Old Testament Laws and Modern Christianity

[stfoskey15]

What are your thoughts on how Old Testament laws apply to Christians today? I came across this source and found it interesting: http://www.gci.org/law/otlaws. However, the whole thing about laws being written on our hearts made me wonder how then do people know what is sin? Is it automatic? Do you learn from reading the New Testament? Because this article seems to be implying that the Old Testament laws do not need to be followed.

[foudroyant]

Hebrews 8:13 teaches that every law from the Old Covenant has been abrogated.
Any that are to be obeyed are the ones that are repeated in the New Covenant.

[Jedidiah]

The Old Covenant has become obsolete. Not all the laws in the OT are limited to the Old Covenant.

[Scrawly]

"now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter." (Rom. 7:6)

We are not under the law as we walk in the Spirit, serve in the Spirit and serve Christ and His kingdom that consists of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.

We are the third humanity where there is no Jew nor Gentile - but new creations in Christ - the old has gone - the new has come.

[tabibito]

The Old Testament laws are obsolescent - all of them.
The New Testament has its own set of laws independent of Old Testament law.
Some parts of the New Testament are similar to the Old Testament law, but the definitions could be different.
Two key points illustrate how it works.
Murder - prohibited under both the Old Covenant and the New.
... definitions:
... Old Covenant - putting someone to death without just cause.
... New Covenant - hating a person.
Adultery - prohibited under both the Old Covenant and the New.
... definitions:
Old Covenant - Sexual relations with a married or betrothed person other than one's own spouse or betrothed.
New Covenant - Sexual relations with a married, betrothed, or divorced person (while the person's former spouse yet lives.)

The move from the Old Covenant to the New is akin to emigrating from one country (e.g. America) to another (e.g. England)
Murder is prohibited in both countries. A murder committed in America might not be considered murder in England (on technical grounds) - perhaps in England it would be considered manslaughter. Both countries prohibit committing murder, but the definitions don't match. The culprit can't be brought to trial in England under the definitions of American law, can't be subjected to the penalties that apply under American law.
Likewise - transgressions committed under the New Covenant can't be defined according to Old Covenant definitions, and the penalties that apply aren't the same as for Old Testament law.

[KingsGambit]

Galatians 5:19-23 says that the acts of the flesh are obvious. They would be those that do not meet the two great commandments in Matthew 22.

This is easier asserted than demonstrated, of course.

[apostoli]

The Old Testament laws are obsolescent - all of them.
The New Testament has its own set of laws independent of Old Testament law.
Some parts of the New Testament are similar to the Old Testament law, but the definitions could be different.
Two key points illustrate how it works.
Murder - prohibited under both the Old Covenant and the New.
... definitions:
... Old Covenant - putting someone to death without just cause.
... New Covenant - hating a person.
Adultery - prohibited under both the Old Covenant and the New.
... definitions:
Old Covenant - Sexual relations with a married or betrothed person other than one's own spouse or betrothed.
New Covenant - Sexual relations with a married, betrothed, or divorced person (while the person's former spouse yet lives.)

The move from the Old Covenant to the New is akin to emigrating from one country (e.g. America) to another (e.g. England)
Murder is prohibited in both countries. A murder committed in America might not be considered murder in England (on technical grounds) - perhaps in England it would be considered manslaughter. Both countries prohibit committing murder, but the definitions don't match. The culprit can't be brought to trial in England under the definitions of American law, can't be subjected to the penalties that apply under American law.
Likewise - transgressions committed under the New Covenant can't be defined according to Old Covenant definitions, and the penalties that apply aren't the same as for Old Testament law.

Nearly a couple of decades ago I wrote a composition regarding slavery in America that (to my knowledge) has been translated into several languages. My premise was that unlike the British, French or Spanish systems, the USA was the only country that enforced a system where they bred slaves = once a slave always a slave....

Now that is 100% against the OT Testament...so one has to think about the illicit thought of the extreme right wing of American politics...

An Afro-American fellow from Florida tried to convince me that all the slavers were Jews. Was Washington, Jefferson etc etc etc Jews?

Imo, your justification for your viewpoint is anti-christian, and I put you in the same bucket as the KKK, whom I consider the paramount extreme of the effluent of humanity...

[JonathanL]

Nearly a couple of decades ago I wrote a composition regarding slavery in America that (to my knowledge) has been translated into several languages. My premise was that unlike the British, French or Spanish systems, the USA was the only country that enforced a system where they bred slaves = once a slave always a slave....

Now that is 100% against the OT Testament...so one has to think about the illicit thought of the extreme right wing of American politics...

An Afro-American fellow from Florida tried to convince me that all the slavers were Jews. Was Washington, Jefferson etc etc etc Jews?

Imo, your justification for your viewpoint is anti-christian, and I put you in the same bucket as the KKK, whom I consider the paramount extreme of the effluent of humanity...

[tabibito]

If the master has been called Beelzebub, how much more so his servants.

[footwasher]

[tabibito]

Source: Hebrews 8:7

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Hebrews 8:13

In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

© Copyright Original Source

Not just the law - the entire Covenant is obsolete.

Source: Ephesians 2:15

having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,

© Copyright Original Source

And the law of commandments contained in ordinances has been abolished.

[apostoli]

Is it only the Jew who has been released from the teachings of men?

No! Notice in A.John's Gospel that the first mass conversation of mankind occurred amoungst the Samaritians. Also, notice that Jesus didn't proclaim his supremacy to any Jew (including his own disciples).

[footwasher]

On the other hand, some may say that the Old Covenant only applied to Jews, that its rights and responsibilities only benefited or burdened Jews. However the following verse shows that an equivalent, invisible Covenant existed parallely to the Sinaitic Covenant, which applied similar rights and responsibilities on non-Jews:

Romans 2:26So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

Existence of this Covenant proved by a certification of compliance from God:

Romans 2:29But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

A good verse to show that "letter" means written contract and "spirit", moral obligation. Similarly, "flesh" equates unthinking, outward compliance and "spirit", weighted, inward living out of the image of God imprinted on the basal creature that is Man.

28For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.

[Scrawly]

A battle cry amongst those who have yet to comprehend the gospel goes something like this: "But, but! If you are not under the law then you are free to sin and you are encouraging others to sin!"



"What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?" (Rom. 6:15-16)

So, it's quite clear we are not under law, but rather under grace. So once again, does the fact that we are not under law but under grace give a license to sin?



"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age" (Tit. 2:11-12)

[stfoskey15]

So is sin only defined by what is considered wrong in the New Testament?