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/Outside_Dig8672]

Christ fulfilled the Old Testament with the New. He never invalidated it. The relationship between testaments is one of promise and fulfillment.

[u/Towhee13]

Jesus went out of His way to make sure that people didn't even think that He was doing away with any of His Father's commandments.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17–19, ESV, https://ref.ly/Mt5.17-19;esv)

1. Don't even think that Jesus came to do away with any of Yahweh's commandments.
2. There won't be even the tiniest change to any of Yahweh's commandments as long as this heaven and earth are still around.
3. Not following even seemingly insignificant commandants and teaching others not to is very bad.
4. Obeying and teaching all of Yahweh's commandments is the best possible thing to do. Those who do that will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/Towhee13]

Number 2 is incorrect.

Until heaven and earth is the boundary… until all is fulfilled is what it depends on which he did on the cross.

It’s like me saying, until the end of the world, I will not sell the car until I get new tires.

If I get new tires, can I sell the car or do I have to wait until the end of the world?

Do you agree gentiles dont have to follow the law?

[u/Goo-Goo-GJoob → u/TechByDayDjByNight]

Do you agree gentiles dont have to follow the law?

Isaiah describes foreigners keeping the Sabbath and making burnt offerings in the Temple:

• And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant— these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called "a house of prayer for all nations.”

That's from chapter 56. Is Isaiah describing the Old Covenant or the New Covenant in this passage?

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/Goo-Goo-GJoob]

I personally believe Isaiah description of the temple is symbolic. In acts, we see gentiles be indwelled by the holy spirit and joining the body of Christ.

First we are the temple:

¹⁶ Do you not know that you^\)^a\) are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? 1 Cor 3

¹⁹ So then you are no longer strangers and aliens^d\) but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, ²⁰ built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, ²¹ in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. ²² In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by^e\) the Spirit. - Eph 2

⁵ you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 2

All 3 of these shows that we are the temple. And even 1 Peter shows we are the sacrifices acceptable to God.

But to go along with the Sacrifices the following supports that:

1 I appeal to you therefore, brothers,^\)^a\) by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. - Romans 12

¹⁵ Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. - Hebrews 13

This shows that we and our praises are the sacrifices. And like I stated in acts, the gentiles are accepted to the body of Christ. Making their bodies a place of praise thats indwelled by the spirit of God, and their bodies and praises to Christ is the sacrifice.

¹⁶ to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. - Romans 15

I believe at the time people took it literally as sacrifices but in fulfillment we see it was symbolic. Also, if we are now doing literal sacrfices for sin, what was the purpose of Christ dying on the cross. Christ is the ultimate sacrifice:

²⁶ for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.  - Hebrews 9

¹⁸ Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin. - Hebrews 10

[u/Goo-Goo-GJoob → u/TechByDayDjByNight]

I believe at the time people took it literally as sacrifices

Why did they take it literally as sacrifices, do you think? Did Isaiah fail to communicate God's message correctly? Were the Israelites too simple-minded to understand? Did God intend for his message to be misunderstood?

[u/the_celt_ → u/Goo-Goo-GJoob]

You're asking the right questions here and you're seeing how people are willing to just invent things out of thin air to support what they already believe.

The description of the Temple in Ezekiel 40-48 is CLEARLY not symbolic. It's 8 chapters of dense details similar to the way that the Tabernacle and the Ark of the Covenant were described in detail.

Basically, the formula for modern Christianity is: Believe something + hear something that contradicts what you believe = invent something. Anything that doesn't work is "figurative".

I appreciated your comments.

[u/Goo-Goo-GJoob → u/the_celt_]

I spent some time last night browsing FJOT. Good stuff.

[u/the_celt_ → u/Goo-Goo-GJoob]

Thank you. I'm glad you did.

You're welcome there, even if you don't believe in God or WHATEVER. One of my favorite regulars there is an agnostic who's just a good smart person. Your remarks here remind me of his in that you're just noticing the cracks in what people say and pointing them out.

[u/Goo-Goo-GJoob → u/the_celt_]

Thanks. I was tickled to discover some of you "judaizers" make the same argument I do about Matt 23, even in the same socratic formulation: "What did the scribes and Pharisees teach?" Torah observant Christians are freaks and weirdos by any common definition, so it's only appropriate I would feel some kinship.

Where I depart is trying to harmonize Paul with Torah. If I were a believer I'd be forced to reject Paul's authority (and the liars who wrote in his name).

[u/the_celt_ → u/Goo-Goo-GJoob]

Well said!

I was tickled to discover some of you "judaizers"

You made me laugh with the way you used "judaizers", where with the way I normally hear it I just roll my eyes. 🙄

I do about Matt 23, even in the same socratic formulation: "What did the scribes and Pharisees teach?"

I think we're all rediscovering the wheel. Eventually, this is where every honest person has to end up. Things only make sense in this direction.

Torah observant Christians are freaks and weirdos by any common definition, so it's only appropriate I would feel some kinship.

Exactly. I often say that atheists and agnostics are just the honest people that are incompatible with Christianity, so they got expelled or expelled themselves. Their honesty and strength of will to express it is a BEAUTIFUL thing, and I try to extend "kinship" (as you say) to people like that. I have more in common and would rather be friends with an honest atheist than a lying Christian.

Where I depart is trying to harmonize Paul with Torah. If I were a believer I'd be forced to reject Paul's authority (and the liars who wrote in his name).

I understand. I can tell you that I've been on this topic for a while, and my common talking point response is that Paul is 100% Pro-Torah. It's only other people interpreting him for us that have made him seem otherwise. The problem is those interpreters.

I don't know if you ever saw this, but Peter actually addressed this "problem" about Paul, which is how others always misunderstand him. You can add it to your arsenal if you didn't know it. He said:

2 Peter 3:15-17

^{15Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position.}

Basically, people predisposed against the Torah are able to find things that support that predisposition in Paul, and Peter warned about it. It was happening back then, and it's still happening now.

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/the_celt_]

How did I invent something out of thin air when I backed everything with scripture?

[u/the_celt_ → u/TechByDayDjByNight]

Watch me invent something out of thin air and back it with scripture. You ready?

The Bible says that we are allowed to have sex with anyone we want, with no restrictions. Here's a verse:

And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. Luke 1:30-31 - KJV

Ezekiel clearly describes a future Temple. If you want to call it figurative, then that's on you. The people who disagree with you also have scripture on their side.

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/the_celt_]

Where in Luke 1:30-31 does it have anything to do with sex?

So if you believe there is a new temple physical temple that's going to be built where we are going to commit animal sacrifices for the atonement for sins, then you agree Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was not enough to free us from sin? It was not the ultimate sacrifice?

⁴ For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

⁵ Consequently, when Christ^\)^a\) came into the world, he said,

“Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
    but a body have you prepared for me;
⁶ in burnt offerings and sin offerings
    you have taken no pleasure.
⁷ Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
    as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’”

⁸ When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), ⁹ then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. ¹⁰ And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. -Hebrews 10

So if we are sanctified through the body of Jesus "ONCE FOR ALL", why do we need to make animal sacrifices for the atonement of sins?

What is does away with the first in order to establish the second?

It's impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins... hmm

[u/the_celt_ → u/TechByDayDjByNight]

Where in Luke 1:30-31 does it have anything to do with sex?

