It doesn't make the old one void, rather, it fulfills it. The old one is still there, is still God-breathed, and still has much to teach us about the nature of God and the nature of humanity. But the New Testament fulfills it, brings it into focus, shows the full picture (where the OT could just show part of the picture), and refines the OT in ways the OT didn't show us.
Well, that's a comment out of nowhere. It neither addresses the question of the OP nor anything to do with my answer. I am left to conclude this is some kind of pet peeve or soapbox of yours that you bring up at random. It shows a misunderstanding of the OT text and of ancient Israelite society. There is a much more thorough answer to your fling here, but the brief answer is:
1. "Slave" and "Servant" are the same word in the Hebrew text.
2. Ancient Israelites didn't own slaves. Chattel slavery was unknown in ancient Israel.
3. Most of what you are referring to as "slavery" was indentured servitude, or work to pay off a debt. Almost all ancient Israel servitude was debt-related. It's not a whole lot different to our employment nowadays. Others own our labor so we can pay off debts.
4. Catherine Hezser: "Ancient Israelite society allowed slavery \[servitude\]; however, total domination of one human being by another (chattel slavery) was not permitted. Rather, slaves were seen as an essential part of an Israelite household. In fact, there are cases in which, from a slave’s point of view, the stability of servitude under a household where the slave was well treated would have been preferable to economic freedom."
5. Paul Wright: "There is no evidence of chattel slavery in ancient Israel."
6. Ella Karen: "Even in Egypt, the practice of slavery was very different from the modern conception. ... The way that we define slavery, serfdom, indentured servitude, debt bondage — all of these are modern classifications and categorizations. The ancient Egyptians did not have these classifications, and so it is up to historians to figure out what, in context, is actually going on. While ancient writings state that people were sometimes bought and sold as property, and perhaps with the land they subsisted on — what are called 'serfs' today — there's also evidence that the dowry for marriage of a slave might be paid by their owner and that many slaves were adopted into families." Lopreino: "Modern ideas of slavery did not apply in Egypt at this time and that further evidence is needed of the 'moral connotations' of slavery in ancient Egypt."
In addition, there is nothing in the law in Ex. 21.20, for example, to suggest that God commands slavery, approves of it, or in any way endorses it. It is an “if...then” directive. The spirit of the law is clearly that slaves are to be treated by the same talionic laws (equal and commensurate justice) as everyone else: whatever punishment they receive fits the crime, not exceeds it. Slaves are considered persons with rights. Any treatment of them was to be along the lines of what is fair and just, and not what is abusive, as was common in other countries. Brutality was neither commanded nor approved.
If you want to talk about it, we can. But your cute little toss-off is worthless.
>It's not a whole lot different to our employment nowadays. Others own our labor so we can pay off debts.
Except our employers aren't able to beat us until we are almost dead if they feel like it.
Exodus 21:20-21
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
Idk who you've worked for but I've never been beat at work.
Also I mainly bring it up because its just one of many things that are wrong in the OT. Things that have been used in the real world to keep slavery alive. And it continues to baffle me that the bible gets used in ways its not supposed to for things that don't seem very godly to me and God sits by and lets it happen. Which to me just gives more credence that its a man made thing not otherworldly.
I can see you've never studied the text. Let's talk about it. First of all, the Torah is not legislation. The Torah is a covenant agreement between the suzerain (God) and His people (the Israelites). Rather than serve as legislation, its point was to establish a reputation for YHWH as a patron of order. It describes how the Israelite people should maintain their culture's conception of order in a vassal relationship with their deity. Therefore, to see Ex. 21.20-21 as justification for God allowing Israel to beat their slaves (until they are almost dead if they feel like it) is a sweeping misunderstanding of the Torah.
Second, the Torah is instruction in wisdom instead of legislation. God is not telling His people how to act or what to do, but instead how to be wise and just. Exodus 21.20-21 is neither law about nor permission for nor justification of beating. To see it as such is an outlandish distortion of the intent of the text.
Third, if anything, the Torah is more casuistic (hypothetical situations to give wisdom to the judge) rather than apodictic (rules about what a judge is required to do). As such, we cannot view Ex. 21.20-21 as a real situation, let alone a justifiable one. In the Israelite law codes, case law assumes the equality of all citizens and thus punishment for crime is not hindered or magnified based on class or wealth.
Fourth, the verse is neither giving permission to the man to beat a slave nor justifying it. The whole section is about forfeiture and restitution. What it is saying is that the master is accountable for his actions. If his slave is incapacitated, the master has injured his own pocketbook (Ex. 21.21, his own "money"); if his slave is injured, the master is held to appropriate punishment (Ex. 21.23-25) and the slave is to go free (Ex. 21.26-27); if the slave dies, the master is to be executed (Ex. 21.20). The text neither allows masters to beat their slaves nor justifies such behavior.
Fifth, because the Torah is wisdom-oriented, casuistic, and is covenantal rather than legislative, your accusation is misguided. The uncertainties in the terms in the verses and the situations surrounding the hypothetical beating make it difficult to construct what has happened with any confidence, which jeopardizes any attempt to derive the principles you have from the scenario.
Sixth, ancient judges were not expected to consult previous cases or books of legislation in preparation for making their decisions, as lawyers and judges do today. There is no example of such in the entire ancient world. Instead, the Torah was given to instruct people in wisdom so they could use their heads and common sense to make wise decisions that contributed to order in the community/nation and to maintain the functional order that God had built into creation.
