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

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
6,112
1,696
✟201,659.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Was "blessing to all nations" fulfilled before Christ?
No. It is through Christ we are saved from death.
Read the covenants made with Abraham
Genesis 15 is the fourth generation of his seed. Abraham will be dead when this covenant comes into force. As would Isaac ,Jacob, and the twelve patriarchs.

Gen 15:15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.
16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

Joseph knew he would be dead and took an oath of the children of Israel to carry up his bones from Egypt when God visited them.

The resurrection was for these to inherit the kingdom promised Abraham, in Genesis 17. He knew for the first covenant, his inheritance was after this life.
 
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
6,112
1,696
✟201,659.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Isn't that what is revealed in the Scriptures above?
I believe it is additional law. Abraham kept the law of faith. Sinai was additional law, Abraham did not have. Which carnal commands were disannulled.
Heb 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
The change in the law, the priesthood being changed.


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:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,944
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,680.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No. It is through Christ we are saved from death.
Read the covenants made with Abraham.
Christ is the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham to be "a blessing to all nations" (Genesis 12:3).
The covenants are not about death.

There were two:
1) the land grant, which unilateral unconditional covenant promise was made to each: Abram (Genesis 15:9-21), Isaac (Genesis 26:3, 28:4) and Jacob (Genesis 35:12) personally, and to their descendants, not just to Abram.
Isaac and Jacob did not inherit the promise of the land grant, God himself made the promise of the covenant land grant to them personally, and their seed.

2) the bilateral conditional covenant to be Abraham's God and the God of his descendants (Genesis 17:7) conditioned "(As for me," v.4, "As for you," v.9) on total consecration to the LORD, and symbolized by circumcision.
Gen 15:15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.
16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
Joseph knew he would be dead and took an oath of the children of Israel to carry up his bones from Egypt when God visited them.
The resurrection was for these to inherit the kingdom promised Abraham, in Genesis 17. He knew for the first covenant, his inheritance was after this life.
Yes, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all did not receive the earthly land promised to them by God, instead they received heavenly land of the heavenly city for their inheritance (Hebrews 11:13-16).
 
  • Like
Reactions: ralliann
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,944
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,680.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I believe it is additional law.
Everywhere in the NT it is called the Old Covenant.
Abraham kept the law of faith. Sinai was additional law,
Abraham did not have.
Which carnal commands were disannulled.
Yes, the Sinaitic (Old) Covenant was annulled and and its ceremonial laws were abolished in the flesh of Christ on the cross (Ephesians 2:14-15), being replaced with the New Covenant.
Heb 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
The change in the law, the priesthood being changed.
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:
 
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
6,112
1,696
✟201,659.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Christ is the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham to be "a blessing to all nations" (Genesis 12:3).
The covenants are not about death.
Why did God ask Abraham to sacrifice Issac? Abraham believed Isaac would be resurrected. Ya gotta be dead to be resurrected. Why did Abraham Get tested concerning this?
Because Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, we not party to the covenant made with Abraham in Gen 15. The fourth Generation were. Abraham was going to die.
Gen 15:15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.


Death is the weakness of the order of Aaron.
Heb 7:8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.





I gave you the quote from Hebrews.
There were two:
1) the land grant, which unilateral unconditional covenant promise was made to each: Abram (Genesis 15:9-21), Isaac (Genesis 26:3, 28:4) and Jacob (Genesis 35:12) personally, and to their descendants, not just to Abram.
Isaac and Jacob did not inherit the promise of the land grant, God himself made the promise of the covenant land grant to them personally, and their seed.

2) the bilateral conditional covenant to be Abraham's God and the God of his descendants (Genesis 17:7) conditioned "(As for me," v.4, "As for you," v.9) on total consecration to the LORD, and symbolized by circumcision.