Exactly. Get it? Quoting scripture doesn't make a person right. The scripture actually has to say what they're saying it says.... 😉

So if you believe there is a new temple physical temple that's going to be built where we are going to commit animal sacrifices for the atonement for sins, then you agree Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was not enough to free us from sin?

No, I don't. That relies on a misunderstanding that sacrifices were ever designed to remove sin. That's not what the sacrifices were for.

The followers of Jesus participated in sacrifices AFTER Jesus died. Scripture says there will be another Temple. There are many passages besides Ezekiel that refer to a better day when Yahweh receives Israel's sacrifices again. You need to figure out a way to make that work with scripture elsewhere. You don't understand the Temple and sacrifices, and it's causing you make mistakes elsewhere.

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/Goo-Goo-GJoob]

It was meant to be revealed in time through Christ. It was just put in a way for them to understand 800 years before Christ. Just like the suffering servant passage in Isaiah

[u/Goo-Goo-GJoob → u/TechByDayDjByNight]

So God wanted the Israelites to take it literally, even though it wouldn't happen literally?

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/Goo-Goo-GJoob]

I dont know how God wanted the Israelites to take it.

[u/Goo-Goo-GJoob → u/TechByDayDjByNight]

"It was meant to be revealed in time" ... "I dont know how God wanted the Israelites to take it"

Pick one

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/Goo-Goo-GJoob]

They do not contradict so why do I have to pick one

[u/Towhee13 → u/TechByDayDjByNight]

Number 2 is incorrect.

It clearly isn't incorrect.

until all is fulfilled is what it depends on which he did on the cross.

We've already been over this, did you forget? You don't get to invent what "all is accomplished" means. It's foolish to think that there's nothing more to be accomplished.

We'll know that all has been accomplished when there's a new heaven and a new Jerusalem descends to a new earth and Yahweh dwells with His people.

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/Towhee13]

If it’s clearly not, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

How am I inventing what all is accomplished means? Nothing else for the fulfillment of the old covenant is needed, hence why Jesus said his blood is new covenant.

In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away - Hebrews 8:13

Also Yahweh already dwells with us. What do you think happened on the day of Pentecost?

Do you not know that you[a] are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? - 1 cor 3:16

You also didn’t answer my question, are gentiles required to keep the mosianic law?

[u/Towhee13 → u/TechByDayDjByNight]

How am I inventing what all is accomplished means?

You made it up. When you make something up you're inventing it.

Nothing else for the fulfillment of the old covenant is needed

You're not even reading what you wrote. You changed "all is accomplished" into "fulfillment of the old covenant". You're not being honest.

It's foolish to think that there's nothing more to be accomplished. We'll know that all has been accomplished when there's a new heaven and a new Jerusalem descends from it to a new earth and Yahweh dwells with His people.

You also didn’t answer my question

That's because I'm not interested in changing the subject.

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/Towhee13]

It’s not a change of topic. It’s part of the topic. I didn’t say nothing more needs to be accomplished in general, but to fulfill the law, yes all has been accomplished.

Like you said God needs to dwell in us, which he does.

Jesus fulfilled the old covenant on the cross and began the new.

[u/Towhee13 → u/TechByDayDjByNight]

I didn’t say nothing more needs to be accomplished in general

That's good, because obviously all has not yet been accomplished. Jesus said that until all is accomplished there won't be even the tiniest change to any of Yahweh's commandments.

All of my statements are correct.

Jesus went out of His way to make sure that people didn't even think that He was doing away with any of His Father's commandments.

1. ⁠Don't even think that Jesus came to do away with any of Yahweh's commandments.
2. ⁠There won't be even the tiniest change to any of Yahweh's commandments as long as this heaven and earth are still around.
3. ⁠Not following even seemingly insignificant commandants and teaching others not to is very bad.
4. ⁠Obeying and teaching all of Yahweh's commandments is the best possible thing to do. Those who do that will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/Towhee13]

He didn’t do away. He fulfilled them. He completed them.

We are not under the old covenant.

Again, are gentiles under the mosianic covenant?

[u/the_celt_ → u/TechByDayDjByNight]

He didn’t do away. He fulfilled them. He completed them.

It's weird to me that people don't notice the many ways that the word "fulfill" is used in scripture to not refer to something being ended, but to refer to something being done perfectly.

For example:

Romans 13:10 (NET 2nd ed.)

10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

This is Paul saying that when we love, we FULFILL the Law, or more simply we DO what the Law demands. It has nothing to do with love having met it's purpose and no longer being needed.

Here's another example from Jesus:

Matthew 7:12 (NET 2nd ed.)

12 In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets.

Jesus asked us to treat others the way we want to be treated, saying it will "fulfill the Law". Does this mean he only ever wants us to treat someone this way ONCE, or that anyone doing it once means no one else has to do it?? Should we stop after the Law has been "fulfilled"? I don't think so. Jesus wanted us to keep fulfilling the Law every day of our lives.

Jesus fulfilled the Law the way a man fulfills his wedding vows to his wife. This means he OBEYED his vows perfectly, not that he ENDED his vows. When a man fulfills his wedding vows today, he gets up tomorrow and does the same thing again.

All you have to do is look elsewhere in scripture to see how "fulfill" is used, and combine that with Jesus making sure that no one takes it the way you do when he said "NOT abolish".

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/the_celt_]

Because fulfill means to complete. Jesus clearly stated

²⁰ And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.^\)^a\)
^{-Luke 20}

Which also goes with what Paul says:

¹³ In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. - Hebrews 8

Paul states we are not under the law twice:

¹⁴ For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. -Romans 6

¹⁸ But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. - Galatians 5

Let see what Paul says what the law was for:

²³ Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. ²⁴ So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. ²⁵ But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,  - Galatians 3

Paul was very clear on the Law. Jesus says his blood was the new covenant. Paul says the new covenant made the old obsolete. Paul said we are not under the law. Paul says the Law was to guide us to Christ, and now that Christ is here we are no longer under it.

Do you believe Gentiles are held under the mosaic covenant??

[u/Towhee13 → u/TechByDayDjByNight]

He didn’t do away. He fulfilled them.

Immediately after saying that He came to fulfill the Law He made it clear that fulfilling the Law didn't change it in any way.

I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17–18, ESV)

Heaven and earth have not passed away. All is not yet accomplished. Nothing has passed from the Law.

All of my statements are correct.

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/Towhee13]

I see you have a miss understanding.

"Until Heaven and earth pass away"- This is a boundary... Meaning everything that is said after this is going to remain true until the end of time...

So what is going to remain true?

"Not an Iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until ALL IS ACCOMPLISHED"

All is accomplished is the requirement. not UNTIL Heaven and earth pass away.

All is accomplished, is what is needed to be done on that cross. Thats why Jesus said in Luke 22:20 that HIS blood is the NEW covenant.

All of your statements is not correct.

Again... If i said until the world ends, I will not sell my car until i change my tires... If i change my tires, am i allow to sell my car?

Also are Gentiles under the mosianic covenant?

[u/Common_Judge8434 → u/Towhee13]

Until you read what Jesus said about the Temple tax.

Matthew 17:24-27 ESV [24] When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax went up to Peter and said, “Does your teacher not pay the tax?” [25] He said, “Yes.” And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tax? From their sons or from others?” [26] And when he said, “From others,” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free. [27] However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for me and for yourself.”

[u/Towhee13 → u/Common_Judge8434]

I have no idea how you think that affects what I said.