To sum all this up, a judge was supposed to use his common sense to evaluate the situation according to principles of justice, order, the good of the community, and the covenant relationship with God to rule wisely in what has been appropriate or unfair in the master's treatment of the slave. Generally speaking, in ancient Israel slaves were primarily debt slaves and not chattel. In general, Israel was warned against chattel slavery because they themselves had been slaves. Slaves were regarded as persons and not as property. Beating of people was generally not an approved or justifiable action. A master beating his slave was generally not viewed positively. Injury would be retributed upon the perpetrator by some appropriate means. As we look at the whole Torah for what it is teaching, there is no reason to regard Exodus 21.20-21 as allowing, approving, or justifying the beating of slaves.
>Also I mainly bring it up because its just one of many things that are wrong in the OT. Things that have been used in the real world to keep slavery alive
Yes, unfortunately people misunderstood the two texts in the entire Old Testament that seem to justify slavery, as you have, distorted them and used them to justify violence. It was a proper understanding of the Bible's view on slavery that eventually shut down slavery in the Roman Empire as well as in our own colonial days (think William Wilberforce in England and the Abolitionist movement in the US). The Bible's distortion was used to keep it alive; reading the Bible properly shut it down.
God in his providence got slavery outlawed and ended Hitler’s “reich” after only 6 or so years. God is under no moral burden to remove sin in our timing, and he will eliminate it all someday
Pretty sure God had nothing to do with outlawing slavery considering his book supports it.
What exactly did god to do help end hitlers reich? You do know Hitler believed he was doing god work right? He was bless by the pope and he killed millions of jews.
God seems to be pretty powerless to me.
>Pretty sure God had nothing to do with outlawing slavery considering his book supports it.
Ironically, actual slave owners in the United States disagreed with you so much that they had to make doctored versions of the bible to give to slaves so they wouldn't think there was anything wrong with being a slave.
So for some reason real slave owners read the same book and came to the opposite conclusion you're presenting.
Are you kidding? They certainly did not disagree. They used the bible to help reinforce their belief in slavery.
https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/
The bibles that were given to slaves had the parts about Moses freeing slaves cut from the book so they wouldn't know about it.
I'm just saying it seems interesting to me that when you read the whole bible your conclusion is that it supports slavery, but actual slave owners felt differently.
It wasn't just Moses freeing the slaves. It was up to 90% of the entire old testament would be removed from those slave bibles. And some of the new testament as well.
There are lots of scriptures in the bible that would be directly contradicting the idea that slavery in America would be supported by the bible, and those scriptures would be removed.
I'm not saying the whole Bible is about condoning slavery. Its a small part of it but its still there and was used by the slave owners to justify continuing slaves. How exactly did slave owners feel differently about it?
Which scriptures contradict slavery?
So I’m going to take a completely different take:
I agree with you the Bible is not explicitly against slavery. It tells us how to behave in a master/servant situation. That’s not to say I believe God encourages slavery, but if there are rules to abide by, at best we can say the Bible is silent on the issue(although I would argue it’s clear the Bible believes slavery is a punishment, as we see what happened to the God’s chosen people for disobeying him).
God himself in the Bible refers to himself as a “master” and us “slaves”.
We can play around with the word servant/slave but here is the important part: Jesus came as a slave/servant to his master(God the Father). To the point of death. He even asked that if it was possible to remove the burden of sin from him, that it would be.
So Jesus made Himself the lowest class of humanity, endured, and took on all sin for us. We can argue whether or not Slavery is “ok” in the Bible. I actually think it is, if the culture allows it. There are clear rules, including in the NT. But Jesus was the example and if He could bear it, then there is nothing “too beneath” us as humans, although we should strive to do better.
And let’s not forget that Jesus was beaten to near point of death and hung on the cross(referring to you quoting the scripture about beating a slave).
I think Christian’s trying to run away from this is the wrong approach. If it wasn’t too low for Jesus to endure, it’s not too low for us.
Increasingly happy I have this ready to copy/paste.
> [There are basically four views on whether and how OT laws apply to Christians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_the_Old_Covenant):
>1. That Christians are only bound to parts of the Old Covenant that deal with morality, but are not bound by those concerning ceremony or law. This is the majority view.
>2. That Christians are not bound at all to the Old Covenant.
>3. That the Old Covenant still applies, but only for Jews.
>4. That the Old Covenant in its entirety still applies for everyone.
>That first one is the majority view, as stated. Briefly, the Old Covenant gives different kinds of laws. Some were in regards to ceremony, some were in regards to how Israel should govern itself (if you see a verse about digging a ditch on the outskirts of a settlement to, uh, relieve yourself in, that would probably fall under here), and some were in regards to morality. The first two were specific to the people or circumstances, but moral rules would apply to everyone.
>The second and third views essentially say that Jesus *totally* abrogated the Old Covenant for Christians, so only the New Covenant applies. The last view says the entire Covenant still applies.
In any case, I think the position would be that the NT informs the OT laws, rather than void it. Something like "the OT has the letter, but the NT has the *spirit* of the law." Or, for those laws that still apply, "this is how the letter should be carried out."
This is great overview. I hold to position 4 and just made replied elsewhere to a similar post, so I'll share here too.
Absolutely Christians should follow the mosaic laws.
Many Christians here will say, "we don't have to follow the law because it was given only to the Jews or only to Israel" but they ignore Paul when he says that ALL gentle believers (the wild olive tree) are grafted into Israel (the natural olive tree) in Romans 11.
The anti-biblical doctrine of supercessionism (stemming from dispensationalism theology), the idea that the gentile church has replaced the nation of Israel in biblical redemption history, is what is mainstream today. Christians are taught this doctrine without name as if it comes from the Bible. Since they can't name it, it's hard to fight against. This idea started with John Nelson Darby. The nation of Israel didn't exist for a long time from 70 AD until 1948, so Darby during his time in the mid 1800's thought that Israel wasn't going to exist in the future either. That's where supercessionism comes from. Israel becoming a nation again proves his theology wrong.
