Is the Old Testament relevant to the modern-day Christian?

[RDKirk]

The OP's question is like asking whether the Magna Carta is relevant to Americans today.

 

[Fervent]

The OP's question is like asking whether the Magna Carta is relevant to Americans today.

I'm not sure the analogy is apt. Studying the OT teaches us a great deal about God that the NT simply wouldn't, so it is a lot more relevant than a document that primarily exists for historical interest/to explain developments that followed. A lot of it comes down to whether it's believed the purpose of the old covenant was just to be replaced by the new covenant, or if the whole program beginning with the call of Abraham is part of God's plan of salvation.

 

[RDKirk]

I'm not sure the analogy is apt. Studying the OT teaches us a great deal about God that the NT simply wouldn't, so it is a lot more relevant than a document that primarily exists for historical interest/to explain developments that followed. A lot of it comes down to whether it's believed the purpose of the old covenant was just to be replaced by the new covenant, or if the whole program beginning with the call of Abraham is part of God's plan of salvation.

The gospel is a lot slimmer than many people think.

Accepting Christ doesn't even require knowing the OT...and accepting Christ is the bottom line.

 

[Fervent]

The gospel is a lot slimmer than many people think.

Accepting Christ doesn't even require knowing the OT...and accepting Christ is the bottom line.

If you think the entire goal is bare salvation, I suppose. But that's like being at a multi-course elegant meal and saying "well, really all you need to survive is the bread." Technically true, but you miss out on the full experience.

 

[TedT]

Sure, it shows the history of GOD systematically exposing the failures of all leaders of HIS religion among men.
Chosen men,
prophets,
judges,
kings,
all sinned and fell short of their calling.

Only Christ fulfilled His anointing.

We should be extra careful to be motivated by this knowledge to look closely into the decisions of our own religious leaders, both since the early fathers and in this very day...including religious politicking, religious acceptance of biblical social sins and the use of blasphemous doctrine to fill in the mysteries of HIS word.

 

[Studyman]

Some Christians find reading the Old Testament arduous and unnecessary. All of those laws and calls for sacrifice just do not seem to have value. The God of the Old Testament seems so harsh with all that wrath and judgment -- that God does not seem to be the same God that Jesus refers to -- that God of Love.

First, we either believe the WHOLE Bible or we don't.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, II Timothy 3:14 (NKJV)
​

All Scripture means ALL as in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. The verse also explains the value that this inspired, God-breathed, scripture has. This alone should be reason enough tp study the Old Testament.

As for all of those Laws, many are recorded for historical reference and do not need to be focused on. The civil and ceremonial laws are not relevant for today, but the moral laws still are valid. The Ten Commandments are valid today as they were in the days of Moses. Jesus summarizes the Commandments:

Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” Matt 22:37-40
​

The First of the Great Commandments is actually found in Deut 6:5. Jesus finds value in the Old Testament, so should we. In fact, the Old Testament is referenced over 1600 times in the New Testament. For this reason, some say that the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. The Messianic prophesies of the Old Testament foretold of Jesus in which He has already fulfilled many.

How do we reconcile the persona of God in the Old Testament versus the New Testament? First, God is unchanging so to see God as different is our lack of understanding. The God of the Old Testament had to deal with a rebellious and disobedient people for several thousand years. The deserved punishment, which they received, but they also received mercy by not being fully punished. Israel also received grace by God defeating their enemies, restoring them and sending them a Messiah. The New Testament covered almost 100 years -- not nearly the same time frame. Much of the New Testament is focused on Christ, his words, his teachings and the spreading this word by the apostles and disciples.

The value of the Old Testament provides much context to demonstrate how much God loves His people in spite of their disobedience. The need for the Messiah is shown because following the Law is insufficient because no one is capable of NOT sinning. The history, poetry and wisdom of the Old Testament actually glorifies Jesus because He is all of it so that He can be the Redeemer.

Absolutely,

Paul even said, more than once, that the Law and Prophets were Specifically written for us, for our admonition.

1 Cor. 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.


He even tells us why they were written.