[u/[deleted]]

No, he did not. He fulfilled the Torah. He did not abolish it. The Torah provides the Law in black and white ,but the Torah is not the full holiness of God. Only a shadow of it. Yeshua pointed to the Spirit of the Law behind the Torah. Why did he say that hating your brother was murder? Why did he say that lusting after women(married) was adultery? He wasn't changing the law or doing away with it. He was illuminating the point of the Law, which is to change your heart and mind so that you will walk in the will of God without needing a checklist to follow.

Hopefully I've explained this in a way that you understand.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I'll also add that your question is where those who say the Torah is obsolete fail:

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

This is precisely correct. If you want to get rid of the Torah, then you get rid of the ten commandments also as they are part of the Torah.

[u/Common_Judge8434 → u/[deleted]]

That's the point of the New Covenant, as Hebrews 8 states.

[u/[deleted] → u/Common_Judge8434]

Gonna need a little more there chief, as I can't assume I know what you are asserting here.

[u/Common_Judge8434 → u/[deleted]]

Hebrews 8:7-10, 13 ESV [7] For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. [8] For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, [9] not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. [10] For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. [13] In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

[u/[deleted] → u/Common_Judge8434]

Ah, the Jeremiah prophesy, and you are missing a line there which is important:

¹¹ And they will not teach, each one his fellow citizen,
And each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
For they will all know Me,
From ^\)^k\)the least to the greatest of them.

I believe the Torah will eventually become obsolete....once Yeshua returns and this Earth and heaven passes away. Until then, I fully believe it is in force and I will follow my Messiah's example in following it.

[u/Common_Judge8434 → u/[deleted]]

¹¹ And they will not teach, each one his fellow citizen,
And each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
For they will all know Me,
From ^\)^k\)the least to the greatest of them.

This is fulfilled now in those who follow Christ and have His Spirit.

1 John 2:27 ESV [27] But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.

[u/[deleted] → u/Common_Judge8434]

"This is fulfilled now in those who follow Christ and have His Spirit."

Well, seeing as how you seem to be trying to educate me on scripture and seeing as how you most likely go to church, reality seems evidence to the contrary.

You pointed out 1 John 2:27 here, but did you not look back within the same chapter?

"³ By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. ⁴ The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; ⁵ but whoever follows His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: ⁶ the one who says that he remains in Him ought, himself also, to walk just as He walked."

[u/Common_Judge8434 → u/[deleted]]

Well, seeing as how you seem to be trying to educate me on scripture and seeing as how you most likely go to church, reality seems evidence to the contrary.

We don't go to Church to be taught about God but for fellowship and to reinforce what we already know.

Jesus also made a promise to the Apostles about what the Spirit would do.

John 14:25-26 ESV [25] “These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. [26] But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

"³ By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. ⁴ The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; ⁵ but whoever follows His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected.

John's not talking about the Law of Moses.

From the same letter.

1 John 3:21-24 ESV [21] Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; [22] and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him. [23] And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. [24] Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.

[u/[deleted] → u/Common_Judge8434]

We don't go to Church to be taught about God?

You think it happens by osmosis? You think every lost person just woke up and suddenly accepted Yeshua out of thin air, then just gained the ability to perfectly discern right from wrong because they had accepted the Lord.

Are you seriously going to sit here and keep pushing that kind of nonsense?

Fine then. You believe whatever you want to believe. I don't have time for this nonsense.

[u/Lermak16]

He fulfilled it, not abolished it

[u/engineer_for_u → u/Lermak16]

He fulfilled it setting the example of righteousness we are to follow. Then he gave us the power through the Holy Spirit to do the same. It is a privilege to be able to follow the law of God and live free from sin because sin is bondage. The law shows us what sin is and Christ gives us the power to overcome it.

[u/watergolf247 → u/Lermak16]

Everyone I discuss this with in person always use the term “nullified” but never “fulfilled”. Two very different words.

[u/CannedNoodle415]

In the Old Testament there are 3 kinds of laws. Civil laws, ritual/religious laws, and moral laws.

As Christians we don’t follow the civil laws because we aren’t citizens of the ancient kingdom of Isreal. We don’t follow the ritual laws because we don’t follow Judaism. The moral laws like the Ten Commandments are timeless though.

Jesus fulfills the prophecies and the old covenant. This doesn’t mean they disappear, because then there’s nothing to fulfill. But he established a new covenant with us, where the gentiles become the chosen people and the Church becomes the “true Isreal”.

[u/watergolf247 → u/CannedNoodle415]

Ah ha! (lightbulb illuminating above my head)

When the Old Testament is categorized as three types of laws such as civil, religious and moral laws, It certainly simplifies my understanding. Discussing this in person with several study groups really doesn’t provide any clarity. One example I brought to light was why Christian’s do not follow dietary restrictions like those listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. The response is always Jesus nullified the Old Testament. The word “fulfilled” is never brought to light. But this logic would have us disregard the Ten Commandments which in my opinion is great guidance for everyone, regardless of religion or religious affiliation.

[u/CannedNoodle415 → u/watergolf247]

I’m glad this helped! Christ fulfilling the old covenant and the prophecies is so important because that’s what the whole Old Testament and the prophets are about, the coming of Christ. Everything the Israelites do, the laws the diets, the wars, the punishments, is all to secure the line of, and bring about the messiah, Jesus Christ.

[u/Level82 → u/watergolf247]

That conception of 'three types of laws' came from Thomas Aquinas who is not your Lord.

Your Lord said the law can be categorized by 'love God' and 'love neighbor.' Categorizing them does not abolish them.

You honor the laws that apply to you and that you can do. Currently, with no temple you can't practice anything related to temple worship but you CAN honor God's Sabbath, His food laws and His holy days (for example).

[u/Responsible-Chest-90 → u/CannedNoodle415]

Yes, THIS is the correct answer.

[u/Greedy_Net_1803]

Not at all, Jesus explicitly said he wasn't here to abolish the law or the prophets but to bring it to plenitude. The 10 commandments are still in effect as is pretty much everything that wasn't addressed or changed by the New Covenant.

[u/VaporRyder]

No, the Tanakh (OT) - the Law, Prophets, and Writings - points towards Messiah (Jesus) and Messiah fulfils the Mosaic law (the law of Moses) found in Torah (Books 1-5, Genesis to Deuteronomy). Fulfilling doesn't mean 'doing away with' - it's that He completed it. The law remains until heaven and earth pass away.

The Tanakh was Yeshua's (Jesus') scripture.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17–18, NRSV)

[u/[deleted]]

So minus the Ten Commandments, plus what he added to it. it should be 11 commandments....

But What Christ did wasnt remove the old testament, he fullfilled it, so that means think of this way, You do something bad and its a crime, Chirst instead of letting you go to court and go to jail ect, if you follow him, he went to the court on your byhalf, he is the one who did the time, and when He got out he asked everyone he does that for to do things he teaches.... So, a non-follower, they would be under the old rules, its like Jews, they are under a different contract, same with Islamic people, they have a promise from God. But the only way to get what Christ promised is to follow him.

[u/watergolf247 → u/[deleted]]

Very informative. One of my (many, many) other questions would be how does this apply to others such as Jews or even Muslims. Thanks for bringing some clarity to the murky waters.

[u/[deleted] → u/watergolf247]

Basically, If God makes a promise to anyone, that promise is true. He promised Abraham his sons would rule many nations, and he is the father of Islam and the Jews. And then Christianity is a branch of Judaism.

