As a backdrop: I was raised Roman catholic. Attended 6 years of catholic school and have converted to atheism. I understand that the new testament is a new covenant with god/jesus. But what I don't understand, or more precisely was never explained to me in a way that makes sense, is why do so many Christians follow some laws in the old testament (leviticus, 10 commandments..etc), but when asked why they don't follow all, its because of "culture" or "hygiene" rules no longer apply. Even Jesus says they must all be followed.
Matt- 5:17 "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.
Explain to me, how you as a Christian can cherry pick the rules and laws you want to follow?
Board index ‹ Bible
Forum rules
This site is for dialogue, not diatribe. And, by the way, you have to be at least 13 years old to participate. Plus normal things: no judging, criticizing, name-calling, flaming, or bullying. No put-downs, etc. You know the drill.
This site is for dialogue, not diatribe. And, by the way, you have to be at least 13 years old to participate. Plus normal things: no judging, criticizing, name-calling, flaming, or bullying. No put-downs, etc. You know the drill.
20 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Re: Help me understand the OT vs. NT
by jimwalton » Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:28 am
Matthew 5.17 makes no division between the moral and ceremonial law. Christ fulfilled the whole law, making it all void. The sum of the law is to love God and to love neighbor as self. Jesus lived it to perfection, fulfilling the law. He is the standard now, and not the law at all.
The law that Christ fulfilled was the law in general—not one part of it. He "fulfilled" it in that He did what the law failed to do: showed people how to live. The law was a temporary measure—God wanted to tell His people that they should have certain attitudes. He did that by commanding actions (the law) with the idea that they would see the attitudes behind them. They failed. Christ, on the other hand, preached the attitudes (Matthew 5) but more importantly lived an example of the proper attitudes (Philippians 2.5-8) as well as the proper actions (John 8.46), thus accomplishing what the law failed to accomplish. So the rule of thumb now is to follow Christ's example. We can, in that sense, ignore the law, because if we follow Christ’s example, we'll get the actions of the law and the attitudes of the heart. Since the law was supposed to reflect the right attitudes, starting with the right attitudes will more often than not bring about actions that are in keeping with the law. But we don't do them because of the law; we do them because that is what godly attitudes bring about. So all of the law was fulfilled in Christ and our behavior now is not based at all on the law but on Jesus' example (cf. Romans 13.8-10). The coinciding with many points of the law is to be expected, but we are not living by even that section of law.
So do we cherry pick? How do we decide, then, what laws to follow and which to not follow? As I said, the old covenant no longer provides the framework for relating to God. We have to approach the OT laws as revelation of God (which they still are), not as rules for society (which they once were) or means of salvation (which they never were). That means that as we look at each law, whether it is one of the Ten Commandments or a law about mildew on the wall of a house, our first step is to try to understand what that law revealed about God to the Israelites. Once we understand that, we must make a cultural transfer to formulate a general principle about what that law reveals about God to us. Then we can use that principle to try to apply the revelation of our world in specific ways of acting and thinking. It is not the ancient law itself that carries the authority of the text. Authority is found in the revelation of God that is offered through the principle behind the law. The best way to derive principles from the OT law is to ask questions. All laws in all human societies are made for a purpose.
1. What kind of situation was this law intended to promote or to prevent?
2. What change in society would this law achieve if it were followed?
3. What kind of situation made this law necessary or desirable?
4. What kind of person would benefit from this law, by assistance or protection?
5. What kind of person would be restrained or restricted by this law, and why?
6. What values are given priority in this law? Whose needs or rights are upheld?
7. In what way does this law reflect what we know from elsewhere in the Bible about the character of God and his plans for human life?
8. What principle or principles does this law embody?
The law that Christ fulfilled was the law in general—not one part of it. He "fulfilled" it in that He did what the law failed to do: showed people how to live. The law was a temporary measure—God wanted to tell His people that they should have certain attitudes. He did that by commanding actions (the law) with the idea that they would see the attitudes behind them. They failed. Christ, on the other hand, preached the attitudes (Matthew 5) but more importantly lived an example of the proper attitudes (Philippians 2.5-8) as well as the proper actions (John 8.46), thus accomplishing what the law failed to accomplish. So the rule of thumb now is to follow Christ's example. We can, in that sense, ignore the law, because if we follow Christ’s example, we'll get the actions of the law and the attitudes of the heart. Since the law was supposed to reflect the right attitudes, starting with the right attitudes will more often than not bring about actions that are in keeping with the law. But we don't do them because of the law; we do them because that is what godly attitudes bring about. So all of the law was fulfilled in Christ and our behavior now is not based at all on the law but on Jesus' example (cf. Romans 13.8-10). The coinciding with many points of the law is to be expected, but we are not living by even that section of law.