1 Cor. 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

12 Wherefore (Because of this Truth) let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

 

[Clare73]

Agreed.
The view of which of the 600+ laws fits into which of the subcategories of moral, civil, and ceremonial law varies widely depending on whom I ask, such as with some people considering just the Ten Commandments to be God's moral laws, while others consider the greatest two commandments to also be moral laws, or laws against rape and kidnapping, so in order for someone to speak about those subcategories in way that derives their view from the Bible rather than inserts their view into the Bible, they would need to show where the Bible specifies which of those categories each of God's 600+ laws belong to, however, the Bible doesn't not even refer to any of those subcategories. If I wanted, I could categorize God's 600+ laws based on which parts of the body are most commonly used to obey/disobey them, such as with the law against theft being considered to be a hand law, however, if I were to create my own doctrine out of my subcategories without establishing that any of the authors of the Bible categorized those laws in the same manner, such as by deciding that the laws I personally consider to be hand laws are no longer valid, then I would quickly run into the same sort of error as those who are deciding that the laws that they personally consider to be ceremonial and civil laws are no longer valid. If a law is no longer valid, then it is no longer profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, or for instruction in righteousness. Furthermore, the subcategory of moral law implies that it is moral to disobey the laws that aren't in that subcategory, but there is no standard given by which to determine which laws are moral to disobey, nor do I see any reson to think 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.

The morally-flawed rationality of fallen man does not supercede the God-breathed Scriptures
(2 Timothy 3:16), where we learn that "the law with it commandments and regulations" was abolished in the flesh of Christ on the cross (Ephesians 2:14-15), and where we see specifically what regulations are referred to in "the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility" (v.14); i.e., those laws which separated Jews from Gentiles, whose non-observance of the Jewish law rendered them ceremonially unclean.

If God's nature is eternal, then so are all of His laws that were given to teach us how to testify about His nature (Psalms 119:160).

Where is that found in Scripture? . . .non sequitir. . .from the morally-flawed rationale of fallen man.

To say that a law is no longer valid is to deny that what God revealed about His nature by giving that law is true, or in other words,
it is to deny that existence of a God who has the fullness of the nature that was revealed to Israel through the giving of the Law of Moses. Likewise, the Son is the exact expression of God's nature (Hebrews 1:3), which he expressed through his actions by living in sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law, so
to say that any laws are no longer valid is to reject those parts of Christ's nature.

Non sequitir. . .upon non sequitir. . .upon non sequitir. . .of the morally-flawed rationale of fallen man.

 

[Clare73]

GF Sladcik
Could you post a few examples of the ceremonial and Civil laws from the Law of Moses that are no longer in force.
Also, list a few examples of moral laws that you believe are still in force from the Law of Moses.

Ceremonial - e.g., laws of sacrificial system

Civil - e.g., Exodus 21:1-11, 13, 17, 20-28, 32, 35, etc.

Moral still in force - e.g., some would be 5th, 6th, 7th commandments of the Decalogue (not intended to be an all inclusive list of those in the Decalogue)

 

[ralliann]

The gospel is a lot slimmer than many people think.

Accepting Christ doesn't even require knowing the OT...and accepting Christ is the bottom line.

I think the slim element is first and foremost the goal of the law. To bring to fulness the covenant promises God sware to our Father Abraham. Which Paul calls the law. Some only see law as that which Moses gave Israel.

 

[TheWhat?]

Thank you for naming the Marionite heresy.

It is interesting just how important history is in the NT, well, and even in the old - starting with the admonition to tell the story (e.g. Exodus story) to their children generation after generation lest they forget God's grace toward them. And a number of rational appeals had their basis in recounting Israel's history (e.g. Stephen's defense).

One of the main excuses driving this heresy today that I see is the notion that the bible presents "two Gods" - a God of the OT and a God of the New, that the OT God was vengeful, spiteful, unloving while the God of the NT is a "God of love."

You mean Marcion, right?

 

[TheWhat?]

A difficult subject, and very much one that has been on the forefront of mind as of late. But it does seem that your quandary is actually two problems confused as one. At least, it makes more sense to me if you divide them.

Some Christians find reading the Old Testament arduous and unnecessary. All of those laws and calls for sacrifice just do not seem to have value. The God of the Old Testament seems so harsh with all that wrath and judgment -- that God does not seem to be the same God that Jesus refers to -- that God of Love.

First, we either believe the WHOLE Bible or we don't.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, II Timothy 3:14 (NKJV)
​

All Scripture means ALL as in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. The verse also explains the value that this inspired, God-breathed, scripture has. This alone should be reason enough tp study the Old Testament.

As for all of those Laws, many are recorded for historical reference and do not need to be focused on. The civil and ceremonial laws are not relevant for today, but the moral laws still are valid. The Ten Commandments are valid today as they were in the days of Moses. Jesus summarizes the Commandments:

Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” Matt 22:37-40
​

The First of the Great Commandments is actually found in Deut 6:5. Jesus finds value in the Old Testament, so should we. In fact, the Old Testament is referenced over 1600 times in the New Testament. For this reason, some say that the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. The Messianic prophesies of the Old Testament foretold of Jesus in which He has already fulfilled many.

