No longer allowed???

[Splayd]

Some here are inclined to believe that if something was a part of OT law but wasn't reiterated in the NT it's no longer allowed.

I can find plenty of examples of things that are no longer required, but right at this moment I can't think of a clear scriptural example of something that was acceptable to God in the OT and is no longer allowed under the New Covenant.

Given the number of times I've heard the argument here and the confidence with which it's presented I can only assume I must be having a mental blank. Can someone please demonstrate some scriptures that present an OT practice that God once approved of as no longer allowed.

Thanks

[annie1speed]

Hmmmm.

Are you saying that the fourth commandment about remember the Sabbath and keep in Holy is still in effect? Are we supposed to be worshipping on Saturday (the Sabbath) instead of Sunday ( the first day of the week) ?

Annie

[Splayd]

No no no. Not at all... BUT while the New Covenant may remove the necessity of keeping the 7th day Sabbath it never forbade anyone from keeping it. There's plenty of scriptural references that indicate that many (if not all) of the earliest NT Christians did.

Do you see the difference? Do we have to keep the 7th day? NO! Should we teach others to? No!

BUT - does that necessarily mean we aren't allowed to?? If it does then there's a serious contradiction between the words of the apostles and their actions.

Peace

[annie1speed]

OK. I thought that was what you meant, just maybe wanted to clarify. Thanks.

Annie

[JDIBe]

Splayd,
Right off the top of my head, this Scripture springs to mind....

Matthew 5:31-32
31 It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.


However, I think it might be useful to consider your question from another POV...

On another forum there is a young man considering circumcision. (yes, I felt that sharp twinge starting at the base of my spine and moving up too...)

Another example would be the sacrificing of a calf on the altar. Was there a time when that was commanded? Sure. What if we decided, "Let's start sacrificing calves in worship services like they did in the OT. "

Now in and of themselves, are either of these sinful? (Animal cruelty laws not withstanding...) No, the young man is free to do what he wants with his body and cows are slaughtered every day. But perhaps that is not the proper question. Perhaps the question is, "Are either of these things of any value?" The answer is no. Physical circumcision means nothing (Gal. 5:2) and it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. (Heb 10:4)

Could these things actually HINDER what we really should be concentrating on? I believe so. One can become so preoccupied with physical circumcision that one forgets that it is the "spiritual circumcision" that really matters. One can become preoccupied with offering bulls because "that's the way they used to do it". The suffering of the calf might bring to mind the terrible consequences of sin, but it distracts our minds from the TRUE Sacrifice we should remember. The sacrificed calf one forgets, means absolutely nothing.

Now both of these things were "hints". They were shadows of things to come. They were meant for those poor OT souls to help understand the real and valuable thing when they finally saw it. They were meant for us to read about and say, "Aha! So that's what that meant!" To go back to that which is imperfect when that which is more fully realized is here, seems folly.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say here? :scratch:

[crawfish]

I think a key to looking at this is to back up and see the general intent of the changing of OT law to the NT covenant. The Sermon on the Mount is key here; what Jesus is saying is that "you were bound by the law, but God looks at your heart". I believe the sermon was given to show the utter futility of trying to achieve salvation through the law - the strict sense of what Jesus said was required is simply IMPOSSIBLE for any normal human being.

Jesus was, in my opinion, preparing the way for the gospel of grace.

[Splayd]

Do you understand what I'm trying to say here? :scratch:Absolutely and I agree. My point isn't that we should do things from OT - rather that doing things from OT isn't necessarily sinful. Nor is it necessarily a hindrance for that matter. Bear in mind that in regards to the 2 relatively obvious examples of circumcision and sacrifices - Paul actually did both of them post-conversion. Of course his example doesn't demand that we still do them as well, but it also bears witness to the fact that doing the acts isn't necessarily problematic in and of itself.

It really appears to me that the heart of the matter is.... the heart. With matters like that our motivation is more important than the act itself.

Peace

[Splayd]

As for the matter of divorce there are several things to consider. When did the New Covenant start anyway? Was Jesus giving a new commandment or providing commentary on an existing one? Did God ever actually approve of divorce apart from adultery anyway?