So do we cherry pick? How do we decide, then, what laws to follow and which to not follow? As I said, the old covenant no longer provides the framework for relating to God. We have to approach the OT laws as revelation of God (which they still are), not as rules for society (which they once were) or means of salvation (which they never were). That means that as we look at each law, whether it is one of the Ten Commandments or a law about mildew on the wall of a house, our first step is to try to understand what that law revealed about God to the Israelites. Once we understand that, we must make a cultural transfer to formulate a general principle about what that law reveals about God to us. Then we can use that principle to try to apply the revelation of our world in specific ways of acting and thinking. It is not the ancient law itself that carries the authority of the text. Authority is found in the revelation of God that is offered through the principle behind the law. The best way to derive principles from the OT law is to ask questions. All laws in all human societies are made for a purpose.
1. What kind of situation was this law intended to promote or to prevent?
2. What change in society would this law achieve if it were followed?
3. What kind of situation made this law necessary or desirable?
4. What kind of person would benefit from this law, by assistance or protection?
5. What kind of person would be restrained or restricted by this law, and why?
6. What values are given priority in this law? Whose needs or rights are upheld?
7. In what way does this law reflect what we know from elsewhere in the Bible about the character of God and his plans for human life?
8. What principle or principles does this law embody?
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9107
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Help me understand the OT vs. NT
by TacoTaco » Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:29 pm
> "He 'fulfilled' it in that He did what the law failed to do: showed people how to live. The law was a temporary measure—God wanted to tell His people that they should have certain attitudes. He did that by commanding actions (the law) with the idea that they would see the attitudes behind them.
And how do you explain when christ directly contradicted the law? In the OT, god said, himself, in his own words, to stone women caught in adultery. Then Jesus comes along and said "But don't actually do it unless you're perfect". I don't see how "kill the woman" and "don't kill the women" could possibly be meant to convey the same "attitude".
God says "don't eat these things, they will make you unclean". Jesus says "what you eat will not make you unclean." Those cannot both be expressing the same attitude. They're directly contradictory.
And how do you explain when christ directly contradicted the law? In the OT, god said, himself, in his own words, to stone women caught in adultery. Then Jesus comes along and said "But don't actually do it unless you're perfect". I don't see how "kill the woman" and "don't kill the women" could possibly be meant to convey the same "attitude".
God says "don't eat these things, they will make you unclean". Jesus says "what you eat will not make you unclean." Those cannot both be expressing the same attitude. They're directly contradictory.
- TacoTaco
Re: Help me understand the OT vs. NT
by jimwalton » Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:45 pm
It's no direct contradiction at all. Let's look at the Law behind what's happening in John 8.1-11.
- Deut. 19:15 says one witness is not enough to convict someone. Two or three was the minimum. Therefore Jesus didn't qualify as one to render judgment. He was not a witness to the event.
- The Law (Dt. 19.16) stipulated that trials were to take place "before the priests and judges who are in office at the time." Therefore for Jesus to pronounce judgment and execution on his own, outside of due process, would have been against the law.
- The Law (Lev. 20.10 & Dt. 22.22) stipulated that the man and women were to be tried together. Since they caught the couple in the act (by their own admission), it was against the law for the man not to be there as well. Jesus would have been acting illegally to pronounce judgment on her and not on the man since they were caught in the act.
- Exodus 23.1 says, "Do not help a guilty person by being a malicious witness." The woman's accusers were motivated by malice, not morality. It would have been against the Law for Jesus to be any part of what was going on.
- Deut. 17.2-7 says that such matters need to be investigated thoroughly (in contrast to dragging the woman out of bed and throwing her in the dirt in front of Jesus), and that it is the witnesses who should throw the first stones (v. 7). Jesus was not a witness and therefore should not have thrown a stone himself. But according to the Law, he encouraged them to.
Jesus cared very deeply about the Law, and obeyed the very detailed letter of it.
> God says "don't eat these things, they will make you unclean". Jesus says "what you eat will not make you unclean." Those cannot both be expressing the same attitude. They're directly contradictory.
