1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. We are holding our 2022 Angel Ministry Drive now. Please consider signing up, or if you have any questions about being an Angel, use our staff application form. The world needs more prayer now, and it is a great way to help other members of the forums. :) To Apply...click here

Do you the Old Testament and New Testament contradict each other?

Discussion in 'Christian Scriptures' started by Evanr1, Aug 20, 2017.

  1. Evanr1

    Evanr1 New Member

    United States
    In chapter 21 of exodus, after the ten commandments, it teaches a few strange things. These things include that you have to sacrifice an animal 7 days after sexual activity to cleanse yourself (it mentions many other sacrifices), that those who talk badly about their parents should be put to death, and that it is okay to have a slave and beat him as long as you don't kill him. (from my interpretations)

    The Old Testament also teaches that those who follow the commandments will be healthier when on earth, and live longer, better lives while on earth.

    The New Testament teaches that the people who are on earth and suffering (the meek, mourning, etc), will have a greater place in heaven, and implies that we could suffer a lot on earth even if we live the right way. It teaches to love your neighbor as yourself (therefore I don't think having a slave would be "right"), to be all loving and forgiving (therefore I don't think killing someone for speaking badly about their parents would be "right").

    My point is, I feel like you have to basically choose whether you want to follow the Old Testament or the New Testament, because many of the teachings seem to contradict each other. It is also confusing because Jesus seemed to follow the Old Testament, doing the passover feast etc, yet his teachings ware almost saying not to listen to what the Old Testament says…..

    I have heard the argument that the teachings in the Old Testament are the true word of God but those teachings were only meant for those people at that time…. But I don't see how the same God would want people to be enslaving each other etc etc one year, and then doing the opposite of that in a few thousand years…..

    Do you think those strange teachings in the Old Testament are the true word of God?

    Do other people agree that you basically have to choose between whether to follow the New or Old Testament to some degree? If so why is the Old Testament included if that is not what they believe in?
  2. Tolworth John

    Tolworth John Well-Known Member Supporter

    United Kingdom
    No I do not agree. If you are a Christian you are following Jesus and as he said not one punctuation mark will be removed from the law until it is fulfilled.

    Jesus is the fulfilment of the OT law. The only reason for choosing to follow the OT law would be because you are Jewish.

    Keep reading the OT, but learn to see Jesus in it.
  3. JackRT

    JackRT Well-Known Member Supporter

    The Old Testament certainly has some strange laws but it does not present a unified front:

    Micah 6:6 With what shall I come before the Lord, And bow myself before the High God? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, With calves a year old? 7 Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, Ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8 He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God.
  4. Dkh587

    Dkh587 Well-Known Member Supporter

    United States
    The way that Christ lived is the full revelation of how the Law of God, aka the law of Moses, and the Prophets teach children of God to live

    Christ is our example of how to properly live and obey God's law. His life exemplified the teachings of the Law & Prophets
  5. Evanr1

    Evanr1 New Member

    United States
  6. Evanr1

    Evanr1 New Member

    United States
    It seems the only questions that remain are:

    Why did the Old Testament (exodus chapter 21), essentially promote slavery, and killing those who speak against their parents. I guess it is possible that for some reason, at that time, it was the best way to cause the most good for all people as a whole. Or it is possible that the Old Testament was somehow tampered with at some point and it was added for political purposes at that time.
  7. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    Everything that is taught in the NT is based off of what is taught in the OT. The NT authors quoted or alluded to the OT thousands of times in order to establish that it supported what they said and that they did not depart from it. In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything Paul said against the OT to see if what he said was true, so Paul did not depart from the OT, but as Acts 21:24 says, he continued to live in obedience to the Law.

    According to John 5:46, Jesus said that Moses wrote about him, according to Luke 24:27, Jesus began with Moses and the Prophets interpreting to them all of the things in Scripture concerning himself, according to Hebrews 10:7, the totality of the scroll is written about Jesus, and according to Romans 10:4, a relationship with Jesus is the goal of obeying the Law for righteousness for everyone who has faith, so everything in the Bible is there to teach us about Christ and how to have an intimate relationship with him. There are many verses that describe the Mosaic Covenant as being a marriage between God and Israel, with God describing Himself as her husband (Jeremiah 31:32) and with Israel's unfaithfulness described as adultery, which eventually got so bad that God wrote the Northern Kingdom a certificate of divorce (Jeremiah 3:8), so again the Mosaic Law is God's instructions for how to have an intimate relationship with Him. Jesus was sinless, so he set a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, which means that he taught his followers how to follow it both by word and by example, and we are told walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:3-6) and to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22).