Yes, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all did not receive the earthly land promised to them by God, instead they received heavenly land of the heavenly city for their inheritance (Hebrews 11:13-16).
This we agree, but not concerning the covenants.
It is the oath God sware that makes the promise sure. Apart from the oath God can repent. Otherwise An oath is not binding. The covenant of Genesis 17 is established in Isaac with an oath. This came in Genesis 22. Also the seed in Isaac are royal seed, kings. Which like Melchizedek, is king and priest.
By an oath of which God will not repent. The order of Aaron was without an oath

The eternal kingdom is the covenant in Genesis 17
 
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
6,112
1,696
✟201,659.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Everywhere in the NT it is called the Old Covenant.
What is called the old covenant? I am talking about the covenants made with Abraham.
Yes, the Sinaitic (Old) Covenant was annulled and and its ceremonial laws were abolished in the flesh of Christ on the cross (Ephesians 2:14-15), being replaced with the New Covenant.
The carnal (fleshly) commands are abolished.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,944
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,680.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why did God ask Abraham to sacrifice Issac? Abraham believed Isaac would be resurrected. Ya gotta be dead to be resurrected. Why did Abraham Get tested concerning this?
Because Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, we not party to the covenant made with Abraham in Gen 15.
However, the Biblical texts state just the opposite.

God spoke to
Abram personally making the covenant of Genesis 15:9-21 with Abram and his descendants.
God spoke to
Isaac personally making the same covenant (Genesis 15:9-21) with him and his descendants in Genesis 26:3.
God spoke to Jacob personally making the same covenant (Genesis 15:9-21) with him and his descendants in Genesis 35:12.

Not too sure how you get your understanding of covenants in light of the above.
It's also not what we find presented in NT teaching regarding them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,944
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,680.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What is called the old covenant? I am talking about the covenants made with Abraham.
The carnal (fleshly) commands are abolished.
The Old (Sinaitic Mosaic) Covenant (laws) was a temporary addition to the Abrahamic covenant,
it was not a fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 15:18-21).

The Abrahamic covenant of the land grant (Genesis 15:18-21), made by God each to Abram, Isaac and Jacob, personally, has been fulfilled under Solomon (1 Kings 4:21-25).

The Abrahamic promises of Genesis 12:2-3 (land, and blessing to the nations) have been fulfilled under Solomon, and in Christ.

The New Covenant is not a fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 15:9-21) which has been fulfilled under Solomon.
 
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
6,112
1,696
✟201,659.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
However, the Biblical texts state just the opposite.
Just the opposite of what?
God spoke to Abram personally making the covenant of Genesis 15:9-21 with Abram and his descendants.
What did he speak to him personally? He would give him heirs? Seed? Yeah the fourth generation. God made a covenant with Abraham saying what?
Ge 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
Who was the land given to in this covenant? Not to Abraham personally, but his seed, and the fourth generation at that.

God spoke to Isaac personally making the same covenant (Genesis 15:9-21) with him and his descendants in Genesis 26:3.
God spoke to Jacob personally making the same covenant (Genesis 15:9-21) with him and his descendants in Genesis 35:12.
The inheritance is a kingdom/kings in Genesis 17. The inheritance is a priesthood. A kingdom of priests. Read Hebrews.
Not too sure how you get your understanding of covenants in light of the above.
From scripture.
Paul talks of the 2 covenants. two heirs. Abraham was given heirs.......
[QUOTE="Clare73, post: 76082919, member:

It's also not what we find presented in NT teaching regarding them.
The Old (Sinaitic Mosaic) Covenant (laws) was a temporary addition to the Abrahamic covenant,
it was not a fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 15:18-21).

The Abrahamic covenant of the land grant (Genesis 15:18-21), made by God each to Abram, Isaac and Jacob, personally, has been fulfilled under Solomon (1 Kings 4:21-25).

The Abrahamic promises of Genesis 12:2-3 (land, and blessing to the nations) have been fulfilled under Solomon, and in Christ.

The New Covenant is not a fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 15:9-21) which has been fulfilled under Solomon.[/QUOTE]
I don't know why you say this. I never said the new covenant was a fulfillment of Genesis 15.
Hebrews is about the inheritance of the priesthoods.
Nu 18:20 And the LORD spake unto Aaron, Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any part among them: I am thy part and thine inheritance among the children of Israel.
Nu 18:21 And, behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation.

Jos 18:7 But the Levites have no part among you; for the priesthood of the LORD is their inheritance: and
Nu 18:24 But the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the LORD, I have given to the Levites to inherit: therefore I have said unto them, Among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance.
Nu 18:26 Thus speak unto the Levites, and say unto them, When ye take of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the LORD, even a tenth part of the tithe.
Hebrews
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.

