• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

New Testament abandoning the Old.

Vesi9000

Newbie
Mar 2, 2011
16
2
✟22,654.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
It has been years since I've read the Bible in its entirety, but it is my understanding that New and Old Testament Law differ significantly and, in at least one of the Gospels, Jesus effectively dissolves Old Testament Law. What are the specific verse/s in question in regards to dissolving Old Testament Law? And what are the theological interpretations of this and of the differences between New and Old Testament Law?

Conditions:
I'm sorry to say it, but I will, in fact, be using this information in a paper, so I have to set up some parameters. No one has to follow these of course, but it'd be great if at least one or two responses did. Consider them polite requests laid out in excessive detail.

*For the first question, be sure to cite the verse/s.

*For the second question, I have two requests.

***Firstly, I'm not interested in casual assumptions, so amateur theologians need not respond. (Then again, if you feel something should be said, you are free to do so. You never know, you could have some really novel ideas.) If you have graduated from a seminary or consider yourself very well versed in theology, this question is for you.

***Secondly, I'd appreciate it if you'd list your references, otherwise I will take it as conjecture. I'm not going to be quoting anybody directly, so you don't necessarily need to explain anything, but if it's dense material, I'd be very grateful for some sort of summary.


If you're curious about the nature of the paper, it's on dealing with Biblical Law before and after 1863. It covers its use in support of and against chattel slavery prior to 1863 and industrial prison camps afterward. I'm interested in putting in a succinct commentary on Old v New Testament Law, but most of the historical references I've seen on this topic are very vague.

While the paper has no bearing on my own religious stance, it will likely be read by people of variant faiths. As such, I'd like to treat the material very carefully. Even so, the questions are of some personal relevance to me, as I perceive a truly massive amount of immorality in the God of the Old Testament and in the laws he lays out there. I have always been curious as to how a modern Christian copes with the Old Testament. In fact, when I see hate-speech, like that of the infamous WSB Church, I'm often surprised it isn't the norm. These are my own opinions, and they certainly won't find their way into the paper, but I figured I'd just throw them out there, lest someone argue that I'm taking advantage of these forums. :holy:
 

Mr Dave

God Save The Queen!
Apr 2, 2010
7,223
762
Sheffield
✟33,210.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Hi :wave: welcome here.

First off, Christians would say that Jesus did not dissolve the law but fulfilled it Matthew 5:17ff The following verse speak of the importance of the law and it's importance, but add a new interpretation to it to put it in a context of life.

James Crossley knows a bit about Jewish law so you might be interested in his books; I have only one with me so will give you a few quotations from that which might be of use to you.

James Crossley, The New Testament and Jewish Law: A Guide For The Perplexed (London: T & T Clark International, 2010)
p.116
In terms of historical Jesus studies, the idea of Jesus and the Law continues to be full of arguments whereby Jesus still has to override at least one commandment in some way. This may be the case historically, but given the range of legal views in early Judaism it should at least be done after an exhaustive study of parallels in Jewish legal texts. That said, some recent work is now showing that Jesus' views on the Law were all paralleled in early Judaism.


p.67
The three categories of divorce, 'eye for an eye' and oaths/vows are brought together in this chapter because they occur in a much discussed and much misunderstood (at least in terms of Jewish Law) section in Matthew's Gospel: the so called antitheses (Mt. 5.21-48). We may broadly call this 'civil law' in that they are the kinds of legal interpretations which have had an influence on legal systems right up to those in liberal democracies in a way that, say, laws of impurity have not. Indeed part of the reasoning for this is that these sorts of laws are not flashpoints in earliest Christianity when the issue of the Law arose and are more broadly applicable to human societies.