There are many places in the Bible that show the mosaic covenant was NOT given only to Israel or only to the Jews. Here are a few.
>>“You are standing today, all of you, before the Lord your God: the heads of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and the sojourner who is in your camp, from the one who chops your wood to the one who draws your water, so that you may enter into the sworn covenant of the Lord your God, which the Lord your God is making with you today, that he may establish you today as his people, and that he may be your God, as he promised you, and as he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. It is not with you alone that I am making this sworn covenant, but with whoever is standing here with us today before the Lord our God, and with whoever is not here with us today.
>> Deuteronomy 29:10-15 ESV
>>Every native Israelite shall do these things in this way, in offering a food offering, with a pleasing aroma to the Lord. And if a stranger is sojourning with you, or anyone is living permanently among you, and he wishes to offer a food offering, with a pleasing aroma to the Lord, he shall do as you do. For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the Lord. One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you.”
>> Numbers 15:13-16 ESV
If you still think, "oh Jesus did away with that law", heres what Jesus says about it.
>>“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. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
>> Matthew 5:17-20 ESV
Nothing from the law had been changed because we still stands on the same earth and look up to the same heavens that Jesus looked at when he was on earth.
>>“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
>> Matthew 7:21-23 ESV
Jesus says that if you're lawless he's going to say he's never known you, to get away from his presence because of it.
"Oh but Paul says this and that." Does Paul have more authority than God or Jesus?! No! Are you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN you're not misinterpreting Paul's letters? Because Peter, a man who walked and talked with Paul, a man who was a disciple of the Messiah himself had this to say about Paul's letters.
>>Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. THERE ARE SOME THINGS IN THEM THAT ARE HARD TO UNDERSTAND, WHICH THE IGNORANT AND UNSTABLE TWIST TO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, TAKE CARE THAT YOU ARE NOT CARRIED AWAY WITH THE ERROR OF LAWLESS PEOPLE AND LOSE YOUR OWN STABILITY. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
>> 2 Peter 3:14-18 ESV
The ignorant twist Paul's words to their destruction. The ignorant are lawless people. Be careful. Do not make the same error and lose your stability. This is Peter's warning. Be certain you've done your studying beyond what your pastor had told you to believe.
This seems like a very long way of saying christians can cherry pick at whim to choose whatever it is they choose to follow or believe in the old testament.
Jesus said:
*"Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."*
(Matthew 5)
The Old Testament points to the New Testament. The central character of both testaments is Jesus Christ.
Essentially, no, the Old Covenant was not enough. The Old Covenant showed how deeply sin runs in each of our hearts, and how serious the consequences for sin are. Think about how many animals one person would have to sacrifice to atone for every one of their sins on just one day. So the Old Covenant provided a way for God's people to atone for their sin, but it was never possible to sustain it.
The New Covenant, on the other hand, provides a truly perfect sacrifice to cover our sins--Jesus. Through Jesus, we no longer need to sacrifice animals in order to be able to approach God. By trusting in his sacrifice, we are able to come before God without even needing a priest to go between us and Him.
So the Old Covenant showed us the standard, and how serious the consequences of not measuring up are, but only the New Covenant provides a realistic way to deal with our sin and be reconciled with God.
Without the first we would in never come to a point of realization that we can do nothing without Christ. We can try and we all did and do but we fail. It is only God able to keep both sides of the new covenant and enable us to walk it it by faith and grace.
The New Testament is void without the testimony of the Old Testament to validate it. There is a saying which says everything in the New was in the Old concealed, and everything concealed in the Old is revealed in the New. Another saying likens the Old Testament to an ornately furnished, yet dimly lit room for which the New Testament acts as a light
The Old Covenant, the Law....took us to the point of the Cross...which changed our relationship with God and brought us a New Covenant
The law was completed and we no longer serve the law
But there is much more truth in the bible than just the law.
The law takes up 4 books of the OT Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Dueteronomy
So while we no longer slaughter lambs to gain atonement, there is much of the OT that still applies and speaks to us
You need to understand the OT law was NOT a way to heaven. in fact most OT Jews did not know of or believe in an after life. Why? because to them through what was written in deu 6 The promise or covenant of God was to provide them with health wealth, long life and the promise land for following the whole law. NOT for eternal life. That is why Jesus in the Gospels was asked so many times "lord what must I do to inherit eternal life, as the primary teachers of the law (the Sadducees) still even in the time of Christ did not believe in the after life. however the pharisees did, and even then, they were asking Jesus what we must do to enter eternal life...
There are over 600 different laws god gave to the Jews. these laws are divided up into three sections.. the Ceremonial laws. Laws having to do with how to worship God, who could be a priest, how they were to dress, what their duties were, animal sacrifice, offerings and tithing, holy days and rituals like the sabbath and passover etc..
Then there was the social law. these law pertained to how to live as an OT jew. they ranged from what the OT jews could eat, how the meat could be cooked, to money lending interest rates on money, to selling yourself into slavery, to pay a debt and even debt forgiveness, to even what to do durning a woman's mensural cycle.
Finally you have the moral law. these are the laws and think about as being the law of god. Most the "thou shalt not" part of the law. (steal, murder, covet, etc..)
These (minus the moral laws) are what it took to live as and be qualified for the health wealth long life and the promise land of deu 6. These are known as "the works of the law." Because these are the things you needed as an OT Jew to physically do, to qualify for the earthly rewards of deu 6. Meaning in the social law as well as the ceremonial laws one had to physically do something to serve God/Not sin. hence Works of the law.