Peace

[Splayd]

I think a key to looking at this is to back up and see the general intent of the changing of OT law to the NT covenant. The Sermon on the Mount is key here; what Jesus is saying is that "you were bound by the law, but God looks at your heart". I believe the sermon was given to show the utter futility of trying to achieve salvation through the law - the strict sense of what Jesus said was required is simply IMPOSSIBLE for any normal human being.

Jesus was, in my opinion, preparing the way for the gospel of grace.I generally agree. In fact it kinda makes me wonder if some of us are voluntarily becoming bound to law all over again, while presenting it as something new.

Peace

[JDIBe]

As for the matter of divorce there are several things to consider. When did the New Covenant start anyway? Was Jesus giving a new commandment or providing commentary on an existing one? Did God ever actually approve of divorce apart from adultery anyway?

Peace
Deuteronomy 24:1-2

1 When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.


From what I know, I tend to think God seemed to always consider adultry the reason. In fact, divorce could in some sense even be considered part of that foreshadowing talked about earlier...

Jer 3:8

8 And I saw, when, for this very cause that backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a bill of divorcement, yet treacherous Judah her sister feared not; but she also went and played the harlot.


What is clear however, is that God at least allowed divorce for any reason in the OT. That is not true today, so I would consider that a change. The alternative would be to say, "Some of the words of Deuteronomy came from Moses, some came from God.", which opens up a very messy problem....

Apparently God in OT times tolerated some things that were not exactly what He wanted. Why? Perhaps the people of Israel were not ready to understand. Who's to say? I do know that we are held to attempt a "higher standard" as anyone who has read the "Sermon on the Mount" can see.

[cremi]

I've been reading through Acts this month. Just reading and absorbing. It's amazing to me how much I have picked up on by just reading--but not necessarily studying to make a point or proof text something.

One thing that really popped out to me and hit me very squarely between the eyes, was the idea that the OT was very much a part of what drew people to repentanace and salvation.

The Ethiopian eunich was reading from Isaiah and realized he needed some help. He didn't understand it all--so Philip was sent by the Holy Spirit to explain it to him. At that point, he realized the need for baptism.

Acts also mentions frequently that Paul was in the "habit" of going to the synagogue every Sabbath and reading the scriptures. Guess what he was reading? It certainly was not the NT, was it? The study of the OT continued...even after Christ's death, burial and ressurection. Peter also was in the synagogue on the Sabbath--also studying the scriptures and discussing the things of the Lord.

I guess I knew these ideas, but it hit me very differently this time. I think we often dismiss anything in the OT, and as Splayd said, if it isn't repeated in the NT, we think it doesn't apply. Yet even Jesus said he did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.

I'm certainly not advocating that we retrun to all of the Old Testament laws and try to abide by them, but perhaps it would more prudent of us if we (Me--I--pointing that finger at myself;) ) spent more time studying the OT and understanding that it isn't just history. So much of the OT is relevant today and can be applied. At dinner time, our family is reading through Daniel. Again--there is so much that we can learn and glean from that book.

Apparently the Christians in the NT church understood that better than us. After all, they did not have the New Testament to 'guide' them as we do today and seemed to know that what was written so long ago still applied to them in so many ways.

Interesting thoguhts...

[Splayd]

I always get a bit confused when Sermon on the Mount teachings are presented as a part of the New Covenant.

Were both covenants in effect at the time? Was He actually changing the law while saying that He wasn't? Were His words not immediately relevant to those there and only to be considered by them later on when the New Covenant comes in?

I dunno - it seems to me that He's talking to them about their current laws and explaining how they are (and were) supposed to be understood and applied.

Just a thought.

Peace

[JDIBe]

I generally agree. In fact it kinda makes me wonder if some of us are voluntarily becoming bound to law all over again, while presenting it as something new.

Peace
I find it somewhat ironic that we're not the ones advocating bringing in vestigial artifacts of the Old Law into our worship services, but thank you for your concern...:)

There is a big difference between being bound by Law and simply wanting to be obedient to what the Father wants.

For example, there are many on this board who have said they recommend baptism, not because it is required for remission of sins, but because Jesus commanded them to.

Would you consider these folks to be "bound by Law"?

[JDIBe]

I guess I knew these ideas, but it hit me very differently this time. I think we often dismiss anything in the OT, and as Splayd said, if it isn't repeated in the NT, we think it doesn't apply. Yet even Jesus said he did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.

