Sermon Video: "I do not understand what I do", Romans 7:14-25

In this passage, the Apostle Paul discusses the war that rages within the human heart against sin. The two primary ways to interpret this section both reflect deep theological truths: (1) If this is Paul before he knew Jesus, when he was known as Saul, it reflects the utter hopelessness of human being to overcome sin by our own power, (2) if it instead is Paul after he was born again by faith in Jesus, it reflects the ongoing fight against our still-present sinful nature to imitate Christ. Because the Law of Love supersedes the Law of Moses by demanding right motivation and attitudes along with right action, even those who are in Christ and have the power of the Holy Spirit to bolster them still will have a fight on their hands to overcome not only temptation, but the thoughts that lead to it.

The wisdom of our ancestors in the faith: Rejection of the Law of Moses as normative for Christians in Protestant creedal statements

Given the revitalization of the ancient heresies refuted by the Apostle Paul in Galatians by much of the Hebrew Roots Movement, it behooves us to remember that our ancestors in the faith considered these same issues.  They too studied the scriptures, looked to the wisdom of those who had gone before them, and rejected firmly any attempt to impose the yoke of the Mosaic Law upon those called into fellowship by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

Thankfully, apostles-creed.org has links to the pdf of virtually every Church creedal statement on one webpage, if you are interested in one not listed below, you will probably find it there.  {Thus the hyperlinks below are to the Wikipedia pages about the various creeds, for the pdf of the full statements see the link above.}

The Westminster Confession, 1646, was the product of the Puritan movement in England, the forerunner of today's Presbyterian Church, its format was utilized by the Congregationalists in England in 1658 to issue the Savoy Declaration, and then by the Particular Baptists to create the London Baptist Confession of 1689.  The two subsequent creedal statements only modified the Westminster when they needed to express disagreement.  In the case of the Law of Moses, all three statements are virtually identical, as this branch of Protestantism was entirely unified on this position.

Chapter 19 - Of The Law of God, sections 3-7, from the Savoy Declaration

3. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances; partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings and benefits, and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws being appointed only to the time of reformation, are by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and only lawgiver, who was furnished with power from the Father for that end, abrogated and taken away. 

Commentary: That the Law of Moses contains moral imperatives that transcend its use in the covenant with the people of Israel, AND ceremonial aspects that are limited to that specific people, place, and time, was recognized and accepted.  They also saw in Jesus Christ not only the power to fulfill the Law, but as the Word of God, to bring an end to its era by instituting another.

4. To them also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution, their general equity only being still of moral use. 

Commentary: Likewise they realized that a theocratic nation built of one ethnic people living in the Ancient Near East would have various civil laws that would no longer apply, excepting any moral principles that could be derived from them.

5. The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it: neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation. 

Commentary: This understanding of the limitations of the Law of Moses in the era of the New Covenant with respect to ceremonial and civil law, did not keep our ancestors in the faith from proclaiming the abiding authority of the moral standards from that same Law.

6. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives; so as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin; and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it in like manner show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, although not as due to them by the law, as a covenant of works; so as a mans doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace. 

Commentary: In addition, they saw the overall structure of the Law of Moses, with its blessings and curses promised to the people of Israel, to be instructive showing both God's kindness to those who live in righteousness, and anger toward those who indulge in wickedness.  The Law, they believed, still has much to teach Christians, without being binding upon them, with the exceptions of its moral imperatives.

7. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully, which the will of God revealed in the law required to be done. 

Commentary: Contrary to the claims of the Hebrew Roots Movement, the Spirit of God was not given at Pentecost to enable Christians to fulfill the entirety of the Mosaic Law, our ancestors saw instead that the Spirit would Christians to "freely and cheerfully" follow the moral commandments and moral principles of the Law, and that alone.

The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, 1571, are the historically defining statements with respect to the Reformation for the Church of England (Anglican and Episcopal Churches)

7. Of the Old Testament. The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.

Commentary: Here the Anglicans and Episcopalians profess that the moral precepts of the Law of Moses are binding upon every Christian, but that both the ceremonial and the civil aspects of the Mosaic Law are not.

The Methodist Movement's creedal statement is called the Articles of Religion, approved in 1784; it maintained the exact verbiage of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, Wesley seeing no need to change any of it.

