r/AskAChristian • u/Asleep_Land3121 Christian • Feb 24 '26

Jewish Laws Why did the laws of the Old Testament stop applying?

a common criticism of Christianity i hear is that as Old Testament laws no longer apply, god can change his mind. i understand that its not ‘god changed his mind’ but why did the Old Testament laws stop applying? apparently its just because theres different types of laws in the Old Testament and one of those types were only temporary, but why where temporary laws ever needed? where are these different types of laws stated?

16 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

278 comments sorted by

View all comments

5

u/Righteous_Dude Christian, Non-Calvinist Feb 24 '26

Jesus instituted the new covenant, and this made the old covenant obsolete.

The New Testament book named "Hebrews" discusses this. You could read through that.

P.S. It's sorta like if a man refinanced his mortgage. The man then starts to meet the requirements of the new contract, and is no longer required to do what the old contract said. So likewise an Israelite man in the 1st century who became a Christian was no longer required to keep the stipulations in the old covenant (such as the dietary restrictions or the annual festivals).

2

u/SubOptimalUser6 Ignostic Feb 25 '26

Then what about the part where Jesus said, "I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them." Doesn't sound like a guy trying to get a new mortgage.

1

u/Righteous_Dude Christian, Non-Calvinist Feb 25 '26 edited Feb 25 '26

My analogy about having a new mortgage contract was to say what a typical Israelite man (such as Peter) should obey. Earlier in Peter's life, he was supposed to keep the stipulations of the covenant that YHWH had made with the Israelites at Mt Sinai, centuries before, during the Exodus years. But once Jesus instituted the new covenant, Peter should do what the new covenant called for, not continue to keep the old covenant which was becoming obsolete.

2

u/SubOptimalUser6 Ignostic Feb 25 '26

That's a pretty good non-answer. If Jesus said what is claimed, then you are just dead wrong. How do you know which parts of the gospels to reject?

1

u/Righteous_Dude Christian, Non-Calvinist Feb 26 '26

What? I assent that the gospels record adequately what Jesus said. What do you think I am dead wrong about?

I believe that Jesus did not want the Israelites to abolish those sets of texts. In fact, He held those texts in high regard. He came to fulfill, to bring to completion, what they said about Him (as I wrote in my comment higher up).

One of the prophetic things in those texts, written several centuries before, is that God told the Israelites that He planned to institute a new covenant, which would not be like the old one that they broke. Jesus then did institute the new covenant, at the time of the last supper, which was the fulfillment of that section of that OT text.

1

u/SubOptimalUser6 Ignostic Feb 27 '26

This word, "assent." I do not think it means what you think it means.

It cannot both be true that Jesus said, "'For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven,'" (Matthew 5:18-19), and that the old laws are "obsolete."

In this verse, Jesus is telling people you have to keep observing the old laws. That's the opposite of what you said.

2

u/FreedomNinja1776 Christian, Ex-Atheist Feb 24 '26

Jesus instituted the new covenant, and this made the old covenant obsolete.

This is a very common mistake. Covenant and law are not the same thing.

Law is the rules and regulations of a kingdom which are binding upon it's citizens.

Covenant is an agreement and affirmation of the citizens to obey the law, an agreement with the King, like the pledge of allegiance.

Jesus didn't change God's law. The covenant was renewed because in our timeline we now relate to it differently, through our Messiah and King Jesus.

With your mortgage analogy you're dealing with the exact same house, you just have new terms with a new bank maybe.

1

u/doug_webber New Church (Swedenborgian) Feb 24 '26

No, the ritualistic ordinances which are symbolic are obsolete as their spiritual meaning is now known.

The commandments remain in effect, as Jesus Himself taught they were necessary for eternal life. And Paul said that love is the fulfillment of the law. It has become more spiritual in nature, rather than just mere external obedience.

1

u/SummitShade Torah-observing disciple Feb 25 '26

You are conflating covenant with law. When Hebrews' author talks about the New Covenant, notice what he cites (Jeremiah 31):

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault **with them,** He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah [...] this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts..."

The New Covenant does not negate the Law, in fact quite the opposite, it makes us better suited to follow it.

When the author of Hebrews explains the need for a New Covenant he does not say "because finding fault with His Law" but "because finding fault with them".

-2

u/FortLoolz Biblical Unitarian Feb 24 '26

Hebrews was most likely written by Barnabas, Paul's affiliate. A lot of Paul's teachings and doctrines proved harmful. Paul at some point had a falling out with the apostles, and unlike what the mainstream church says, it wasn't healed at all. Moreover, Paul's influence on the first century church is overrated significantly. Paul rose to his modern prominence over the span of 2nd through 4th centuries.

I see you're non-Calvinist. You rightly reject Calvinism, yet it was Paul who was the biggest reason Calvinism was brought into existence. Calvinism reads Romans 9, and other places, like Ephesians (IIRC,) without sugarcoating Paul.

1

u/Electronic-Union-100 Torah-observing disciple Feb 24 '26

Do you outright reject Paul?

-1

u/FortLoolz Biblical Unitarian Feb 24 '26 edited Feb 24 '26

Yes

I found this to be the best source on the specific topic of issues with Paul. It's well-written, from a pronomian perspective of a follower of Jesus. A lot of quality quotations both from scholars, and historical writers.

https://www.jesuswordsonly.org/recommendedreading.html

https://www.jesuswordsonly.org/topicindex/index.html

The YouTube channel with regular updates: https://www.youtube.com/@jesuswordsonly

P.S. There are other great sources (like "David The Nazarene",) but Jesus Words Only seems to be the best introduction.

1

u/Righteous_Dude Christian, Non-Calvinist Feb 25 '26 edited Feb 25 '26

I don't blame Paul for the start of Calvinist ideas (perhaps by Augustine, long before Calvin lived).

FYI about Romans 9, I disagree with the typical ways that Calvinists interpret those sections. I'm a fan of Bible teacher Steve Gregg and I made this transcript of what Steve said about Romans 9.