Act 22:12
And one Ananias, a devout man according to the lawl, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there,
Rom 7:12
Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Rom 7:16
If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that itis good.
1Ti 1:8
But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
Act 24:14
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:
I think its important to have a balanced viewpoint...as it is true that "no flesh is justified by the law" we need to also understand that if what many believe is true and the law is obsolete (the context of Heb. 7and 8 is the priesthood) then the question should be answered: why would the law be written on our hearts if its obsolete, (Jer. 31:31-34) also if the law was completely obsolete in the NT times please explain why John defined sin as transgression of the law? (1 John 3:4).
I want to make this clear and state that I know that obeying the commandments in and of themselves saves nobody, only the blood of our Savior can do that... however to state that the whole of the commands given in the OT are obsolete is simply not biblically sound... and the Father in his infinite wisdom would never remove the boundries that keep us safe from death. just an opinion of a student of scripture... "there's 2 sides to every issue and somewhere in the middle is the truth"
Nothing I say below should be interpreted that I am against the moral elements of the Mosaic Covenant, however the Mosaic Covenant as a whole is not in effect anymore. There are moral elements which are timeless simply by their nature. They are timeless, not because they were included in the Mosaic Covenant, but because they are moral absolutes. However, to have a law-driven mentality, rather than a Spirit-led mentality, would be a mistake too.
I have checked these thoughts with various knowledgeable sources including a NT professor who attends my fellowship, who has a solid Greek background, so I am confident my perspective is reasonable. In addition, I have struggled with understanding the related topics due to my prior life as a Sabbath observer.
I don't think
anomia of I John 3:4 is referring to the Mosaic Covenant, but is referring to the state of rebellion that unconverted mankind is under. Modern translations use
lawlessness as a translation, rather than
transgression of the law. I think I John 3:4 is linking motivation with behavior. Hamartia (sin or behavior) is linked with anomia (rebellion or motivation).
One needs to keep in mind that I John was written in part to define the behavior of the secessionists, who were unsaved, versus the behavior of those who are true believers. I believe a proper rendering of I John 3:4 is identifying those who were secessionists with individuals who were in rebellion against God, in essence unsaved.
So, I do not link
anomia directly with the Mosaic Covenant, although much of the Mosaic Covenant was moral in nature. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that because the root of the word
anomia is
nomos which can be used in relation to the Mosaic Covenant, that violating the Mosaic Covenant is sin, as the word
nomos is also used in relation to the law of a man over his wife in Romans 7, for example. I relate the word more to rebellion, although I am open to considering that
nomos also refers to God's moral law in an abstract sense, as being God's commandments that apply to New Covenant believers. However, I would categorize some elements as being ceremonial and ritualistic in nature that a minority would not agree upon.
My perspective on this issue is that "the law" in NT writings is referring to either the Mosaic Covenant or God's moral law, and these are not synonymous. The reason I say this is because the Mosaic Covenant included more than just moral law. It included shadows and types that are not applicable to the New Covenant believer. I would include more in this category than others might, including the Sabbath, festivals, and clean/unclean meat laws. Others would agree physical circumcision is no longer applicable, as well as dress issues such as wearing mixed fabrics or tassels.
In regards to the Mosaic Covenant, as a whole, it is not applicable anymore. The covenant was made with ancient Israel and God, not with God and the New Covenant believer. However (and this is a big however), spiritual and moral principles underlay the specific applications that were given to ancient Israel, and a Spirit-led Christian can discern those and derive spiritual and moral guidance from them.
I do not think the Mosaic Covenant is the definitive standard with regards to behavior. The Gospels and apostolic writings significantly expanded upon the Mosaic Covenant. In addition, there are elements which are shadows or types which no longer apply and have been fulfilled in Christ.
Being led by the Holy Spirit is the focus, not being led by the Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant was made with carnal Israel, which God used for a specific purpose. Most of Israel was not converted. Specific applications were communicated to them because they were carnal and could not understand spiritual things. Notice that Paul first addresses the Judaizers in Galatians, and then has a long discourse about being led by the Spirit in Galatians 5:16-26, and this is not accidental. Paul knew that the Mosaic Covenant was temporary in nature (Read Galatians 3), and was a schoolmaster to lead the Jews to Christ.
Once one is led to Christ, they receive the Holy Spirit, which leads them in regards to behavior. This is one of the big reasons why I butt heads with some "Torah observers". The focus of some of them (not all of them) is law-driven rather than Spirit-led. They are like 40 year old adults trying to continue wearing diapers and suck bottles. Those things have a reason for a certain state of development, but they need to get past it and move into the Spirit-led life, instead of proclaiming their superiority in terms of knowledge and behavior, and looking down on non-observers (although I agree there is nothing wrong with observing some of the elements of the Mosaic Covenant as a preference and not a requirement).
The Mosaic Covenant was a bit like communicating with a child. Parents need to make rules for children which are explicit in nature, because children don't understand principles so well due to their immaturity. God gave very specific instructions to Israel because they were carnal children for the most part (there was a remnant of true believers always though, who had a genuine faith relationship with God). When we were kindergartners, our teachers walked us to the cafeteria for lunch to ensure that we did not get lost, in a single file form. When we were high school students, we didn't need walked to and from the classroom; we were trusted to get there ourselves. Such is the difference between ancient Israel and the Christian. Christians have the Holy Spirit which empowers them to be led in right direction without specific laws, although the laws of the Mosaic Covenant can certainly provide some basic spiritual and moral guidance for the believer which is empowered by the Holy Spirit to discern what translates directly and what does not.
Regarding the Mosaic Covenant, though, the following Scriptures show it is not applicable as a whole: Acts 15, II Corinthians 3, Galatians 3 and 4 (actually the whole book), Ephesians 2:13-15, and Romans 7:1-7. I would also include Hebrews 8 and 9 as I do not think Hebrews is addressing just the priesthood; the book's main theme is how Christ is "better than" the characters of Israel's history, and how the New Covenant is "better than" the Mosaic Covenant.
I am with you Yonah, that this is a very tricky subject and can easily degenerate into antinomianism or lawlessness (believing that there is such a thing as a Christian who is disobedient
as a lifestyle) if terms and explanations are not well defined. The above is how I view the topic from the perspective of an ex Sabbath/festival/clean meat person. I consider these elements to be ceremonial or ritualistic in nature, and part of the "boundary marker" commandments that separated ancient Israel from the Gentile nations. You may not agree with that, and I respect that view. Romans 14 allows for differences of views on this topic, and I respect your views and zealousness as you know whether I agree with precise details of your understanding (the precise details of my understanding from one year to the next changes as well).
A Christian is regenerated (born again or born from above) and has a nature that wants to please and obey God. He may sin, and even struggle with persistent sins for a long period of time, but when viewed as a whole, his lifestyle will be one of obedience. Some groups within the professing Christian church deny this truth. Those who claim that faith doesn't produce the fruit of obedience and good works are to be avoided. I am not saying that this is the case with anyone on the thread.
I also view any deviation from God's holiness as a sin, and not the Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant only weakly reflected God's holiness, like a candle is dim in comparison to the bright blazing sun. Jesus Christ was a full revelation of God's holiness, like the bright blazing sun. Jesus Christ lives within the believer now, though, through the Person of the Holy Spirit. And his direct guidance (informed by Scripture for sure) is the best revelation with regards to moral and spiritual guidance.