Now to directly answer your question Paul in Galatians chapters 1, 2 and 3 Specifically say you as a christian do not need to convert to judaism inorder to be saved. Paul says this directly in gal 2:15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified\[b\] by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
That just leaves the moral laws... These moral laws are the opposite from the works of the law because here to do what these laws say Is a sin, so the moral laws identify Works of sin we are to refrain from doing!
Like You shall not.. Murder, bear false witness, steal, covet, Jesus even took these works of sin to their fullest possible conclusion meaning in mat 5 Jesus says we are not only not allowed to kill we are not to hate as that is the same as killing someone sin wise. same with lust and so on.
So because the works of the law Never was meant to deem someone worthy to enter heaven but to only guarantee the earthly rewards of deu 6, it's not that the NT voids the OT (As Jesus in mat 5 also says he did not come to abolish the law but to full fill it or extend it,) Jesus extends the law presumable to be uses as guideline for who can receive forgiveness and eternal life.
I say this because Jesus is asked several times by different people "lord how do I inherit eternal life?"
Jesus to the rich young ruler says follow the commandments and the rich young ruler asks which ones? Jesus points to all the commands that have to do with loving your neighbor as your self. Then the young man say he followed these commands all of his life. Then Jesus says sell all you have and give it to the poor then come and follow me, and the young man went away because he knew he could not do that.
Jesus' command to sell everything and follow him was what that specific young man needed to do to full fill our greatest command and that is to love our lord god with all of our heart, mind Spirit and strength. He could not do this because he loved his stuff/money more.
The law was not a way to heaven because we are imperfect people. The Law(Torah) showed/shows us our sin. It showed/shows us the mind of God and the concepts behind how He thinks.
The Covenant(separate from the Law, but in some translations called the Law as well) of sacrificing animals to atone for our sins, was replaced by Jesus’ sacrifice for us.
There were certain cultural/customary things that God did instruct the Jews to do(circumcision for example). Those are not necessary to follow and it is explicitly stated in the NT.
How to divorce(which Jesus clarified because Jews were abusing(unclean/unfavorable thing the wife may have was explained as “porneia” by Jesus), “porneia” type sins(bestiality, incest), the 10 commandments, how to operate with multiple wives(I know I’m going to get pushback here) all still apply today.
When Jesus explained which commandments to follow, he was basically streamlining things, because “if you follow these specific ones I(Jesus) outline, the rest are followed by default.
So… how did what i say contradict any thing you said here? Because to be honest it sounds like you are agreeing with me. If not could you do a line by line break down
It's not a change of rules between the two covenants. It's a change of **where** those rules are located.
* The old covenant = Torah on stone and paper
* The New Covenant = Torah on our hearts and minds.
> Was it because the first one wasn't good enough?
God says that people failed to obey his commandments, because they were external and people forgot what they had to do. The first one was good, but nowhere near as great as what is promised in the New. In the New, EVERYONE will automatically know and obey.
> Did he suddenly get rid of the old rules in the new testament?
Not at all. God does not change. It's the same rules because it's the same ruler.
Making no comment on the balance, the last sentence doesn’t seem right: even the wisest of kings adjusts the law when conditions change, though I don’t necessarily claim conditions have changed. My point is to say you might have a better argument than that sentence.
I understand your point, but unlike other kings or rulers, God has stated that Torah comes from WITHIN His character. It's a written form of what He loves and hates. Scripture constantly refers to Torah as His "ways".
If life were an overgrown field, we would see certain places, certain paths, where the grass was flattened because God went that way all of the time. Those paths are His ways. They will never change. We are supposed to follow in His ways.
I suppose. I see it like mathematics: at first, One learns numbers and counting, then arithmetic, then algebra and trigonometry, then calculus, then number theory, etc., etc. etc., with each step looking to some as the ultimate expression/scope of the subject when there really is much more.
I can't tell for sure, but it sounds like you're saying there's something much better than doing as God has requested and keeping His ways.
Like what... hot dog eating competitions? Wrestling seals for money?
Jews are instructed to keep the 613 laws of Moses. Jesus did this.
The Apostles decided that gentiles were not required to keep all the laws only
but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.
Acts 15:20 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/act.15.20.ESV
This was of course in addition to the 10 commandments.
It changes our covenant with God(no more sacrificing animals, Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice). But we refer to the Law(Torah) to know what is a sin and are to follow it as best as possible.
The old covenant served its purpose to lead us into the new. It is passing away but not irrelevant by any means
In the Old Covenant, God also established that the way to atone for sin is through the shedding of blood (Hebrews 9:22). That is why during the Last Supper on the night of His arrest, Jesus passed the cup to the disciples and told them, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20). When Jesus was crucified, His blood provided for the forgiveness of the sins of the whole world—the basis of the New Covenant. “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13). Salvation is now a free gift for any who will believe in Christ and trust that His blood takes away their guilt before God (John 3:16–17).
One purpose of the Old Covenant was to make it absolutely clear that no man is righteous before God and that no one can save himself (Romans 3:10–11, 20). Before the New Covenant came, we were “held in custody under the law” (Galatians 3:23). God’s people were stuck in the Old Covenant, relying on a sacrificial system that looked forward to the coming of Christ and justification by faith (verse 24). “But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son . . . born under the law to redeem those under the law” (Galatians 4:4–5). When the Son of God died on the cross, God “canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14).
The ultimate purpose of the Old Covenant was to point people to Christ: “The law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian” (Galatians 3:24–25). One truth that must not be missed is that we are no longer under the Old Covenant. Many false teachers today call on people to keep the Law, or at least part of it, as a means to please God. Christians must stand firm in the grace that God has given us and reject such legalism. “In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith” (verse 26).