Hope you don't mind me butting in, law isn't my strongpoint compared to other fields, but thought that may be of some use to you. Maybe not and I've just wasted you time, if so, I apologise :D
 
Upvote 0

Bear.Fr00t

Fruit Inspector
May 5, 2010
622
38
✟23,522.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The law in the old testament was given to the nation of Israel, and only the nation of Israel. It is not applicable to anyone else on earth. In the OT God and Israel made a covenant (Exodus 19). Gentiles (i.e. non-Jews) never agreed to the covenant and thus were never bound by the Mosaic law.

In the NT the Mosaic law is not dissolved, but a new covenant is given with God to humanity that does not require adhering to laws. The new covenant requires only one thing - faith in Jesus Christ as the sacrifice and atonement for sins. This new covenant is offered to Gentiles and Jews alike.

Hope this clears things up a bit.
 
Upvote 0
M

MattRose

Guest
The law in the old testament was given to the nation of Israel, and only the nation of Israel. It is not applicable to anyone else on earth. In the OT God and Israel made a covenant (Exodus 19). Gentiles (i.e. non-Jews) never agreed to the covenant and thus were never bound by the Mosaic law.

In the NT the Mosaic law is not dissolved, but a new covenant is given with God to humanity that does not require adhering to laws. The new covenant requires only one thing - faith in Jesus Christ as the sacrifice and atonement for sins. This new covenant is offered to Gentiles and Jews alike.

Hope this clears things up a bit.
I don't disagree with anything you said. Why does christianity even have the OT in their bible? To make stuff confusing? Most of the OT doesn't deal with Mosaic law, but having the OT as a major component of christianity and then saying it's OK to ignore the laws within is just asking for trouble.
 
Upvote 0

Bear.Fr00t

Fruit Inspector
May 5, 2010
622
38
✟23,522.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Paul tells us in the NT the law is there to tell us what sin is. Paul says if it wasn't for the law, he would not understand sin. The Bible is the unified story of the fall and redemption of man. You can summarize the Bible as "Man screws it up, God fixes it".

So God gave man the law so man could do what man always tries to do - fix it himself. Who needs God anyways? I'm good enough, haven't murdered anyone right? The law teaches about a holy god, and wicked man. God gave man a chance to be holy on his own accord, and unsurprisingly man couldn't do it.

After God gave man a chance to fix it himself by obeying the laws, and man failed miserably at this plan, God instituted a new plan - a plan he had from the beginning all along. His plan is to fix it himself, by sending Jesus to be a sacrifice for all of mankind.

After the dust settles God is glorified because every man will confess that they are very screwwed up (which is proved by the law), and only God can make it right again.
 
Upvote 0
S

Spirko

Guest
When Jesus disputed with the religious leaders of His day (specifically the Sadducees), He told them, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God" (Matthew 22:29). Again and again He declared, "It is written," a phrase that does not mean the same as "Someone once wrote," but "It stands written," or more literally, "It continues in the state of having been written." An accurate paraphrase of "It is written" would be "It remains valid." (See Matthew 4:4,7,10; 11:10; 21:13; 26:31; etc.) It was always the Old Testament He was referring to.

Jesus also talks about the meaning of Moses and all the prophets (see Luke 16:29, 31; 24:27), a reference to the entire Hebrew Bible, composed as it is of the Law of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy) and the Prophets (the rest of the Old Testament). In another passage, Luke 24:44, He refers to the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms, which corresponds to another way of dividing the Hebrew Bible into the Torah (Law of Moses), the Neviim (former and latter prophets), and the Kethuvim (the Writings, of which Psalms is the leading book).

In yet another passage, Matthew 23:35), Jesus also refers to the blood of all the righteous men that has been shed, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, and this A-to-Z range begins with Genesis (the murder of Abel is in Genesis 4:1-16), the first book in the Hebrew order of the Old Testament books. It ends with Chronicles (the murder of Zechariah is recorded in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22), the last book in that order. This passage, therefore, brackets the entire Hebrew Bible, all 22 books, which correspond to the 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament.