They're not contradictory. They are what is called progressive revelation. New laws supersede old ones. Marijuana used to be illegal in the US, now it's not. It's not a contradiction, it's one law superseding another. In the case of food and uncleanness, Jesus was superseding the whole Law in his person. They represent the same attitude in that they express how people were to relate to God. In the OT, they were to relate to God by abstention from certain foods. The Law didn't bring people into proper relationship with God, but showed them how to live. It was always intended to be a temporary tutor (Gal. 3.24-25; 4.1-5). In Mark 7.19 Jesus declared all foods clean. Remember that all foods were clean from Noah until Moses, not so fromMoses to Jesus, and then all clean from Jesus onward. The Law was just a short-term measure of how one relates to God. We used to relate to each other by snail mail and phone calls. Now we relate primarily by email and texting. It's not directly contradictory, as you say, but the next step in how we do the same thing.
- Deut. 19:15 says one witness is not enough to convict someone. Two or three was the minimum. Therefore Jesus didn't qualify as one to render judgment. He was not a witness to the event.
- The Law (Dt. 19.16) stipulated that trials were to take place "before the priests and judges who are in office at the time." Therefore for Jesus to pronounce judgment and execution on his own, outside of due process, would have been against the law.
- The Law (Lev. 20.10 & Dt. 22.22) stipulated that the man and women were to be tried together. Since they caught the couple in the act (by their own admission), it was against the law for the man not to be there as well. Jesus would have been acting illegally to pronounce judgment on her and not on the man since they were caught in the act.
- Exodus 23.1 says, "Do not help a guilty person by being a malicious witness." The woman's accusers were motivated by malice, not morality. It would have been against the Law for Jesus to be any part of what was going on.
- Deut. 17.2-7 says that such matters need to be investigated thoroughly (in contrast to dragging the woman out of bed and throwing her in the dirt in front of Jesus), and that it is the witnesses who should throw the first stones (v. 7). Jesus was not a witness and therefore should not have thrown a stone himself. But according to the Law, he encouraged them to.
Jesus cared very deeply about the Law, and obeyed the very detailed letter of it.
> God says "don't eat these things, they will make you unclean". Jesus says "what you eat will not make you unclean." Those cannot both be expressing the same attitude. They're directly contradictory.
They're not contradictory. They are what is called progressive revelation. New laws supersede old ones. Marijuana used to be illegal in the US, now it's not. It's not a contradiction, it's one law superseding another. In the case of food and uncleanness, Jesus was superseding the whole Law in his person. They represent the same attitude in that they express how people were to relate to God. In the OT, they were to relate to God by abstention from certain foods. The Law didn't bring people into proper relationship with God, but showed them how to live. It was always intended to be a temporary tutor (Gal. 3.24-25; 4.1-5). In Mark 7.19 Jesus declared all foods clean. Remember that all foods were clean from Noah until Moses, not so fromMoses to Jesus, and then all clean from Jesus onward. The Law was just a short-term measure of how one relates to God. We used to relate to each other by snail mail and phone calls. Now we relate primarily by email and texting. It's not directly contradictory, as you say, but the next step in how we do the same thing.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9107
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Help me understand the OT vs. NT
by Jeff the Jedi » Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:10 am
Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws; and they shall be given into his hand until a time, and times, and the dividing of time.
It is actually the false prophet,the antichrist who seeks to change or erase the law, abolish the law, making it all void, as you say.
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them.
Psalms 119:155 Salvation [is] far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes. (This one is particularly interesting because John the baptist preaches the gospel WITHOUT a New Testament.)
Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
And we can see here Paul saying the power of salvation is within the gospel.
It is actually the false prophet,the antichrist who seeks to change or erase the law, abolish the law, making it all void, as you say.
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them.
Psalms 119:155 Salvation [is] far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes. (This one is particularly interesting because John the baptist preaches the gospel WITHOUT a New Testament.)
Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
And we can see here Paul saying the power of salvation is within the gospel.
- Jeff the Jedi
Re: Help me understand the OT vs. NT
by jimwalton » Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:31 am
I'm not trying to be dense on purpose, but I don't get your point.
Dan. 7.25. Jesus didn't speak words against the Most High, if that's what you're claiming. The reference in Dan. 7.25 is to the disruption of the cultic calendar. For instance, According to 1 Macc. 1.45, the decree of Antiochus Epiphanies required the Jews "to profane sabbaths and feasts," and to participate in pagan sacrifices and celebrate the festival if Dionysus. In Mesopotamian thinking, the times and laws were governed by the cosmic decrees embodied in the Tablet of Destinies. It was the gods who set the times and the laws. Dan writes that God alone has the authority to change the times and the seasons (Dan. 2.21; cf. Gn. 1.14). Jesus was not guilty of this, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Isa. 8.20 is speaking out against occult practices and the consultation of mediums (see v. 19). Jesus was not guilty of that. The teaching of this part of Isaiah is that it is the word of God that has authority, not the word of mediums and spiritists. This has nothing to do with Jesus.
