Ultimately, in a word: “Christlikeness.” Paul writes a fair bit of what that “looks like” and how it is to be expressed in Christian community and in interaction with the world.
Which rules? Where’s the list? And why are some things “no longer on it”? And why does Paul specifically and explicitly say that following the law is:
Ineffective?
Temporary?
Contrary to God’s current intention?
What do you do with those verses? Pretend they’re not there? Slice away the “rules we’re supposed to follow” from the “ones we’re supposed to follow”?
And how does that work exactly? How do certain rules “make us more Christlike”?
There is no distinction anywhere in scripture between “moral law” and “Mosaic law” or between “moral law” and “sacrificial law” or between “moral law” and “purity law.”
Any such distinction must be imposed on the text, and I’m not sure how appropriate that is.
That was the whole problem of the Pharisaic way of life and what Christ tried to expose. To the Pharisee all laws were equal. Unfortunately some biblical fanatics have the same problem with Scripture. They cannot differentiate one text (or style of text) from another. It would appear that the route of this discussion stems from such a view of Old Testament texts…
All or nothing is neither Biblical, nor valid. Not as a whole, nor as Old Testament Law.
What are the criteria by which we interpret? What are the criteria by which we say “not this part of the Old Testament” but “that part”?
For that matter, what are the criteria by which we say “not this part of the New Testament” but “that part”? I ask this second question especially in light of Paul’s comments talking about the futility and temporary nature of the first covenant (for which “the Law” comprises the defining terms).
I prefaced it with something you should have recognized:
How appropriate is it to impose the doctrine of the Trinity on the text? Oh yeah, very. Likewise it is very appropriate to make a distinction between the laws of love and the whole of Mosaic law.
It’s not at all appropriate to impose the doctrine of the Trinity on the text. Does it “come out of the text”? I believe it does. Not necessarily in the somewhat strained, conceptually Greek, articulation of, say, the Athanasian Creed, but certainly in general it’s there; not least in Matthew 28:19, but certainly elsewhere.
I wonder what Jesus, Moses, Paul, or James would say if, in that cultural context you were to explain the difference between “moral law” and…sacrificial law? Ritual law?
It’s not the “difference between love and escargot.” It’s: why is there a difference? It’s: where is the line between what is permitted and what is not?
Diet rules don’t apply? Okay, we can justify that from Mark. What about dress rules? Mixed fabrics? Sacrifices? Intermarrying?
And what about the Jerusalem Council that prescribed just a few very simple practices for gentiles and not the “rest of the law” (which “neither we nor our forefathers were capable of bearing,” Acts 15:10)?
These are not “obvious like the difference between love and escargot.”
And what about Paul who says the law is temporary? Not “part of the law.” Not “the sacrificial and purity rules.”
So again, are you trying to be deliberately obtuse? Are you just playing a game?
We’re just spinning our wheels. You don’t understand the necessity of enforceable family rules for good behavior and smooth family operation, and I am not adequately articulate to help you see that you don’t.
I think I’m getting off this merry-go-round, to mix a metaphor and to change the axis from horizontal to vertical (always a good idea: Hebrews 12:2).
Now you’re venturing into straw man behaviour. That we have “necessary enforceable family rules” is irrelevant to salvation and Christ-like character formation.
That’s probably why the “necessary rules” are different from family to family, country to country, congregation to congregation, denomination to denomination, etc.
I want to look at the testing (tempting) of Jesus in the wilderness. I think it illustrates something about the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament.
The devil tempts Jesus, who is fasting, to turn stones into bread, Jesus replies by quoting Deuteronomy: “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone.’"
The devil next tempts Jesus with authority and splendor, in return for worshipping him. Jesus replies by quoting Deuteronomy again: “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'"
The devil next tempts Jesus to put God to the test by jumping from a high place. (And the devil actually quotes Psalm 91 to hint that God will protect him!)
Jesus counters by again quoting Deuteronomy: “It is said: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
Do you think that the early church saw in this a valuable and relevant lesson for their behavior? Does your own church find value in these verses?
What I’m seeing is that the Old Testament is ingrained in the New Testament, and that these are not irrelevant throwaway verses.
They would say, “What is with this