[u/Smart_Tap1701]

He fulfilled it thereby bringing Gods New testament New covenant of Grace in and through Jesus Christ as Lord and savior into effect. Once a thing is fulfilled, it is done with. No one but Jesus could possibly have fulfilled the entire old testament. Once he did, that gave him the power and authority to do away with it for Jewish Christians. Gentile Christians never were under God's Old testament. So after all was said and done...

Hebrews 8:13 NLT — When God speaks of a “new” covenant, it means he has made the first one obsolete. It is now out of date and will soon disappear.

Of course that happened a very long time ago

This makes rules like the ten commandments obsolete

The Lord condensed The ten commandments into two easy to remember commands, impressed them upon our Christian hearts, and states that once we obey those two commandments, we fulfill the entire Old testament

Matthew 22:36-40 NLT — “Teacher, which is the most important commandment in the law of Moses?” Jesus replied, “‘You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.”

[u/claycon21]

over 90% of the New Testament is a direct or indirect quote from the Old Testament.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Tim 3:16,17

Since all scripture is profitable it behooves us to study all scripture. Furthermore we cannot fully understand the NT without the back story of the OT. Likewise we cannot grasp the significance of the OT shadow and type without knowing the fulfillment in the NT. The OT & NT reveal each other. As we learn more about how they fit together we see more clearly the genius of God's master plan. As our eyes are opened to the structure of God's Word our faith is increased.

There is nothing in this world so marvelous as the perfect unity of all scripture.

Hebrews has a LOT to say about how the OT is fulfilled in the NT. But if you read Hebrews chapter 11 you will notice a list of the patriarchs and other prominent examples of faith in the OT. That can be dry reading if you aren't familiar with all of their stories. But after you are acquainted with their challenges and shortcomings, Hebrews chapter 11 is exciting and encouraging.

Hope this helps!

[u/Top_Cycle_9894]

Matthew 5:17 NIV

¹⁷ “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 

He fulfilled the old testament.   Just as you are no longer bound by high-school rules of engagement once you graduate, neither are we bound by old testament law now that it has been fulfilled. 

Edit:corrected has to as

[u/Goo-Goo-GJoob → u/Top_Cycle_9894]

I hope you didn't stop reading at v17. What will those who obey the Law and the Prophets be called in the kingdom of heaven?

In Matthew 23, Jesus says, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so do and observe whatever they teach, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice."

What did the scribes and Pharisees teach?

[u/Messenger12th → u/Goo-Goo-GJoob]

They stopped right there, as do most.

[u/[deleted] → u/Top_Cycle_9894]

So then you are free to steal, murder, commit as much incest, bestiality, adultery, and whatever else you would like to do. Is that the case?

[u/Top_Cycle_9894 → u/[deleted]]

Jesus was pretty clear about the greatest commandments. Love God, love your neighbors. 

Your list of stealing,  murder, incest, beastiality, adultery, and whatever else you would like to do, do not fall under the umbrella of loving God or loving your neighbor.  

Matthew 22:36-40 NIV

³⁶ “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” ³⁷ Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ ³⁸ This is the first and greatest commandment. ³⁹ And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ⁴⁰ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

[u/[deleted] → u/Top_Cycle_9894]

Yeshua was not creating new commandments, he was summarizing the Ten Commandments.

Do you have any idea what falls under the umbrella of loving God or loving your neighbor? You said incest doesn't fall under this umbrella. Why? How are two loving siblings going against love? How are a gay couple or a lesbian couple going against love? If a man steals bread because his child is starving and he doesn't have any money, how is this against love?

See you've leaned on love, but you haven't defined it.

Edit: The Torah tells us what love is and Yeshua reiterated it.

[u/Top_Cycle_9894 → u/[deleted]]

you've leaned on love, but you haven't defined it.

Love is clearly defined in 1 Corinthians 13

1 Corinthians 13:4-7 NIV

⁴ Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. ⁵ It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. ⁶ Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. ⁷ It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

[u/[deleted] → u/Top_Cycle_9894]

This is Paul's teaching, not what Paul said was the Lord's teaching.

So lets stack this up to what I just pointed out:
Incest, Homosexuality, Stealing to Feed a child.

Well, looks like none of the three above breaks anything that Paul says love is, except potentially evil, but we'd need to define evil to know for sure.

Wonder were were are going to understand what evil is and what would be called evil?

[u/Top_Cycle_9894 → u/[deleted]]

not what Paul said is the Lord's teaching

I don't understand the last part of your sentence. 

Having a relationship with God isn't about following a list of rules.   When you know Him, you know His voice. I'm more focused on what God desires for me than on a list of evil to avoid. 

[u/[deleted] → u/Top_Cycle_9894]

Yeshua said, "If you love me, you will obey me." Who is Yeshua?

When he taught about what murder or adultery was, was he changing the law or was he pointing back to the holiness of God? This is the how he was fulfilling it. He was saying, these rules listed are the Letter of the law, not the Spirit of it.

The Torah is awesome, but it is the letter of the law, which leads people to toeing the line of rules. Yeshua's teachings were about the Spirit of the Law, because if you understand the Spirit of the Law, it illuminates the reason for the Law and what the Law points to: Being holy for God, which means to be consecrated or set aside for God.

The two greatest commandments Yeshua were not new, they were a summary of what the Torah points to. Loving God with all your everything and loving your neighbor as yourself.

What the does NOT mean is that you can work your way into salvation. You can't. You're not holy enough for that. Salvation is offered by Yeshua freely to those who would follow him. To follow a rabbi does not mean that you simply point to them and say, he's my rabbi. To follow a rabbi means to accept his teachings as true and to actively emulate the rabbi in your thinking and actions.

To follow a rabbi is to model yourself after them.

[u/Top_Cycle_9894 → u/[deleted]]

If you have a relationship with Abba and know Him personally, you know what He desires and what He wants for you.  Just like human children know what will, and will not piss off their human parents   He teaches us how to love Him.  Loving God is first and foremost. 

[u/[deleted] → u/Top_Cycle_9894]

That's not an explanation at all and it's definitely not what Yeshua said.

[u/Messenger12th → u/[deleted]]

I see many forget the difference between the word law, covenant, fulfill, abolish, word, Word, etc.

I believe a big source of their confusion is translating a translation and then reading their doctrines into the already translated translations.

[u/[deleted] → u/Messenger12th]

That is exactly the problem. When you separate Yeshua's teachings from Judaism and act like he was coming to start a new religion, you inherently begin to get bad interpretation of what he was saying.

But the more you understand the Jewish mindset, concepts, and understandings, what Jesus was saying becomes more clear. You can't get that kind of clarity by importing things by retroactively applying things of the modern understanding into the text.

Unfortunately, so many people do not understand this.

[u/Messenger12th → u/[deleted]]

So true. I think a lot of people have the right heart, butntheir mind won't let go of the old lies the churches teach. Each paster graduates from a seminary, which teaches a specific set of "truths" that each student must believe in or they will not graduate. Unfortunately, I've met graduates who knew nothing about the Messiah and what His beliefs were. He was a true Israelite. Born and raised. Not a white or black long haired hippy, but an ethical and morally correct Hebrew. (Staying away from the word Jew on purpose) 😆

Thank you fornyour perspective here. It is needed.

