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 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.
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.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.
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As for all of those Laws, many are recorded for historical reference and do not need to be focused on.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 22:37-40The 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.
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.
The morally-flawed rationality of fallen man does not supercede the God-breathed ScripturesMorality 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.
Where is that found in Scripture? . . .non sequitir. . .from the morally-flawed rationale of fallen man.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).
Non sequitir. . .upon non sequitir. . .upon non sequitir. . .of 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.
Ceremonial - e.g., laws of sacrificial systemGF 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.
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.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.
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."
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 22:37-40The 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.
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."
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.
Both covenants, New and old are fulfillments of the two covenants made with Abraham.
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.
In the NT, the whole body of Scripture is called, "the Law," "the Law and the Prophets," andI 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.
Wasn't the Old Covenant a temporary addition (Galatians 3:19; Romans 5:20;Both covenants, New and old are fulfillments of the two covenants made with Abraham.
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.In the NT, the whole body of Scripture is called, "the Law," "the Law and the Prophets," "the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms."
Was "blessing to all nations" fulfilled before Christ?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
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).Wasn't the Old Covenant a temporary addition (Galatians 3:19; Romans 5:20; Hebrews 8:13)
to the Abrahamic Covenant?
Clare73 said:Wasn't the Old Covenant a temporary addition (Galatians 3:19; Romans 5:20; Hebrews 8:13) to the Abrahamic Covenant?
Isn't that what is revealed in the Scriptures above?No I don't think so.
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.