Article VI—Of the Old Testament 

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which who feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses as touching ceremonies and rites doth not bind Christians men, nor ought the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.

Commentary: Here also the Methodists profess that the moral precepts of the Law of Moses are binding upon every Christian, but that both the ceremonial and the civil aspects of the Mosaic Law are not.

The Belgic Confession, 1561, is the creedal statement for the Reformed Churches, originally written in French.

Article 25 - The Fulfillment of the Law

We believe that the ceremonies and symbols of the law have ended with the coming of Christ, and that all foreshadowings have come to an end, so that the use of them ought to be abolished among Christians.  Yet the truth and substance of these things remain for us in Jesus Christ, in whom they have been fulfilled.  

Nevertheless, we continue to use the witness drawn from the law and prophets to confirm us in the gospel and to regulate our lives with full integrity for the glory of God, according to his will.

Commentary: Likewise, the Reformed movement saw an ending of the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law in the advent of Jesus Christ, proclaiming that they should not be in use among Christians, while retaining a respect for the truths to which they pointed.

The Second Helvetic Confession, 1564, was a product of the Swiss Reformed Churches, originally written in Swiss.

Chapter XII, Of the Law of God

WHY THE LAW WAS GIVEN. We teach that this law was not given to men that they might be justified by keeping it, but that rather from what it teaches we may know (our) weakness, sin and condemnation, and, despairing of our strength, might be converted to Christ in faith. For the apostle openly declares: "The law brings wrath," and, "Through the law comes knowledge of sin" (Rom. 4:15; 3:20), and, "If a law had been given which could justify or make alive, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture (that is, the law) has concluded all under sin, that the promise which was of the faith of Jesus might be given to those who believe....Therefore, the law was our schoolmaster unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith" (Gal.3:21 ff.). 

THE FLESH DOES NOT FULFIL THE LAW. For no flesh could or can satisfy the law of God and fulfil it, because of the weakness in our flesh which adheres and remains in us until our last breath. For the apostle says again: "God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin" (Rom. 8:3). Therefore, Christ is the perfecting of the law and our fulfilment of it (Rom. 10:4), who, in order to take away the curse of the law, was make a curse for us (Gal. 3:13). Thus he imparts to us through faith his fulfilment of the law, and his righteousness and obedience are imputed to us. 

HOW FAR THE LAW IS ABROGATED. The law of God is therefore abrogated to the extent that it no longer condemns us, nor works wrath in us. For we are under grace and not under the law. Moreover, Christ has fulfilled all the figures of the law. Hence, with the coming of the body, the shadows ceased, so that in Christ we now have the truth and all fulness. But yet we do not on that account contemptuously reject the law. For we remember the words of the Lord when he said: "I have not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfil them" (Matt. 5:17). We know that in the law is delivered to us the patterns of virtues and vices. We know that the written law when explained by the Gospel is useful to the Church, and that therefore its reading is not to be banished from the Church. For although Moses' face was covered with a veil, yet the apostle says that the veil has been taken away and abolished by Christ.

Commentary: Once more we see the balance on the part of our ancestors in the faith between their understanding that the Law of Moses has been abrogated (repealed, rescinded, nullified) by the work of Jesus Christ, and the desire to learn from the moral principles contained within it.

In the end, one of the remarkable things about these various creeds coming from movements within Protestantism that contain strong disagreements about important theological issues, is how uniform these statements are regarding how the Church should understand the Law of Moses.  They disagree about baptism, communion, church structure, the role of the government with respect to the Church, and a host of other topics, but NOT about the Law of Moses.  Each and every one saw it is abrogated by Jesus Christ, none believed that the Law was in any way incumbent upon Christians in either its ceremonial or civil aspects, and all still retained respect for the teaching ability of the Law's moral principles which where revealed retained the force of commands from God.  On this issue, our ancestors in the faith speak with one unified voice: The Law of Moses is NOT normative for followers of Jesus Christ.

Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #29: John 13:14-15

 

John 13:14-15  New International Version

14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.