Thanks for the discussion But obviously I am being misunderstood.



 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,944
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,680.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Just the opposite of what?
Does your reply function not give you at the top of your reply a copy of the post to which you are responding?
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, were not party to the covenant made with Abraham in Gen 15.
Clare73 said:
However, the Biblical texts state just the opposite.

Abram
personally making the covenant of Genesis 15:9-21 with Abram and his descendants.
God spoke to
Isaac personally making the same covenant (Genesis 15:9-21) with him and his descendants in Genesis 26:3.
God spoke to Jacob personally making the same covenant (Genesis 15:9-21) with him and his descendants in Genesis 35:12.

Not too sure how you get your understanding of covenants in light of the above.
It's also not what we find presented in NT teaching regarding them.
Just the opposite of what?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
6,112
1,696
✟201,659.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Does your reply function not give you at the top of your reply a copy of the post to which you are responding?

[/COLOR]




What did he speak to him personally? He would give him heirs? Seed? Yeah the fourth generation. God made a covenant with Abraham saying what?
Ge 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
Who was the land given to in this covenant? Not to Abraham personally, but his seed, and the fourth generation at that.


The inheritance is a kingdom. The inheritance is a priesthood. A kingdom of priests. Read Hebrews.

Not too sure how you get your understanding of covenants in light of the above.
From scripture.
Paul talks of the 2 covenants. two heirs. Abraham was given heirs.......
[QUOTE="Clare73, post: 76082919, member:

It's also not what we find presented in NT teaching regarding them.
The Old (Sinaitic Mosaic) Covenant (laws) was a temporary addition to the Abrahamic covenant,
it was not a fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 15:18-21).

The Abrahamic covenant of the land grant (Genesis 15:18-21), made by God each to Abram, Isaac and Jacob, personally, has been fulfilled under Solomon (1 Kings 4:21-25).

The Abrahamic promises of Genesis 12:2-3 (land, and blessing to the nations) have been fulfilled under Solomon, and in Christ.

The New Covenant is not a fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 15:9-21) which has been fulfilled under Solomon.[/QUOTE]
I don't know why you say this. I never said the new covenant was a fulfillment of Genesis 15.
Hebrews is about the inheritance of the priesthoods.
Nu 18:20 And the LORD spake unto Aaron, Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any part among them: I am thy part and thine inheritance among the children of Israel.
Nu 18:21 And, behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation.

Jos 18:7 But the Levites have no part among you; for the priesthood of the LORD is their inheritance: and
Nu 18:24 But the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the LORD, I have given to the Levites to inherit: therefore I have said unto them, Among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance.
Nu 18:26 Thus speak unto the Levites, and say unto them, When ye take of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the LORD, even a tenth part of the tithe.
Hebrews
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.

Thanks for the discussion
[/QUOTE]
The posts are all messed up.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The reference to "OLD" comes only from the Churches.
The reference to "Obsolete" comes from:

Hebrews 8:13
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

The superiority of the Holy Spirit over any written law or words comes from:

2 Corinthians 3:3
You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.



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.



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.
One thing to note with Paul is that the law itself is not what brought death, but that sin grabbed a hold of the law and brought death. The law, itself, presented a choice between life and death that was up to those to whom the law was given. Yet in order to grant life, it required recognition of the one behind it rather than meticulous adherence to codes and precepts. The spirit of the law brings life while the letter kills. The law is worthy of the praise that it receives in the Psalms and elsewhere, because it is God's law. Yet God's law is not like men's law which are unyielding and merciless. God's law is about honoring the poor, caring for neighbor, living with integrity, and all the other things that are praiseworthy. The life in the law was always God Himself, and always required submission by faith in order to receive. Today we can see that life by looking to Christ and seeing the law through Him rather than through the sin that we viewed it through previously.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.

Just avoid the obsolete parts.

