Were some parts of the law abolished or "not one jot will by any means pass from the law"?

To those who would mistakenly argue that certain Mosaic laws such as the tithing, dietary, festival, and Saturday Sabbath laws have been abolished, I ask them: how do you explain Galatians 5:18 which says: “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.”? If you interpret this verse as further proof that many Old Testament laws no longer need to be obeyed, doesn’t that idea conflict massively with many other major verses, especially two “gold standard” verses: Acts 2:38: “Repent, and ….. be baptized ….. for the forgiveness of sins; and you shall receive ….. the Holy Spirit” and 1 John 3:4: “…… sin is the violation of the law.”? To get the vital Holy Spirit in the first place you need to repent of sinning, which 1 John 3:4 clearly defines as breaking the law or torah. THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN STOP BREAKING THE LAW IS TO OBEY THE LAW!! Therefore the only interpretation possible of Galatians 5:18’s “not under the law” and similar verses such as “released from the law” and “freed from the law” is that Holy Spirit led Christians are no longer under the penalty (automatic death penalty for many sins) part of the law, but still are under the obedience part of the law, excluding primarily circumcision and the various sacrifices the apostles “went out of their way” to explain as abolished. Romans 8:2: “….. Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death” shows that death, the penalty part of the law, no longer applies to obedient, law (torah) abiding Christians.

Galatians 5:18 when turned around also reveals that all non-Christians ARE under the law, showing that the law was never really abolished.

Visit http://TithingHelps.us to become more knowledgeable about Galatians 5:18 and other pro-law verses that mathematically seem to outnumber by more than 2 to 1 the supposedly, at first glance anti-law verses in the English translations of the New Testament.

This statement used to confuse me, and I think the root of my confusion was in the expected contrasts. When Jesus says (paraphrasing) that he "didn't come to abolish the law, but instead..." my mind filled in the gap with something like "uphold" or "maintain," and I tried to read and understand His statement through that expectation. It's significant that he's saying that he's fulfilling the law, though. A major theme of Christianity is that Jesus is the perfect savior and representative for his people, and by being the one that fulfills the law, he does the very thing that the prophets and the law had been looking forward to. He does the thing that no one else could do; all the preceding types fell short of being complete fulfillments.

I think it's helpful to look at the broader context of this conversation. Jesus is giving his famous "Sermon on the Mount" and after turning certain preconceptions a bit topsy-turvy with the Beatitudes, he's about to proclaim some new standards that up the ante on the law by prescribing attitudes and thoughts more than just behavior (e.g. it's not sufficient to not murder people; we're also not supposed to hate them). In the midst of this, which seems like (and I would contend is...at least a bit) a revision of the law, Jesus says the following:

Matthew 5:17 (ESV)
¹⁷  “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

I think a common misunderstanding comes from something that's not altogether wrong: I think people often tend to look at the law as the standard by which man is expected to live in order to earn eternal life...from there the tendency might be to measure oneself in relation to how well one keeps the law. That premise is true in that the reward for the keeping the law is life and the punishment is death, but the thing I think is often missed is that Jesus is the one who fulfilled the law: He earned the right to life, and those who trust in him as their savior share in that reward by grace through faith. As others have pointed out (and as Jesus's sermon would seem to clearly indicate), that doesn't give us free reign to live wanton lives, but it does free us up so that we don't have to feel despair over our lack of ability to keep the law. He tells us that He fulfills the law, and then proceeds to instruct us to love God and each other wholeheartedly.

This passage, I think, explains it well:

Romans 8:3-4 (ESV)
³  For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, ⁴  in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Christians aren't expected to directly fulfill the law (otherwise, we wouldn't need a Savior), but, rather, Jesus himself is the one who fulfilled the law so that those who believe on Him are credited with his righteous obedience rather than their own behavior and merit.

Forgive me for using almost the same answer to both of your recent questions. This one is slightly different than the answer there.

The way I understand these passages, they do not mean that the OT law was canceled. Rather they refer to the fact that keeping the law cannot save us from Hell. We are saved by Grace alone through faith. (Ephesians 2:8)

Circumcision was a sign that God gave to the people of Israel to signify that they were His. It did nothing to save them, but rather it was a physical, external sign that they belonged to Him.

Animal sacrifices, likewise, were a temporary atonement for sins, but they never could save fully until Jesus became the perfect sacrifice. As the verses you cited state, "it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." Animal sacrifices were rendered unnecessary by the perfect sacrifice of the sinless Christ. His sacrifice fulfilled the law more completely than an animal sacrifice ever could, so it's not abolishing that law, it's performing the ultimate fulfillment Himself.

Other OT laws had to do with cleanliness and hygiene, and were clearly given to protect the people. (These would be the laws about what to do with an "unclean" person, and include measures such as quarantine.)

As you already quoted, Jesus stated, "not one jot nor tittle of the Law should pass away" (Matthew 5:15).

The major point of Christianity, compared to Judaism, is this: Judaism is still "under the law". In other words, they are trying to earn their salvation by keeping the Law. Christianity states that we cannot keep the law. Everyone has failed, and none of us are righteous. (Romans 3:10, 23).

The law still stands, but it cannot save us. We cannot be saved by obedience to the law or "works of righteousness". Therefore, none of the law was cancelled. What is good is still good. What is wrong is still wrong.

The law, as it applies to us now exists to show us what sin is (Romans 7:7), so that we can see that we are lost and cannot save ourselves.

It also serves to stop sinners from justifying themselves. How many people believe that they're really not a bad person and can get to heaven simply by being "good." If we look at even the Ten commandments, we can see that we've all broken at least one. As the Bible states in James 2:10 (KJV)

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Therefore, as we look at the perfect Law of God, the law shows us that we're not really "good" at all. It stops the mouth of those who claim that they are good, and shows them that they are guilty by showing them what sin is. (Romans 3:19-20)

To answer your question directly, the laws have never been abolished. They also never had the power to save anyone by obedience to them. The laws still exists, but through the redeeming blood of Christ, we are no longer held guilty of breaking it.

Reading on in Romans, Paul continues in verse 31:

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

He goes on to explain this in more detail, but by Romans 6, we get back to the fact that just because we are free from the guilt of the law, doesn't mean that we should not obey the law.

Rather than doing so to try to earn our salvation, we are doing so because we are grateful to have been freed from it, and if we've truly repented, we should see our own sin as God sees it - disgusting, and an abomination. To go back and sin willingly is a slap in the face of God. We do it because we also should now hate sin, especially our own.

In Romans 7, Paul goes on to talk about the difference between living in the Flesh and in the Spirit - the only two choices we really have. If we walk in the Flesh, we are obeying our sinful nature. Walking in the Spirit, we are walking in agreement with God, and that means obeying the Law.