Big Boy, we may be in the same church, and maybe on the same pew on this matter. What I am getting at I'll try to explain in the following. Do you agree with my approach as I've written as follows, or where would you revise and/or maybe disagree completely in my statements? You'll recognize that I am thinking of the view of our Reformed brethren on this topic, when I refer to our brothers.
What I am getting at is how to deal with being charged as being antinomian, lawless; when we take Eph. 2:15 for exactly what it says;
of
"For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end." (Eph 2:14-16 RSV)
I take that to mean the entire Old Covenant, the Law of Moses, including the Ten Commandments. But some brothers reply that the law is of 3 parts: Moral, Civil and Ceremonial and that only the Civil and Ceremonial were abolished, the Moral law (Ten Commandments) were not abolished.
All of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160) and Ephesians 2:14-16 is referring to a law that is not eternal, therefore it is not referring to God's law. God did not make any mistakes when He gave the law, so He had no reason to abolish His own laws. God did not give any laws for the purpose of creating a dividing wall of hostility, but rather His law instructs to love our neighbor as ourselves. In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus specifically said that he came not to abolish God's law and warned against relaxing the least part of it, so interpreting Ephesians 2:14-16 as referring to abolishing God's law is calling Jesus a liar and disregarding his warning. Furthermore, in Romans 3:31, Paul confirmed that our faith does not abolish God's law, but rather our faith upholds it, yet you are seeking to abolish it rather than upholds it. Instructions for how to act in accordance with God's nature can't be abolished without first abolishing God.
In Ephesians 2:10, we are new creations in Christ to do good works, so it wouldn't make sense to interpret a few verses later as saying that Christ abolished his instructions for how to do good works. In Ephesians 2:12-19, Gentiles were at one time separated from Christ, alienated from Israel, strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world, which is all in accordance with Gentiles not following God's law, but through faith in Christ all of that is no longer true in that Gentiles are no longer strangers or aliens, but are fellow citizens of Israel along with the saints in the households of God, so it is speaking about Gentiles being joined to these things, not about Gentiles rejecting these things in accordance with God's law being abolished. Moreover, the Greek word "dogma" is refers to something other that God's law every other time that it used by the Bible, so justification needs to be given for why it should be interpreted here as referring to God's law, especially in light of the fact that all of God's righteous laws are eternal.
I find problems with our brothers' view because I see no statement in scripture dividing The Law into 3 parts. It is a whole. Comparing Heb. 8:13 with Ex. 34:28 makes clear the Ten Commandments are a major part of the Old Covenant that was abolished, and was soon to disappear. The other view I have problems with is saying that the Ten Commandments still stand as an obligation on New Covenant believers, as if there was no everlasting law of God prior to Moses, and I reject that. God's everlasting law has existed from creation which may be found within the wording of the Ten Commandments; BUT, you do not find Paul quoting any of the Ten with the full and exact words as they came from the hand of Moses. Paul makes clear we are not to covet; but Paul says nothing about "slaves, oxes or donkeys" as the command is given by Moses.
While the Bible does use different Hebrew words for different categories of law, it never lists which laws are part of the moral, civil, or ceremonial law and never even refers to those as being categories of law, so I also find problems with those categories. The existence of the moral law would imply that we can be acting morally while disobeying the laws that aren't in that category, however, there is no example in the Bible of disobedience to God being consider to be moral and I do not see justification for thinking that it can ever be moral to disobey God. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws. Legislators give laws according to what they think ought to be done, so for someone to claim that some of God's laws are not moral laws is to claim that God made a moral error about what ought to be done when He gave those laws and therefor is to claim to have greater moral knowledge than God.
In Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant involves God putting His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so while the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete, God's eternal law did not become obsolete along with it. Paul spoke about following other laws that are part of the Mosaic Law in verses like Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and Titus 3:1-3, so he did not by any means only teach obedience to just the Ten Commandments.
"When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all." (Rom 2:14-16 NRSV)
That is affirming that believing Gentiles will nature be doers of God's law.
When Jesus told the 11 apostles "teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you", I take that as written, and any law or command for the Christian is written in the New Covenant. Jesus lived under the Old Covenant, so caution is called for in understanding what he states as law in the gospels, whether it is included in the New Covenant as we find in the NT epistles.
Indeed, Jesus lived under the Mosaic Covenant, so everything he taught prior to the establishment of the New Covenant was in regard to how to live under the Mosaic Covenant, which is included in what he was what he was wanting his disciples to teach to the nations.