Ps. 119.155. I'm not sure what your point is here. All of the NT figures preached the gospel without a NT: John, Peter, Paul, Jesus, the apostles, Philip, Apollos, Stephen, etc. The NT was not written until sometime between AD 55-95, and not assembled until about AD 175 or so.
Romans 1.16. The power is God *is* within the gospel. Jesus spoke of the gospel numerous times. When the apostles preached the gospel, it was the acts and teachings of Jesus that they preached, primarily his death and resurrection. Ephesians 2.20 shows us that it's the prophets (OT) and apostles (NT) together, with Jesus as a foundation, that is the message of the gospel on which the church is grounded.
I'm truly not sure what your point is. Please patiently explain it again.
Dan. 7.25. Jesus didn't speak words against the Most High, if that's what you're claiming. The reference in Dan. 7.25 is to the disruption of the cultic calendar. For instance, According to 1 Macc. 1.45, the decree of Antiochus Epiphanies required the Jews "to profane sabbaths and feasts," and to participate in pagan sacrifices and celebrate the festival if Dionysus. In Mesopotamian thinking, the times and laws were governed by the cosmic decrees embodied in the Tablet of Destinies. It was the gods who set the times and the laws. Dan writes that God alone has the authority to change the times and the seasons (Dan. 2.21; cf. Gn. 1.14). Jesus was not guilty of this, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Isa. 8.20 is speaking out against occult practices and the consultation of mediums (see v. 19). Jesus was not guilty of that. The teaching of this part of Isaiah is that it is the word of God that has authority, not the word of mediums and spiritists. This has nothing to do with Jesus.
Ps. 119.155. I'm not sure what your point is here. All of the NT figures preached the gospel without a NT: John, Peter, Paul, Jesus, the apostles, Philip, Apollos, Stephen, etc. The NT was not written until sometime between AD 55-95, and not assembled until about AD 175 or so.
Romans 1.16. The power is God *is* within the gospel. Jesus spoke of the gospel numerous times. When the apostles preached the gospel, it was the acts and teachings of Jesus that they preached, primarily his death and resurrection. Ephesians 2.20 shows us that it's the prophets (OT) and apostles (NT) together, with Jesus as a foundation, that is the message of the gospel on which the church is grounded.
I'm truly not sure what your point is. Please patiently explain it again.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9107
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Help me understand the OT vs. NT
by J Lord » Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:55 am
Under your framework, how would you interpret the command to stone a bride on her father's doorstep if she is determined to be a non-virgin on her wedding night? (Deut 22:13-21)
- J Lord
Re: Help me understand the OT vs. NT
by jimwalton » Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:55 am
Sure. This paragraph divides into two parts: a primary case involving a false accusation (vv. 13-19), and a counter-case in which the charges prove to be true (20-21).
1. What kind of situation was this law intended to promote or to prevent? The right to fair trial, the wrongness of false testimony, slander leading to injustice, protection of the innocent from false accusations, wife abuse, the right of defense, the right to a public hearing, presentation of objective evidence, public discipline, protecting the honor of the innocent, the economic protection of victims, and the punishment of the guilty.
2. What change in society would this law achieve if it were followed? Justice fairly exercised.
3. What kind of situation made this law necessary or desirable? People abuse each other. People use their power to suppress and oppress others. People use their connections, money, networks, and positions to get what they want, and not often in a fair, peaceful, or just way. The Bible deplores such abuse.
4. What kind of person would benefit from this law, by assistance or protection? Primarily the innocent, those without financial, social and personal resources. In a word: the underdogs. The victims who are unfairly treated by the stronger and more powerful.
5. What kind of person would be restrained or restricted by this law, and why? The users and abusers, the strong and powerful who use their position and influence to perpetrate injustice.
6. What values are given priority in this law? Whose needs or rights are upheld? The right to a fair, public trial; honesty; protection of the innocent; the right of defense; the requirement of evidence, economic compensation; just punishment for the guilty.