For those of you who haven't watched Disney's 1992 Aladdin cartoon, which Robin Williams' voice acting elevates far beyond its otherwise pedestrian level, let me inform you how the evil vizier Jafar is outsmarted by the 'street rat' Aladdin in their final confrontation.  Jafar is consumed by a lust for power, simply supplanting the sultan turns out to be insufficient for him, so he commands the genie to make him the world's most powerful sorcerer.  Aladdin, hopelessly outmatched now in terms of power because he doesn't currently control the genie, makes a snide comment that ensnares Jafar, "The genie has more power than you'll ever have...Face it Jafar, you're still just second best."  Jafar then turns to the genie to say, "Slave, I make my third wish.  I wish to be an all-powerful genie."  The genie reluctantly complies fearing the worst, and only too late does Jafar recognize that he has fallen into a trap, for while a genie is indeed powerful, it is also shackled to a lamp and at the whim of a master.

This lesson in the danger of seeking power, and how that pursuit can corrupt those that embark upon the journey, is a lesson for humanity as a whole, one we've never seemed to learn.  At a much more intellectual level, Lord Acton (1834-1902), writing against the proposed doctrinal stance of his Roman Catholic Church known as Papal Infallibility said, "power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

One of the reasons why 'Christian' Nationalism cannot be the answer to whichever question the Church is facing is simple: It is the path of power in this world, not service.  We didn't need Lord Acton, or Jafar, to teach us this lesson, Jesus himself proclaimed that his followers were to be those accepting humble service, not seeking lordship over others.  

How will disciples of Jesus Christ change the world?  Not by bending others to our will, but by bending our knees to serve them.

Sermon Video: The Law reveals the depth of humanity's sin - Romans 7:7-13

Having established that we have "died to the law", the Apostle Paul next tackles the question: What then is the relationship between the Law of Moses and human sin?  On the way to the answer, Paul points out that the failure of the Law rests with the human beings whose hearts seized upon the commandments of the Law to add rebellion against it to the list of sins they were already committing (which the Law now explicitly forbade).

In the end, the primary achievement of the Law was to showcase, through a multi-generational failure to keep it on the part of the covenant people, that humanity absolutely needs a savior.  God gave humanity (through the representation of the Israelites as the test case) a system for living in fellowship with him, a system containing both blessings and curses (carrots and sticks) here in this life, but it wasn't enough to overcome the depravity of fallen humanity.  In the end, the Law showed up how far gone we really are, how dependent we are upon God's amazing grace.

The Early Church Fathers: Condemnation of those claiming the necessity of the Mosaic Law for followers of Jesus Christ

One of the reasons why heresy never dies, apart from the ongoing darkness of the human heart and mind, is that subsequent generations are ignorant that our ancestors in the faith faced substantially the same false teachings, rejected them, and triumphed over those advocating false teachings.  For example: If the modern Church were more familiar with Athanasius I of Alexandria's complete success in refuting Arianism, the Church would have readily recognized this same heresy when it resurfaced in the 19th century among the Jehovah's Witnesses, its people would have shunned this new teaching (even more than they did), and perhaps it would not have established itself to ensnare the unsuspecting as it does to this day.  But I digress, the Church, as a whole, does do a poor job of remembering its history and learning from it (as does humanity as a whole).

Which brings us to the modern heretical ideas gathered under the umbrella of the name: Hebrew Roots Movement.  While this movement has within it much variety, and little to no structure or hierarchy, it shares in general the repetition of the errors of several groups that the Early Church Fathers confronted and whose teachings were rejected as unorthodox by the Church.  One such group was the Ebionites.  The Hebrew Roots Movement and the Ebionites share some theological reasonings and conclusions, but not all.  So why bring them up together?  They both professed the desire/need/requirement for gentile followers of Jesus Christ to embrace the Mosaic Law as part of righteous discipleship.  In as much as the Early Church Fathers addressed this error then, we can apply their wisdom to its modern revival.

The following are among the many relevant excerpts from these writings, with the links to the full PDF so you can examine it further:

Ignatius of Antioch, d - 108 AD, Letter to the Magnesians, chapter 8

Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace. For the divinest prophets lived according to Christ Jesus. On this account also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace to fully convince the unbelieving that there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word {Emphasis mine}

Commentary: Here Ignatius, a second generation Christian that traditions says learned directly from the aged Apostle John, states point-blank that living according to the Jewish law, and all that it entails, is proof that a disciple of Jesus Christ has not received grace.  To Ignatius it was clear that trying to live under the Law of Moses, and the grace of faith in Jesus Christ, were incompatible. 

Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians, chapter 10

It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God...It is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end. For where there is Christianity there cannot be Judaism. For Christ is one, in whom every nation that believes, and every tongue that confesses, is gathered unto God. And those that were of a stony heart have become the children of Abraham, the friend of God; and in his seed all those have been blessed who were ordained to eternal life in Christ. {Emphasis mine}

Commentary: Two strong statements here, (1) that the Hebrew Roots Movement has it backwards when it claims Christianity must return to its roots in Judaism, rather Ignatius reminds his readers that those living under the Law of Moses were called by John the Baptist, and then Jesus himself, to repent and believe.  It was not business as usual, not simply a reform of Judaism put forth by Jesus, but a new covenant that he came to establish.  Ignatius believed this so strongly that he, (2) declares that Judaism itself, the religious practice built around the Law of Moses, has "come to an end."  {Given the antisemitism that arose long after Ignatius, we need to be reminded that this is a theological statement only regarding the efficacy of New Covenant's ability to abrogate the Old , NOT a call to deny the religious rights of those who choose to follow Judaism in our world today, something we should all be willing to strive to protect.}

Justin Martyr, 100-165 AD, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 10

“Is there any other matter, my friends, in which we are blamed, than this, that we live not after the law, and are not circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers were, and do not observe sabbaths as you do?...{Trypho's criticism of Christianity:} "But this is what we are most at a loss about: that you, professing to be pious, and supposing yourselves better than others, are not in any particular separated from them, and do not alter your mode of living from the nations, in that you observe no festivals or sabbaths, and do not have the rite of circumcision; and further, resting your hopes on a man that was crucified, you yet expect to obtain some good thing from God, while you do not obey His commandments. Have you not read, that that soul shall be cut off from his people who shall not have been circumcised on the eighth day? And this has been ordained for strangers and for slaves equally. But you, despising this covenant rashly, reject the consequent duties, and attempt to persuade yourselves that you know God, when, however, you perform none of those things which they do who fear God." {Emphasis mine}

Commentary: In Justin Martyr's dialogue with the Jewish apologist Trypho (most likely a fictionalized version of those with whom the author had spoken), we see clearly that Justin Martyr is portraying Christianity, then in only its second generation, with many leaders who had learned directly from the eyewitness Apostles themselves, as having nothing to do with the ceremonial aspects of the Law of Moses (Sabbath keeping, circumcision, festivals).  Trypho goes so far as to claim that the Christians "despised" the Mosaic covenant and rejected all the duties it entails.  IF (it isn't true, but for the sake of the hypothetical) as the Hebrew Roots Movement claims, the Early Church practiced Judaism by the design and purpose of Jesus and the Apostles, it didn't last long {there is no evidence they ever did}, by the second generation the line between Christianity and Judaism was clearly drawn, the rejection of the Law of Moses for gentile believers firmly established in the surviving documentation. {FYI, the Hebrew Roots Movement often claims that this 'change' occurred only much later under Emperor Constantine, 200 years after Justin Martyr, a position that is absurd on its face.}

Epistle to Diognetus (author unknown), 130 AD, chapters 3-4

But as to their scrupulosity concerning meats, and their superstition as respects the Sabbaths, and their boasting about circumcision, and their fancies about fasting and the new moons, which are utterly ridiculous and unworthy of notice,–I do not think that you require to learn anything from me. For, to accept some of those things which have been formed by God for the use of men as properly formed, and to reject others as useless and redundant,–how can this be lawful? And to speak falsely of God, as if He forbade us to do what is good on the Sabbath-days,–how is not this impious? And to glory in the circumcision of the flesh as a proof of election, and as if, on account of it, they were specially beloved by God,–how is it not a subject of ridicule? And as to their observing months and days, as if waiting upon the stars and the moon, and their distributing, according to their own tendencies, the appointments of God, and the vicissitudes of the seasons, some for festivities, and others for mourning,–who would deem this a part of divine worship, and not much rather a manifestation of folly? {Emphasis mine}

Commentary: This letter's unknown author considered the very idea that Christians should concern themselves with the kinds of things that Paul wrote against in Galatians to be, "utterly ridiculous and unworthy of notice".