    If you are interested, then I recommend this excellent study on Finding Messiah in the Torah, as well as many of the other studies and articles found there:

    Genesis- Messianic audio Torah teaching by Rabbi Stan Farr

    In regard to slavery, the slavery in the OT is not at all the same as colonial slavery, but is much closer to indentured servitude. In the ANE, if someone couldn't pay off their debts, then they could either beg, starve, or sell their future labor, and if they were able bodied, then begging wasn't an option, so slavery was an economics necessity. In the ANE, corporeal punishment was much more common and hired workers who misbehaved could be punished in the same way that slaves were, but the Bible warns against mistreating slaves and held people to a much higher standard that the other nations. So the issue was not that someone could mistreat slaves as much as they wanted as long as they didn't kill them, but rather that law was there to protect slaves from being killed and to gauge the intent of the person doing the beating. In Deuteronomy 15:16-17, it talks about slaves having the option where they did not want to leave their master, but preferred to become a permanent slave, so you need to be thinking about scenarios where people were better off being a slave than being free. More often than not, a slave who was freed did not receive longer term freedom, but rather they were freed in order to become the slave of someone else. This is what is mean when Galatians 5:1 say that it is for freedom that God sets us free. Most people in the ANE were not able to survive on their own, but were dependant on being part of a community for their survival.

    In Matthew 15:2-3, Jesus was asked why his disciples broke the traditions of the elders and he responded by asking them why they broke the command of God for the sake of their tradition. He went on to say that for the sake of their tradition they made void the Word of God (Matthew 15:6), that they worshiped God in vain because they taught as doctrines the commands of men (Matthew 15:8-9), and that they were hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions (Mark 7:6-9), so what they were teaching as the Mosaic Law was actually their own traditions, and so it is important not to mistake a criticism of what they were incorrectly teaching as the Mosaic Law as being a criticism of the Mosaic Law.

    In regard to Matthew 5, when Jesus quoted Scripture, he proceeded by saying "it is written", but when he was quoting from what his audience had heard being taught about the Law, he proceeded by saying "you have heard that it was said" so Jesus was not disagreeing with OT Law or making changes to it, but rather he was fulfilling the Law by teaching how to correctly understand and obey it. For example:

    Matthew 5:21-22 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother[c] will be liable to judgment; whoever insults[d] his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell[e] of fire.

    In Leviticus 19:17, it says that they should not hate their fellow Israelite, so Jesus was not sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by adding or subtracting anything.

    Matthew 5:27-28 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    This is nothing brand new, just the correct application of the 7th and 10th Commandments against adultery and coveting.

    Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

    While Leviticus 19:18 certainly instructs us to love our neighbors as ourselves, it does not instruct us to hate our enemies, so Jesus was again correcting what was incorrectly being taught about the Law.
  8. Evanr1

    Evanr1 New Member

    United States
    Thats a great post, thank you.

    If what you are saying is historically accurate about slavery being more like a type of work that happened at the time and it resulting in better conditions than they would have had, that is a great point.

    There is still just ONE thing left though........

    The law that states that we should (or that they should) put to death anyone who simply speaks badly about their parents. How do you explain that ?? In the link I posted previously I think it explains that later on the new testament says that we no longer have to follow the laws. This is from the link:

    "The teachings of Jesus, the Council of Jerusalem, and other New Testament teachings (John 1:16-17, Acts 13:39, Romans 2:25-29, 8:1-4, 1 Corinthians 9:19-21,Galatians 2:15-16, Ephesians 2:15) make it clear that Christians are not required to follow the Old Testament rules about crimes and punishments, warfare, slavery, diet, circumcision, animal sacrifices, feast days, Sabbath observance, ritual cleanness, etc."