7. In what way does this law reflect what we know from elsewhere in the Bible about the character of God and his plans for human life? Briefly, it endorses the value of human life, the requirement of a just and moral society, the protection of the innocent, the cessation of oppression by power, position, or money, and the intent of true justice to bring about a righteous community.
8. What principle or principles does this law embody? Uh, all of the above.
My sense, despite all this, is your hidden agenda that stoning for adultery (both man and woman, vv. 21-22) is barbaric. John Walton comments: Why is adultery a capital crime? The text never explains, but it was a capital crime in all of the law codes from the ancient Near East. We could speculate that paternity is far more important in the clan identity culture of the ancient world. We could infer that they were following the general trend in the ANE. Capital punishment is a way society responds to those acts that pose the most significant threats to the dissolution of society and its destruction. Stoning was a particular response by which society corporately responded on behalf of society ("society" was wronged more than a particular individual). None of these will make much sense in modern contexts, but they don't have to. There is no reason to claim that our society needs to be structured the way theirs is, or that our punishments should be the same. If someone is concerned about the justice of God (which I suspect what is riding under your question), God's justice in many cases in the OT is relative to how the culture itself is shaped and what its values are, though not in any case reflecting something that is inappropriate to His character (God values honesty, commitment, keeping of vows, and faithfulness).
Sarah Ruden adds, for the sake of our curiosity, "There is no detailed scene of stoning in any ancient literature." So we don't know if Israel ever stoned an adulteress. There is no record of such.
We can talk more about this in specific if you would like.
1. What kind of situation was this law intended to promote or to prevent? The right to fair trial, the wrongness of false testimony, slander leading to injustice, protection of the innocent from false accusations, wife abuse, the right of defense, the right to a public hearing, presentation of objective evidence, public discipline, protecting the honor of the innocent, the economic protection of victims, and the punishment of the guilty.
2. What change in society would this law achieve if it were followed? Justice fairly exercised.
3. What kind of situation made this law necessary or desirable? People abuse each other. People use their power to suppress and oppress others. People use their connections, money, networks, and positions to get what they want, and not often in a fair, peaceful, or just way. The Bible deplores such abuse.
4. What kind of person would benefit from this law, by assistance or protection? Primarily the innocent, those without financial, social and personal resources. In a word: the underdogs. The victims who are unfairly treated by the stronger and more powerful.
5. What kind of person would be restrained or restricted by this law, and why? The users and abusers, the strong and powerful who use their position and influence to perpetrate injustice.
6. What values are given priority in this law? Whose needs or rights are upheld? The right to a fair, public trial; honesty; protection of the innocent; the right of defense; the requirement of evidence, economic compensation; just punishment for the guilty.
7. In what way does this law reflect what we know from elsewhere in the Bible about the character of God and his plans for human life? Briefly, it endorses the value of human life, the requirement of a just and moral society, the protection of the innocent, the cessation of oppression by power, position, or money, and the intent of true justice to bring about a righteous community.
8. What principle or principles does this law embody? Uh, all of the above.
My sense, despite all this, is your hidden agenda that stoning for adultery (both man and woman, vv. 21-22) is barbaric. John Walton comments: Why is adultery a capital crime? The text never explains, but it was a capital crime in all of the law codes from the ancient Near East. We could speculate that paternity is far more important in the clan identity culture of the ancient world. We could infer that they were following the general trend in the ANE. Capital punishment is a way society responds to those acts that pose the most significant threats to the dissolution of society and its destruction. Stoning was a particular response by which society corporately responded on behalf of society ("society" was wronged more than a particular individual). None of these will make much sense in modern contexts, but they don't have to. There is no reason to claim that our society needs to be structured the way theirs is, or that our punishments should be the same. If someone is concerned about the justice of God (which I suspect what is riding under your question), God's justice in many cases in the OT is relative to how the culture itself is shaped and what its values are, though not in any case reflecting something that is inappropriate to His character (God values honesty, commitment, keeping of vows, and faithfulness).
Sarah Ruden adds, for the sake of our curiosity, "There is no detailed scene of stoning in any ancient literature." So we don't know if Israel ever stoned an adulteress. There is no record of such.
We can talk more about this in specific if you would like.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9107
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Help me understand the OT vs. NT
by TacoTaco » Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:04 am
> "It was always intended to be a temporary tutor"
I very much take exception to this; The idea that the old law was temporary originated in christianity, after Jesus had already died. Jesus said that until heaven and earth pass away, not one stroke of the pen should in any way vanish from the law. And to make it clearer, he even threatened punishment for anyone who teaches others not to follow any part of the law. If the old law was merely "superseded", then why would he threaten those who teach others to ignore even a small part of it? It just doesn't wash.
