we think we need to pick and choose? Why can't we trust that God has already done the picking and choosing for us? Don't we think He is able to give us what we need? Do we think His words to us are mostly nullified and we have to weed the extras out? How can we claim to believe and live God's whole word when we are throwing out most of the Torah (and probably most of the Prophets as well)?

Before I get into the heart of the issue, let me address your mention of "legalism" - a much-touted point today in anything involving "law." I have one question - where do you find the word "legalism" in Scripture? Please show me.
The problem with the term "legalism" is that it is usually used to negate one important term that is all throughout Scripture and that is the core of our relationship to God as our Master, Lord, and King: the term obedience.
Beyond that, why is the "enforcement" (as you said) of part of GOD's WORD legalism? Once you begin with that logic, there is nowhere one can stop; it is a slippery slope. You may stop with civil and Levitical law, but the next person will extend that to giving to the poor or to baptism. The next person will extend it to honoring parents and prayer. Pretty soon, NONE of Scripture is enforced because someone insists that it ALL yields legalism! Enforcing of God's Word is rightness and obedience, not legalism. That said, I agree that I cannot force ANY part of law upon you or anyone else; that is not my jurisdiction.
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines the term "legalism" as, "a strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious or moral code." This is interesting - who has strict, literal conformity to the law? God does! Furthermore, God wrote the law. God created us. Why wouldn't God ask for strict, literal conformity to His law? This conformity has been perfectly met by Christ - He obeyed the law in that manner for us that we may now have freedom TO OBEY His law. (Before, we were bound and enslaved to disobedience. Now we're free to obey.)
What about "excessive" conformity to the law? Isn't "excess" wrong? The term "excessive conformity" is almost a meaningless term. Either you conform or you don't. There is no tertium quid (false third option). Furthermore, God's very design for us is that we be conformed to the image of His Son! Can we be "excessively conformed" to the image of Christ? Is that wrong? NO - the more of Christ's image we possess, the more like Him we are! If we are seeking God and yet afraid of "legalism," we are trying to simultaneously be conformed to Christ and yet seeking not to be too excessively like Christ! We are trying to reach the Goal (Christ) and yet at the same time not get too close! Why are we more afraid of doing something righteous than doing something not righteous?

With "legalism" covered, I move on. I disagree with your statement that Jesus abolished civil and levitical law. Jesus did no such thing - why is it in my Bible if it's old, outdated, dead law? Scripture is ALIVE - and so is everything in it. Every word and law applies to ME specifically. Why? It is because every word and law is a description of Jesus Christ - and Jesus Christ lives in me. Today as I abide, Jesus Christ fulfills every law in me.

You speak of Levitical law. Yes, there are laws for priests. Jesus Christ has made me a priest unto God (Rev. 1:6, 5:10). Therefore, every law God gave for priests applies to me as God's priest!

What about civil law? Yes, there are laws for the nation and kingdom of Israel. I too live in a Kingdom that God created - a Kingdom brought to earth by Christ over 2000 years ago and that continues eternally - a Kingdom in which I NOW live - a Kingdom with Kingdom LAW! Thus, every law of God's kingdom that is recorded in the Mosaic law also applies to me as a citizen of the True Kingdom! Praise Him!

As for Peter in Acts, there is no record that Peter actually ate anything. Furthermore, Scripture does not say that God said it is okay NOW to eat all kinds of "unclean animals" - God only said that Peter was not to call anything unclean that God has cleansed. As far as the book of Galatians, I wouldn't say the false teachers are "trying to put the yoke of the law back on" others; rather I would say that they were trying to create their own religious system and shove it onto others - the book is dedicated to explaining how justification does not come through the works of the law - are they/we relying on the flesh or the Spirit? The problem with the teachers trying to force circumcision upon the Galatians was that the teachers wanted to glory in the flesh. The false teacher were not keeping the law themselves (they should have been) but were still trying to make others keep it: "As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh." (Gal. 6:12-13)

You said that when the New Testament refers to Law, it refers only to moral law. May I ask why you say that? Yes, I agree that often the Ten Commandments are specifically mentioned - but unless we like adhering to logical fallacies, we cannot therefore assume that every mention of "law" only means ten commandments. For instance, consider these verses, beginning with a foundation in the Old Testament and moving to the New:

"And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the LORD'S law may be in thy mouth…" (Exo 13:9) – This was before the ten commandments were given.

"The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do ALL the words of this law." (Deu 29:29)
"Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to ALL the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest. This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to ALL that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success." (Jos 1:7-8)
God did not specify “this part of the law” – He is talking about ALL the words of this law. Meditation upon the WHOLE law brings His success to our lives!

"And afterward he read ALL the words of the law, the blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in the book of the law." (Jos 8:34) - This is not just Ten Commandments either.

"And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished…" (Deu 31:24).
"Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. " (Deu 31:26)
The ten commandments didn’t take a book; they only took two stone tablets. This is the whole Torah.

"But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin." (2Ch 25:4) – This is not talking about the ten commandments.

"And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law." (Neh 8:3) – This is the whole Torah. (This is amazing. Would we be bored if we had to do nothing for days but listen to Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy - or would we respond with eagerness, joy, and repentance as these people did?)

But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. (Psa 1:2)
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. (Psa 19:7)
The law of his God is in his heart; none of his steps shall slide. (Psa 37:31)
I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart. (Psa 40:8)
The word translated “law” throughout the Old Testament is the Hebrew word "torah" - the exact same word used to refer to the first five books of Moses. Thus, assuming that "torah" only means "the ten commandments" is a faulty assumption. It would be much more in context of the Hebrew mindset to apply the term to the whole law of God. When the Hebrews said "law," their experience referred them to the entirety of the Mosaic law - not one part of it.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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." (Mat 5:17-18). Christ says not to even THINK He came to destroy the law - or the prophets. "The law and the prophets" was how the Jews referred to the entirety of the Old Testament/Hebrew Scriptures - Jesus was referring to it in entirety, not only to the moral law. The next verse talks about breaking a “least commandment.” The Ten are not “the least"! :)

Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? (Mat 12:5)
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Mat 23:23)
He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? (Luk 10:26)
Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? (Joh 7:19)
If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? (Joh 7:23)
– In these passages, Jesus refers to Law that was not only the Ten Commandments.