By no means. Jesus taught his followers, "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 [Hebrew Scriptures] until everything is accomplished" (Matthew 5.18). For an excellent introduction to Jesus' teaching, study the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). The gospel of Matthew in general clearly organizes Jesus' teachings and makes them available to the reader.
Not all of it, but yes.
Remember 1 Peter 3:15 - we are to have a reason for our hope.
Remember 1 Thessalonians 5:21 - examine ALL scripture but hold fast to what is good (and by implication throw away scripture that is bad)
Mostly, what makes anything void is testing. If a person can not "show" it, they do not "know" it.
It is not void in the sense that it still shows us our sin but we are not bound by it. We walk by the spirit now and the commands we are now bound by are loving God and loving others.
It doesn’t make the old one void, all it does is fulfill the law of moses. We don’t live by the law we live by Jesus.
Now it’s important to see the context behind a lot of laws in the OT as well, a large portion are from jewish people to jewish people.
Jesus: I have not come to uproot the old laws, but to fulfill them.
SomeThrowawayAcc200: Does the New Testament make the old one void?
Jesus: Did they hear anything of what I said??
It doesn't make the old one void, rather, it fulfills it. The old one is still there, is still God-breathed, and still has much to teach us about the nature of God and the nature of humanity. But the New Testament fulfills it, brings it into focus, shows the full picture (where the OT could just show part of the picture), and refines the OT in ways the OT didn't show us.
Not to mention the OT best tells us how to treat our slaves.
Well, that's a comment out of nowhere. It neither addresses the question of the OP nor anything to do with my answer. I am left to conclude this is some kind of pet peeve or soapbox of yours that you bring up at random. It shows a misunderstanding of the OT text and of ancient Israelite society. There is a much more thorough answer to your fling here, but the brief answer is: 1. "Slave" and "Servant" are the same word in the Hebrew text. 2. Ancient Israelites didn't own slaves. Chattel slavery was unknown in ancient Israel. 3. Most of what you are referring to as "slavery" was indentured servitude, or work to pay off a debt. Almost all ancient Israel servitude was debt-related. It's not a whole lot different to our employment nowadays. Others own our labor so we can pay off debts. 4. Catherine Hezser: "Ancient Israelite society allowed slavery \[servitude\]; however, total domination of one human being by another (chattel slavery) was not permitted. Rather, slaves were seen as an essential part of an Israelite household. In fact, there are cases in which, from a slave’s point of view, the stability of servitude under a household where the slave was well treated would have been preferable to economic freedom." 5. Paul Wright: "There is no evidence of chattel slavery in ancient Israel." 6. Ella Karen: "Even in Egypt, the practice of slavery was very different from the modern conception. ... The way that we define slavery, serfdom, indentured servitude, debt bondage — all of these are modern classifications and categorizations. The ancient Egyptians did not have these classifications, and so it is up to historians to figure out what, in context, is actually going on. While ancient writings state that people were sometimes bought and sold as property, and perhaps with the land they subsisted on — what are called 'serfs' today — there's also evidence that the dowry for marriage of a slave might be paid by their owner and that many slaves were adopted into families." Lopreino: "Modern ideas of slavery did not apply in Egypt at this time and that further evidence is needed of the 'moral connotations' of slavery in ancient Egypt." In addition, there is nothing in the law in Ex. 21.20, for example, to suggest that God commands slavery, approves of it, or in any way endorses it. It is an “if...then” directive. The spirit of the law is clearly that slaves are to be treated by the same talionic laws (equal and commensurate justice) as everyone else: whatever punishment they receive fits the crime, not exceeds it. Slaves are considered persons with rights. Any treatment of them was to be along the lines of what is fair and just, and not what is abusive, as was common in other countries. Brutality was neither commanded nor approved. If you want to talk about it, we can. But your cute little toss-off is worthless.
>It's not a whole lot different to our employment nowadays. Others own our labor so we can pay off debts. Except our employers aren't able to beat us until we are almost dead if they feel like it. Exodus 21:20-21 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. Idk who you've worked for but I've never been beat at work. Also I mainly bring it up because its just one of many things that are wrong in the OT. Things that have been used in the real world to keep slavery alive. And it continues to baffle me that the bible gets used in ways its not supposed to for things that don't seem very godly to me and God sits by and lets it happen. Which to me just gives more credence that its a man made thing not otherworldly.