Finally, on another occasion, recorded in John 10:35, Jesus says, "Scripture cannot be broken." In this saying Jesus is confirming the ongoing truth and power of Scripture. The other verses have defined for us what Jesus means by the term "Scripture," and this verse applies to it all.

If you're really interested, Craig Evans has an excellent book called From Prophecy to Testament: The Function of the Old Testament in the New which explains both the inportance of the Old Testament and its relationship with the New Testament. Your local library should easily be able to order it for you.
 
Upvote 0
M

MattRose

Guest
Paul tells us in the NT the law is there to tell us what sin is. Paul says if it wasn't for the law, he would not understand sin. The Bible is the unified story of the fall and redemption of man. You can summarize the Bible as "Man screws it up, God fixes it".

So God gave man the law so man could do what man always tries to do - fix it himself. Who needs God anyways? I'm good enough, haven't murdered anyone right? The law teaches about a holy god, and wicked man. God gave man a chance to be holy on his own accord, and unsurprisingly man couldn't do it.

After God gave man a chance to fix it himself by obeying the laws, and man failed miserably at this plan, God instituted a new plan - a plan he had from the beginning all along. His plan is to fix it himself, by sending Jesus to be a sacrifice for all of mankind.

After the dust settles God is glorified because every man will confess that they are very screwwed up (which is proved by the law), and only God can make it right again.
That's possibly the most concise and cohesive answer I've seen on that subject.
Permit me to ask, and answer, the obvious follow-up question resulting from your explanation. "Why did God give us Plan A to start with, as he knew it would fail and he would have to implement Plan B?" Answer: "We needed to learn to crawl before we could walk." Maybe in heaven we get to run?
I say we, I meant you guys.
 
Upvote 0

Bear.Fr00t

Fruit Inspector
May 5, 2010
622
38
✟23,522.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
That's possibly the most concise and cohesive answer I've seen on that subject.
Permit me to ask, and answer, the obvious follow-up question resulting from your explanation. "Why did God give us Plan A to start with, as he knew it would fail and he would have to implement Plan B?" Answer: "We needed to learn to crawl before we could walk." Maybe in heaven we get to run?
I say we, I meant you guys.

I can't say I fully understand why God starting with plan A knowing it was going to fail, and moved on to plan B. About the only explanation I can offer, and it is remarkably inadequate, is that's the only way God can get what he desires - fellowship with man. And not just any man, a man that has free will, recognizes who he is compared to God, and worships and glorifies God. God could have made us robots with no free will, and we would worship and glorify God all day long, but it doesn't achieve the same thing as giving man a choice.
 
Upvote 0
S

solarwave

Guest
I'll just give a quick reply because I'm definitely not a professional theologian, most people here arn't.

Keith Ward, in the book 'The Word of God: The Bible after Modern Scholarship', says that the Bible describes the development of the idea of God and of morality. In the section about immoral laws in the Old Testament he says that "No law can be considered on its own, but only as part of a complex and developing tradition of juridical practice, requiring great knowledge and practical wisdom." He sais this in relation to Jewish Rabbis who interpret the law, looking for the principles behind the laws and then apply the principles to our current time in history.
 
Upvote 0
S

Spirko

Guest
I'll just give a quick reply because I'm definitely not a professional theologian, most people here arn't.

Keith Ward, in the book 'The Word of God: The Bible after Modern Scholarship', says that the Bible describes the development of the idea of God and of morality.

And that's where you lost me.

The Bible never describes the development of the "idea of God" or the development of morality.
 
Upvote 0
S

Spirko

Guest
I can't say I fully understand why God starting with plan A knowing it was going to fail

Straw man. None of God's plans has failed.

About the only explanation I can offer, and it is remarkably inadequate, is that's the only way God can get what he desires - fellowship with man.

I hate this Max Lucado, "God was so lonesome that He was just pining away for a friend" silliness. Where does the Bible ever say that God desired fellowship with man? Christ didn't die to redeem mankind because He was lonesome. He died to redeem mankind so that He would be glorified.
 
