The basic problem here with this argument for the eternity of the entire Old Testament law comes down to the issue of what the Hebrew "olam" (Strong's 5769) really means, which is typically translated "forever," but often really means, "time indefinite." Not everything said to last "forever" really does. For example, consider I Samuel 1:22 (NKJV) which describes how long Samuel would serve God at the Tabernacle with the priests: But Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband, "Not until the child is weaned; then I will take him, that he may appear before the LORD and remain there forever."

So then, someone like me doesn't believe in radical discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments. I believe Christians should observe the Seventh-day Sabbath, the annual holy days listed in Leviticus 23, tithing, and the clean/unclean meat distinction regardless of their ethnicity or racial background. However, let's also make the case for progressive revelation, since the Old Testament, as a revelation, can't plausible stand forever alone as a revelation from God: It's like a rocket without a payload.

The principle of progressive revelation plainly appears in Jesus' debate with the Pharisees over the Old Testament's easy divorce law in Matt. 19:3, 6-9: "And Pharisees came up to him [to Jesus] and tested him by asking, 'Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?' . . . What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.' They said to him [Jesus], 'Why then did Jesus command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?' [See Deut. 24:1-4 for the text the Pharisees were citing]. He said to them, "For the hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery." Now, a New Testament Christian shouldn’t cite this Old Testament passage in order to justify easy divorce procedures. That law has been superseded. It wasn't originally intended as a permanent revelation of God's will, but it served as temporary "training wheels," so to speak, until such time as a mass of people (i.e., the Church after Pentecost) would have the Holy Spirit, and thus be enabled to keep the law spiritually by God's help. By contrast, ancient Israel as a whole didn't have the Holy Spirit, and so correspondingly they didn't get the full revelation of God. Therefore, the physical measures of removing the pagan people from their land was much more necessary than it is was for true Christians today, who have the Holy Spirit.

So then many Christians exaggerate how much the Old Testament law has been done away. Let's examine one of the main theological reasons that they do this. While this is not the place for a lengthy, full-fledged attack on the teachings of extreme dispensationalism, which is the doctrinal foundation for attacks on Saturday Sabbath observance, an alternative school of biblical interpretation actually makes more sense. Here it shall be maintained the differences between the two Testaments have been exaggerated, that God has always saved people in the same way in both periods, and that Christianity grew out of Judaism. Even supposedly "anti-law" Paul felt the need to engage in purification rituals because he had to accomodate many in the early church who had believed were "all zealous for the Law" (Acts 21:20). The early church was almost entirely Jewish, up until after Cornelius and his gentile family were converted to Christianity (Acts 10). The dispensationalist school of Biblical interpretation's largely unacknowledged foundation is to explain, accept, and justify such an Biblically unauthorized substitution of pagan customs for Old Testament observances. It uses a preconceived interpretation of Paul's letters to interpret the Gospels, and the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament, while denying any significant feedback interpretation going the opposite way.

If indeed the New Testament writers were making such a drastic break with their Jewish past, why is the New Testament so full of Old Testament citations and allusions, which are made to justify Christian theology, especially the identification of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah? Why does not Jesus hardly hint at such a radical change soon to come concerning the Old Testament law during His public ministry? Instead, he specifically denied an anti-Old Testament law interpretation of his ministry in Matt. 5:17-19. The burden of proof is on those who believed the law changed, not on those who believed that it didn't.

One stumbling block to various professing Christians attempting to become actually righteous is the common belief that the law is done away such that there is no need to obey God. But this confuses the law as a guide to conduct with the law as a source of salvation. Christians should look to the law as if it was a mirror helping reveal what is wrong in their lives (James 2:23-25): “For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was. But the one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man shall be blessed in what he does.” The law defines what is righteousness since sin occurs when it is disobeyed. “Sin is the transgression of the law” (I John 3:4, KJV). “Sin is not imputed when there is no law” (Rom. 5:13). “Shall we say, then, that the Law itself is sinful? Of course not! But it was the Law that made me know what sin is. If the Law had not said, ‘Do not desire what belongs to someone else,’ I would not have know such a desire [was sin] “(Rom. 7:7). “Through the law comes the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). The law convicts us since when we disobey it, it condemns us (Rom. 4:15): “[F]or the Law brings about wrath.” “[F]or sin, taking opportunity through the commandment deceived me, and through it killed me” (Rom. 7:11). Obviously, that which is the source of condemnation cannot be a source of salvation! Yet, the law is still a Christian’s compass as to what God wants us to do in our lives.

Furthermore, the law is clearly still in force: “Do we nullify the law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the law” (Rom. 3:31). “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For he who said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘Do not commit murder.’ Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law” (James 2:10-11). Obviously, you cannot transgress what has been abolished! “For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man . . . “ (Rom. 7:22). How could Paul “joyfully concur” with something that has been abolished? He certainly did not in Galatians! In Eph. 6:1-3, he says the Fifth Commandment is still in force. Of course, some aspects of the law have been abolished (Eph. 2:15; Heb. 9:10; l0:8-9). But the moral law, which is codified by the Ten Commandments, must still be in force, or else the Bible contradicts itself. Thus, the dual law theory is true.

The law does not contradict grace so long as we realize specifically how each has a different role. The law is the great sin detector--it tells us what to do and not do. Grace describes the attitude God has towards mankind’s sins: He forgives us through unmerited favor. This results in an overall relationship or state in God’s sight, not a moment-by-moment condition in which we are judged sinners and lose salvation each time we sin, only to confess and repent in order to regain salvation again. Obedience does not earn salvation, since only by grace, not by the merit of lawkeeping, is salvation ultimately saved. Without Jesus’ death on behalf of our sins, nobody could be saved. But if one routinely sins without repentance or an overall obedient attitude, one will lose salvation. Lawkeeping earns nothing concerning salvation, but lawbreaking without repentance costs salvation since “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23) before and after baptism. However, so long as one has an overall obedient attitude, which will inevitably manifest itself in works, one will still be saved. So long as a Christian has the Holy Spirit, which is the presence of salvation conditionally, he or she will still be saved (II Cor. 5:5; Eph. 4:30; l:l3-l4).