    Why would god want those people to kill anyone who speaks badly about their parents, and not want us to do that now?

    Exodus chapter 21:

    "whoever curses father or mother shall be put to death"
  9. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    While I agree that we are under the New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant we are nevertheless still under the same God, who attributes are eternal, so therefore God's Law or instructions for how to act in accordance with His attributes is likewise eternal. For example, God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), so therefore all of God's righteous laws are likewise eternal (Psalms 119:160), and the same goes for all of God's other attributes. The Mosaic Law was given to instruct how to reflect God's image, how to walk in in ways (Deuteronomy 8:6), and display God's attributes to the world: holiness, righteousness, goodness (Romans 7:12), justice, mercy, faith (Matthew 23:23), and other fruits of the Spirit (Exodus 34:6-7). In Leviticus 11:44-45 refraining from eating unclean animals is part of God's instructions for how to do what is holy for He is holy, or in other words, to act in accordance with His holiness, and these verses are referenced in 1 Peter 1:13-16 where we are told to do what is holy for God is holy. If the way to act in accordance with God's holiness has changed, then God's holiness has changed, but God's holiness is eternal and does not change.

    Morality is based off of God's attributes and in regard to what we ought to do. We ought to obey God, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws and it is always immoral to disobey any of God's commands.

    I tried to make the case in my previous post that Jesus did not teach higher standard, but rather than he taught how the Law was originally meant to be understood, but even if you still think that Jesus taught a higher standard, then meeting a higher standard is inherently inclusive of a meeting a lower standard. In other words, you can't meet a higher standard while disregarding things that a part of meeting a lower standard.

    This is where it becomes critically important to distinguish between what is said man-made laws and what is said of God's law, because this is using sleight of hand to take examples where Jesus and the disciples did not observe the rules of the Pharisees as saying that they did not observe what God commanded in the OT. In the 1st century, there was a large body of Jewish oral laws, traditions, rulings, and fences that they taught for how to obey the Mosaic Law, which they taught were needed to be obeyed in order to be saved, which would eventually get recorded in the Mishna, and which Jesus referred to as placing a heavy burden on the people (Matthew 23:2-4). Jesus was certainly not criticizing the Pharisees for teaching the people to do what God had commanded them to do.

    Pleroo: to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

    In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus said that he came to fulfill the Law and then proceeded to fulfill the Law six times throughout the rest of the chapter by causing God's will as made known in the Law to be obeyed as it should be.

    Obedience to God's Law has always been a matter of the heart and God has always disdained outward obedience to His Law while His people's hearts were far from him because that is missing the entire point of obeying the Law. From the beginning with God walking with Adam in the Garden, what God has always wanted is an intimate relationship with us and the goal of His commands is to teach us how to grow in this relationship. In Philippians 3:8, Paul counted outward obedience to the Law without being focused on growing in a intimate relationship with Christ as being rubbish, because it is again missing the entire point. In Romans 9:30 - Romans 10:4, the reason why Israel failed to obtain righteousness was not because they did what God told them to do and God gave them faulty commands, but rather they misunderstood the purpose of the Law and pursued it as though righteousness were by outward works instead of pursuing the Law by faith.

    I would love it if you point out where God Law says that we become defiled by eating with unwashed hands because I can assure you that it is not found anywhere in God's Law. In Matthew 15:2-3, it makes a clear contrast between the traditions of the elders and the commands of God, so what is said against obeying the traditions of the elders should not be taken as being against obeying the commands of God. While Jesus and his disciples certainly broke the traditions of the Pharisees in regard to how to keep the Sabbath, they never broke God's command to keep the Sabbath. Jesus made the argument that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath, so he was not speaking against obeying the Law, but was teaching how to correctly obey it.

    John 8:1-12 is example of Jesus following the Law rather than making changes to how it is obeyed. There was no judge to pronounce a sentence (Deuteronomy 19:17-21), there was no man accused (Leviticus 20:10), he didn't have any witnesses to examine (Numbers 35:30, Deuteronomy 19:5), and he did not have a confession, so if he had condemned her, then he would have acted in violation of the Law. Just a few verses later Jesus said that he judged no one (John 8:15) and he also said that he came not to judge (John 12:47), so he did not exercise authority as a magistrate and did not condemn her, but he did recognize her action as sin, and told her to go and sin no more.

