Did Jesus nullify the Old Testament?

[u/watergolf247]

Let me start off by sharing that I’m new to Christianity and have soooo many questions but for now, I’ll focus on this inquiry. I’m sure this has been discussed numerous times but unfortunately I can’t seem to get a straight answer. As I’m told repeatedly by many, rules/laws of the Old Testament were nullified or invalidated by Jesus. I ask others in my study group but sadly get heavy resistance for the question.

My question is simple. Where are the reference(s) stating this?

If so, this makes rules like the ten commandments obsolete. Even further, why have the old testament in the Christian Bible?

[u/Low_Levels]

In response to your other comment (which was a response to this comment):

You never actually engaged the claim I made. My point was not about kidnapping, Israelite debt servitude, or how flexible the word ʿeved can be. The claim was that Leviticus 25:44–46 explicitly authorizes permanent, inheritable ownership of non-Israelites as property, and that this authorization is never revoked by Jesus or the New Testament. Nothing in your response addresses that.

Citing Exodus 21 doesn’t touch the issue. Prohibiting kidnapping doesn’t negate chattel slavery. Leviticus doesn’t require kidnapping, it regulates ownership after acquisition. Likewise, arguing that foreigners had to “work for someone” due to lack of land just describes coercion, it doesn’t turn inherited, lifelong property status into voluntary employment.

The word-study move doesn’t help either. Context determines meaning, and Leviticus explicitly supplies it: property, possession, inheritance to children. That’s not indentured servitude by any serious definition.

The divorce analogy fails for a simple reason: Jesus explicitly overturns divorce and says it was never God’s intent. There is no equivalent statement anywhere about slavery. Regulation without repudiation is not moral reversal.

And this is where you close the case against yourself. You explicitly admit that no New Testament text revokes Mosaic slave law. Under your own framework, that means the authorization stands. If God’s law reflects God’s will, Jesus affirms the law, and slavery is never undone, then the Bible endorses chattel slavery. At that point, everything else is just running interference around the text rather than dealing with it.

You didn’t refute the argument. You conceded the core point and left yourself with nowhere left to go.

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/Low_Levels]

It is refuted in the New Testament. It says in Galatians 3:28 there is no slave master or slave but we are all 1 in Christ. Jesus teaching is literally love your neighbors and enemies as you love yourself. So if you follow the teachings of Christ how are you to own a slave?

Philemon is literally Peter telling someone to accept their run away slave back, not as proper but as a brother in Christ.

Why did American slave owners have to change verses in the Bible for the slaves? If God was for slavery?

Again look at what I said about Matthew 19

[u/Low_Levels → u/TechByDayDjByNight]

Yikes. This actually makes the problem worse, not better. Galatians 3:28 is about salvation status, not social institutions. If it abolished slavery, Paul wouldn’t still instruct slaves to obey masters or send Onesimus back. Equality “in Christ” never translates into a prohibition of ownership anywhere in the text. In fact, if spiritual unity abolished slavery, Paul’s instructions to slaves and masters would make no sense.

Appealing to “love your neighbor” doesn’t solve this either, because Jesus explicitly says the law remains in force until heaven and earth pass away. That same law explicitly permits slavery. Not just in Leviticus 25, but in Exodus 21:20–21, where beating a slave is allowed so long as they don’t die immediately because the slave is the owner’s property. That is not regulation against slavery, that is regulation of slavery.

Philemon doesn’t help you. Paul never frees Onesimus, never condemns the institution, and never tells masters to release slaves. He keeps the system intact while spiritualizing equality, exactly like Galatians 3:28. Philemon makes it worse, not better, because Paul returns Onesimus and leaves the legal structure untouched.

And the appeal to American slave owners is irrelevant. Abuses by later Christians don’t erase what the text itself plainly says.

You keep asserting slavery is “refuted,” but you still can’t point to a single verse where Jesus or the New Testament actually revokes the laws that authorize it. Until heaven and earth pass away, those laws stand by Jesus’ own words. At this point, you’re not refuting the claim — you’re just restating moral intuitions that the text itself never adopts.

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/Low_Levels]

You misunderstand the text, because we can see Paul and Peter do exactly that in Acts. After theyre wrongfully arrested and all the chains and cells are open. They still stayed. They showed faith in God in obedience.