Upvote 0

salida

Veteran
Jun 14, 2006
4,305
278
✟6,243.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Why is God so different in the Old Testament than He is in the New Testament?
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-different.html
How do I get the image of God as imposing and angry out of my mind?
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-imposing.html
Why is God so different in the OT than He is in the NT?
http://www.gotquestions.org/difference-old-new-testaments.html
 
Why should we study the Old Testament?
http://www.gotquestions.org/old-testament.html
http://www.gospelway.com/bible/old_law_today_1.php
 
Upvote 0

elman

elman
Dec 19, 2003
28,949
451
85
Texas
✟54,197.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
=Spirko;56888528]Straw man. None of God's plans has failed.
Then why was the flood needed?

I hate this Max Lucado, "God was so lonesome that He was just pining away for a friend" silliness. Where does the Bible ever say that God desired fellowship with man? Christ didn't die to redeem mankind because He was lonesome. He died to redeem mankind so that He would be glorified.
First John. God is love. John 3:16 God so loved the world. Love is wanting a relationship with one you love. There is no glory to God in God being unloving. The glory that God deserves is because He is loving.
 
Upvote 0
S

Spirko

Guest
Then why was the flood needed?

Not surprising that you don't know this, but the flood was needed in order to show God's judgement on mankind. I'll even give you a hint: the ark represents something really important, too.

First John. God is love. John 3:16 God so loved the world. Love is wanting a relationship with one you love. There is no glory to God in God being unloving. The glory that God deserves is because He is loving.[/quote]

Yes, God is love. However, God is not lonesome. God does not have an emotional need for our companionship. God is not the fat homely girl pining away for the handsome quarterback and wondering why he won't call her on Friday night.

Now can we please return to the topic?
 
Upvote 0

elman

elman
Dec 19, 2003
28,949
451
85
Texas
✟54,197.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Paul tells us in the NT the law is there to tell us what sin is. Paul says if it wasn't for the law, he would not understand sin. The Bible is the unified story of the fall and redemption of man. You can summarize the Bible as "Man screws it up, God fixes it".

So God gave man the law so man could do what man always tries to do - fix it himself. Who needs God anyways? I'm good enough, haven't murdered anyone right? The law teaches about a holy god, and wicked man. God gave man a chance to be holy on his own accord, and unsurprisingly man couldn't do it.

After God gave man a chance to fix it himself by obeying the laws, and man failed miserably at this plan, God instituted a new plan - a plan he had from the beginning all along. His plan is to fix it himself, by sending Jesus to be a sacrifice for all of mankind.

After the dust settles God is glorified because every man will confess that they are very screwwed up (which is proved by the law), and only God can make it right again.
I think we know that sin, as in being unloving to others, is sin without the Bible. Adam and Eve knew it was wrong to eat of the tree. God is not glorified by our sin. God is glorified by our love for others and our love for God who deserves our love and is glorified because He loves.
 
Upvote 0

elman

elman
Dec 19, 2003
28,949
451
85
Texas
✟54,197.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Not surprising that you don't know this, but the flood was needed in order to show God's judgement on mankind. I'll even give you a hint: the ark represents something really important, too.

First John. God is love. John 3:16 God so loved the world. Love is wanting a relationship with one you love. There is no glory to God in God being unloving. The glory that God deserves is because He is loving.

Yes, God is love. However, God is not lonesome. God does not have an emotional need for our companionship. God is not the fat homely girl pining away for the handsome quarterback and wondering why he won't call her on Friday night.

Now can we please return to the topic?[/QUOTE]The statment I made was to the claim that God's plans had not ever failed. However in the case of the flood God regreted ever creating man. Sounds like a failed plan to me. God is loving meaning God created us to have someone to love and who could respond to His love with love. It has nothing to do with lonesome or pinning away because He was fat and homely.
 
Upvote 0