Old testament is useful

[Guest yod]

The changing of the priesthood is a done deal, it has been changed already in this verse, and it says that makes a change of the law necessary also. It's also pointing out how Christ's priesthood was not according to the law signifying a big change of the law. The change of priesthood is indicitive of the law being changed.

Hebrews 7:18-19 18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

Well thanks for proving that the commandment (law) concerning the Priesthood was changed. Duh? That is what we've been saying all along in this thread....The law concerning the priesthood has changed. That is all the passage is showing.

Seriously...if the Law HAD been rendered void, it would be easy to find a place where that is stated clearly. You can't do it because it isn't there....

Here are a couple more verses you might want to consider while you go looking again...

Jesus - 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Paul - Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

Go take a look outside. Are the heavens and Earth still there?

Here is another example of Paul observing the Law AFTER returning from his missionary journey to the Gentiles. He was meeting with the leaders of the original assembly (Jerusalem) which had Ya'acov, brother of Yeshua (James in the English) as the authority.

19And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.

20And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

21And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

23Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;

24Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

25As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

26Then 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.

In other words, James and the leadership of the original congregation had heard a rumor that Paul was speaking against the Law. They tell Paul that thousands of jews in Jerusalem were zealous for the law, and then asked Paul to show them that he was NOT preaching against the law by taking these 4 to the Temple for the requirments of purification according to the Law.

What was Paul's response? He complied without disagreement or protest.

Any intellectually honest disciple would accept that. Humble yourself...seek the Lord in His Word and you will find that this is true. No one is trying to embarress you or humilate you in any way. We are simply asking you to seek the Word instead of theology.

I'm not sure what you think we're saying though. If you notice, the protest was not whether Paul was teaching Gentiles to disobey the law, but whether he was teaching jews to. As was pointed out earlier by Shiloh, it all depends on who is speaking and to whom.

The address for most of the Torah is Israel. However, most of the principles found in the Torah of Israel can be applied to all men everywhere. In other words, "the spirit" of the Law is what is important.

How can that be if the Law is void?

Think carefully about that...and you will find that theology has taught you a contradictory position to what the Bible actually says...

[Guest shiloh357]

Well, what did God mean by "they continued not in my covenant" or whatever. He was saying they are not obeying the law and doing what they were supposed to do. I don't see how you can talk about the covenant without including the law as a part of it.

The point I am making is that the terms "Torah" and "Covenant" are not interchangable and the Bible does not use the interchanably. You might try to use them that way, but the Bible does not.

The Mosaic Covenant was an conditional covenant unlike other covenants such as the Abrahamic covenant and the New Covenant, which are unconditional. The Mosaic Covenant was conditional in that it provided the conditions which were necessary for the children Israel to enjoy the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant.

The Torah if kept ensured the continuation of the Mosaic Covenant. The Torah is not the Mosaic Covenant. When we get to Jeremiah 31, which is quoted in the book of Hebrews, God says I am going to make a New Covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. The term "New Covenant" is Brit Hadashah. It means "renewed covenant."

God is renewing His covenant with the houses of Israel and the Judah, but it will not be like the one made before. It is a renwal, but it is made better and in doing so, renders the form oboslete. Please note that ALL of the elements of the Old Covenant are present in the New Covenant. We still have a sacrificial system. God's system of sacrifices was never annulled. We still need blood, and we still need a High Priest. All of those needs are met in Christ. They are not done away with, but they are met in Christ and now He is the sacrifice, His blood is sprinkled in the heaveny Holy of Holies and He is currently operating as our high priest.

Yes, there was a change in the Torah but ONLY with respect to priesthood and that change was necessary in order take into account, the coming of the Messiah.

In Jeremiah 31 there is no mention of a New Torah. God says rather, that one of the improvements will be that the Torah will be written on the heart. He does not add any qualifers, he simply mentions God's commandments. Anyone reading that in an unprejudiced manner would see this as being a new set of Laws which abrogate the Torah of Moses. In fact, no such thing can be inferred from the text.

I could have almost predicted a response like this. You know it's talking about THE law. The changing of the priesthood is a done deal, it has been changed already in this verse, and it says that makes a change of the law necessary also. It's also pointing out how Christ's priesthood was not according to the law signifying a big change of the law. The change of priesthood is indicitive of the law being changed.

You simply don't want to pay attention to context. The subject matter being covered in Hebrews 7-10 is not the entire Law. The author does not the whole of the Torah. He is focused on only one part of the Torah, namely the part connected to the priesthood. For you to expand the meaning to the entire Torah, is not hermeneutically sound and violates basic rules of sound biblical interpretation.

[forgiven1]

I had too many quotes so I switched to color to do the quotes.

So can I now have sex with an animal?

Ummm, that's probably not a good idea apothanein!

It is only in the Law that such an act is forbidden.

Well, do you think the Spirit would lead believers to do such a thing?

Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Well thanks for proving that the commandment (law) concerning the Priesthood was changed. Duh? That is what we've been saying all along in this thread....The law concerning the priesthood has changed. That is all the passage is showing.

The priesthood changed because Christ fulfilled the law proving that only God is righteous so we don't need the old law for righteousness anymore, because we have Christ's righteousness.