    In Isaiah 45:25, it says that all Israel will be saved, so many Jews mistakenly thought that meant that Gentiles had to become Jewish proselytes in order to become saved, which meant becoming circumcised and joining the group of people who agreed at Sinai to do everything Moses said (Exodus 20:19, Deuteronomy 5:22-33). Moses had the authority to make interpretations of Law and by the 1st century those who had this authority passed down to them were referred to as sitting in Moses' seat and it had become a large body of Jewish or laws, traditions, rulings, and fences that Jesus referred to as placing a heavy burden on the people (Matthew 23:2-4). So by becoming circumcised Gentiles were agreeing to become Jewish proselytes and to live as Jews according to all of their oral laws and doing that all in order to become saved, and this is what the Jerusalem Council rejected in Acts 15. While God did required all Jews to become circumcised, not even they were required to become circumcised for the purpose of becoming saved, and if God did not require it for that purpose, then it is therefore a man-made requirement, so the Jerusalem Council correctly upheld God's Law by rejecting this man-made requirement. Their discussion had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Gentiles should follow the commands of their God. In Acts 15:21, it was expected that Gentiles would continue to learn how to obey the Law of Moses from hearing it taught every Sabbath in the synagogues.

    In Acts 15:10, they were simply expressing the same opinion of Jewish oral laws that Jesus had expressed. In Deuteronomy 30:11-14, God said that what He commanded was not too difficult, in Romans 10:5-10, our faith should agree, and in 1 John 5:3, it confirms that the commands of God are not burdensome, so to interpret Acts 15:10 as referring to the Mosaic Law rather that Jewish oral laws is to put them in direct disagreement with God. Furthermore, to say that the Law is a heavy burden that no one could bear is to reflect a rather negative view on the giver of the Law. God said that what He commanded was for our own good and to prosper us (Deuteronomy 6:24, Deuteronomy 10:13) and the Psalms are full of extremely high praise for God's Law, especially Psalms 119. David said that he mediated on God's Law day and night, that those who obey it will be blessed, that God's Law is perfect, that he wanted God to show his grace to Him by teaching him to obey His Law, that he delighted in obey it, etc, and Paul also said he delighted in obeying God's Law (Romans 7:22), so he was on the same page as David, and the way that the average Jew viewed God's Law is completely incompatible with saying that it was a heavy burden no one could bear.
  10. Evanr1

    Evanr1 New Member

    United States

    Very interesting. So are you saying that some people gained authority to interpret Moses's commandments after he died, and then these people wrongly interpreted them and added their own traditions, including one of them being that all those who speak badly about their parents are to be put to death? and then later in the Acts they agreed that this is not the true law that God said/intended to mean, and placed a large burden on them ? So this sounds like you are basically agreeing that the old testament was "tampered" with in some way and therefore it is not all the true, pure word of God, from God.... it is fine if this is the case I just want to understand it.

    So you think that this wasn't the true word of God which should be obeyed?:

    Exodus chapter 21:

    "whoever curses father or mother shall be put to death"

    And if so, how come for the slavery argument, you argued that at that time period slave was just a type of work and so God was really helping those people have a better life, but for the part right after it you argue that someone gained authority to interpret Moses's teachings and changed them/added their traditions which were later disregarded for this reason(if I am interpreting you correctly). In other words, why would you say that same argument for the slavery thing and the other strange teachings??

    Thanks for your time!
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2017
  11. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    Thanks. You might find this article interesting about slavery in the OT:


    While I think we are required to obey all of God's commands, the emphasis should not be God making us do something against our will, but rather God teaching us how to walk in His ways is for our own good, to be a blessing, to be a delight, to be a privilege, and the way where we will find rest for our souls. Even if we didn't have to walk in God's ways, it is nevertheless something that we should seek to do by grace through faith.

    To be clear, the one and only way that there has ever been to become justified is by grace through faith and by the same grace through the same faith we are required to be careful to obey all of God's commands. Grace and faith has always been important attributes of God that He showed before, during, and after the Mosaic Covenant, so God was not acting against His grace when He gave His Law to Moses, but rather in Psalms 119:29, David asked God to show His grace to him by teaching him to obey His Law. In Romans 4:1-8, it both Abraham and David were justified by faith, and everyone in the OT who was justified was justified by faith. In Genesis 6:8-9, it says that Noah found grace in the eyes of God and that he was a righteous man, and it was no accident that he lived in accordance with God's righteousness, but rather he was righteous because God instructed him by grace in how to live righteously and he obeyed through faith.

    In Titus 2:11-14, it says that our salvation involves being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly and sinful, which an accurate description of what God's Law was given to instruct how to do (Romans 7:12). In Romans 1:6, it says that we have received grace in order to bring about the obedience that faith requires. Strong's defined "grace" as "the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life" and God's will being reflected in our lives takes the form of obedience to His commands. According to Jude 1:4, ungodly people pervert God's grace into a licence to sin, so the idea that God's grace is opposed to His Law is completely false, as though a house divided against itself could stand. Rather grace is the power of God to overcome sin. In John 1:16-17, it says that grace was added upon grace, so the grace of Christ was added upon the grace of the Law.

    Abraham and David were justified by faith, so God had no need to provide an alternative and unobtainable means of becoming justified through His Law when a perfectly good means of becoming justified by faith was already in place. Thinking that obedience to the Law was about trying to become justified has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of it and of God's character because it makes it out to be that what God primarily wants from us is our obedience when since the beginning with God walking with Adam in the Garden, what God has primarily wanted from us is an intimate relationship with us, and His Law is His instructions for how to do that. God has always disdained it when people outwardly obeyed His Law while their hearts were far from Him. So the reason why they were not able to obtain justification under the Law of Moses was that it was never given for that purpose in the first place, but rather it was given to those that God had justified by faith as instructions for what they should therefore do. Again, in Romans 9:32 - Romans 10:4, the reason why Israel failed to obtain righteousness was because they had this misunderstanding of the Law.

    Accord to Romans 2:26, the way to tell that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to the Mosaic Law. I have no idea why the author thought these verses make it clear that Gentiles are not required to follow OT laws

    In Romans 7:21-25, Paul said that he delighted in obey God's Law and served God's Law with his mind, but contrasted that with the law of sin that held him captive that he served with his flesh. Unless you think that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in disagreement about what conduct we should have, then the Law of Christ is the same as the Law of the Spirit, which is the same as the Law of the Father, which was given to Moses. In Romans 8:1-4, the Law of the Spirit is equated with God's Law and both are contrasted with the law of sin. In Romans 8:7, it says that who have a mind set on the flesh refuse to submit to God's Law.

    In verse 21, Paul said that he was not outside of God's Law, but under the Law of Christ, which is a parallel statement, so it is saying that Paul was still required to obey the Mosaic Law. In these verses, Paul was not saying that he would become an adulterer to reach adulterers, a murderer to reach murderers, or to commit any other sin in order to reach sinners because that would completely undermine the Gospel message. Rather, he was speaking about giving up his rights so that he could meet people where they were at in order to win them for Christ.

    In Acts 10:28, Peter referred to law that forbade Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles. This is not a law that is found anywhere in God's Law and is fact contrary to Leviticus 19:34, so Peter was talking about a man-made law, and it was this man-made law that he obeying in Galatians 2:11-16 when he stopped visiting or associating with the Gentiles. His actions were giving credence to the circumcision group that was wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of law in order to become saved, which is why Paul immediately reiterated that we are justified by faith and not by their works of law. We are not justified by obeying God's Law, so it is that much more true for obeying man-made works of law.

    In Ephesians 2:10, it says that we are new creations in Christ for the purpose of doing good works, so it wouldn't make any sense to say a few verses later that Christ did away with his instructions for how to do good works, but rather this verse is again referring to tearing down man-made laws, such as mentioned in Acts 10:28 that created barriers between Jews and Gentiles that God did not intent. God's intention was for the Jews to be a light to the nations to teach them how to serve God and walk in God's ways (Isaiah 2:2-3, Isaiah 49:6, Deuteronomy 4:5-8), and they can't do this while refusing to visit or associate with them.

    None of the verses listed make any of these distinctions listed.

    The Jew do not have a history of executing someone every time the Law prescribed it, but rather they often required a fine instead. The seriousness of the penalty is to show the seriousness of the offense to God, but the lesser penalty was to show the mercy of God. As Jesus said in Matthew 23:23, justice, mercy, and faith are weightier matters of the Law, so if the attributes of God are not reflected in how we obey the Law, then we are doing it wrong.

    With that said, but both the OT and NT have much to say against gossip or evil speech in regard to controlling our tongue. Evil speech is anything that lowers the reputation of someone in the eyes of others, even if it is true, unless it is a situation where someone needs to know, such as if a judge is making a decision. So if a friend were about to be scammed by someone, then it would be appropriate to warn them, but if you're speaking negatively about the scammer to people who don't need to know, then that is evil speech. We need to use our words to build people up rather than tear them down. Furthermore speaking negatively about our creators would be a violation of the 5th Commandment. According to the rabbis, speaking badly about someone is killing three people: the person speaking, the person being spoken about, and the person listening, and I don't think that they are far off with that teaching:

    Gossip: The Triple Murder Threat

    However, the Bible also has much to say about blessings and curses, and cursing our creators is much more than simply speaking negatively about them. It amounts to someone wishing that they were dead, that they had never been born, so I don't see anything particularly inappropriate with people doing their best to comply with that sentiment.
  12. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    Sorry for not being clear, The OT is God's Law, including the command against cursing our parents, but many of those laws almost ask for additional clarification for how to correctly obey them. For example, God commanded that no work be done on the Sabbath, so in an effort to correctly obey the Sabbath, they set about rigorously defining what counts as works. There are 24 chapters in the Mishna just how to keep the Sabbath that go over how much someone can lift, walk, etc., and then they set fence around that to make the law even stricter to prevent someone from accidentally walking too far on the Sabbath. All of these commands are a heavy burden that pervert what was intended to be a day of rest into something that is a chore to keep. They even went so far as to say that you couldn't keep the Sabbath without knowing all of their oral laws for how to keep it, so they would not have taught Gentiles to keep the Sabbath without teach all these traditions for how to keep it.

    In Exodus 18, Moses delegated his authority on Jethro's advice. According to Pirkei Avot 1:1:

    Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, and Joshua to the Elders, and the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets transmitted it to the Men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples and make a fence for the Torah.

    I think this video by an ex-Pharisee will help you to understand the Pharisaic background of what Jesus was dealing with:

  13. Evanr1

    Evanr1 New Member

    United States

    I see. But when you refer to the man-made laws and the chapters of the Mishna that give these extensive law descriptions which were not necessary, are you saying that in the current bible, there are laws included, which are these man-made laws(people added to it) and misinterpreted laws and therefore I should disregard them? If so how do I tell them apart form the true word of God? or are you saying that these laws were just said by word of mouth at the time and that everything in the modern day bible is the exact, pure word of God?

    In other words, Is there any time in the Old Testament where it states something like "then God said to moses_____" and then mentions certain laws, and those laws are actually not believed to have been the word of God and were reflecting the man made laws or oral laws that were added at that time and werent reflective of the true word of God?

    I have also been learning about how the "civil laws" in the Old Testament are thought to have been meant only for that specific group at that specific time in order to stabilize that society and prepare it for Christ, similar to what you mentioned before.

  14. Ron Gurley

    Ron Gurley What U See is What U Get!

    United States
    God is immutable: unchanging and unchangable.
    The "word of God" (the Bible) is ALSO immutable: unchanging and unchangable.

    Deuteronomy 30:19 (ALL NASB)
    I call heaven and earth to witness against you today,
    that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So CHOOSE LIFE in order that you may live, you and your descendants,

    Matthew 24:35...Jesus: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away."

    The "economy" or God's methods of relating to Man changed from Old Testament times to New Testament due to the historical appearance of
    Jesus of Nazareth, The Divine Messiah, The Christ, the God-Man., Son of God, Son of Man,etc.

    The NT completed and fulfilled the OT.
    Jesus the God-Man completed and fulfilled the OT.
    He confirmed, clarified, corrected the Spirit of the Mosaic "Law" and added His precepts, commands, and examples. He warned unbelievers. He created a "new covenant" between Man and God.

    Matthew 5:17
    “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets;
    I did not come to abolish but to FULFILL.

    Mark 1:15..(Jesus) and saying,
    “The time (prophecy) is FULFILLED,
    and the "kingdom of God" (Jesus) is "at hand";(NOW!)
    repent (turn toward God) AND believe in the "gospel".”
    ("gospel"= GOOD NEWS: The Divine Messiah has come down from heaven to save Mankind)

    Luke 4:21..And He began to say to them (IN TEMPLE),
    “Today this Scripture has been FULFILLED in your hearing.”
    17 And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written,
    “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
    Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor.He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives,And recovery of sight to the blind,
    To set free those who are oppressed,
    To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.”

    Luke 24:44...Post-resurrection Jesus to His closest followers...Now He said to them,
    “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be FULFILLED.”

    The NEW Covenant!...substitutionary atonement.

    Matthew 26:28
    for this is My blood of the (NEW) covenant, which is poured out FOR many FOR forgiveness of sins.
    26 While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples,
    and said, “Take, eat; this is (represents) My body.”

    Mark 14:24
    And He said to them, “This is My blood of the (NEW)covenant, which is poured out FOR many.
    22 While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them,
    and said, “Take it; this is (represents) My body.”

    Luke 22:20
    And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying,
    “This cup which is poured out FOR you is the NEW covenant IN My blood.

    2 Corinthians 5:17
    Therefore if anyone is IN Christ, he is a new creature;
    the old things passed away;
    behold, new things have come.

    The SPIRIT of the OT is in PERFECT HARMONY with the SPIRIT of NT.

    The OT was God's way of dealing with His "chosen people", the Abramic NATIONS. The NT is God's way of dealing with ALL Mankind. The TRI-UNE God Calls/Draws Man to a spiritual CHOICE/DECISION:
    ACCEPT or REJECT Me THROUGH God the Son, Jesus the Christ.
  15. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    Sorry again for not being clear. All of the laws given in the OT are God's laws, not man's laws. However many laws require additional clarity for how to correctly obey them. To give another example, in Numbers 15:38, God commanded the people of Israel to wear tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, putting a thread of blue on each corner. It does not say how long they should be, how many knots should be tied in them, what other colors to use, what shade of blue to use, etc., so these details were left up to interpretation and over the centuries various groups of Jews have formed their own traditions for how to wear their tassels. It is not recorded that Jesus was ever criticized for how he wore his tassels, so I think he followed some man-made traditions. Another example is that He celebrated Hanukkah in John 10:22-23. So some man-made traditions were good and some were benign, but where Jesus had a problem with them was when they were elevated to having a greater authority than God's Law, where people actually set aside what God commanded in order to establish their own traditions. So by the 1st century it had become a large body oral laws and traditions that they taught needed to be followed in order to correctly obey God's Law and in order to become saved, and much of what is said in the NT is in regard to the role of these work of law.

    The clearest way to determine whether a law talked about in the NT is God's Law or man's law is to read the OT and see whether or not the law can be found there. There really is not escaping man-made traditions because the Bible must be interpreted by man and we have all been taught by men how to correctly understand it and live it out. In 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and 2 Thessalonians 3:6, Paul gave Jewish traditionary laws. So in choosing which man-made traditions to follow for how to obey God's Word, we straightforwardly need test those traditions to see if they are found in God's Word or at least consistent with it.

    This is another example of a man-made tradition in that the Bible does not speak about a category of laws called "civil laws" but it can more or less be useful to us categorize them. All of the instructions in the Bible are there to teach us about God and how to walk in his ways according to His attributes. In other words, they teach us to do what is holy, righteous, good (Romans 7:7), just, merciful, faithful (Matthew 23:23), and to live by the other fruits of the Spirit (Exodus 34:6-7). God's attributes are eternal, so there has always existed a way to live according to them, which is not specific to a period or time or to any particular covenant, though it has been revealed through God's covenants. In other words, the Mosaic Law did not change the way to live in accordance with God's righteousness, but revealed what has always been and will always be the way to do what is righteous.
  16. Evanr1

    Evanr1 New Member

    United States
    I just had this epiphany today about the whole thing. Generally speaking, with regards to what I have talked about in the Old Testament, including the harsh penalties for evil behavior and the sacrifices being required, it all demonstrates this generally harsh atmosphere where if anyone dose anything evil, they will be SEVERELY punished, on earth and after death. If anyone showed any malice what so ever they would be possibly put to death, they would get sick and they would suffer severely on earth and after death. They had to make sacrifices regularly just to stay neutral.

    The whole purpose of Jesus was to make a change in the relationship between humans and God, and to be the ultimate sacrifice, to become an atonement and reconcile our relationship with God. Then after Jesus, we see that that is exactly what happened. Humans no longer have to live by such strict measures of sacrificing(because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice) and trying to remain "clean", and harshly punishing each other etc, and they have hope for being forgiven and having eternal life with Jesus forever. The moral teachings, and teachings of love from Jesus are completely in line with the teachings of the Old Testament, the old Testament just emphasizes harsh punishments for not doing it.

    This just clicked today and seemed to make perfect sense. Humans did not have a good relationship with God in the Old Testament times(because they chose to betray God with their free will which was given from God) and thats why they had a radically different covenant with regards to all the harsh punishments and requirements. Christ changed all that.
  17. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    The question asked in the OP has been controversial since Paul’s day. So you shouldn’t be surprised that there are lots of things to look at.

    Typical Christian views are that the OT laws are of 3 kinds: moral law, laws specifying particular worship practices and otherwise specific to God's covenant with Israel, and municipal law of Israel (e.g. specific punishments). Only the first applies to Christians.

    But even when you look at moral laws, both Paul and Jesus had problems applying them directly to us. Paul never said that the law was wrong, just that it couldn’t save anyone. And I think there’s an implication that if someone has been transformed by Christ, he didn’t need law.

    Jesus also never said that the law was wrong in principle. But in Mat 5 he replaced specific provisions with ones focusing on intention, and when talking of divorce said that the law given by Moses was a concession to human imperfection. In some ways I think this was more radical than Paul, because at least to an extent it actually invalidated parts of the law.

    I think it’s hard to read the OT without feeling that at least some of the views described there are wrong. Killing all infidels, odd or barbaric punishments, and odd purity laws. I don’t think anyone believes these apply to Christians. They are ascribed to specific situations at the time, or are considered parts of either the laws specific to Israel, or laws that are part of God’s covenant with Israel, not applicable to us.

    For many Christians this is enough. Some of us, however, think that they were never right, even in OT times. This suggests that people came to understood God’s principles only slowly, over time. And thus that some of what you read in the OT did not represent his will, even then.
  18. Jason_apostle

    Jason_apostle when you live by faith you really celebrate

    United States
    pretty much. Christ ushered us into a new age. the 10 commandments still apply
  19. Shempster

    Shempster ImJustMe Supporter

    United States
    The strange OT commands to do the opposite of what the NT teaches is also seen in the NT.
    Jesus told the crowds that they MUST eat his flesh and drink his blood. That is cannibalism and a proper Jew would never do such a thing. So why did he command it?
    Peter saw the vision of unclean animals and God said "kill and eat". A proper Jew would not eat an unclean animal. Why did He command it?

    Could it be a code of sorts? We know he was referring to a deeper meaning in these statements. Obviously, Jesus did not desire people to consume his body. He meant that we need to "consume" his words, actions, attitudes and act out his character.
    God did not desire Peter to kill and eat those animals. He was giving him a picture that the Gentiles were not "unclean" and that they would become spiritual brethren in the future.

    So could it be that God told men to do terrible things to others to see who would do it and who would not?
    Peter refused God 3 times. It was the correct thing to do on a surface level, but he missed the boat on the message about the Gentiles....for a little while anyway.
    I don't believe that God actually wants anyone to kill. Nor does He approve of slavery, having concubines, getting divorced and such.
    I think He may allow us to do such things in the hope that we will see all of the tragedy that comes with sin and turn to the Giver of Life instead.

    Just a thought.
  20. Rubiks

    Rubiks proud libtard

    United States