Should Christians follow the Old Testament?

[richic]

I started this because Otseng said so, and I just finished a bible study so I've got something on this.

The Old Testament was not nullified by Jesus, the Old Covenant was.

Essentially, prior to Jesus you would sacrifice an animal to receive forgiveness for a sin.

Jesus was the New Covenant, a perfect sacrifice, where all sins are washed away for eternity. The Old Covenant disappears as does the guilt stemming from the sins.

I think everything else in the OT still applied in term sof the 10 commandments, etc.

Then of couse there was the whole belief in Jesus thing.

[richic]

Since as a Believing Jew I have often heard that ritualism according to the law is bad or something like that, which seems silly to me. Especially if the individual exercising those practices is doing them through the lens of the Spirit.

I was wondering, what do Jews do today to replace the blood sacrifice requirements of the Covenant?

[otseng]

Is there some kind of philosophical framework behind which laws no longer applied and which still applied, or was it this idea of the way the culture had evolved since the time the OT had been written?

I think what many people have a question about is how to tell which laws no longer apply and which still do apply. Is there a list or a formula or something? I say this not to be cheeky, but purely in ignorance, and as someone who would like to know.

I think these are poignant questions and deserving of thought.

There are several purposes for the OT laws. The number one reason I believe is to lead people to Christ.

Gal 3:19 Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

The laws provided a standard for people to follow for God's acceptance. But it could not help people to follow them. It only showed what was required to be sinless. Since people cannot obey the law perfectly, it showed that man needed something else in order to fulfill the laws. And the only way to fulfill being perfect was accepting Jesus as our perfection.

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

It goes even further and says that we are not to try to justify ourselves by obeying the law. And if we do, we are fallen from grace.

Gal 5:3-4 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Another reason for the laws was to provide an owners manual for living if you will. God knows what is best for us, and laid it down on how to live a good life. The sabbath rest is an example. We are not designed to work continuously. We were designed so that we need a break once a week to work efficiently.

Furthermore, the purpose of the laws was not to deprive us, but to provide what is best for us. Like parents laying down the laws in the house. Parents do not say, "do not put a knife into the electrical sockets" to deprive kids. The motivation for most parents in having laws in the house is borne out of love and concern, not some sort of sadistic pleasure in frustrating their kids. I believe the same is of God. The laws were borne out of love and concern.

And we ultimately follow the laws if we do one thing - love.

Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

Jam 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Mat 22:37-39 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

So, Christians are to fulfill the law by believing in Christ alone for their salvation and to love others. By doing these things, Christians will follow the OT laws.

[richic]

The Blood of Bulls and goats never took away sin, it was only a reminder of sin. The penalty of the Old Covenant, death due to sins, is what was done away with through faith in Jesus.

Your whole post was a great clarification.

Another interesting thing for Jewish converts was the cleansing of guilt over their sins which I guess was an issue because the sin was never washed away.

Is Jewish guilt an actual phenomenon? Remember that comedian Richard Lewis?

[Corvus]

The Blood of Bulls and goats never took away sin, it was only a reminder of sin. The penalty of the Old Covenant, death due to sins, is what was done away with through faith in Jesus.

Does this mean no one was saved prior to Jesus' coming? Gosh, if that were the case, I certainly wouldn't be sacrificing any goats and bulls to remind myself of a sin. There'd be plenty of that after I died.

[youngborean]

The Blood of Bulls and goats never took away sin, it was only a reminder of sin. The penalty of the Old Covenant, death due to sins, is what was done away with through faith in Jesus.

Does this mean no one was saved prior to Jesus' coming? Gosh, if that were the case, I certainly wouldn't be sacrificing any goats and bulls to remind myself of a sin. There'd be plenty of that after I died.

I don't believe that to be true. Their recoginition of the reality of sin though ritual and their subsequent faith in the promise of God made manifest in his coming on earth is what saved people before Jesus walked the earth. Rev 13:8 calls Jesus the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the Earth. This idea is reiterated in Hebrews chapter 11 which talks about the faith of men before the time of Jesus. I don't think people were thinking, "I need to remind myself of sin now", when they did their rituals. I think it was more along the lines of "this is the ritual that God requires". But you are pointing out a real problem, that there would always be a tension within people to do the things that God has asked them to do.

[youngborean]

I was wondering, what do Jews do today to replace the blood sacrifice requirements of the Covenant?

With "Tikkun Olam" or good works. Sacrifice in Judaism was linked to the temple, so with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD ritual sacrifice ended. As far as Jewish guilt goes. I believe that all people have a measure of guilt. But most cultures don't mix their religious rituals and their everyday lives as strongly as Jewish ethics have been implanted in the mind of most Jews. Plus they've had thousands of years with these rules. So it's hard, even for the non-religious, to just shed that overnight.