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Jesus - 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Paul - Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

Jesus did fulfill the law, he accomplished the task, so now the law can pass away, or I should say has. It hadn't yet been accomplished when Jesus spoke this as he had not yet been sacrificed. We establish the new law through faith in Christ's righteousness.

19And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.

20And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

21And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

23Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;

24Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

25As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

26Then 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.

What was happening here is that they were worried about the concision so they talked Paul into not doing anything that would offend them and it was for the same reason they counseled the gentiles in this manner. They were afraid of persecution. This part shows that:

Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

21And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses

for they will hear that thou art come

Do therefore this that we say to thee:

Why would they need to counsel Paul if He was already odedient to the law? He would already be doing these things.

If you notice, the protest was not whether Paul was teaching Gentiles to disobey the law, but whether he was teaching jews to.

But why would he counsel anyone to if the law was still in effect?

"the spirit" of the Law is what is important.

How can that be if the Law is void?

Jesus said that the Holy Ghost would lead us into all truth, it would teach us all things, it would be IN us, in our minds and hearts. Think about that!

The point I am making is that the terms "Torah" and "Covenant" are not interchangable and the Bible does not use the interchanably. You might try to use them that way, but the Bible does not.

Right! The Torah does not contain the Covenant, but the Covenant did contain the Torah.

The Mosaic Covenant was an conditional covenant unlike other covenants such as the Abrahamic covenant and the New Covenant, which are unconditional. The Mosaic Covenant was conditional in that it provided the conditions which were necessary for the children Israel to enjoy the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Right, but Christ is also the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant and all believers in Christ are children of the covenant. The New Testament brings all believers into the Abrahamic covenant.

God is renewing His covenant with the houses of Israel and the Judah, but it will not be like the one made before.

Right, it's called the New Covenant and they don't have to keep the law for righteousness, they just need to believe on the Messiah and His righteousness. This is the point all along.

For you to expand the meaning to the entire Torah, is not hermeneutically sound and violates basic rules of sound biblical interpretation.

Christ said the Spirit would teach us and be in us so biblical interpretation does not depend on hermenuetics, it depends on the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of the law itself. That's our teacher and guide, not a bunch of commandments from the old testament.

Edited May 22, 2007 by forgiven1

[Guest shiloh357]

The point I am making is that the terms "Torah" and "Covenant" are not interchangable and the Bible does not use the interchanably. You might try to use them that way, but the Bible does not.

Right! The Torah does not contain the Covenant, but the Covenant did contain the Torah.

Yes, but the Covennat is NOT the Torah. That is point. You are trying to use them interchangably, and the text nowhere allows for that. It is particular kind of disobedience that took the children of Israel out from under the protection afforded by the Mosaic Covenant.

The Mosaic Covenant was an conditional covenant unlike other covenants such as the Abrahamic covenant and the New Covenant, which are unconditional. The Mosaic Covenant was conditional in that it provided the conditions which were necessary for the children Israel to enjoy the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Right, but Christ is also the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant and all believers in Christ are children of the covenant. The New Testament brings all believers into the Abrahamic covenant.

No it doesn't. The Abrahamic Covenant proper (Genesis 15), only dealt with Israel and the Land. It is an eternal covenant that guarantees Israel's right to the Land. God's dealings with Israel were constantly shown as being linked to the promises God made to Abraham. Christians are not the children of Abrahamic Covenant.

God is renewing His covenant with the houses of Israel and the Judah, but it will not be like the one made before.

Right, it's called the New Covenant and they don't have to keep the law for righteousness, they just need to believe on the Messiah and His righteousness. This is the point all along.

The Old Covenant did not require keeping the law for rightesousness either. Even in the Old Testament, salvation was always by grace through faith apart from any works of the law. The Torah did not provide salvation in the Old Testament either. That is the problem I see. Many Christians believe that when Jesus came, He brought a new way of salvation that set aside the "Old Testament" way to be saved, and that is simply not what the Bible says. There may have been some false teachers in Jesus' day who saw the works of the law as the path to salvation, but neither the Torah itself, nor the prophets nor any other teaching bear out such a thing.

For you to expand the meaning to the entire Torah, is not hermeneutically sound and violates basic rules of sound biblical interpretation.

Christ said the Spirit would teach us and be in us so biblical interpretation does not depend on hermenuetics, it depends on the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of the law itself. That's our teacher and guide, not a bunch of commandments from the old testament.

Anybody can simply try to pull the rug out from everyone's feet by saying "you can't say I'm wrong, 'cause the Holy Spirit told me..." I have heard a lot of sloppy theology blamed on such claims. Biblical interepretation relies very much on proper hermeneutics.

We need hermeneutics so that people do not treat prophecies like parables or proverbs like promises. Hermeneutics allow us to distinguish between figurative and literal statements in addition to distinguishing between different types of figurative devices used in the Bible. The Bible is a book in history written to a people in history. God did not circumvent the cultural and linguistic peculiarities of the people He chose to author the book, and anyone who is a good student of the Bible will acknowledge those very simple facts. They are unavoidable.