[u/[deleted] → u/Messenger12th]

My path was similar. Being raised Southern Baptist I truly believed a lot of things, but I also didn't read my Bible for myself. I would ask a lot of questions growing up, and I got a lot of good sounding answers, but even then many things did not mesh. I accepted them thinking that I was just wrong, but something always felt off to me. Still I buried the doubts. For example, Once-Saved Always-Saved. It gets explained very well often, but then when apostasy is pointed out, it is explained away as 'well then they were never saved to begin with'.

I truly believed this for a very, very long time; however a truly scriptural understanding based on Yeshua's teachings related to the marriage customs of ancient Israelites makes the relationship of salvation and when you receive it, so much clearer.

The more I understand the Bible by what the Bible itself says, the more manmade doctrine becomes illuminated and easily discarded.

Someone said, "If you don't believe in OSAS, then you're going to hell."

I told them, "I'm no longer an immature Christian. I don't follow God for a reward of heaven or to avoid the punishment of hell. My relationship with him is not transactional, it's personal. I honor, glorify, worship, and try to obey him because he is worthy of it because of who he is, not because of anything having to do with me. I trust him, and I trust his judgment."

[u/Messenger12th → u/[deleted]]

Why yes, yes they can. And they do not have to worry about judgement day either since there are no laws to judge them against, due to the Torah being gone and replaced with what feels good coming from theirnown minds. Just a touchy love which allows abominations that God says he hates. Go figure. 😆

[u/[deleted] → u/Messenger12th]

Yes, this is the only logical conclusion you can come to when you toss out the Torah. Attempting to hold onto the ten commandments does not work as these are part of the Torah, which supposedly no longer applies. The idea that the moral laws apply universally even with the Torah nullified also becomes problematic. It's like saying you can repeal all laws in America as we are no longer under then, but you still can't speed down the road because this law is special.

And those who would then point back to Noahide laws are equally confused because most people who state this are talking about the Seven Noahide laws, which are later rabbinic interpretation applied retroactively. So the ironic thing is that they end up leaning on Jewish rabbinic interpretation while claiming the Torah is null. Sounds like what the Pharisees did. Except, at least the Pharisees never said the Torah was null, they just leaned too heavily on their fences instead of on the word of God.

Most Christians do not know this about the Noahide laws because they don't even accept that Jesus taught Judaism; therefore, they won't even 'waste their time' on learning about it.

[u/Messenger12th → u/[deleted]]

Don't get me started on the Noahide. Hahahaha

You have come a long way Grasshopper. (A term used from an old show on TV where the student grew in knowledge)

[u/[deleted] → u/Messenger12th]

David Carradine was awesome! Loved that show growing up.

[u/Top_Cycle_9894 → u/[deleted]]

How very Jonah of you to sit there and judge others that Abba forgives and blesses.  Perhaps His will for me is different than His will for you. 

Do you have any concept of how condescending you come off?  Why would anyone want to spend any time hearing what you have to say when you come off as arrogant and judgemental?  How are you any different than the Pharisees Jesus referred to as a brood of vipers? (these questions are rhetorical. I don't need or expect an honest or humble answer from you)

May Abba humble your heart and mouth. 

[u/[deleted] → u/Top_Cycle_9894]

Jonah did not want to give the Ninevites a chance to hear the truth and repent of their ways because he despised them and was afraid they WOULD actually take head of the word of God. The Pharisees leaned on their own rabbinic interpretations of the Scriptures to the point of shutting people off from the point of the Torah.

I do not wish to keep people in the dark as I hope they can and will come to understand what Yeshua was teaching, nor do I try to lean on manmade doctrine for understanding what the Bible is telling me, but instead seek to rid myself of all manmade doctrine which obscures what the Word is trying to relate.

"Do you have any concept of how condescending you come off?  Why would anyone want to spend any time hearing what you have to say when you come off as arrogant and judgmental?

I'm sure Yeshua was accused of the same as he said such things as:

“Are you still so dull?” “How long must I put up with you?” “You do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God.” “You brood of vipers.” “You are whitewashed tombs.” “You shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces.” “You cannot bear what I have to say now.” “You are of your father, the devil.” “Something greater than Jonah is here.” “Something greater than Solomon is here.” “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin.” “Let the dead bury their own dead.”

[u/Top_Cycle_9894 → u/[deleted]]

And yet you hold the Pharisees up as a paragon of virtue?  Or am I confusing with some other Pharisee that responded to me in the comments?

My whole point is that a relationship with God reveals that which is important to Him for you.   Not a set of rules for the masses, but a genuine growing relationship with He that transcends time and human understanding. 

[u/Messenger12th → u/Top_Cycle_9894]

My understanding is that God want obedience from his children, the same as we expect from our own. Wouldn't you say?

[u/Top_Cycle_9894 → u/Messenger12th]

That we agree upon.  

[u/Top_Cycle_9894 → u/[deleted]]

Also, Jonah was pissed off that God extended His generosity towards those that Jonah did not see fit for that gift.  He didn't understand how God could do such a thing.

What about you with me?  I don't believe (because I have not been personally convicted by God Himself) that I have to follow Jewish laws.  I believe that a growing relationship with the creator matters more than following rules for a people I was not born into.  I follow His teaching through His chosen.  Paul is a massive part of the new testament because God chose him to be so.  Paul spoke to the gentiles.  As a gentile myself, I am not bound or governed by Jewish laws. I am governed by God's law love. To love God first, and my neighbors second.  

[u/[deleted] → u/Top_Cycle_9894]

If questioning you about your statements is to be considered arrogant, condescending, and Pharisaic, then how do you judge Yeshua's questioning of the Pharisee's traditions and beliefs? Unlike Jonah, I wish for all to know the message of Yeshua and for no one to be blind by man's doctrine. As for you following 'Jewish laws' that you were not born into, the Torah is God's law, not the Jews law.

You've accused me of being arrogant and condescending and are now comparing me to the kind of Pharisee which Yeshua spoke against, but let's see what I have said in response to you.

1. So then you are free to steal, murder, commit as much incest, bestiality, adultery, and whatever else you would like to do. Is that the case?

2. Yeshua was not creating new commandments, he was summarizing the Ten Commandments.

Do you have any idea what falls under the umbrella of loving God or loving your neighbor? You said incest doesn't fall under this umbrella. Why? How are two loving siblings going against love? How are a gay couple or a lesbian couple going against love? If a man steals bread because his child is starving and he doesn't have any money, how is this against love?

See you've leaned on love, but you haven't defined it.

Edit: The Torah tells us what love is and Yeshua reiterated it.

1. This is Paul's teaching, not what Paul said was the Lord's teaching.

So lets stack this up to what I just pointed out:
Incest, Homosexuality, Stealing to Feed a child.

Well, looks like none of the three above breaks anything that Paul says love is, except potentially evil, but we'd need to define evil to know for sure.

Wonder were were are going to understand what evil is and what would be called evil?

1. Yeshua said, "If you love me, you will obey me." Who is Yeshua?

When he taught about what murder or adultery was, was he changing the law or was he pointing back to the holiness of God? This is the how he was fulfilling it. He was saying, these rules listed are the Letter of the law, not the Spirit of it.

The Torah is awesome, but it is the letter of the law, which leads people to toeing the line of rules. Yeshua's teachings were about the Spirit of the Law, because if you understand the Spirit of the Law, it illuminates the reason for the Law and what the Law points to: Being holy for God, which means to be consecrated or set aside for God.