Cremi,

Jesus did come to fulfill the Law. He did not come to scrap the "old plan" and come up with a radically new one. What is "the fulfillment of the Law"? The New Covenant! The Old Law was never meant to be permanent. It could not save. It pointed and guided toward the New! Jesus and the New Covenant was part of the plan all along.

The reason that many dismiss the Old Law is that the Scriptures tell us it was "nailed to the cross". It is not in effect anymore. They also tell us we cannot pick and choose what we wish to bring in.

Now that being said, I do agree with you that the OT should be studied and makes the NT much clearer. It gives us insight into the mind of God. But doctrinally, I will take a NT Scripture over an OT one anytime. It is the Covenant we live under today.

[Splayd]

I find it somewhat ironic that we're not the ones advocating bringing in vestigial artifacts of the Old Law into our worship services, but thank you for your concern...:)

There is a big difference between being bound by Law and simply wanting to be obedient to what the Father wants.I wasn't referring to you, you big duffa :)

Seriously - I'm sorry that you felt that was directed at you. It wasn't even meant as an IM vs non-IM, one cup vs multiple cups, any practice vs any other practice segregation.

For example, there are many on this board who have said they recommend baptism, not because it is required for remission of sins, but because Jesus commanded them to.

Would you consider these folks to be "bound by Law"?I'm one of them, though I suspect you knew that ;) I'll try to clarify my comments when I have a little more time, but please be assured that it wasn't the broad sweep it may have appeared.

Peace

[JDIBe]

I wasn't referring to you, you big duffa :)

Seriously - I'm sorry that you felt that was directed at you. It wasn't even meant as an IM vs non-IM, one cup vs multiple cups, any practice vs any other practice segregation.


I sincerely apologize. Frustration is starting to set in and I'm getting testy. I think it's time for me to take a couple of days off. For the record, you have always treated me with respect and I appreciate it, even though we haven't quite seen eye to eye on some issues.


I'm one of them, though I suspect you knew that ;) I'll try to clarify my comments when I have a little more time, but please be assured that it wasn't the broad sweep it may have appeared.

Peace

Actually no. (although I can plainly see that would be very hard to believe at this point, and there is probably not much I can do about that.) I do remember the poll thread and a contengent of people stating such. I did not go back to see who voted how. My general point was, "Where does obedience end and being "bound by law" begin?". I think that would be a useful discussion, but it won't include me.

Remind me sometime. I have some thoughts on the "Sermon on the Mount" and Jesus' teachings I'd like to share with you.

[Tkjjc89]

The more you study and pray about this topic, the more it will open up to you. There is SOOOO much meat in the OT, while marrying itself to the NT, that when Jesus says, "it is finished", you know what He meant.

[RefrusRevlis]

Acts also mentions frequently that Paul was in the "habit" of going to the synagogue every Sabbath and reading the scriptures. Guess what he was reading? It certainly was not the NT, was it? The study of the OT continued...even after Christ's death, burial and ressurection. Peter also was in the synagogue on the Sabbath--also studying the scriptures and discussing the things of the Lord.


Paul went to the synagogues because that is where he could find people to preach to. He went to places where he knew people would be. This does not mean that he believed any part of the law of Moses as being still in effect. This was Paul's custom Acts 17:2, but going into synagogues on the Sabbath is not a custom of the church. Paul went into the synagogues to convert those present to the truth, his action does not prove the continuation of the OT. We need to separate individual actions and corporate (congregational) actions.

Consider the following: someone wants to offer burnt sacrifices to God. How would God take this? Can we be certain that he would be pleased? Is there evidence that he would not be pleased? What would this say about our regard for the sacrifice of Christ?

Nadab and Abihu are often cited as examples of people who offered something to God that he had not commanded - with disastrous results. (Leviticus 10).

This does not mean the OT scriptures are without value, on the contrary, it is they that point us to Christ. However, we should not make the mistake of adopting OT practises in order to be pleasing to God.

Galatians 5:4
"You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."

[cremi]

Yes, Paul and Peter both went to the synagogues weekly and yes, they also shared the good news of Jesus' death, burial and ressurection--but that is not all they preached. They preached from the scriptures. Stephen preached a great sermon--drawing from the fathers of the Old Testament--right before he was stoned.

I'm in no way advocating that we follow the OT laws--just merely pointing out that the fulfillment of the law did not mean abolishing the old law. We've probably missed much because we often view the OT as only a good source of history.