This is really the first of the two problems, in my opinion, and the one that I'm still struggling with. Honestly I had to shelve Paul temporarily to reacquaint myself with the law-accepting stance articulated in the NT, which is not intended to be a rejection of Paul. Once I did, it became apparent to me that the NT writings which cater more to the early Jewish Christians place a high emphasis on the efficacy of scripture, probably including the law.

[Jas 1:21 NKJV] 21 Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

[Jhn 6:68 NKJV] 68 But Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."​

But, if the law is applicable to Gentiles, what about the council of Jerusalem in acts 15? I think there's still something to be said about that, but also, remember it was James who presides in the text, not Paul, and this detail to me seems relevant:

[Act 15:21 NKJV] 21 "For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."
​

So it seems that James, who would most likely agree with John on the use of the law in the definition of sin, and who also decides to not trouble the Gentiles who are "turning to God" with additional legal burdens beyond a few necessary things, does so while still considering the whole of the scripture to be useful, and possibly necessary, toward salvation and instruction in righteousness, etc. Of course then we have to wonder about Paul, if he really disagreed, or not. I think there is some evidence that suggests he wouldn't here:

[2Ti 3:14-17 NKJV] 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned [them], 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
​

And that, to me, sounds like the same underlying doctrine at work.

How do we reconcile the persona of God in the Old Testament versus the New Testament? First, God is unchanging so to see God as different is our lack of understanding. The God of the Old Testament had to deal with a rebellious and disobedient people for several thousand years. The deserved punishment, which they received, but they also received mercy by not being fully punished. Israel also received grace by God defeating their enemies, restoring them and sending them a Messiah. The New Testament covered almost 100 years -- not nearly the same time frame. Much of the New Testament is focused on Christ, his words, his teachings and the spreading this word by the apostles and disciples.

The value of the Old Testament provides much context to demonstrate how much God loves His people in spite of their disobedience. The need for the Messiah is shown because following the Law is insufficient because no one is capable of NOT sinning. The history, poetry and wisdom of the Old Testament actually glorifies Jesus because He is all of it so that He can be the Redeemer.

Personally, I'm inclined to think of the supposed difference in the character of God to be better explained as a difference in covenants, rather than a change or difference in the character of God, which is verging on Marcion's error. The old covenant was to Paul very much a ministry of death and condemnation whereas the new was a ministry of righteousness. That law can't be binding to us otherwise we'd be required to execute vast numbers of people, which would be at cross-purposes with the Gospel, for starters.

 

[RDKirk]

This is really the first of the two problems, in my opinion, and the one that I'm still struggling with. Honestly I had to shelve Paul temporarily to reacquaint myself with the law-accepting stance articulated in the NT, which is not intended to be a rejection of Paul. Once I did, it became apparent to me that the NT writings which cater more to the early Jewish Christians place a high emphasis on the efficacy of scripture, probably including the law.

[Jas 1:21 NKJV] 21 Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

[Jhn 6:68 NKJV] 68 But Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."​

I agree with your post overall, but Simon Peter's statement (and I'm thinking about the question of the wealthy young ruler in Mark 10) suggests that eternal life, in particular, is suggested but by no means promised by the keeping of the Old Covenant. If it were, then the words of the Pharisees and priests would also have eternal life, and perfect keeping of the Law would lead to eternal life. But there is no indication that the Jews felt confident about that.​

Personally, I'm inclined to think of the supposed difference in the character of God to be better explained as a difference in covenants, rather than a change or difference in the character of God, which is verging on Marcion's error. The old covenant was to Paul very much a ministry of death and condemnation whereas the new was a ministry of righteousness.

I think the writer of Hebrews makes that abundantly clear. He asserts explicitly that the new covenant is a better covenant with better promises, and if the first covenant had been complete, there would be no need for another.

 

[ralliann]

I agree with your post overall, but Simon Peter's statement (and I'm thinking about the question of the wealthy young ruler in Mark 10) suggests that eternal life, in particular, is suggested but by no means promised by the keeping of the Old Covenant. If it were, then the words of the Pharisees and priests would also have eternal life, and perfect keeping of the Law would lead to eternal life. But there is no indication that the Jews felt confident about that.​

I think the writer of Hebrews makes that abundantly clear. He asserts explicitly that the new covenant is a better covenant with better promises, and if the first covenant had been complete, there would be no need for another.