Master, which is the great commandment in the law? (Mat 22:36)
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Mat 22:40) – Jesus cited loving the LORD – something not explicitly stated in the Ten Commandments! Then He said that ALL the law hung on the two greatest commandments. By nullifying other laws, we nullify that which hangs upon the great commandments.

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (Gal 3:13) This curse isn’t in the Ten Commandments!

And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. (Luk 16:17) - If Jesus would have meant moral law, He would have said it. This is a radical statement - and His hearers would have been thinking of the whole Torah when Jesus said this. Remember, Jesus' hearers were Jews who spoke Hebrew and had a Hebrew mindset.

Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. (Joh 1:45)
Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? (John 5:45-47)
The whole Torah is about Jesus Christ! That is the significance, keynote, purpose, and meaning of the Torah/Law! If we say the law is done away with, we "do away" with that which is written of Christ! All of Moses' writings are about Christ! Learn to see Christ in the Torah - it is most exciting!

But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing ALL things which are written in the law and in the prophets: (Act 24:14)

Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. (I Cor. 9:8-10).
Paul did not believe that the Law was abolished in any way! He confirms that even the law about not muzzling oxen is still in effect. Furthermore, he explains the true meaning and fullness of this particular law - it is for us NOW in Christ's kingdom TODAY! Each law and word of God in the Torah is the same way - it has a fullness of meaning for us today. Christ fulfills each law within us every day as we abide in Him.

To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. (1Co 9:21) - Paul is clear that he is NOT without law but under law to Christ, even when he appears to be "without law" for the sake of the gospel.

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. (Heb 10:1)
This is the Old Testament law applied to New Covenant! The Law has the SHADOW of the real things - the way that the law applied to the Israelites was a shadow or picture of the way that God gave the law to all in the New Covenant and applied it to them/us.

Thanks for interesting discussion and spurring me on to continued and profitable study/meditation in Scripture! :) My prayer is that the Spirit and the Word continue to speak to all of us in this area.

In short… Christ keeps ALL the law in me every day, making Old Testament law relevant to my life and making it the centerpiece of the New Covenant.
So… I haven't eaten falcon or kite in my lifetime - but Christ at this moment is the He-Lamb of my Trespass Offering offered up with the oil of the Holy Spirit within me (Lev. 14) - and I praise Him that His blood is upon me for my trespasses today and keeps that oil flowing!

So, Erika–if I understand you correctly, you believe all OT laws are to be followed? Even the laws of sacrifices and purification?

Let me try to elaborate on the three parts of Old Testament Law.

Moral Law: These are the laws that God gave on what is right and what is wrong for all time. Basically it's the 10 commandments, though other laws also are part of OT law.

Ceremonial Law: These laws contain the laws of sacrifices and purification. Through them, the Jews were constantly reminded of their need of a Savior by the countless blood shed for their sins. They had to constantly purify themselves, to make them know how sinful they are and how much they needed a Savior. Fast-forward to the crucifixion. Here, Christ died once for all, a death that Hebrews proclaims to have fulfilled all the OT sacrifices. (On a side note, Hebrews was, in many ways, written specifically for Jews trying to deal with how to relate with OT law. Taken together, Hebrews is an excellent argument for why the ceremonial law has been done away with.)

But here's the thing about the OT sacrifices. They weren't sufficient. As Hebrews 10:1 says, "For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near." Because they had to be continually offered, we needed a better answer.

And that's whrere Christ came in. He was the perfect sacrifice for all time. All the ceremonial law pointed forward for our need of a Savior, and to CHrist. And when Christ came, it was over. "It was finished." He died, and we were saved. We no longer needed the blood of bulls and goats–it would be offensive to try and still go by them when we've been given a perfect sacrifice. The goal of the purifications and the sacrifices was to point the OT believers forward to Christ. And once Christ came, we no longer needed them.

CIvil Law: these are laws that God gave the nation of Israel for how to run the country. Specifically, how they should judge sins. It was for the government. And while they can be a good example for legislators to follow, they were for a specific nation at a specific time. They were for the government of Israel and don't have much relevance for us today.

And that's why I believe the civil law and ceremonial law is no longer relevant for NT believers.

~Josiah

The phrase the Jesus spoke: "It is finished" has traditionally been held to mean that not only was the perfect, infinite sacrifice needed to satisfy the wrath of God finished, that Jesus had taken all the wrath, but also has been taken to mean that all the types and shadows of the OT sacrificial laws and priestly ordinances were finished and done away with. More proof of this is the tearing of the veil in the Holy of Holies. Why was it torn? To show that we no longer attempt to find holiness before God by the blood of bulls and goats, that we no longer attempt to make ourselves holy by the rituals performed on the Day of Atonement, that we can come before God without having to follow all those laws, that we can simply cling to Christ, and He will supply our every need. In short, the tearing of the temple veil meant that the whole levitical and sacrificial system was finished, done away with. Not by our own fallen, dismally sinful, and twisted intellect, but by the decree of Christ. The veil was torn because there was now a way made, a much better and divinely performed way, whereby we can come to God directly, namely, Christ Jesus.
Did Jesus thus proclaim that the whole law was henceforth of no effect? Not at all. The law of God is written in the consciences of ALL men. This law cannot mean the whole Torah; it is the ten commandments.
Christ showed irrefutably that the ten commandments are applicable to us, to men of all ages, in the Sermon on the Mount. Unless I'm missing something, He never mentioned any of the civil or sacrificial laws that were given to Israel.

Peter's vision. Some have said that this only applies to the inclusion of the Gentiles - the Gospel is for all men. And others say that in addition to this, the vision also indicates that the dietary laws applicable to Israel were abolished - we can eat whatever we want - we don't have to keep the laws (except the Moral Law) given to the nation of Israel.

Who was the moral law specifically given to? They were given to Israel, although all men have the moral law on their consciences (though they pervert and subvert it to their best ability).
What was the purpose of this law? To show God's standard of perfection that he requires. None of the Israelites could possibly fulfill this. It was a mirror to show God's holiness, His hatred of unholiness, and our inability to be holy. So the Israelites had to sacrifice in order to atone for sins, which brings in the sacrificial and ceremonial law. This symbolized the need for Christ, the perfect sacrifice. Since that perfect sacrifice has been made, there is no longer any need for the blood of bulls and goats.
Then the civil laws were given to set Israel apart as a nation holy to God. These are out-workings of most of the Ten Commandments, and are helpful for nations today, although not commanded for all Gentiles nations (and no longer to Israel either).

The moral law still applies to everyone, because it is on our consciences, the sacrificial/ceremonial laws Christ fulfilled by being and making the perfect sacrifice (so they don't have to be kept by us), and the civil laws likewise Christ fulfilled in full, because he was a Jew.

P.S. I don't think Wretched Man was trying to say that every time the Scriptures say "law" that it is only a reference to the moral law.

The Torah is not dead or useless. To the contrary, it shows God's holiness, our inability to attain to holiness, and the punishment for breaking His law (Moral; still applicable); it shows the only way that our unholiness can be remedied, namely, by the blood of a perfect sacrifice (shadowed in the sacrificial/ceremonial; fulfilled by Jesus); and it shows God's authority over His creatures, and the wisdom of His judgments (civil; not applicable but helpful).
Does that in any way show that we think the Torah dead or unhelpful? No.

God Bless you all!

Because of time constraints I may have to respond in pieces. Thee old brain doesn't move very fast.

As far as the old law is concerned, its dead and has nothing to do with a Christian whatsoever, period!

Consider it a history lesson and thank God we don't have to keep it.

If you feel you must be following the old law in conjunction with your practice of Christianity, there is a word for that and a group for that as well….. it / they are called the "Concision" who 's basic doctrinal message was “ Yeah, were saved but we have to keep the law to stay saved.
Any type of works or law keeping, is thinking that Jesus's sacrifice was not good enough to save you, and you gotta help him out by doing some good works/law-keeping just in case.

Phil 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.

If you like that feeling that your always guilty of something, “keeping” the law is the way to go. Because, “keeping” it, is impossible.

And, if you feel like setting yourself up for a state of perpetual condemnation, “keeping” the law is the way to go. And the harder you try to be perfect and keep the law, the worse it gets.

Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

I would recommend this advice from Our Lord and His apostle Paul.

Mat22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets

Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Rom 13: 8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

There you go, you have a choice, you can be an “old testament Christian” and trudge along and try to keep some archaic law that even God himself got rid of.
Or you can be a “new testament Christian” By letting the grace of our Lord Jesus be enough.
And enjoy life and the freedoms of the spirit……free from Guilt and condemnation, serving Jesus the best we can, and loving those around us the best we can.

Will we fail sometimes? Yep.

Will we get up again and keep going? Yep.

Will Jesus forgive us for all our mistakes along the way ? Yep!

Do we still have to keep the old law? Nope.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by some of your words, or whether I disagree with you, John Project, but this is what I believe and have been taught:
The two commandments "Love God" and "Love your neighbor" are a condensation of the moral law. And if we're supposed to keep them, then we're supposed to keep the moral law, because they are the same thing.

Is this saying that we keep the law as an effort to be justified before God? No. Let that be blown clear from anyone's mind.
But Jesus himself said "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." What commandments did Jesus give. The 2 that are a summation of the 10. So we are to keep the 10.

In our own strength? Impossible. To be justified before God? Heretical.
As a result of loving God? You better believe it!

Is this keeping of the law a slavish one, filled with fearful expectation of judgment? No. It is accomplished by the Spirit's work within us. We can't do it on our own, so He has to help us, and we must pray for that help.

WE ARE TO KEEP THE LAW. Moot point. But what law, and in what way?
The law Christians are to keep is the moral law, and they are to keep it because they love God, not because they want to be justified before Him by their own works.

Hope that is helpful!

I think you missed my point Octavia.

First of all, which part of the word “all” am I missing here? As far as I know all means, all.

I didn't see any (parentheses) stating that “all” means, (except the moral law ) did you ?

There is more to the “ Jewish Moral law “ then just the 10 commandments

Lets go with these verses again for a second :

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets

Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Rom 13: 8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

In other words, Paul is saying that the 10 commandments are summed up in this act of loving your neighbor as yourself.
And Jesus did give a new commandment and that was “that ye love one another as I have loved you”.
If you obey this commandment you would be fulling all the laws and the prophets wouldn’t you say?

What is the law and the prophets according to Jesus?
Mat7:12
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Lets look at this this way, using the (except the moral law ) theory

We will use the same scriptures and see how it looks :

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;(except the moral law )

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets
(except the moral law )

Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.(except the moral law )

Rom 13: 8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.(except the moral law )

9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. (except the moral law )

Mat7:12
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.(except the moral law )

I don't like this.

You can't preach Jesus in one hand and Moses in the other.

Its either Jesus died and “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;” or he didn't.

"I think you missed my point Octavia."
Careful, Octavia is a girl's name!

"First of all, which part of the word “all” am I missing here? As far as I know all means, all."
I think you missed my point. The 2 commandments ARE the Moral Law (though in summation).

"There is more to the “ Jewish Moral law “ then just the 10 commandments"
The Moral Law, whether Jewish or not, is the 10 commandments. If you mean by "Jewish moral law" the whole Torah, then of course there is more to it than the 10.

"Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Rom 13: 8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

In other words, Paul is saying that the 10 commandments are summed up in this act of loving your neighbor as yourself.
And Jesus did give a new commandment and that was “that ye love one another as I have loved you”.
If you obey this commandment you would be fulling all the laws and the prophets wouldn’t you say?"
That was my point. We DO keep the law if we keep Jesus' 2 commandments.

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
Exactly.

I don't know where you got that I believed that when it says law it doesn't mean the moral law.
Maybe we don't disagree after all.

Octavius! I forgot to respell your name, My apologies.

At this point yes we agree that keeping the 1st and second commandment is fulfilling the law the moral law or whatever you want to call it,the law and the Prophets. which means everything.

I am going one step further and saying that for the Christian the Mosaic law is dead. Which obviously I have failed to communicate clearly, and that means the ten commandments as well.

The law is dead, kaput, finished,passed on,extinguished, quashed; finished, over, gone, no more; a thing of the past, ancient history.
extinct, defunct, disused, abandoned, discarded, superseded, vanished, archaic, antiquated, and to the Christian, an old covenant. fulfilled by Jesus Christ and passed away.

There is nothing wrong with the ten commandments, but now I don't have to try and keep them out of obligation or as a duty,and is not my aim. But in obeying Christ commandments these just so happen to get fulfilled because I am trying to do my best to love God and my fellow man.
Which if you think about it, loving God and then your fellow man as yourself, is not as easy as it sounds.
"Loving God is okay, but that fellow man… he can sure be a pain sometimes"

@John-Project: But the difference between the moral law and the ceremonial/civil laws is that the moral law came before the 10 commandments. The Israelites kept the Sabbath day (manna to be gathered doubled the day before and none on the Sabbath.) Cain knew it was wrong to kill Abel. Judah knew he shouldn't commit adultery with Tamar. Abraham knew it was wrong to lie to Pharoah. All these were sins before Sinai. But the ceremonial/civil laws didn't reply.

The moral law stretches further back from Sinai and continues to be the law unto this day. Yes we are freed from having to follow it to be saved because of Christ. But we still have a duty to obey it.

Okay, I think we agree.
I thought you just might have taken cue from WM and changed my name :-)

The law is dead to us, but we are not dead to the law.
It no longer condemns us, yes, so in that it is ancient history (it is dead to us).
But in obeying Christ's command, we must keep the law (Moral) (we are alive to it).
This does not save us, but is the result of us being saved.
Agreed?

We have three viewpoints presented here. Some believe that all law is done away with and voided; others believe that some law is done away with and voided. Octavius, you said that you hold your viewpoint because it is what you “have been taught.” I too was taught that viewpoint. Pastors across the country proclaim it from the pulpit continually. They too have been taught that viewpoint – from seminaries and other pastors.
When I read, study, and meditate upon Scripture, I do not see either of these viewpoints. Instead, God repeatedly states the opposite – every word of the LORD endures forever. Not a word falls to the ground or returns void. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable. Not one jot and tittle passes away while heaven and earth remain. The New Testament quotes the Torah many times. What Scripture has to say on this issue is the only source of any importance. Consider the following passages:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” ~ Matthew 5:17-19
“Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” ~ Luke 16:29-31. This is a New Testament injunction to listen to Moses!
“And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” ~ Luke 24:27. ALL SCRIPTURES contain things that concern Christ – beginning with Moses’ writings. In fact, all of Moses’ writings are expressly about Christ. I wish I could have heard that particular conversation that Christ had with the two disciples – and I wish fervently that all who say that the law is done away with could hear it as well! The Law (Torah) is the essence of who Christ is!
“For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47). If you believe that any of the law/torah is done away with, how shall you believe the words of Christ? This is what Jesus Himself said. Moses wrote of Christ. To say the law does not apply to you is to say that Christ does not apply to you!
“And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.” (Acts 28:23). Paul used the Law of Moses to persuade the people concerning Jesus Christ.
“For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” (Romans 15:4). The law, along with the rest of Scripture, was written for US.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. ~ II Timothy 3:16-17. ALL Scripture is profitable for what purpose? So that we may be perfect! So that we may be completely equipped for good works. Without the law, we are not fully equipped or perfect. The whole law is profitable for these four things: doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness!
“Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” (Hebrews 13:8). The God and the Christ who gave the Law are the same God and Christ who live in me today. He has not changed. His law has not changed.

Josiah: you asked if I believe all laws are to be followed, even laws of sacrifices and purification. First, it does not matter what I believe. It matters what God’s truth is. Second, what is my alternative to believing all laws are to be followed? It is to believe that they should NOT be followed (that is, they should be disobeyed). God put the laws in Scripture. He gave me Scripture. He did not take out the laws. Nor did He tell me elsewhere in Scripture that I could disobey some of His laws – or that some of His laws did not matter to me – or that I could pick and choose what laws I think apply to me. Just because I might THINK sacrificial and purification laws don’t apply to me doesn’t not indeed MEAN that they don’t apply to me!
Take sacrifice. Do I need a sacrifice? The answer is unquestioningly yes – Scripture is clear that without shedding of blood is no forgiveness/remission of sins. Therefore, does what God has to say in the Torah about sacrifice apply to me? YES.
Take purification. Do I need purification? Of course I do. Does God want me pure? Yes. (Romans 12:1-2, Matthew 5:48, 5:8). Therefore, does what God has to say in the Torah about purification apply to me? Yes. Why would I think that what God has to say about purification and sacrifice in Joshua through Revelation applies to me but not what He says about the same topics in Genesis through Deuteronomy? It is the same God speaking on the same topic for the same purpose!
We wrongly put God in a box. We think that when He gave the Law, He only had the nation of Israel in mind. Our limited human comprehension usually does not even stop to consider that God’s infiniteness is far beyond time and space. When God gave the Law, He knew He was giving Scripture that would be read by millions of people in many different cultures and circumstances. His words were FAR broader than to Israel! As the previously-cited New Testament passages make clear, the writings of Moses are actually descriptions of Jesus Christ. As a further example, note that the New Testament identifies Christ as the “True Tabernacle” (Hebrews 8:2). With this perspective, no wonder God was so particular to tell Moses to make the Israelite tabernacle according to the pattern God gave (Hebrews 8:5, Ex. 25:40) – the description of the tabernacle was a description of Christ! God was not simply thinking of an Israelite tabernacle that would last a few thousand years; He was speaking of the Eternal Tabernacle. When we read the Torah with the perspective that it is about Christ (as Christ said in Luke 24, John 5, and elsewhere), we begin to see that EVERY ELEMENT of the law is about Christ – and therefore applies to us today!
Do the laws of sacrifice and purification apply to me in the exact same way as they applied to the Israelite priests? No. I am not an Israelite priest; I am a priest in the kingdom of God (Revelation 1:6, 5:10). This does NOT mean that they don’t apply to me! It does not mean that they are done away with! It simply means that they apply differently – I would say that they apply “more fully” to me than to the Israelites because Jesus Christ fulfills them in me in their true, real application and not in how they applied to the Israelites for that short space of time.
Josiah, I think your post right after mine was almost all Biblically correct other than the last two sentences. God’s “civil law” DOES have relevance to us today – not because modern civil government should do things that way but because we live in the kingdom of God – and God’s kingdom laws do not change! When God gave the laws for how Israel would be run, He patterned it after His kingdom law (in fact, it is part of His kingdom law). Again, He was not just speaking to Israel for that time – He was speaking to all people of His True, Eternal kingdom. That is why such things are included in Scripture. It tells us how things work in the Kingdom.

Octavius: you bring up a lot. Regarding the phrase “It is finished,” you bring up the “traditional” viewpoints. Once again, these are taught in seminaries but not in the Scriptures. With all due respect, taking Christ’s three words to mean that 2/3 of the law is done away with is a huge stretch. Why would Christ pick a few parts of the law to talk about on the cross? Furthermore, “finished” and “done away with” mean completely different things.
Instead, Jesus knew that “all things were accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled” – then He received vinegar, said, “It is finished,” and gave up His Spirit. (Personally, I suspect that the words might be a reference to his receiving the vinegar/wine/fermented liquid – He had promised His disciples that He would not drink until in His Father’s Kingdom – and since all things were accomplished at that point, He drank in the Kingdom before departing. However, this is only my personal suspicion. :) The point is that Jesus did not say, “The priestly system is done away with;” instead, all things were accomplished. Scripture was fulfilled. This makes sense with what happened on the cross – He took all flesh and all sinful, human flesh died in Him.
What about the tearing of the veil? It did not mean the “whole levitical and sacrificial system was finished, done away with” – Scripture does not hint at this anywhere. Instead, Scripture actually defines the veil quite clearly: “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, HIS FLESH; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.” (Hebrews 10:19-22). The veil is Christ’s flesh. This makes sense when we remember that Christ took upon Himself man’s flesh – and the whole barrier to entering God’s presence IS the flesh (not the physical body, which is “soma” in Greek, but the sinful fleshly nature of man, which is “sarx” in Greek). When Christ died, His flesh was indeed rent – and since He gathered us into Himself, our flesh is also rent, crucified with Him. With the flesh gone, there is nothing to hinder access to God who is a Spirit!
You say, “This law cannot mean the whole torah.” I repeat that in Hebrew – the language spoken by virtually everyone in Scripture, including Christ – the word law IS torah. There is no reason to assume that the Hebrews separated the two concepts in the way that we are separating them in this discussion – to them they were one and the same. To them, law was torah; torah was law.
You say that Jesus does not mention ceremonial or civil laws. It would be much too time and space consuming to go through all of Jesus’ words and show how He references the Torah in most of them. For instance, the Ten Commandments do not specifically talk about “Blessed are the peacemakers,” but much of the civil law and ceremonial law do specifically talk about making peace between men and between God and men. The law talks about how Israel is to be set apart as a peculiar nation; Jesus talks about how we are the light of the world.
As for more specific mentions, Jesus DOES talk about other laws in the Sermon on the Mount. Take His words on putting away one’s wife, “an eye for an eye,” and “love thy neighbor,” for starters. He also references the Law (other than the Ten Commandments) in talking about doing alms, not praying like the heathen, not judging others, and not giving holy things to the dogs. Outside of the Sermon on the Mount, consider these passages that Jesus spoke:
“And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.” (Matthew 8:5, also Mark 1:44, Lk. 5:14).
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.” (Matthew 23:2-3) – Jesus TOLD the people to observe what those who taught Moses commanded. He reproved the Pharisees for NOT doing the things they themselves taught!
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.” (Matthew 23:23) – Jesus said that ALL matters of the law should be done! He was chiding the Pharisees for not doing the weightier matters – He Himself affirmed that they ought to be doing ALL the matters of the law.
“And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. ~ Mark 7:8-13. Jesus coupled one of the Ten Commandments with another provision of Law that could be called “civil law.” He did not nullify either one. (Unfortunately, modern churches often make God’s law of none effect through their tradition, rejecting His commandments.)
Even John 3:16 is based on the law of Moses – a law about raising a bronze serpent on a pole!
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:14-16).
“Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?” (John 7:22-23)
“It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. ” (John 8:17-18).
You say the laws are not commanded for all Gentile nations and not for Israel any longer either. It is true that the laws are not commanded to Gentiles – but I as a Gentile have chosen to enter into Christ’s covenant with Israel – thus making all His laws applicable to me. Since the Israelites are in covenant with Yahweh, all His covenant laws apply to them. The very nature of covenant is eternal.
You also say that “The law is dead to us, but we are not dead to the law.” I would maintain that the opposite is actually true: Scripture says, “I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.” (Galatians 2:19) – because “I am crucified with Christ” (Gal. 2:20). The problem wasn’t the law (the law is holy, just, and good – Rom. 7:12); the problem is ME. “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.” (Rom. 7:4). Romans 7 and Galatians 2 are the only passages that use “law” and “dead” in the same verse. Nowhere in Scripture does it say the law is dead. We are dead and the law is alive. In fact, “his commandment is life everlasting,” (John 12:50). It is true that the law does not condemn us any longer – but that is only because we are in Christ Jesus and walk after the spirit instead of after the flesh (Romans 8:1) – because Christ perfectly obeyed the law and He is in us. If we step out of that Life, the law condemns us just as much as ever.

John project: you brought up another line of discussion. First, a lot of the confusion occurs because we are defining “keep” (as in “keeping the law”) with a modern mindset instead of from a Biblical perspective. The modern church has wrongly defined “keep” as “obey.” However, neither the Hebrew nor Greek words translated “keep” mean obey. Rather, both the Hebrew and Greek terms (shamar and tereo) mean “to place a guard around.” Our English language is not completely removed from this concept; if I hand you my pen and ask you to keep my pen, you don’t “obey” the pen!
Thus, when Scripture talks about “keeping the law,” it is taking about “placing a guard around it.” The Hebrew/Greek terms also include the sense of placing great value on it, taking good care of it, watching it, treating it as precious. Is that how we treat God’s law?
You are right – we cannot obey the law. We can try all we want; we WILL fail. “Keeping,” in the Biblical sense, however, is not impossible.
You recommend the advice on loving God and our neighbor. I agree. Christ even defines “loving God” for us:
“By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.” (I John 5:2-3)
“If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.” (John 15:10)
“Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words.” (John 14:23)
God defines LOVE by KEEPING (shamar, tereo) His LAW. We cannot define love apart from law. How do we know if we love God? If we are “keeping” (meditating on, guarding, treasuring, keeping before our eyes) His law. If you want to KNOW that you love God, then start “Keeping” (meditating on, guarding, treasuring) His law.
You talk about being an “old testament” versus “new testament” Christian. Jesus said if we do not believe Moses, we will not believe Him. All that the first church had for Scripture was the “old testament.” God gave the old testament for a reason. I am a WHOLE BIBLE believer and disciple. Freedom comes THROUGH law – not apart from law.
You do make a good point about ALL the law. However, you use that to say ALL the law is done away with while I am saying that ALL the law is relevant. Apply the same logic to scriptures such as “ALL scripture is profitable,” “Every word of God endures forever,” and so on. The Law is a unified whole – but Scripture is also a unified whole. If the law is done away with, the gospels and epistles must be done away with to. I am not joking – that is where such logic takes people. No wonder the modern church is picking and choosing which parts of the New Testament apply to them now! Can we wonder, too, why the secular world has thrown out law? The church led the charge.
I have a few questions on what you said: can you show me a Scripture that says that “God got rid of” the law? Also, if the Mosaic law is dead, why is it in the Bible? Do you believe the Bible is a living book?
On covenant: covenants do not pass away. They are eternal by nature. In the creation covenant, covenant laws included the sun and moon setting signs, seasons, days, and years and the law to eat plants – all laws are still in effect today. In the Adamic covenant, the covenant laws included, “The wages of sin is death,” “Thorns and thistles will grow,” “Childbirth will be painful,” among others. All of these covenant laws are still in effect. In the Noahic covenant, covenant laws included no more a worldwide floods, the appearance of the rainbow, that wild animals would be afraid of people, and that people could eat meat. All covenant laws are still in effect. Why do we get to the Mosaic covenant and assume that the covenant laws are NOT in effect? That violates the very nature of covenant. The laws do not change. We can choose to live outside them, but they are still there. Praise God that His covenants do not pass away!

I end with an appeal: can we try to look solely through the lens of Scripture and not through the lens of what we have been taught? Our religious, theological ideologies have intertwined themselves around our perceptions of God and His ways. Have we ever stopped to consider that perhaps not all of these ideas originated upon a Scripture basis?
I too was taught that the law was divided and that part of it is void. However, when I started looking at “law” as mentioned in Scripture instead of as mentioned in commentaries or sermons, a different perspective began to emerge. It is right there in Scripture; it is not hidden – but unfortunately we have had myriads of people helping us misunderstand Scripture. The opinions of man do not matter. The voice of the Spirit and the Word matters. I would urge you to reexamine all that you have been taught in the light of Scripture. Read through the Torah repeatedly, asking the Holy Spirit to open your eyes to see Jesus Christ in every part of the Torah. My intent is not to “argue the point” or offend others – but I have a burden to proclaim God’s word/truth when I see part of God’s Word discounted.
Father, “Open thou mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law…The law of thy mouth is better unto me than thousands of gold and silver.” (Psalm 119:18, 72).

So, to clarify, Erica, you agree with my analysis of the ceremonial laws and just differ with me on regards to the civil laws?

The civil law, though, has laws that don't have as much relevance for us today. SLaves and awls bored through their ears to show they will serve their master forever? Rules concerning beseiging a city and planting fields? Cities of refuge? You can't transfer them all into today's society. They are great rules, but it's also true that, because they were for the government, we need some different rules. Like the above verses, they don't work with today's society because of how differently things have done.

I don’t think I agree with you in the way you mentioned. I believe that every word God said and law He gave applies to me – whether ceremonial, civil, criminal, contemptible, or crazy.

I will repeat: every word and every law is talking about the Kingdom of God! Yes, it was literally for the Israelite nation, but on a far deeper level, it is Kingdom Law for us right now.