Irenaeus, 130-202 AD, Bishop of Lyon: Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) chapter 26

Chapter XXVI.—Doctrines of Cerinthus, the Ebionites, and Nicolaitanes. (pg. 73 on the PDF)

2. Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions

with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel

according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate

from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular

manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined

by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the

house of God. {Emphasis mine}

Commentary: Irenaeus here writes against the Ebionites, a sect he most strongly rejected as heretical, describing among their various flaws the, "observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law".  To Irenaeus, that the Ebionites claimed to be following Jesus Christ while still living a lifestyle of Judaism, was at the heart of why they should be opposed.

Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies), book 4, chapter 13

as He does Himself declare: “Unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” For what meant the excess referred to? In the first place, [we must] believe not only in the Father, but also in His Son now revealed; for He it is who leads man into fellowship and unity with God. In the next place, [we must] not only say, but we must do; for they said, but did not. And [we must] not only abstain from evil deeds, but even from the desires after them. Now He did not teach us these things as being opposed to the law, but as fulfilling the law, and implanting in us the varied righteousness of the law. That would have been contrary to the law, if He had commanded His disciples to do anything which the law had prohibited. But this which He did command—namely, not only to abstain from things forbidden by the law, but even from longing after them—is not contrary to [the law], as I have remarked, neither is it the utterance of one destroying the law, but of one fulfilling, extending, and affording greater scope to it.

2. For the law, since it was laid down for those in bondage, used to instruct the soul by means of those corporeal objects which were of an external nature, drawing it, as by a bond, to obey its commandments, that man might learn to serve God. But the Word set free the soul, and taught that through it the body should be willingly purified. Which having been accomplished, it followed as of course, that the bonds of slavery should be removed, to which man had now become accustomed, and that he should follow God without fetters: moreover, that the laws of liberty should be extended, and subjection to the king increased, so that no one who is converted should appear unworthy to Him who set him free, but that the piety and obedience due to the Master of the household should be equally rendered both by servants and children; while the children possess greater confidence [than the servants], inasmuch as the working of liberty is greater and more glorious than that obedience which is rendered in [a state of] slavery.

4. Inasmuch, then, as all natural precepts are common to us and to them (the Jews), they had in them indeed the beginning and origin; but in us they have received growth and completion. For to yield assent to God, and to follow His Word, and to love Him above all, and one’s neighbour as one’s self (now man is neighbour to man), and to abstain from every evil deed, and all other things of a like nature which are common to both [covenants], do reveal one and the same God. But this is our Lord, the Word of God, who in the first instance certainly drew slaves to God, but afterwards He set those free who were subject to Him, as He does Himself declare to His disciples: “I will not now call you servants, for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth; but I have called you friends, for all things which I have heard from My Father I have made known.” For in that which He says, “I will not now call you servants,” He indicates in the most marked manner that it was Himself who did originally appoint for men that bondage with respect to God through the law, and then afterwards conferred upon them freedom. And in that He says, “For the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth,” He points out, by means of His own advent, the ignorance of a people in a servile condition. {Emphasis mine}

Commentary: Here Irenaeus offers the rationale as to why the Mosaic Law must be rejected as incompatible with faith in Jesus Christ: Jesus fulfilled the Law, setting us free from it to live according to the Spirit.  After Pentecost, we don't NEED the Law's tutelage anymore.

Tertullian, 155-220 AD, An Answer to the Jews, chapter 2

For why should God, the founder of the universe, the Governor of the whole world, the Fashioner of humanity, the Sower of universal nations be believed to have given a law through Moses to one people, and not be said to have assigned it to all nations? For unless He had given it to all by no means would He have habitually permitted even proselytes out of the nations to have access to it. But—as is congruous with the goodness of God, and with His equity, as the Fashioner of mankind—He gave to all nations the selfsame law, which at definite and stated times He enjoined should be observed, when He willed, and through whom He willed, and as He willed...For the subsequent superinduction of a law is the work of the same Being who had before premised a precept; since it is His province withal subsequently to train, who had before resolved to form, righteous creatures. For what wonder if He extends a discipline who institutes it? if He advances who begins?...And let us not annul this power which God has, which reforms the law’s precepts answerably to the circumstances of the times, with a view to man’s salvation. {Emphasis mine}

Commentary: Tertullian answers an objection offered by the Hebrew Roots Movement in their claim that the Mosaic Law is permanent.  Is God not God?  Cannot he who instituted the Law also reform it and then declare it fulfilled?  Cannot God give a new and better way according to his purpose and wisdom?  The giving of the Law of Moses at Sinai is not a straightjacket limiting God's will moving forward.