[Splayd]

This does not mean that he believed any part of the law of Moses as being still in effect.While it may be worthy of discussion in another thread, I don't think anyone here is arguing that the law of Moses is still in effect. That's not the point of the OP. The simple fact that they continued going to the Synagogues and keeping the Sabbaths etc... tells us that whether or not they are necessary or serve a purpose of any kind, they certainly didn't become unacceptable in and of themselves.

Consider the following: someone wants to offer burnt sacrifices to God. How would God take this? Can we be certain that he would be pleased? Is there evidence that he would not be pleased? What would this say about our regard for the sacrifice of Christ?While I generally agree with your thoughts about this, it's interesting to note that at the very least, Paul planned to make an offering.

Act 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

Nadab and Abihu are often cited as examples of people who offered something to God that he had not commanded - with disastrous results. (Leviticus 10).Yeah - I never understand why this keeps getting brought up. From my perspective the argument seems to be "You can't do OT stuff (that's not even a part of OT law) because you need NT authority to do it. To support my point I'll accept this OT principal (which is directly related to OT law)." Hmmmm :scratch:

Galatians 5:4
"You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."Absolutely! So - if Paul and the apostles still did some OT law stuff (which they evidently did) does that automatically mean they were seeking to be justified by law? Of course it doesn't. That isn't a direct consequence of doing an act. Rather it's about the motivation behind doing the act. I imagine there are some using the NT only (for authority) who are just as guilty of seeking justification by law, while there are also some Messianic Jews who keep OT laws who aren't (and vice versa). It's a matter of the heart.

Peace

[Splayd]

I just quickly wanted to acknowledge JDIBe and assure that there were no hard feelings. These sort of discussions often get heated and it's easy to read things as attacks out of habit.

Meanwhile - I've always appreciated John's gentle spirit and respectful discussion. While we don't always agree on the details, I always agree with his heart.

Peace

[RefrusRevlis]

--just merely pointing out that the fulfillment of the law did not mean abolishing the old law.

Jesus fulfilled the law and in doing so made way for the New Covenant. The book of Hebrews clearly shows the superiority of the New system to the Old. The two could not continue together. See Hebrews 10:9 also Hebrews 8:7-13. Many regard (and it seems not reasonable) that there was a 'grace period' where the Jews were allowed time to accept Jesus and the old system Temple worship was allowed to continue. This ceased at AD70.
refrus

[Splayd]

Many regard (and it seems not reasonable) that there was a 'grace period' where the Jews were allowed time to accept Jesus and the old system Temple worship was allowed to continue. This ceased at AD70.
refrusHmmm... It seems to me there's an awful lot of "regard"ing going on. I dunno but it appears ironic that the whole fundamental approach that demands NT scripture for absolutely everything requires so much extra-biblical reasoning as the very framework it operates within.

Just a thought.

[RefrusRevlis]

Hmmm... It seems to me there's an awful lot of "regard"ing going on. I dunno but it appears ironic that the whole fundamental approach that demands NT scripture for absolutely everything requires so much extra-biblical reasoning as the very framework it operates within.

You can take this idea of a grace period for what you will. It's quite clear that the Jesus brought in the NT and the Jewish system was removed (so to speak) with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 - as prophesied in Matthew 24. The use of a present participle verb "passing away" (palaioumenon) in Hebrews 8:13 as far as I can see indicates a process of "dwindling away", rather than a sudden cessation (I'm no Greek scholar, check it out yourself).

refrus

[Splayd]

You can take this idea of a grace period for what you will. It's quite clear that the Jesus brought in the NT and the Jewish system was removed (so to speak) with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 - as prophesied in Matthew 24. The use of a present participle verb "passing away" (palaioumenon) in Hebrews 8:13 as far as I can see indicates a process of "dwindling away", rather than a sudden cessation (I'm no Greek scholar, check it out yourself).I agree with all of that. I just don't reach the conclusion that there was a brief period of grace. My reading of scripture indicates that we're still living in it.

[RefrusRevlis]

I agree with all of that. I just don't reach the conclusion that there was a brief period of grace. My reading of scripture indicates that we're still living in it.
The period of grace to which I was referring was only in respect to the Jews to accept Christ and to the continuation of their nation. Grace, in the sense of God's unmerited favour towards all irrespective of social or racial background will continue until eternity.
refrus