As far as slaves with awls in their ears, that is a mark of covenant that binds the servant to the master in loyalty. This is exactly the way that we are slaves to Jesus Christ – the only difference is that the awl is not only through our ear but through our hearts as, when we were crucified with Christ, our flesh was pierced with His – making us His forever! We are pierced “through the ear” in the sense that now we “listen up under” (the literal meaning of a Greek word often translated “obedience” to masters) Christ as our master. Furthermore, the doorway is always the Place of Covenant in Scripture – and Christ is the Door! This “outdated law” is FULL of application to my life! It doesn’t mean that I go around collecting slaves, grabbing an awl, and finding the nearest doorway – it means that I AM the slave who has had that done to me in God’s kingdom and I LIVE in that loyalty, serving Him forever!

Besieging a city? You better believe it! :) The Kingdom of God is besieged constantly by the enemy and God has laws about how things work with that. Cities of refuge? The description of the cities of refuge is a description of Jesus Christ, our Refuge. When we are accused, we do not defend ourselves; we flee to Him. He is our safety and defender. As long as we abide in Him, we suffer no true harm. The City of Refuge is indeed important in the Kingdom – and I praise God for His city of refuge in my life.

So, no, I don’t need to transfer these things over to today’s society. God purposely gave these laws for all people in all times – it is how His Kingdom works. I am not saying that earthly governments should work that way – I am saying that the Kingdom That is Not of This World works that way – because that’s what God says.

Do you see what I'm saying? Does that make sense?

Okay, let me get this straight. You believe that we should be practicing sin offerings, guilt offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings, and peace offerings, that those who disrespect their parents, blasphemers, and adulterers should be stoned to death in the middle of a city, that we should be sure to keep the Passover, the Feast of Weeks, the Feast of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, the Feast of Tabernacles, and the Year of Jubilee, that we should go through a weeks-long ritual to make sure a person is not developing leprosy or that a house does not have mildew, and that eating pork, fat, or blood is unacceptable? How do these apply to today??

So have you never eaten bacon or hot dogs or ham in your life? Or if you did, do you believe you were sinning? What about seafood? Have you ever talked back to your parents? If so, we'd better come and stone you right now, according to your interpretation? Has your dad ever shaved? Have you ever gone a day without offering a sacrifice to God for your sins? Something tells me you have…

All of us have broken all of the ten commandments, therefore all of us deserve stoning under the Old Covenant. But God in His mercy does not enforce those punishments anymore. If He did, we'd all be done for.

Yes, Saved by Grace, I believe that – though not exactly as you described. You are describing those laws as they applied to Israel, not as they apply to us.

Sin offerings, guilt offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings, and peace offerings: I agree that all offerings pointed to Jesus Christ. However, that does not mean that offerings are done away with; it means that I now practice the sin offering with Jesus Christ as my sin offering. “Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.” (Isaiah 53:10). He is the sacrifice who took away my guilt. He is the Firstfruits (I Cor. 15:23) – the grain offering who offered Himself to God, and now we “take and eat” of His body. He is the peace offering – He is our peace (Eph. 2:14). No, I don’t need animals; Christ is the Male Lamb of God without Blemish – the Lamb of the sin offering. Take everything the Torah says about offerings and apply it to Jesus Christ and you have how offerings apply to our lives today. They are not void – praise the LORD!

Stoning to death as punishment: again, this is how things work in God’s kingdom. We do not literally have a civil government in the United States that stones people for these things or even gives the death penalty for these things. However, this is the punishment for disobedience, blasphemy, and adultery (which, by the way, are all part of the Ten Commandments) in God’s kingdom. All who are disobedient, blasphemers, and adulterers ARE given the death penalty in God’s kingdom – perhaps not right after their sin (there is no “time” in God’s kingdom) – but if those sins remain upon their heads, they receive death. To command Israel to stone those people was only an immediate execution of the penalty that they would eventually face anyway. This also gives us a perspective on how God views these sins. Would we be inclined to take them lightly after reading what God’s prescribed punishment was?

The Passover, the Feast of Weeks, the Feast of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, the Feast of Tabernacles, and the Year of Jubilee: these are especially important! Feasts establish a covenant and deepen a relationship. This concept is carried into today through our marriage feasts, birthday dinners, graduation potlucks, and so on – even today we mark every important occasion in our lives with a meal/feast! But what about the Old Testament feasts? If we are walking in covenant with God, then once again, Jesus Christ IS every one of these in our lives! The descriptions of the feasts are descriptions of Him. “For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” (I Corinthians 5:7-8). This passage very clearly states that Passover is NOT done away with – it commands us to KEEP it in the TRUE way!
The Feast of Weeks is also known as the Feast of Firstfruits – Christ IS the firstfruits (I Cor. 15:23). The Feast of Trumpets (or “Feast of Clamor”) is also fulfilled through Christ. Twice John says that Jesus’ voice was as a trumpet. He “trumpets” Himself through me! The Day of Atonement is essential – Christ is my Atonement every day! He is the High Priest who has made Atonement for me. He is also the Tabernacle who keeps the Feast of Tabernacles every day in me through “tabernacling” inside of me and I in Him. “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.” (Revelation 21:3). The Year of Jubilee was when slaves went free and land returned to its owner – today, Christ has set me free and given me the possession of Himself – the portion that I forfeited through sin returns to me through Christ! Every day is jubilee for me! Every day, Christ keeps all the feasts in me!

Cleanliness rituals: true purity is inward, as Christ taught. When Christ spoke of that which is within being what defiles a man, He was referring to the modern application of the cleanliness laws. This is how He cleanses our hearts. This is the process of true purification. (Actually, in many ways, processes by which houses are cleansed and those with contagious diseases are treated are no less rigorous than what God commanded.)

Eating pork: Pigs ARE unclean animals. Watch a pig for a while; you can’t get around that fact. Thus, what God said about them is true (as always). Furthermore, modern medicine/science knows that not eating pork results in health benefits. God wanted His people holy and set apart – and I too am His, holy and set apart. Do I really want to eat an animal that God called unclean? Yes, God can cleanse or sanctify our food for His purposes if He desires us to eat it – but are we eating it at His command for a specific reason or for our own pleasure? The health benefits of not eating pork are not “done away with” – and pigs today behave just as pigs did back then – so God’s word on the matter is not “done away with” either.

