That also is Arnold Fruchtenbaum's position. I have had trouble in trying to grasp that position when applied to the moral law (as in Jeremiah 31.33) coupling it with some of the minutae of Jewish civic law. Surely, Jeremiah is not including the latter?
If not, how is this keeping the law 'intact' as an indivisible unit?
If we look at the context, that helps to understand what's being said:
[Jer 31:31-36] 31 Behold,
the days come, saith the LORD, that
I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel,
and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to
the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD,
I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And
they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for
I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. 35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, [and] the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts [is] his name: 36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, [then] the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
This is speaking of the coming and Christ Jesus, and His fulfillment of the law they were given after they brought out of bondage in Egypt. The letter of the law that kills (law of Moses) was never said to be written in their hearts. How can we confirm this? Let's look at this:
[Romans 2:12-16] 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Now, I'm going to say this at the expense of raising the hairs on the backs of some people's necks who are sticklers for logical fallacies:
Silence is sometimes a reasonable defense...
In other words, nowhere does the word of God grant license to divide up the law of Moses and set aside the portions that are not in anyone's ability to keep. Therein is the reason it is believed that it is indivisible. Although that is an argument from silence, it's equally an argument from silence to practice the art of dividing up the law and teaching others that they can rightfully disregard some or most, and keep only the remainder, of the ten, or nine...
[Galatians 5:14, 18] 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. ... 18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
If love is the means by which we fulfill
all the law, then by what means or rationale can the law be divided up in any manner, by any man, that can possibly nullify this statement, among others, that call upon the law in its entirety rather than man-made divisions on the basis of capability for obedience? If no man could keep any division of the law perfectly for justification, and yet disregard the other sections men set aside as "fulfilled" by Christ, they are teaching others to break all those sections by omission. That makes one guilty of all.
The idea that Jesus fulfilled only part of the law is absurd, and yet another argument from silence, for it is written:
Matthew 5:17] Think not that I am come to destroy
the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to
fulfil.
So, not only did Jesus not destroy the law, but also the writings of the prophets throughout all the other books beyond Torah recording the prophets. How anyone in the divisible law crowd can derive from any of that where mankind was licensed by God to divide up the law, setting aside any part so that it might allegedly be easier to keep what they point at as the remainder, I don't see that allowance anywhere.
We keep the moral law, as well as all the rest of the law, by way of our love for God and for others. How? Simply stated, the fulfillment that Jesus accomplished is imputed to us. The sacrifices not only provided ceremonial offering and temporal cleansing, it pointed at Christ, who is that fulfillment. Some might argue, "But you eat pork, which is forbidden in the law." Really? Well, I point back to Peter and that sheet that same down with all manner of what was once forbidden. It is only in the fulfillment of the law that the Lord declared those foods clean.
This can get really deep, so if you have other questions or observations, then I welcome your thoughts. I likely didn't tell you anything you don't already know, but I thought I'd take a stab at it.
MM