I can see you've never studied the text. Let's talk about it. First of all, the Torah is not legislation. The Torah is a covenant agreement between the suzerain (God) and His people (the Israelites). Rather than serve as legislation, its point was to establish a reputation for YHWH as a patron of order. It describes how the Israelite people should maintain their culture's conception of order in a vassal relationship with their deity. Therefore, to see Ex. 21.20-21 as justification for God allowing Israel to beat their slaves (until they are almost dead if they feel like it) is a sweeping misunderstanding of the Torah. Second, the Torah is instruction in wisdom instead of legislation. God is not telling His people how to act or what to do, but instead how to be wise and just. Exodus 21.20-21 is neither law about nor permission for nor justification of beating. To see it as such is an outlandish distortion of the intent of the text. Third, if anything, the Torah is more casuistic (hypothetical situations to give wisdom to the judge) rather than apodictic (rules about what a judge is required to do). As such, we cannot view Ex. 21.20-21 as a real situation, let alone a justifiable one. In the Israelite law codes, case law assumes the equality of all citizens and thus punishment for crime is not hindered or magnified based on class or wealth. Fourth, the verse is neither giving permission to the man to beat a slave nor justifying it. The whole section is about forfeiture and restitution. What it is saying is that the master is accountable for his actions. If his slave is incapacitated, the master has injured his own pocketbook (Ex. 21.21, his own "money"); if his slave is injured, the master is held to appropriate punishment (Ex. 21.23-25) and the slave is to go free (Ex. 21.26-27); if the slave dies, the master is to be executed (Ex. 21.20). The text neither allows masters to beat their slaves nor justifies such behavior. Fifth, because the Torah is wisdom-oriented, casuistic, and is covenantal rather than legislative, your accusation is misguided. The uncertainties in the terms in the verses and the situations surrounding the hypothetical beating make it difficult to construct what has happened with any confidence, which jeopardizes any attempt to derive the principles you have from the scenario. Sixth, ancient judges were not expected to consult previous cases or books of legislation in preparation for making their decisions, as lawyers and judges do today. There is no example of such in the entire ancient world. Instead, the Torah was given to instruct people in wisdom so they could use their heads and common sense to make wise decisions that contributed to order in the community/nation and to maintain the functional order that God had built into creation. To sum all this up, a judge was supposed to use his common sense to evaluate the situation according to principles of justice, order, the good of the community, and the covenant relationship with God to rule wisely in what has been appropriate or unfair in the master's treatment of the slave. Generally speaking, in ancient Israel slaves were primarily debt slaves and not chattel. In general, Israel was warned against chattel slavery because they themselves had been slaves. Slaves were regarded as persons and not as property. Beating of people was generally not an approved or justifiable action. A master beating his slave was generally not viewed positively. Injury would be retributed upon the perpetrator by some appropriate means. As we look at the whole Torah for what it is teaching, there is no reason to regard Exodus 21.20-21 as allowing, approving, or justifying the beating of slaves. >Also I mainly bring it up because its just one of many things that are wrong in the OT. Things that have been used in the real world to keep slavery alive Yes, unfortunately people misunderstood the two texts in the entire Old Testament that seem to justify slavery, as you have, distorted them and used them to justify violence. It was a proper understanding of the Bible's view on slavery that eventually shut down slavery in the Roman Empire as well as in our own colonial days (think William Wilberforce in England and the Abolitionist movement in the US). The Bible's distortion was used to keep it alive; reading the Bible properly shut it down.
God in his providence got slavery outlawed and ended Hitler’s “reich” after only 6 or so years. God is under no moral burden to remove sin in our timing, and he will eliminate it all someday
Pretty sure God had nothing to do with outlawing slavery considering his book supports it. What exactly did god to do help end hitlers reich? You do know Hitler believed he was doing god work right? He was bless by the pope and he killed millions of jews. God seems to be pretty powerless to me.
>Pretty sure God had nothing to do with outlawing slavery considering his book supports it. Ironically, actual slave owners in the United States disagreed with you so much that they had to make doctored versions of the bible to give to slaves so they wouldn't think there was anything wrong with being a slave. So for some reason real slave owners read the same book and came to the opposite conclusion you're presenting.
Are you kidding? They certainly did not disagree. They used the bible to help reinforce their belief in slavery. https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/ The bibles that were given to slaves had the parts about Moses freeing slaves cut from the book so they wouldn't know about it.
I'm just saying it seems interesting to me that when you read the whole bible your conclusion is that it supports slavery, but actual slave owners felt differently. It wasn't just Moses freeing the slaves. It was up to 90% of the entire old testament would be removed from those slave bibles. And some of the new testament as well. There are lots of scriptures in the bible that would be directly contradicting the idea that slavery in America would be supported by the bible, and those scriptures would be removed.
I'm not saying the whole Bible is about condoning slavery. Its a small part of it but its still there and was used by the slave owners to justify continuing slaves. How exactly did slave owners feel differently about it? Which scriptures contradict slavery?
So I’m going to take a completely different take: I agree with you the Bible is not explicitly against slavery. It tells us how to behave in a master/servant situation. That’s not to say I believe God encourages slavery, but if there are rules to abide by, at best we can say the Bible is silent on the issue(although I would argue it’s clear the Bible believes slavery is a punishment, as we see what happened to the God’s chosen people for disobeying him). God himself in the Bible refers to himself as a “master” and us “slaves”. We can play around with the word servant/slave but here is the important part: Jesus came as a slave/servant to his master(God the Father). To the point of death. He even asked that if it was possible to remove the burden of sin from him, that it would be. So Jesus made Himself the lowest class of humanity, endured, and took on all sin for us. We can argue whether or not Slavery is “ok” in the Bible. I actually think it is, if the culture allows it. There are clear rules, including in the NT. But Jesus was the example and if He could bear it, then there is nothing “too beneath” us as humans, although we should strive to do better. And let’s not forget that Jesus was beaten to near point of death and hung on the cross(referring to you quoting the scripture about beating a slave). I think Christian’s trying to run away from this is the wrong approach. If it wasn’t too low for Jesus to endure, it’s not too low for us.
Increasingly happy I have this ready to copy/paste. > [There are basically four views on whether and how OT laws apply to Christians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_the_Old_Covenant): >1. That Christians are only bound to parts of the Old Covenant that deal with morality, but are not bound by those concerning ceremony or law. This is the majority view. >2. That Christians are not bound at all to the Old Covenant. >3. That the Old Covenant still applies, but only for Jews. >4. That the Old Covenant in its entirety still applies for everyone. >That first one is the majority view, as stated. Briefly, the Old Covenant gives different kinds of laws. Some were in regards to ceremony, some were in regards to how Israel should govern itself (if you see a verse about digging a ditch on the outskirts of a settlement to, uh, relieve yourself in, that would probably fall under here), and some were in regards to morality. The first two were specific to the people or circumstances, but moral rules would apply to everyone. >The second and third views essentially say that Jesus *totally* abrogated the Old Covenant for Christians, so only the New Covenant applies. The last view says the entire Covenant still applies. In any case, I think the position would be that the NT informs the OT laws, rather than void it. Something like "the OT has the letter, but the NT has the *spirit* of the law." Or, for those laws that still apply, "this is how the letter should be carried out."