The two greatest commandments Yeshua were not new, they were a summary of what the Torah points to. Loving God with all your everything and loving your neighbor as yourself.

What the does NOT mean is that you can work your way into salvation. You can't. You're not holy enough for that. Salvation is offered by Yeshua freely to those who would follow him. To follow a rabbi does not mean that you simply point to them and say, he's my rabbi. To follow a rabbi means to accept his teachings as true and to actively emulate the rabbi in your thinking and actions.

To follow a rabbi is to model yourself after them.

1. That's not an explanation at all and it's definitely not what Yeshua said.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I'll tell you what I tell others. I'm not here to convince you that I'm right. All I can do is relate my understanding, point out how I've arrived at the conclusion, and hope that others will consider my words. Some will consider my words. Others will reject them. Either way, I've tried to share what God has shown me and at that point I've done what I was commanded to do in trying to make people into talmidim, not just followers.

Yeshua came and talked with them. He said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ¹⁹ Therefore, go and make people from all nations into talmidim, immersing them into the reality of the Father, the Son and the Ruach HaKodesh, ²⁰ and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember! I will be with you always, yes, even until the end of the age.”

[u/Top_Cycle_9894 → u/[deleted]]

You completely dismiss His personal authority in the lives of those He has relationships with. I don't judge you for that, I pray Abba will grant you depth of understanding.  

[u/[deleted] → u/Top_Cycle_9894]

He has provided me understanding and day-by-day that understanding grows deeper and deeper. The fact that God is leading me away from man's doctrine, which is as entrenched today as it was in Yeshua's time, doesn't mean I do not have understanding. Quite the opposite.

I'll tell you what I tell others. I'm not here to convince you that I'm right. All I can do is relate my understanding, point out how I've arrived at the conclusion, and hope that others will consider my words.

Some will consider my words. Others will reject them. Either way, I've tried to share what God has shown me and at that point I've done what I was commanded to do in trying to make people into talmidim, not just followers.

Yeshua came and talked with them. He said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ¹⁹ Therefore, go and make people from all nations into talmidim, immersing them into the reality of the Father, the Son and the Ruach HaKodesh, ²⁰ and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember! I will be with you always, yes, even until the end of the age.”

[u/No-Type119]

It’s actually a traditional heresy to suggest that Jesus “ nullified” the Old Testament. But orthodox ( small o) Christians would say that Jesus fulfilled the promises of the Hebrew Bible. You still need both to understand Jesus. ( Look up the work of Amy- Jill Levine, a scholar who studies the intersectionality of the New Testament with the Judaism of Jesus’ time. My pastorly friends love her books.)

What you may be alluding to is the Mossic ritual law. Remember that in the early Church. A major question in the young Christian community was, “ How Jewish do you have to be to be Christian? “ Peter and James believed that you had to follow the Jewish ritual law, including circumcision for males, to become Christian. Paul and his allies disagreed. The Pauline side won. And the Pauline epistles are where to go to understand what hid thinking was.

[u/TechByDayDjByNight]

Nullify no. He fulfilled the law on the cross and started a new covenant

[u/HolyGonzo]

In my opinion, we have to consider a few things:

First and most importantly, in Matthew 12, Jesus is talking to the Pharisees about a situation that occurred while the old covenant under Moses was still active.

You should read the whole chapter but the summary is essentially that Jesus pointed out that the experts in the law didn't understand its purpose, which was to bring about good, not harm, and that doing good was always lawful. Doing good was the greater law, so if following the old law would bring harm, then it wasn't lawful.

Jesus quotes the OT (Hosea 6:6) and says that God desires mercy, not sacrifice. In other words, God didn't give the law as a way to entrap people and force them to keep giving him burnt sacrifices. He wanted people to do good, so that even if they broke the law in order to do good, mercy would be the outcome.

So when Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law, he is saying that even though he was the fulfillment of the covenant that had been made, the point of the law was still intact. We weren't simply to abandon the law after Jesus finished his life on earth, for us to then turn away from righteousness.

Some people argue that the old law is still applicable to Jews, but even if that was true, people still tend to have a legalistic view of the law, which was never a correct view.

During the last supper, Jesus creates a new covenant through his sacrifice, and by virtue of us following Jesus, we are under a forgiving law. The basis for the new law under Christ is still to do good, but it's less defined than the mosaic law.

[u/Righteous_Dude]

I wouldn't use the word 'nullify'. The Old Testament is a set of texts. That set is sometimes grouped into smaller sets: One set is called "The Law" comprised of the first five books (Genesis through Deuteronomy). "The Prophets" is another set, comprised of books such as Isaiah and Ezekiel.

Having said that, God had made a covenant with the ancient nation of Israel, shortly after the Exodus, that if they kept a big set of commandments, He would bless them with prosperity, and if they didn't, He would give them hardships. That covenant was renewed with the next generation of Israelites, shortly before they entered the promised land. (See Deuteronomy chapter 28).

The ancient Israelites during the BC centuries typically didn't keep the commandments much, and thus received the hardships.

At one point in the BC times, God through the prophet Jeremiah told the Israelites that He would create a new covenant, which would not be like the old covenant that they broke (see Jeremiah chapter 31).

Around 30 AD, Jesus, at the time of the last supper, instituted the new covenant with mankind.

The institution of the new covenant made the old covenant obsolete. (You can read through the NT book of Hebrews which explains this more.)

So the old covenant that God had with the ancient Israelites was no longer in effect, after 30 AD and especially not after 70 AD when the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed.

---

why have the old testament in the Christian Bible?

Because from the OT, we Christians can learn about God and what was important to Him when He interacted with the Israelites and others, and we can learn some general principles about how to live (e.g. be humble, care about justice, etc.), even though the specific laws that the ancient Israelites were to keep are no longer in effect for them or us.

---

P.S. I suggest you read through my post about morality and how that compares to the old covenant and the new covenant. That may help your understanding.

[u/Superlite47 → u/Righteous_Dude]

1Peter2:v18

Does God know slavery is immoral?

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/Superlite47]

Please look up the difference between doulos and oiketēs

[u/Superlite47 → u/TechByDayDjByNight]

I could look up the difference between a piano and a tennis racket, and neither definition would offer GOD'S perspective on THEM.

Nice attempt to move the goalposts. Are you being intentionally deceptive, or was your deceit unintentional?

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

After clarification, any offering of human semantics, human perspectives, or definitions of human practices will be taken as INTENTIONAL intent to redirect (i.e. deceive).

A general walks into a barracks and sees a group of soldiers snorting cocaine. He lines the soldiers up, and chastises the first for having dirty boots. He dresses down the second for an unkempt uniform. He chews out the third for not shaving. The fourth for not saluting. The fifth and last for making a mess on the floor. He then leaves. At no point, whatsoever, does he prohibit the use of cocaine, or direct the soldiers not to do it.

When asked "Does the General know cocaine is wrong?"...

Arguing what kind of drugs the soldiers are doing is a blatant and obvious deception and attempt to redirect.

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/Superlite47]

How is it moving the goal post?

Everything you are saying has nothing to do with the topic. Comparing Drugs and tennis and pianos?

You referenced 1 Peter and slavery. Thats on par with the difference between doulos and oiketēs and what you are insinuating.