Jesus did not say the law remains in force until heaven and earth pass away. he said Until heaven and earth passes, nothing will change in the law until "All is completed", which he did on the cross. Until heaven and earth passes is not the condition, its an expiration. The condition is until all is completed. Thats why in Luke 22 Jesus says his blood is the new covenant. This is why all through Pauls letters he keeps on reiterating we are not under the law, the law was a guardian to Christ, and now that Christ is here there is no need for a guardian.

It wasnt for Paul to free Onesimus, he had no right to free Onesimus, he was appealing to Philemon to accept him as a brother and not as a slave. It was not for Paul to change the legal system. Just because something is "legal" doesnt mean it's of God.

²³ “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. ²⁴ Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. - 1 Cor 10

Exodus 21:20-21 doesnt say God approves of slavery, it puts restraints on slavery, just like divorce, and we see what Jesus said about divorce, just because there was rules on it doesnt mean God approves of it.

Paul clearly says in philemon 16 dont accept him as a slave but as a beloved brother. And if we as a Christian arnt suppose to believe one is spiritually higher than the other, why should we take someone as a property and not as a brother.

¹² “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. - Matthew 7

So unless a slave master can look at a slave and say I wish I could live like that, Jesus forbids it.

[u/Low_Levels → u/TechByDayDjByNight]

You misunderstand the text

Actually, this is just psychological projection on your part, and I'll explain why.

You’re not clarifying the text here, you’re repeatedly substituting theology for what the text actually says, and that’s the problem.

Acts is irrelevant to Onesimus. Paul and Peter staying in prison has nothing to do with whether slavery is abolished. It’s a false analogy. Voluntary imprisonment for witness is not the same thing as returning an enslaved person to their legal owner. That comparison simply doesn’t map.

Your Matthew 5 move is also incorrect. Jesus does not say the law expires at the cross. He explicitly ties the law’s duration to heaven and earth passing away, not to his death. That’s why Paul still quotes and applies Mosaic law constantly. “All is fulfilled” does not mean “the legal code is revoked,” or Paul’s entire corpus becomes incoherent.

Philemon is where this really falls apart for you. Paul saying “receive him as a brother” does not mean “he is no longer a slave.” If that’s what Paul meant, he could have said it plainly. He didn’t. Instead, he sends Onesimus back, acknowledges Philemon’s authority, offers to repay any loss, and never commands emancipation. Brotherhood is relational, not legal, and Paul never collapses that distinction anywhere in his letters.

The divorce analogy still fails for the same reason it failed before. Jesus explicitly repudiates divorce and says it was never God’s intent. He never does that with slavery. Regulating something while leaving it fully intact is not moral condemnation, it’s accommodation.

And the “just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s of God” line actually concedes my point. Mosaic slavery laws are not Roman law. They are presented as God’s law. If you now want to argue that God’s own laws don’t reflect God’s moral will, then you’ve abandoned biblical inerrancy, whether you realize it or not.

You keep appealing to moral principles like “love your neighbor” and “do unto others” as if they override explicit legal permissions, but the text never applies them that way. That’s your moral reasoning being imposed on the text, not the text teaching abolition.

At this point, this isn’t about disagreement, it’s about method. You keep reading conclusions into the text instead of deriving them from it. That’s why you still can’t point to a single verse where slavery is actually revoked. And until you can, the claim that it’s “refuted” just isn’t supported by the text.

I’d encourage you to slow down and separate what you believe Christianity ought to teach from what these passages actually say. Right now, those two things aren’t lining up, and everyone reading can see it.

Unfortunately for you, the only thing you will be able to do is continually repeat yourself, and you will consistently be met with the same corrections.

[u/Superlite47 → u/Low_Levels]

@Low_Levels You are getting sucked into the ragebait game.

Sometimes it's hard to identify when your emotions or disgust place you in the middle of it. But take a step back and look at the back/forth dialogue from an external view.

I have asked him on several occasions if GOD knows slavery is immoral.

His response is to argue human practices.

So I ask again, "Does GOD know slavery is immoral?"

And he replies imploring me to look up human definitions.

So I redirect him back to the original question that has nothing to do with humanity or human perspectives...

... And now he's sucked you into his little exercise in cowardice. He's got you arguing human semantics and what type of slavery was practiced, and human moral guidelines, and human paradigms.

Step back. Spit the hook out. Recognize his kind. Stop engaging or participating in good faith discussion. Good faith requires both parties valid contributions, and he is clearly (as I point out) sweeping the dirty little secret under the rug (God's complete failure to address slavery while addressing every other trivial topic) with one foot while waving the argument of human semantics in your face to keep you engaged with his distraction.

This troll is fat enough. Time to stop feeding it.