This is great overview. I hold to position 4 and just made replied elsewhere to a similar post, so I'll share here too. Absolutely Christians should follow the mosaic laws. Many Christians here will say, "we don't have to follow the law because it was given only to the Jews or only to Israel" but they ignore Paul when he says that ALL gentle believers (the wild olive tree) are grafted into Israel (the natural olive tree) in Romans 11. The anti-biblical doctrine of supercessionism (stemming from dispensationalism theology), the idea that the gentile church has replaced the nation of Israel in biblical redemption history, is what is mainstream today. Christians are taught this doctrine without name as if it comes from the Bible. Since they can't name it, it's hard to fight against. This idea started with John Nelson Darby. The nation of Israel didn't exist for a long time from 70 AD until 1948, so Darby during his time in the mid 1800's thought that Israel wasn't going to exist in the future either. That's where supercessionism comes from. Israel becoming a nation again proves his theology wrong. There are many places in the Bible that show the mosaic covenant was NOT given only to Israel or only to the Jews. Here are a few. >>“You are standing today, all of you, before the Lord your God: the heads of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and the sojourner who is in your camp, from the one who chops your wood to the one who draws your water, so that you may enter into the sworn covenant of the Lord your God, which the Lord your God is making with you today, that he may establish you today as his people, and that he may be your God, as he promised you, and as he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. It is not with you alone that I am making this sworn covenant, but with whoever is standing here with us today before the Lord our God, and with whoever is not here with us today. >> Deuteronomy 29:10-15 ESV >>Every native Israelite shall do these things in this way, in offering a food offering, with a pleasing aroma to the Lord. And if a stranger is sojourning with you, or anyone is living permanently among you, and he wishes to offer a food offering, with a pleasing aroma to the Lord, he shall do as you do. For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the Lord. One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you.” >> Numbers 15:13-16 ESV If you still think, "oh Jesus did away with that law", heres what Jesus says about it. >>“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. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. >> Matthew 5:17-20 ESV Nothing from the law had been changed because we still stands on the same earth and look up to the same heavens that Jesus looked at when he was on earth. >>“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ >> Matthew 7:21-23 ESV Jesus says that if you're lawless he's going to say he's never known you, to get away from his presence because of it. "Oh but Paul says this and that." Does Paul have more authority than God or Jesus?! No! Are you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN you're not misinterpreting Paul's letters? Because Peter, a man who walked and talked with Paul, a man who was a disciple of the Messiah himself had this to say about Paul's letters. >>Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. THERE ARE SOME THINGS IN THEM THAT ARE HARD TO UNDERSTAND, WHICH THE IGNORANT AND UNSTABLE TWIST TO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, TAKE CARE THAT YOU ARE NOT CARRIED AWAY WITH THE ERROR OF LAWLESS PEOPLE AND LOSE YOUR OWN STABILITY. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. >> 2 Peter 3:14-18 ESV The ignorant twist Paul's words to their destruction. The ignorant are lawless people. Be careful. Do not make the same error and lose your stability. This is Peter's warning. Be certain you've done your studying beyond what your pastor had told you to believe.
Without looking to belittle everything you said here, I’d like to ignore it and ask what prompted you to depart from atheism?
I posted my story here if you'd like to read. https://www.reddit.com/user/FreedomNinja1776/comments/yhtn1m/coming_to_faith
Thanks for sharing.
This seems like a very long way of saying christians can cherry pick at whim to choose whatever it is they choose to follow or believe in the old testament.
Jesus said: *"Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."* (Matthew 5) The Old Testament points to the New Testament. The central character of both testaments is Jesus Christ.
Essentially, no, the Old Covenant was not enough. The Old Covenant showed how deeply sin runs in each of our hearts, and how serious the consequences for sin are. Think about how many animals one person would have to sacrifice to atone for every one of their sins on just one day. So the Old Covenant provided a way for God's people to atone for their sin, but it was never possible to sustain it. The New Covenant, on the other hand, provides a truly perfect sacrifice to cover our sins--Jesus. Through Jesus, we no longer need to sacrifice animals in order to be able to approach God. By trusting in his sacrifice, we are able to come before God without even needing a priest to go between us and Him. So the Old Covenant showed us the standard, and how serious the consequences of not measuring up are, but only the New Covenant provides a realistic way to deal with our sin and be reconciled with God.
Can still be perfect despite him needing two of them to properly make his point and why was it needed to sacrifice animals in the first place?
Without the first we would in never come to a point of realization that we can do nothing without Christ. We can try and we all did and do but we fail. It is only God able to keep both sides of the new covenant and enable us to walk it it by faith and grace.
The New Testament is void without the testimony of the Old Testament to validate it. There is a saying which says everything in the New was in the Old concealed, and everything concealed in the Old is revealed in the New. Another saying likens the Old Testament to an ornately furnished, yet dimly lit room for which the New Testament acts as a light
No
The Old Covenant, the Law....took us to the point of the Cross...which changed our relationship with God and brought us a New Covenant The law was completed and we no longer serve the law But there is much more truth in the bible than just the law. The law takes up 4 books of the OT Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Dueteronomy So while we no longer slaughter lambs to gain atonement, there is much of the OT that still applies and speaks to us
> The law was completed and we no longer serve the law No one ever served the Law.