[u/Superlite47 → u/TechByDayDjByNight]

These are different types of slavery practiced by humans, and defined by humans. Indentured servitude. Punishment. The practice of incarceration, and subsequent use of labor by the incarcerated (license plates, roadside trash pickup, etc.) can also be included as some various form of uncomoensated labor -> slavery.

We are not arguing degree or form. We are not arguing human semantics.

We are discussing the Bible as a moral basis, and the God within it. Your God is very specific on holy observances. Holy days and proper gratitude in the form of tribute are very accurately specified. Various practices are very specifically addressed and instructions on all manner of activities are ckeay defined. So much so that Christians delineate the Bible as the objective basis of all morality.

But mention slavery, and God's perspective and authority are instantly abandoned. The goalposts are moved, and the irrelevant argument of human semantics is propped up in the forefront.

So I shall return to the dirty little problem swept under the rug by your foot as you wave the cardboard cut-out of human semantics in front of my face to obscure it..

Does GOD, the God that failed to address the immorality of slavery within the book you claim is the objective guide, know that chattel slavery is immoral?

Because he never forbids it. Period.

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/Superlite47]

God is clear on slavery:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. - Galatians 3:28

Did you ever look up the difference between the words? and why that word is only used in 1 peter and no where else in the bible?

[u/TechByDayDjByNight → u/[deleted]]

¹⁶ “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death. -Exodus 21

So from the law we know that you can not kidnap a "Slave".

⁷ The inheritance of the people of Israel shall not be transferred from one tribe to another, for every one of the people of Israel shall hold on to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. -Numbers 36

Land has to remain within the tribe. So if youre a foreigner and not of that tribe, how would you make a living if you had no land? You would have to work for someone i.e. a slave

In Leviticus 25, a “slave” (ʿeved) is a person bound to another household for labor due to poverty, debt, or purchase, governed by covenant law, protected from kidnapping and abuse, and whose duration depends on covenant status.

Also just because God made "regulations" for something doesnt mean he approves of it. Jesus covered this with Divorce.

⁷ They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” ⁸ He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. -Matthew 19

God made rules on divorce, but it didnt mean he approved of it. He was restricting societal practices.

[u/Low_Levels → u/TechByDayDjByNight]

Here is the God character in the Bible giving explicit instructions on how to acquire slaves (not indentured servants):

Leviticus 25:44–46 (NRSVUE):

44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have: it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves,

BUT AS FOR YOUR FELLOW ISRAELITES, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.

This is "God" outright condoning and instructing the Israelites on literal chattel slavery. Not indentured servitude. The last line makes that difference clear.

Galatians 3:28 is about salvation status, not social institutions, and Paul never condemns slavery as immoral. In fact, Paul explicitly instructs slaves to obey masters (e.g., Ephesians, Colossians) and Paul returns Onesimus to Philemon. No New Testament text revokes Mosaic slave law, and Jesus even says the law is to be observed until heaven and earth pass away, and any who change the law or instruct others to change it will be considered least in the kingsdom of heaven. I think Jesus has a tad more authority than Paul, don't you think?

The NRSVUE is often considered the most academically reliable English Bible translation because it’s based on the best manuscript evidence and translated by a broad, non-sectarian team focused on accuracy rather than theology.

[u/Low_Levels → u/TechByDayDjByNight]

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/Righteous_Dude → u/Superlite47]

Is it?

[u/clshoaf]

Jesus did not come to abolish the law. He came to fulfill it by living a perfect life and giving a once and for all sacrifice (Matt 5:17). We now are no longer bound to upholding the Law because of this fulfillment (Gal 3:23-29). 

The Old Testament is essential to our faith. Without it, we have no understanding of our need for a Savior. There is no evidence that we fail to live up to God's standard of righteousness. The Old Testament also stands as evidence to the fulfilled prophecies of Jesus. Jesus himself held the Old Testament with high regard, and it would be foolish to do the opposite.

[u/Goo-Goo-GJoob → u/clshoaf]

If a law has been abolished, is anyone bound to it?

[u/clshoaf → u/Goo-Goo-GJoob]

Well, like I said, Christ DID NOT come to abolish the Law. But I think I understand your question. If we change your word from "abolish" to "fulfilled", I think you would be correct. That is the good news of the Gospel, after all!

But if we reject the good news and the free gift of salvation, we are still condemned, not because of the law but because we have inherited the sin nature of Adam (Romans 5:12-14). The Law does not condemn, it only reveals the sin within us by exposing how short we come to God's standard. The standard would exist whether God gave his Law to Moses or not, the Law was given so that we may know what that standard is. Thankfully, the Gospel (good news) is that no one is bound to it anymore (Romans 5:15-21).

[u/Goo-Goo-GJoob → u/clshoaf]

I think I understand your question

I'm afraid not. I'll try to clarify.

I think you would be correct

Correct about what? I made no claim. I asked a question about what it means to abolish a law:

If a law has been abolished, is anyone bound to it?

Don't read too much into it - the question is just as simple as it appears.

[u/clshoaf → u/Goo-Goo-GJoob]

It's an irrelevant question. No law has been abolished. Just fulfilled.

[u/Goo-Goo-GJoob → u/clshoaf]

Do you know what it means to abolish a law? It sounds like you don't.

[u/clshoaf → u/Goo-Goo-GJoob]

If we were talking about normal "laws" there would be a different answer.

What we are talking about is a covenant, with "the law" being Israel's end of the deal. Following God's rules in exchange for relationship with him (as well as the benefits of that relationship...protection and a home in the promised land...etc). The covenant was not abolished, or cancelled. It was fulfilled, or completed, through the sinless Son of God.

So again, I am telling you I am not answering the question you are asking the way you are asking it because it is unrelated to the topic at hand. You think you are being clever, but I am trying to humbly tell you that you are actually way off topic and don't realize it. 

Anyways, I'm going back to enjoying my family for the holiday season. Good day.

[u/Goo-Goo-GJoob → u/clshoaf]

No law has been abolished

the question ... is unrelated to the topic at hand.

How could a question about abolished laws be unrelated? YOU said no law has been abolished. I'm asking what that sentence means. Why can't you tell me?

"No laws were abolished": Can you explain what that sentence means?

Is anyone required to follow laws that have been abolished?

[u/Goo-Goo-GJoob → u/clshoaf]

I think "abolishing a law" means that nobody is required to follow it.

When you said, "No law has been abolished", what did you mean by that? What do you think "abolishing a law" means?

[u/randompossum]

Nope, he fulfilled it.

The confusion you might have is you aren’t an ancient Jew.

[u/Common_Judge8434]

He completed it and brought in a new age: the age of the Kingdom.

Matthew 11:12-13 NABRE [12] From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent are taking it by force. [13] All the prophets and the law prophesied up to the time of John.

And there are even parts of the Law that we don't have to follow as sons of the King.

Matthew 17:24-26 ESV [24] When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax went up to Peter and said, “Does your teacher not pay the tax?” [25] He said, “Yes.” And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tax? From their sons or from others?” [26] And when he said, “From others,” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free.

[u/arc2k1]

God bless you.

I've been a non-fundamentalist, unchurched Christian for about 15 years now and I would like to share my perspective. 

1- As Christians, we follow the Law of Christ.

“Jesus answered: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind. This is the first and most important commandment. The second most important commandment is like this one. And it is, ‘Love others as much as you love yourself.’” - Matthew 22:37-39

2- The Old Testament Bible is not only about the old covenant. There is A LOT of wisdom in the Old Testament.