Eating fat and blood: fat and blood are the richest parts of the animal. During a sacrifice, the priest was to deal with the blood first, then the fat. Once again, it is a matter of holiness and set-apartness. God wants His people to be pure vessels for His service – and eating fat does not promote health. As for the blood, the life of the flesh is in the blood. To eat blood is to take the life of another creature or person inside of you. No wonder demon-possessed people would drink blood! However, God does not want the life of an animal living inside us. He wants the life of His Son alone inside us. That is why Jesus took the cup, saying, “Drink all of it, for this is the blood of my new covenant…” By partaking of the Covenant Meal, we receive the life of Christ inside us. God does not want the life of an animal inside of us NOW any more than He wanted it inside the Israelites back then. The law is NOT done away with.
Plus, if you have an overwhelming temptation to drink animal blood… I’m a little worried about you… :)

So – yes, all laws apply to us today, if we take time to look at what they are saying. It is kingdom law. I have been going through the Torah making comments on where I see Christ in the Torah, or where it applies to us, or where I see covenant or atonement in the Torah. So far, I’m partway through Leviticus and have 500 pages. It is VERY exciting to see Jesus Christ in the Law!

Chief of Sinners - I happen to not like any of the food items you mentioned, thus making that question a non-issue in my life. :) Even when those foods are made with turkey. :) Stoning to death: see my previous post. Shaving: all that the Law says about that is “ye shall not…mar the corners of thy beard” – which is different than shaving. I confess that I don’t understand that law yet (I don’t have to worry about beards anyway :) – but I am NOT going to throw out something God said simply because I don’t understand it. As for offering sacrifices for sins, I done that every day of my life that I have lived with Christ in me (see my previous post).

Yes – we deserve death under the Old Testament law. We also deserve death under New Testament law. God has not changed His law that the wages of sin IS death. However, God DOES enforce those punishments. God could not simply say, “It’s okay now. There is no punishment for sin anymore. The wages of sin used to be death, but now it isn’t.” His mercy could NOT do away with the law or the punishments. His mercy allowed Christ to gather all of us into Himself, take our sin upon Himself – and receive the punishment and death upon Himself. The punishment was FULLY enforced. The sufferings of Christ were most horrible and the death most ignominious. If we refuse to live within Christ, the punishment and the death will be fully enforced on us. It is not done away with – but praise God for Jesus Christ so that the enforced punishment does not have to fall directly on us!

Ok; now I understand what you're saying, Erika. The OT laws aren't done away with, but relate with the spiritual part of CHrist's kingdom instead of the physical part. In that case, I don't feel like I disagree with you much (I have minor disagreements with how you put it, but…).

Okay. I see your point.
And I also see that much of our disagreement arises around the word "keep".
When I used that previously, I meant obey. We don't personally have to obey every single law of the Old Covenant because Christ did it for us, and because He and I are one flesh, I have done it too.
In that sense, we don't have to obey the laws given to Israel.
But in the way you say it, keep means to guard etc., and in that case, because EVERY word of scripture is profitable, yes indeed we should keep it.
I did not mean to say that the majority of the Torah can or should be ignored as useless or meaningless to us as Christians. My family actually celebrates the Passover because it is such a wonderful picture of Christ. It is a great experience, and it grows better every time I do it, because Christ is in it so clearly and undeniably. And that is true with many other parts of the Torah. They are not dead or useless. They hold many beautiful imageries shadowing Jesus Christ, the need for perfection, the punishment for imperfection, and much more. They are as far from useless as Paul's epistle to the Romans.
But are we required to physically obey them?
No.
However, as you have pointed out, there are countless spiritual applications of the Torah to us as Christians, the New Israel of God.

I would like to clarify just one text that you used.
Hebrews 10:19-22 "Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." Grammatically, you didn't interpret that verse right.
"through his flesh" is a reference to "the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain [veil]" The veil is NOT his flesh. His flesh is the new and living way. It says "by the new and living way" and "through his flesh". By and through are synonymous. Use either preposition in both cases and it will make sense.
This text doesn't say what the veil is. I believe it would best be interpreted as symbolic of the division between God and man that must exist because of sin. Remember, the veil was put in place so that the priests could not see God (except on the Day of Atonement when the High Priest was bearing blood [a sacrifice, symbolic of the Ultimate Sacrifice]). The veil was not torn then because the blood of bulls and goats avails nothing to take away sin. But because Christ bridged that gap, closed the division between God and man, the veil is torn, and we can now draw near to God through the blood of Christ.

Yeah, Erika…now that I understand what you're meaning to say, it makes a ~LOT~ more sense :) In fact, I like your way of describing it! Gives new meaning to Christ's fulfillment of the law.

I'm still not sure about your analysis of dietary laws, though. It's true that no one NEEDS to eat pigs, seafood, etc., and there's not a thing wrong with refraining from them. What I take issue with is the idea that dietary laws are still binding to everyone. I mean, wasn't this one of the Judaizers' multiple problems? Doesn't Romans 14 have something to say about this? What about 1 Timothy 4:4 (For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,)?

Or are you even saying that dietary laws still apply? Are you saying something else? All I'm saying is that I'm still somewhat confused about your position on this issue.

Yeah, I agree–your position makes quite a bit more sense now. :) So you're not saying that we must obey these laws in the sense that they were originally intended, but that Christ has fulfilled them all, and since Christ is in us as Christians, we do not have to obey them to that extent.

But there is one main thing I am not sure about regarding your position. Are you saying that nonbelievers are sinning if they don't keep these laws, until they become Christians? I wasn't able to draw the answer from your previous posts. Thanks. :)