The rules of hermeneutics are the same rules we apply in our daily lives. Do you read a newspaper the same way you read a biography or cookbook? The Bible is piece of literature, and God uses literary devices and types of literature we are familiar with to communicate with us. He condescends to our level and in the Bible, communicates to us through Psalms, prophecies, hymns, narrative short stories, parables, proverbs, etc. all of which are human devices.

The study of the Bible is just as much an intellecutal pursuit as it is spiritual one. For you to assert that you can maintain assertion even in the face of a text that does not support that ssertion only demonstrates the weakness of your position, and the intellecutal absurdity to which you are forced depend on, to maintain it.

It would appear that you believe in what is known as Covenant Theology; a system that holds that the entire Mosaic Law was discarded that the "Law of Christ" was put in its place and while it may contain similar commandments to the Law of Moses, those commandments do not stem from the Law of Moses. It is an absurd, weak and beggardly "theology" but that does not stop a lot of people from naively buying into it.

[Guest yod]

This is the question that those who think that the Law is still required in order to be viewed as righteous are trying to answer and it is for this reason that they incorrectly start quoting laws against their brothers and sisters because of an improper understanding of it's purpose within scripture and how it applies today.

How many times is this strawman going to be thrown out? Would you PLEASE take the time to read what we've been saying in this thread before answering to something we have never said in several years on the WorthyBoards?

NO ONE has said anything about "requiring" people to observe the Law. What you are railing against is legalism and Shiloh and I are in complete agreement with you on that matter.

That is not what we're discussing in this thread though.

[Guest yod]

You might want to look less aggressively at the post...it is completely in tune with the thread and merrited to the point that the Old Testament is quite useful and no it has nothing to do with a "Straw Man" argument the main point is you are negating the fact that my point with Shilo centers around him implying that The Law of Moses and The Law of Christ is a "Gentile Invention" and that he is using his own Theology to say so.

The rest is for the others who keep crossing the boundary of which you are implying which is being overkilled by the usual over-theological analysis. The answer is quite simple... Yes, the Old Testament is useful, How so? by recognizing that the Law had a different purpose before Christ...How does it apply today? keeping in point with the discussion of the OT being useful...the Law teaches us God's purpose before Christ and after Christ thus merging the usefulness of the Old with the New.

The purpose of the Torah has never changed. It was what it still is...instruction from God. It has no less value than it did at Sinai. The only difference is our response to it.

The "law of Christ" is a phrase only mentioned once in the Bible and it refers to bearing one another's burdens...to helping each other maintain a faithful walk.

So, in that regard, Shiloh is exactly correct in saying it is a christian invention that has expanded that phrase to mean something that simply isn't stated in the text of holy writ. This concept of "the law of Christ" being an abrogation of the Torah is only found in post-biblical christian theological devices

Unfortunately, too many christians don't know the difference between theology and scripture. If this position was biblical instead of theological, you could point to chapter and verse explaining it. I'll wait for you to do so..

No major theological breakdowns are required, especially ones that divide a position as one being Jew and the other Gentile.

And, if you have read this thread you will see where Shiloh explains "addressing". This is crucial for understanding the context of what is being said and why. PLEASE read that, would ya?

[apothanein kerdos]

Well, do you think the Spirit would lead believers to do such a thing?

To have sex with an animal? Why wouldn't the Spirit? After all, if He leads me away from having sex with the animal, He's upholding the Law. So why would he object to me doing something that isn't forbidden in the New Testament?

[Guest yod]

Well, do you think the Spirit would lead believers to do such a thing?

To have sex with an animal? Why wouldn't the Spirit? After all, if He leads me away from having sex with the animal, He's upholding the Law. So why would he object to me doing something that isn't forbidden in the New Testament?

Great point!

I hope it isn't missed

"all things are permissable but not all things edify...."

Does each man decide what "edifies" by their own spirit? Who sets the standard of truth to judge the spirits? (The Bible says it is to the Law and the testimony)

Can the HOLY Spirit ever contradict God's Word at all?

[forgiven1]

Well, do you think the Spirit would lead believers to do such a thing?

To have sex with an animal? Why wouldn't the Spirit? After all, if He leads me away from having sex with the animal, He's upholding the Law. So why would he object to me doing something that isn't forbidden in the New Testament?

Well, the Spirit has led people to do some pretty funny things I guess! I never said there was no law or that there aren't any similar concepts in the new law, but the law in the old testament was very different in many ways and it was necessary that the law be changed. The difference now is that it is the Holy Spirit in us that teaches us to walk in God''s ways.

[apothanein kerdos]

Well, do you think the Spirit would lead believers to do such a thing?

To have sex with an animal? Why wouldn't the Spirit? After all, if He leads me away from having sex with the animal, He's upholding the Law. So why would he object to me doing something that isn't forbidden in the New Testament?

Well, the Spirit has led people to do some pretty funny things I guess! I never said there was no law or that there aren't any similar concepts in the new law, but the law in the old testament was very different in many ways and it was necessary that the law be changed. The difference now is that it is the Holy Spirit in us that teaches us to walk in God''s ways.

So if I say the Holy Spirit leads me to have sex with an animal, on what grounds can you object?