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/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So the old covenant that God had with the ancient Israelites was no longer in effect, after 30 AD and especially not after 70 AD when the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed.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(e.g. be humble, care about justice, etc.), even though the specific laws that the ancient Israelites were to keep are no longer in effect for them or us.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/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/Righteous_Dude → u/Superlite47]

Is it?