Both covenants, New and old are fulfillments of the two covenants made with Abraham.

 

[Clare73]

I think the slim element is first and foremost the goal of the law. To bring to fulness the covenant promises God sware to our Father Abraham. Which Paul calls the law. Some only see law as that which Moses gave Israel.

In the NT, the whole body of Scripture is called, "the Law," "the Law and the Prophets," and
"the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms."

 

[Clare73]

Both covenants, New and old are fulfillments of the two covenants made with Abraham.

Wasn't the Old Covenant a temporary addition (Galatians 3:19; Romans 5:20;
Hebrews 8:13) to the Abrahamic Covenant?

 

[ralliann]

In the NT, the whole body of Scripture is called, "the Law," "the Law and the Prophets," "the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms."

Yes, I know. The law is more than just the Sinai covenant. It is ultimately God fulfilling his promise to Abraham. Which was before the covenant made with Israel.
De 5:2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
De 5:3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.
Passover and unleavened bread are part of the Abrahamic covenant promises.
Ex 2:24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.
Ex 6:4 And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers.
Ex 6:5 And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant.

Joh 7:22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.

Over and over again, the covenant promises made to Abraham
De 4:31 (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

De 7:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers: {if: Heb. because }
De 8:18 But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day.

Luke 1:54 He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;
55 As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.

It is the covenant of mercy, because it God who sware to do it. It is about God keeping his oath.

Ga 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Jews today still keep the covenant of circumcision. They are loved for the sake of the fathers

 

[Clare73]

Yes, I know. The law is more than just the Sinai covenant. It is ultimately God fulfilling his promise to Abraham. Which was before the covenant made with Israel.

Was "blessing to all nations" fulfilled before Christ?

De 5:2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
De 5:3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.
Passover and unleavened bread are part of the Abrahamic covenant promises.
Ex 2:24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.
Ex 6:4 And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers.
Ex 6:5 And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant.

Joh 7:22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.

Over and over again, the covenant promises made to Abraham
De 4:31 (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

De 7:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers: {if: Heb. because }
De 8:18 But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day.

Luke 1:54 He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;
55 As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.

It is the covenant of mercy, because it God who sware to do it. It is about God keeping his oath.

Ga 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Jews today still keep the covenant of circumcision. They are loved for the sake of the fathers

 

[ralliann]

Wasn't the Old Covenant a temporary addition (Galatians 3:19; Romans 5:20; Hebrews 8:13)
to the Abrahamic Covenant?

No I don't think so. I believe Abraham kept the law of faith (as did Noah etc. The book of Hebrews tells us of them all).
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Always back to Abraham.....we know law from Moses 430 after.
The law of Moses was additional law.
Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Two covenants were given to Abraham. God sware an oath to Abraham when he sacrificed Isaac. God and his righteousness is HE IS FAITHFUL TO HIS OATH.
Heb 6:17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: {confirmed … : Gr. interposed himself by }
Sinai......
Heb 7:20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
Heb 7:21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of
God will not repent......He will not turn from his oath.

 

[Clare73]

Wasn't the Old Covenant a temporary addition (Galatians 3:19; Romans 5:20; Hebrews 8:13) to the Abrahamic Covenant?

No I don't think so.

Isn't that what is revealed in the Scriptures above?

 

[TheWhat?]

I agree with your post overall, but Simon Peter's statement (and I'm thinking about the question of the wealthy young ruler in Mark 10) suggests that eternal life, in particular, is suggested but by no means promised by the keeping of the Old Covenant. If it were, then the words of the Pharisees and priests would also have eternal life, and perfect keeping of the Law would lead to eternal life. But there is no indication that the Jews felt confident about that.​

That's one of the things that makes the subject so obscure and difficult. I also think that neither Peter nor the gospels intend to imply salvation by works-righteousness. Rather, taking all things into consideration, the parable of the sower, and more, there is something much more going on here which is taught consequently by reading the gospels, but which I've never heard a denomination expound on -- and it may be better that way -- but this is where Paul comes back, reiterating the same:

[Gal 3:2-5 NKJV] 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have you suffered so many things in vain--if indeed [it was] in vain? 5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, [does He do it] by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?--​

I think James and Paul here are actually in agreement. James would be worried about the preaching of the word not taking root in a gentile believer, so he encourages us to take action, but, then, so does Paul:

[Phl 2:12-13 NKJV] 12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for [His] good pleasure.​