Hebrews 8:13
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jesus is YHWH
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

anetazo

Well-Known Member
Feb 19, 2023
522
121
51
Meriden
✟27,461.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
The old testament is bible prophecy and laws. Jesus didn't change one JOT of the law, Matthew chapter 5. Duertonmomy chapter 32 tells us of last generation. It's a perverse and faithless generation. Cross reference, second Timothy chapter 3. Generation Z is the last generation. Duertonmomy chapter 32, there rock is not of our Rock. The majority will worship antichrist near future. Except the saints, that's God's Elect. The election have seal of God. Jeremiah chapter 30 tells us Jacob's trouble will come. That's tribulation of antichrist near future. Of course old testament is revenant !. Habukkuk is bible prophecy, about the one world political system. Cross reference, revelation chapter 13. I'm Matthew chapter 24, Jesus quoted prophet Daniel. About the abomination of desolation. That's the son of perdition of second thessalonians chapter 2, its satan in his role as antichrist near future. Get the picture.
 
Upvote 0

Davy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.

...
Yes... however, CONTRARY TO POPULAR OPINION, The Old Testament Books STILL contain much prophecy that has NOT happened yet today.

So it is not just the fact that The New Testament quotes the Old, nor just that prophecies about Messiah's 1st coming are written in the Old Testament, and that is what Lord Jesus taught His Apostles from about Himself. In their era, the Old Testament Books is all they had. And the New Testament quotes prophecy from the Old Testament Books that is about Christ's future return and future Kingdom that still is yet to come today.

Then there's the matter that often the New Testament when quoting the Old Testament, it is only giving a short info reference, while the greater detail is written back in the Old Testament. An example is God's River of the Waters of Life in Revelation 22. The greater detail about that future re-established River on earth was first written in Ezekiel 47, in great detail. So while some Church denominations today still hold a fantasy that that River is going to be up in Heaven, in the clouds, Ezekiel 47 reveals it will be right here, on this earth in the future, in the holy land.

Thus being too lazy to study the Old Testament Books along with the New Testament produces Biblical illiteracy on several levels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jesus is YHWH
Upvote 0

Joseph Perry

Member
Sep 1, 2022
10
1
87
Nashua
✟13,421.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Absolutely it's relevant. Utter heresy imvho to preach otherwise.

FWIW - there are some 328 (give or take) references in the New Testament to the Old Testament. If the NT writers appealed so frequently to the OT, and especially to teach, preach, encourage, and warn, it stands to reason the value of the OT is just as precious as in the NT.

Goodness, one obvious (I'd hope) example: every revelation about Jesus, every prophecy and prediction exists only in the OT. Are the OT naysayers really convinced the prophecies concerning Jesus are no longer relevant?
Most references to the Old Testament appear to be directed to the Jews to offer them a bridge to follow Jesus. It is necessary to know the how and why, and to whom the writing is directed. Matthew's Gospel was written to Jews and used Old Testament events and beliefs to provide aid in converting to these new teachings.
Is there any doubt that Hebrews was written to correct the beliefs of some Jews?
Read Hebrews 8
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says,
13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
Old Testament Survey was my favorite course when I was in school, and Biblical Backgrounds was the next on the list.
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,599
Hudson
✟281,635.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Most references to the Old Testament appear to be directed to the Jews to offer them a bridge to follow Jesus. It is necessary to know the how and why, and to whom the writing is directed. Matthew's Gospel was written to Jews and used Old Testament events and beliefs to provide aid in converting to these new teachings.
Is there any doubt that Hebrews was written to correct the beliefs of some Jews?
Read Hebrews 8
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says,
13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
Old Testament Survey was my favorite course when I was in school, and Biblical Backgrounds was the next on the list.
In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from God's law, so he did not do that. In John 7:16, Jesus said that his teaching were not his own, but His who sent him, so again he did not add brand new teachings. Rather, practically every time Jesus opened his mouth to teach he was referencing or alluding to the OT. A think makes another thing obsolete by doing everything that it does and more insofar as Hebrews 8:6-13 says that the New Covenant involves God putting His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts plus it is based on better promises and has a superior mediator.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jesus is YHWH
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,599
Hudson
✟281,635.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Just avoid the obsolete parts.

Hebrews 8:13
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
A think makes something else obsolete by doing everything that it does and more, so something being obsolete does not mean that it should be avoided. The promises of a new covenant do not void the promises of a covenant that has already been ratified.
 
Upvote 0