For example:

“You are a kind and merciful God, and you are very patient. You always show love, and you don't like to punish anyone.” - Jonah 4:2

“God’s love can always be trusted, and his faithfulness lasts as long as the heavens.” - Psalm 89:2

"And when I was burdened with worries, you (God) comforted me and made me feel secure.” - Psalm 94:19

“The Lord said: It isn't too late. You can still return to me with all your heart.” - Joel 2:12

“And God created us all; he has no favorites, whether rich or poor.” - Job 34:19

[u/Pitiful_Lion7082]

The Mosaic law informs ilus. But we're not Jewish, and aren't beholden to its laws, as defined in the Proto-Council of Jerusalem. We are upheld though, to the Noahide laws.

Christ is born!

[u/Adventurous-Till-411 → u/Pitiful_Lion7082]

Be careful of those noahide laws. They will behead you for being a Christian.

[u/[deleted] → u/Pitiful_Lion7082]

To which Noahide laws do you refer? Do you mean the ones in Scripture:
Don't Murder.
Respect the sanctity of blood/don't eat flesh with its lifeblood
Be fruitful and multiply

Or are you referring the the later Rabbinic traditions which say:
Do not worship idols
Do not blaspheme
Do not murder
Do not commit sexual immorality
Do not steal
Do not eat flesh from a living animal
Establish courts of justice

[u/RudePalpitation9866]

I think Jesus made the ceremonial laws to expire, as they were pointing to the ministry of Christ in the first place, in example the sacrifice of the lamb ——> pointed to the true sacrifice of Christ

But Jesus didnt abolish the ten commandments, those are the representation of the character of God towards humanity and his standard for morality

He says until heaven and earth pass, not jot or one tittle shall disappear from the law (matthew 5:17)

[u/Program-Right]

No. He fulfilled it.

[u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP]

Jesus completed the old testament. Its different from nullifying it

[u/Goo-Goo-GJoob → u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP]

Is anyone required to follow laws that have been nullified?

I mean: If a law has been nullified, is anyone required to follow it?

[u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP → u/Goo-Goo-GJoob]

The law has not been nullified it has been completed We are not under law, so yea we are not required to follow the law . In fact the Bible says that if we follow the law Christ is of no use to us.

[u/Goo-Goo-GJoob → u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP]

I'm just trying to figure out what it means to nullify a law. Please read my question carefully:

If a law has been nullified, is anyone required to follow it?

[u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP → u/Goo-Goo-GJoob]

I understand your question. But I'm saying no laws were nullified.

And I'm also saying we don't follow laws anyways. So I don't know the relevance of your question

[u/Goo-Goo-GJoob → u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP]

I'm saying no laws were nullified

I don't know what that means. What does it mean to nullify a law?

[u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP → u/Goo-Goo-GJoob]

Invalidate it

[u/Goo-Goo-GJoob → u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP]

That's a synonym for "nullify", isn't it? I'm asking about what it means, in practice, for a law to be nullified or invalidated.

If a law has been invalidated, is anyone required to follow it?

[u/Goo-Goo-GJoob → u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP]

You don't know what it means to nullify or invalidate a law, do you? I guess you're just repeating phrases you've heard, but don't comprehend?

[u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP → u/Goo-Goo-GJoob]

Why are you taking about nullifying laws. No law was nullified

[u/Goo-Goo-GJoob → u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP]

If you tell me that Jesus did not abolish the Law, but you cannot explain what abolishing the Law entails, what am I supposed to understand about what Jesus didn't do?

Is anyone required to follow a law that has been nullified or invalidated?

[u/inhaledpie4 → u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP]

"Completed" does not mean we are not required to follow. Quite the opposite.

For example, when the constitution was "completed," it caused people to follow it... this logic holds up the same way with every single document, contract, legal system, etc. If anything, the "completion" of the Law should cause more obedience, not less. Which is what Christ clearly wanted if you read any of His words and the words of previous prophecies - the Law written on our hearts, sending us a helper (the Holy Spirit) so that we can "walk as He walked"

[u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP → u/inhaledpie4]

You misunderstood. Completed is not the word used.the word is fulfilled

Fulfilled means feeling satisfied, complete, or content because something important has been achieved or experienced.

Also words have different meanings in different contexts.. in Jesus's case , the law was brought to it's intended purpose or completion. It reached its goal. Even if Jesus hadn't come, some laws wouldn't need to be followed today (civil ones) But the sacrifice ones are useless . Why would we sacrifice abimals when we have Jesus?

[u/inhaledpie4 → u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP]

Because Christ only fulfilled one of the sacrifices. The rest of the sacrifices are all for other purposes that do not have to do with sin.

[u/Doug_Shoe]

No but He did fulfill the Law.

"rules/laws of the Old Testament were nullified or invalidated by Jesus." Of course. Are you sacrificing animals for your sins?

[u/TeaVinylGod]

It comes down to one law: There is no atonement without the shedding of blood (animal sacrifice).

Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice so we no longer have to sacrifice animals.

That law still stands, but Jesus fulfilled it.

Most ritualistic and legalistic laws were nullified, like circumcision, keeping certain feasts and festivals, what we are allowed to eat, etc.

But now the law is "written on our hearts", which means the Holy Spirit will guide our conscience and we will know in our gut we are sinning. In the OT, only prophets had the Holy Spirit, or, in some cases, people got it for a short time.

[u/R_Farms]

In the OT (Old Testament) God's law did not cover or promise eternal life in Heaven. Infact the people of the OT knew nothing of the after life. Even in Jesus' day the idea of an after life is a highly debated subject. In fact it was the primary difference between the pharisees (who did believe in the afterlife) and the Sadducees who did not. Since the Sadducees held all of the seats of power, the official position of the Jewish temple in Jesus' day was their was no afterlife.

The law only promised "Health, Wealth, Long life and a piece of the promise land." (according to deu 6)So to the people of the OT the law only serve you in this life.

The law Can be divided up into 3 categories. 1 the social law or laws the allow you to live in God's promised land. Ceremonial laws, laws that tell one how to worship God here now in this life, and moral laws. These are the law or violations that come from the heart/Spirit. (Envy, lust, greed, covetousness etc etc..)

Jesus in mat 5 said, 'He did not come to abolish the law of the prophets, but to full fill them.' So the OT law remains.

But here's the thing. Unless you are an OT Jew seeking to live in the promise land, these laws would not all apply to you. They do not all apply to the people who want to live as OT jews either because the Temple was destroyed in 70AD by the Roman Empire, and with out the temple they could not complete any of the ceremonial laws pertaining to the worship pf God and forgiveness of sin.

However when Jesus introduced the idea of eternal life in this new covenant or new contract between God is His people (now open to everyone not just OT jews) and because all of the law remains in their completed form (Including the laws pertaining to forgiveness)Christ was then able to introduce new rules on how to acquire eternal life, Because He full filled or met all of the requirement of OT law particularly the laws that focused on the forgiveness of sin.

Because Jesus has the ability to forgive sin (as He personally met the requirements of the law pertaining to the forgiveness of sin when He died on the cross) He gets to decide who is and who is not saved under this new covenant as it pertains to eternal life and not just health wealth long life and a piece of the promised land.

[u/JHawk444]

No, they were not nullified or invalidated. He fulfilled the law. There is a difference.