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.

[ENIGMA]

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.

Fascinating how such an "enlightened" morality can be based on the notion that the innocent must be killed to pay for the crimes of the guilty.

One would think that an omnipotent deity can come up with something better. I mean, heck, I've got a better idea already:

How about God forgiving people the same way people forgive each other?
No fuss, no muss, no dead savior to clean up afterwards.

[scorpia]

How about God forgiving people the same way people forgive each other?

Cause, like, it's so easy to simply forgive people no mtter the crime

Next time someone does something horrible, let me know how forgiving you are >:(

[Corvus]

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.

A testament is a covenant.

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.

The Mosaic laws are normally considered to not apply for the obvious reason that if they did, Christians would look like Taliban rejects, not being able to trim their beards, wear clothes of two different cloths, eat pork, shellfish, etc, etc, not to mention that eye for an eye stuff. There is also the simple fact that, as Gentiles, no agreement to keep these laws with God has been made.

Even if the Mosaic laws are not taken into account, I am curious as to why the 10 commandments would apply yet the historic penalties for them would not:

Exodus 21:12: He that smiteh a man, so that he die, shall surely be put to death.

Exodus 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

[otseng]

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

Thanks for starting it. I was hoping somebody would.

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

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?

This was an issue early on in the Christian church:

Act 15:1-2 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

And they had to have a high level conference to debate the issue:

Act 15:5-7 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

And the leaders decided that they were encouraged to follow some of the OT laws:

Act 15:28-9 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

So, what does it mean for us? Now Christians only have to avoid idols, blood, strangled animals, and hanky-panky?

Fascinating how such an "enlightened" morality can be based on the notion that the innocent must be killed to pay for the crimes of the guilty.

One would think that an omnipotent deity can come up with something better. I mean, heck, I've got a better idea already:

How about God forgiving people the same way people forgive each other?
No fuss, no muss, no dead savior to clean up afterwards.

How exactly is this relevant to this topic?

[richic]

The Mosaic laws are normally considered to not apply for the obvious reason that if they did, Christians would look like Taliban rejects, not being able to trim their beards, wear clothes of two different cloths, eat pork, shellfish, etc, etc, not to mention that eye for an eye stuff. There is also the simple fact that, as Gentiles, no agreement to keep these laws with God has been made.

Even if the Mosaic laws are not taken into account, I am curious as to why the 10 commandments would apply yet the historic penalties for them would not:

Exodus 21:12: He that smiteh a man, so that he die, shall surely be put to death.

Exodus 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

You are correct.

There were other practices nullified including circumcision and previously banned foods could now be eaten. Since Christianity was to be preached to all nations, the unique Jewish rituals and practices no longer applied. In the early church there was a lot of contention over these practices as the Jewish Christians tried to maintain some of the customs and exclude Gentiles from their fellowship since Gentiles were considered "unclean".

In making a distinction between Covenant and Testament I was just trying to say that that the Old Testament scriptures would still provide a foundational reference for Christians while it was clear that Jesus brought a new contract to the Jews which nullified the old one.

On Laws and penalties, Jesus distilled it down to Love God and Love Your Neighbor as yourself. Jesus was also not trying to overthrow the civil authority in his time and replace with a theocracy, so to the extent that Mosaic Law had permeated civil authority he would defend it.

He was focused on their salvation. If the murderer truly repented and accepted Jesus prior to his execution by the civil authorities, he would be saved.

The Old Covenant blood sacrifice rituals did end in Jerusalem in 70AD when the Temple was burned and the Jews scattered. They have never been re-instituted.

[richic]

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.

[ST88]

On Laws and penalties, Jesus distilled it down to Love God and Love Your Neighbor as yourself. Jesus was also not trying to overthrow the civil authority in his time and replace with a theocracy, so to the extent that Mosaic Law had permeated civil authority he would defend it.

He was focused on their salvation. If the murderer truly repented and accepted Jesus prior to his execution by the civil authorities, he would be saved.

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.

[richic]

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

There's a lot on this in Hebrews.

In terms of a philosophical framework, the advent of the New Covenant promised by Jesus caused the laws related to traditional Judaistic worship to be nullified. So any ritualistic law like circumcision, resticted access to the inner sanctum of the temple, forbidden foods, associating with Gentiles, and especially blood sacrifice were no longer to be followed.

Now people were offering these blood sacrifices because they had broken a commandment, so those commandments remained in force and Jesus affirmed them and distilled them with his Love God and Love your Neighbor statements.

In the early church many of the Jewish Christians continued to follow some of the rituals.

[youngborean]

"So any ritualistic law like circumcision, resticted access to the inner sanctum of the temple, forbidden foods, associating with Gentiles, and especially blood sacrifice were no longer to be followed. "

I think this needs a bit more clarity. These laws and rituals (except really not associating with Gentiles) still existed for believing Jews. As we read in Hebrews:

Hbr 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Hbr 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Hbr 10:3 But in those [sacrifices there is] a remembrance again [made] of sins every year.
Hbr 10:4 For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

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.

Therefore, the custom still remained for Jews as a reminder of sin after the death of Jesus, and ritual for Jews is permitted to exist to this day. Which is why Paul said:

1Cr 7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
1Cr 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

I guess the overarching principle is not to give up your culture, but to be led by the Spirit to achieve the working of God's law. The result is not a nullifying of the principles of the law, which convicts all under sin, but a fufilling of the righteous requirement of the law through our faith in him. This may have been what you meant as well, but I like to make a distinction. 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.