Have you set aside any of the commandments of the law?
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations. Deuteronomy 7:9
Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, alway. Deuteronomy 11:1
Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations ... an everlasting covenant. 1 Chronicles 16:15
Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth. Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever. Psalm 119:151-2
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalm 119:160
I very much take exception to this; The idea that the old law was temporary originated in christianity, after Jesus had already died. Jesus said that until heaven and earth pass away, not one stroke of the pen should in any way vanish from the law. And to make it clearer, he even threatened punishment for anyone who teaches others not to follow any part of the law. If the old law was merely "superseded", then why would he threaten those who teach others to ignore even a small part of it? It just doesn't wash.
Have you set aside any of the commandments of the law?
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations. Deuteronomy 7:9
Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, alway. Deuteronomy 11:1
Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations ... an everlasting covenant. 1 Chronicles 16:15
Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth. Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever. Psalm 119:151-2
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalm 119:160
- TacoTaco
Re: Help me understand the OT vs. NT
by jimwalton » Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:14 am
All of those things you quoted are so. You missed a few, such as Rom. 3.31. At the same time we have to deal with Jer. 31.31-33. It is prophesied that the old covenant will not accomplish its purpose, and a new one will be given that will supersede it. That's why Jesus said he didn't come to take the Law away, but to fulfill it.
The Law still stands as God's covenant with his people, and will always be instructive to us as it helps us define holiness. It's not going away, but it has been subsumed under the person of Jesus, as it was always pointing to anyway. But because we now live by grace rather than by law, no one should interpret that as meaning the chains of the law are off and we can do as we please. Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount (as well as other places), lets us know that living in Christ by the Spirit was actually a more demanding way live, and holiness was even sharper than had been imagined under the law. The Law, Jesus, and Paul can be summarized by the "two greatest commands": Love God with everything you've got and love your neighbor as yourself. Those are not the complete extent of the law, which encompasses a wider circle of personal holiness, but those two provide a great platform of understanding. The old covenant still stands; it will not go away (the verses you quoted) until all has been fulfilled. But now that the new and fuller revelation has come (Heb. 1.1-2), the old is subsumed into the new. Galatians 4.1-7 gives an illustration of a child under tutelage. Even though he's a son, he is made a "slave" of the tutor until he has come of age. In due time, when he comes of age, he is no longer under the thumb of the guardian, but enters the "full rights of a son".
So according to Jer. 31.31-33, the idea that the Law was temporary didn't originate in Christianity, but that's where it found its expression. The old covenant of the Law was broken by the Israelite people, but it was never nullified, because God declared that it would endure forever. But because it was broken, a new one was written that would be better than the old one: written on hearts rather than paper. And it was given without the conditions of the Law. It was also grounded in a new act of grace: the forgiveness of sins (something the old Law couldn't give).
The Law still stands as God's covenant with his people, and will always be instructive to us as it helps us define holiness. It's not going away, but it has been subsumed under the person of Jesus, as it was always pointing to anyway. But because we now live by grace rather than by law, no one should interpret that as meaning the chains of the law are off and we can do as we please. Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount (as well as other places), lets us know that living in Christ by the Spirit was actually a more demanding way live, and holiness was even sharper than had been imagined under the law. The Law, Jesus, and Paul can be summarized by the "two greatest commands": Love God with everything you've got and love your neighbor as yourself. Those are not the complete extent of the law, which encompasses a wider circle of personal holiness, but those two provide a great platform of understanding. The old covenant still stands; it will not go away (the verses you quoted) until all has been fulfilled. But now that the new and fuller revelation has come (Heb. 1.1-2), the old is subsumed into the new. Galatians 4.1-7 gives an illustration of a child under tutelage. Even though he's a son, he is made a "slave" of the tutor until he has come of age. In due time, when he comes of age, he is no longer under the thumb of the guardian, but enters the "full rights of a son".
So according to Jer. 31.31-33, the idea that the Law was temporary didn't originate in Christianity, but that's where it found its expression. The old covenant of the Law was broken by the Israelite people, but it was never nullified, because God declared that it would endure forever. But because it was broken, a new one was written that would be better than the old one: written on hearts rather than paper. And it was given without the conditions of the Law. It was also grounded in a new act of grace: the forgiveness of sins (something the old Law couldn't give).
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9107
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
20 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests