When I was about 3 years old, my father gave me a tricycle. When I was in high school, he gave me a multi-speed bicycle. And when I reach my junior year in college, he gave me a car.
When he gave me the tricycle it was not bad. It was great. But, if he gave me that same tricycle when I was a junior in college, it wouldn't have been so great.
God gave the Mosaic covenant to the Jewish people at Mt. Sinai and it was very very good. God offered the New Covenant thru His Son and it is a better covenant. Just as the tricycle was very very good, but in college, the car was better. God doesn't change. But we do. Under the New Covenant, we change significantly.
Good analogy as it concerns how something being deemed "good" for a time/season doesn't mean that other new things cannot come that are also "good" for the season of life you're in and allowing for those previous "good" things to be remembered for what they were.
Shared more before elsewhere ( #
136 )--but as said before, if reading through the Book of Hebrews and other texts, the New Covenant has been initiated and we are no longer bound to walk fully in the Mosaic Covenant since that specific Covenant could never offer what Yeshua alone can bring in the New Deal He gives. He fulfilled the Law in order to make room for New Law to be initiated, honoring the OT in what it pointed to while taking others to Himself (As the Destination) and leading them into something beautiful....like driving an old car that has much value since it helps with many things (i.e. transportation primarily) and yet getting out of that one in order to walk into another NEW Car that has much of the same
schematics as an older program except new parts are included that allow one to go much further than what the Older Car enabled them to do.
As said before, I've always tended to see the Law of Moses through the eyes of Christ in the same way one would see the laws of the U.S if going to D.C. For there've been many developments within our nation's history.....and some things that've progressed. Whereas some things that changed NEEDED to do so due to their not being just (as with laws concerning slavery, for popular example), not all things that changed were a sign of something negative occurring previously. For something progressing doesn't mean what used to occur before is somehow bad. To say such would be no more logical than saying that the artwork or artifacts in a Museum such as Smithsonian National Musuem in Washington D.C are somehow "bad" because we don't use them as often anymore. They retain their status of "good" and are still appreciated as the foundation for other developments---but they are not what we still seek to operate in.
It's the same way with other things in life that others experience....and it can alter. For just as a change from something before doesn't mean that it was "bad" in the past, something being good from the past doesn't mean that it is automatically good in the present or that its always applicable to every setting. I'm reminded of curfews...as a 7:00pm curfew being beneficial for children at a certain age doesn't mean that it stops being considered as "good" when more freedoms are given for the children as they grow older. Some things remain constant, such as the fact that being responsible (the purpose behind curfew) and learning boundaries....even though a child looks back acknowleding the previous curfew was beneficial/can be learned from while the new/extended freedoms are ALSO good. But if the child is required to walk in the same way as they were when they were truly a child, then it'd be destructive---and you'd end up having grown up children in the house who are not able to function on their own even when they're being told by the parents to be "adults" while still being placed under things which were given for a season.
I'm reminded of what occurred with the religious leaders trying to trap Jesus by discussing the laws of Moses in regards to divorce (
Deuteronomy 24:2-4 /
Deuteronomy 24 )---as they were focused on what Moses gave in the law and the Lord brought them back to the focus of how things were MEANT to be....and why laws were given (
Matthew 19:7-9 /
Matthew 19,
Mark 10:4-6/
Mark 10 ) Where they had actually glorifed one aspect of what Moses said, the Lord made clear that a specific law was never given because the Lord wanted others to walk in that for all time...but rather, it was given since the people were corrupt/wouldn't honor him and a system had to be given to restrain the damage that could be done to others when marriage wasn't upheld.
The same thing goes for laws made about polygamy, as the Law stated that a man could take another wife as long as he still provided for his first wife (Exo.21:10).
I don't think so. Peter was not living as a gentile.