Origen, 185-253 AD, Contra Celsum, Book 2, chapter 4

Now, certainly the introduction to Christianity is through the Mosaic worship and the prophetic writings; and after the introduction, it is in the interpretation and explanation of these that progress takes place, while those who are introduced prosecute their investigations into the mystery according to revelation, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest in the Scriptures of the prophets, and by the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ. But they who advance in the knowledge of Christianity do not, as you allege, treat the things written in the law with disrespect. On the contrary, they bestow upon them greater honour, showing what a depth of wise and mysterious reasons is contained in these writings, which are not fully comprehended by the Jews, who treat them superficially, and as if they were in some degree even fabulous. And what absurdity should there be in our system — that is, the Gospel— having the law for its foundation, when even the Lord Jesus Himself said to those who would not believe upon Him: If you had believed Moses, you would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how shall you believe My words? Nay, even one of the evangelists— Mark — says: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in the prophet Isaiah, Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who shall prepare Your way before You, which shows that the beginning of the Gospel is connected with the Jewish writings. What force, then, is there in the objection of the Jew of Celsus, that if any one predicted to us that the Son of God was to visit mankind, he was one of our prophets, and the prophet of our God? Or how is it a charge against Christianity, that John, who baptized Jesus, was a Jew? For although He was a Jew, it does not follow that every believer, whether a convert from heathenism or from Judaism, must yield a literal obedience to the law of Moses. {Emphasis mine}

Commentary: Here Origen counters yet another false narrative leveled against Christianity by the Hebrew Roots Movement: Christianity, in its orthodox form, disrespects the Law.  Origen dismisses this charge, rightly proclaiming the value of God's work prior to the Incarnation, and at the same time, rejecting the notion that acknowledging the debt that Christianity owes to Judaism (as Paul does in Romans) in any way obligates Christians to obey the Law of Moses.

Eusebius, d 339 AD, Church Historian: Church History, volume III, chapter 27

Chapter 27. The Heresy of the Ebionites.

1. The evil demon, however, being unable to tear certain others from their allegiance to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible in a different direction, and so brought them over to his own purposes. The ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held poor and mean opinions concerning Christ.

2. For they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. In their opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life.

3. There were others, however, besides them, that were of the same name, but avoided the strange and absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit. But nevertheless, inasmuch as they also refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed, being God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned aside into the impiety of the former, especially when they, like them, endeavored to observe strictly the bodily worship of the law.

4. These men, moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they called an apostate from the law; and they used only the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews and made small account of the rest.

5. The Sabbath and the rest of the discipline of the Jews they observed just like them, but at the same time, like us, they celebrated the Lord's days as a memorial of the resurrection of the Saviour.

6. Wherefore, in consequence of such a course they received the name of Ebionites, which signified the poverty of their understanding. For this is the name by which a poor man is called among the Hebrews.

{Emphasis mine}

Commentary: Here the great historian of the Early Church, Eusebius, writes about the Ebionites, once more detailing their desire to live in adherence to the Mosaic Law, a stance that was rejected in the generations before Eusebius wrote of it.

In the end, there is a vast host of Early Church commentary related to the subject of the Law of Moses.  Looking across the breadth and depth of it, one would search in vain to find orthodox voices in support of anything resembling the notion put forth (to varying degrees) by those within the Hebrew Roots Movement, that the Mosaic Law has any kind of claim to obedience upon the gentile followers of Jesus Christ.  If we did not have available to us the wisdom of the Early Church Fathers to illuminate how they practiced their faith, that the Hebrew Roots Movement is dangerously wrong on this issue could still more than sufficiently be demonstrated from the Gospels, the book of Acts, and the letters of the New Testament itself.  We have enough internal evidence, from God's Word, to close the case, the external evidence from Early Church history is to us an added layer of certainty, demonstrating that our interpretation of scripture is in alignment with that of our ancestors in the faith.  The Early Church sounded rejected the notion, put forth by various sects they rightly deemed heretical, that followers of Jesus Christ are in any way obligated to live under the Law of Moses.

Additional Resources:

earlychristiancommentary.com

christianhistory.org