[ipu]

I would agree that the OT sacrifices were fulfilled by Jesus. So, Christians no longer need to follow OT sacrifices. I think that is clear.

But, the issue is what about all the other laws? Do Christians need to follow them?

(Hope I attributed the quote correctly.)

I address this specific issue in a very focused way in this thread. I didn't see this thread first (hey, give me a break, I'm new here!), but I believe my question there would detract from this thread more than complement it. The moderators will not hurt my feelings if they think it would be best to merge these threads.

-- Alan

[Arch]

A reference to Jesus's practical application of the new Law would be described in John 8.

When he was asked by the Pharisees if they should stone to death the woman found in the act of adultery, he said "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

They all got up and left who were accusing her.

He then said to her, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."

I don't think Jesus was condoning her lawlessness, but there's also no guarantee that she would not go out and do it again.

The hypocrisy of those who judged was worse than the breaking of the commandment.

What commandment exactly did she break?, I think those who read this story forget that during this time there was no NEW TESTAMENT GOSPELS OR BOOKS.

Most would say Adultry right cause that is what the verse says RIGHT? However the Mary was presented as a prostitute, if she was a prostitute it is not likely she was married.

Old Testament law (and you can look this up in the bible) doesn't stop a man from having intercourse, even when married, with other women who are not married, they called them concubines. The only clause to this law is if a mans sleeps with a woman who is a virgin he has to marry her. Judah himself slept with a woman he thought to be a prostitute that he saw on the side of the road. Also men could also have many wives and many concubines supposedly according to the bible Solomon had 300 wives and 700 concubines. NO Adultry here!!!!!!

In order to have commited adultry she would have had to been married, which would clearly cancel the possibility that she was a hooker.

Now with that said back to the laws on the Torah, if she was married and she slept with another man she clearly would have been guilty of adultry, but so would have been that other man...get where this is going?

In the story we see no man about to be stoned correct? BUT the LAW says if two be found in Adultry bring both the man and the woman to be stoned. Ergo the men about to stone this woman alone were in fact breaking the law themselves, thus they were sinning right then in their act to stone this woman. That is why Jesus says he who is without sin let him cast the first stone. She may not have even been guilty at all, where were her accusers....sound familar? Where was her husband and where was the other man she slept with?

If it had not been for the fact that they were in sinning in the manner of which they were condemning this woman they would have not let Jesus stop them, nor would he have tried. This to me is where full study and comprehension of the entire bible goes a little bit farther than just pulling verses out of the middle of the book... That fact of the matter is that theologist even some christian theologist have researchd and found that the image of Mary as a prostitute was mostly likely incorrect and that this event probably never happened. The story was derived by men to remove that Mary was actually probably another disciple of Jesus. Some say even probably his wife. These theories did sit well with the early patriarchs of the doctrine as women played a demoted role in religions including Christianity. A woman being his disciple or even closer his wife couldn't be heard of. I don't understand why to be married wouldnt have transgressed the law.

Even Mary was weeded out of the lime light especially, with the image of Jesus teaching and his disciple saying your mother is here and he dismmissed it saying something to the effect that his family was those who did the will of his father. Another time her prevelance was dismissed was when she asked the young Jesus where he had been and he said about his fathers business.

HONOR THY MOTHER AND FATHER!!!!! THAT"S A LAW!!!!!
......but that was a side track thought.

[samuelbb7]

First there is a way to see what to get from the Old Testament. First and foremost the Ten Commandments were the basics of the Covenant and they are the laws written in our hearts when we become christians.

The laws of Moses can be broken down easily into four categories. First moral laws that are explanations of the Ten Commandments. Concubines were sinful to have they just did it anyway. I imagine you know people who sin even when they know it is wrong. All these laws are still in effect.

Second laws for running the theocracy which is not what we live under.

Third ritual laws like not wearing garments of more then one cloth or tying a blue ribbon around your robe.

Then health regulations like to not eat food that is bad for you and to wash your hands before you eat. The disobeying of which can get you sick.

[Arch]

Concubines were sinful to have they just did it anyway. I imagine you know people who sin even when they know it is wrong. All these laws are still in effect.

Could you please give us the bible law that condemns concubines. Let us remember sin is the transgression of the LAW. Not the transgression of current moral beliefs.

Then health regulations like to not eat food that is bad for you and to wash your hands before you eat. The disobeying of which can get you sick.

You say this part of the LAW like its optional. SIN is still the transgression of the LAW I saw nothing stating OPTION in the dietary laws of the bible.

Biblically even the gentiles and the strangers in the OT that were with Isreal had to keep the law. Isreal was to be light unto the gentile, to show how to live and what was righteous. Everyone was supposed to come under the umbrella of Isreal to be saved....IE the SON OF DAVID.

Even revelations shows the gates to the kingdom being 12 and each one labled with the name of an Isrealite tribe.