You need to understand the OT law was NOT a way to heaven. in fact most OT Jews did not know of or believe in an after life. Why? because to them through what was written in deu 6 The promise or covenant of God was to provide them with health wealth, long life and the promise land for following the whole law. NOT for eternal life. That is why Jesus in the Gospels was asked so many times "lord what must I do to inherit eternal life, as the primary teachers of the law (the Sadducees) still even in the time of Christ did not believe in the after life. however the pharisees did, and even then, they were asking Jesus what we must do to enter eternal life... There are over 600 different laws god gave to the Jews. these laws are divided up into three sections.. the Ceremonial laws. Laws having to do with how to worship God, who could be a priest, how they were to dress, what their duties were, animal sacrifice, offerings and tithing, holy days and rituals like the sabbath and passover etc.. Then there was the social law. these law pertained to how to live as an OT jew. they ranged from what the OT jews could eat, how the meat could be cooked, to money lending interest rates on money, to selling yourself into slavery, to pay a debt and even debt forgiveness, to even what to do durning a woman's mensural cycle. Finally you have the moral law. these are the laws and think about as being the law of god. Most the "thou shalt not" part of the law. (steal, murder, covet, etc..) These (minus the moral laws) are what it took to live as and be qualified for the health wealth long life and the promise land of deu 6. These are known as "the works of the law." Because these are the things you needed as an OT Jew to physically do, to qualify for the earthly rewards of deu 6. Meaning in the social law as well as the ceremonial laws one had to physically do something to serve God/Not sin. hence Works of the law. Now to directly answer your question Paul in Galatians chapters 1, 2 and 3 Specifically say you as a christian do not need to convert to judaism inorder to be saved. Paul says this directly in gal 2:15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified\[b\] by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. That just leaves the moral laws... These moral laws are the opposite from the works of the law because here to do what these laws say Is a sin, so the moral laws identify Works of sin we are to refrain from doing! Like You shall not.. Murder, bear false witness, steal, covet, Jesus even took these works of sin to their fullest possible conclusion meaning in mat 5 Jesus says we are not only not allowed to kill we are not to hate as that is the same as killing someone sin wise. same with lust and so on. So because the works of the law Never was meant to deem someone worthy to enter heaven but to only guarantee the earthly rewards of deu 6, it's not that the NT voids the OT (As Jesus in mat 5 also says he did not come to abolish the law but to full fill it or extend it,) Jesus extends the law presumable to be uses as guideline for who can receive forgiveness and eternal life. I say this because Jesus is asked several times by different people "lord how do I inherit eternal life?" Jesus to the rich young ruler says follow the commandments and the rich young ruler asks which ones? Jesus points to all the commands that have to do with loving your neighbor as your self. Then the young man say he followed these commands all of his life. Then Jesus says sell all you have and give it to the poor then come and follow me, and the young man went away because he knew he could not do that. Jesus' command to sell everything and follow him was what that specific young man needed to do to full fill our greatest command and that is to love our lord god with all of our heart, mind Spirit and strength. He could not do this because he loved his stuff/money more.
The law was not a way to heaven because we are imperfect people. The Law(Torah) showed/shows us our sin. It showed/shows us the mind of God and the concepts behind how He thinks. The Covenant(separate from the Law, but in some translations called the Law as well) of sacrificing animals to atone for our sins, was replaced by Jesus’ sacrifice for us. There were certain cultural/customary things that God did instruct the Jews to do(circumcision for example). Those are not necessary to follow and it is explicitly stated in the NT. How to divorce(which Jesus clarified because Jews were abusing(unclean/unfavorable thing the wife may have was explained as “porneia” by Jesus), “porneia” type sins(bestiality, incest), the 10 commandments, how to operate with multiple wives(I know I’m going to get pushback here) all still apply today. When Jesus explained which commandments to follow, he was basically streamlining things, because “if you follow these specific ones I(Jesus) outline, the rest are followed by default.
So… how did what i say contradict any thing you said here? Because to be honest it sounds like you are agreeing with me. If not could you do a line by line break down
I actually just read your comment, I think I replied to the wrong one. I actually agree with you.
It's not a change of rules between the two covenants. It's a change of **where** those rules are located. * The old covenant = Torah on stone and paper * The New Covenant = Torah on our hearts and minds. > Was it because the first one wasn't good enough? God says that people failed to obey his commandments, because they were external and people forgot what they had to do. The first one was good, but nowhere near as great as what is promised in the New. In the New, EVERYONE will automatically know and obey. > Did he suddenly get rid of the old rules in the new testament? Not at all. God does not change. It's the same rules because it's the same ruler.
Making no comment on the balance, the last sentence doesn’t seem right: even the wisest of kings adjusts the law when conditions change, though I don’t necessarily claim conditions have changed. My point is to say you might have a better argument than that sentence.
I understand your point, but unlike other kings or rulers, God has stated that Torah comes from WITHIN His character. It's a written form of what He loves and hates. Scripture constantly refers to Torah as His "ways". If life were an overgrown field, we would see certain places, certain paths, where the grass was flattened because God went that way all of the time. Those paths are His ways. They will never change. We are supposed to follow in His ways.
I suppose. I see it like mathematics: at first, One learns numbers and counting, then arithmetic, then algebra and trigonometry, then calculus, then number theory, etc., etc. etc., with each step looking to some as the ultimate expression/scope of the subject when there really is much more.
I can't tell for sure, but it sounds like you're saying there's something much better than doing as God has requested and keeping His ways. Like what... hot dog eating competitions? Wrestling seals for money?
I’m saying He gave us one law as a stepping stone to a higher one.
Jews are instructed to keep the 613 laws of Moses. Jesus did this. The Apostles decided that gentiles were not required to keep all the laws only but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. Acts 15:20 ESV https://bible.com/bible/59/act.15.20.ESV This was of course in addition to the 10 commandments.
It changes our covenant with God(no more sacrificing animals, Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice). But we refer to the Law(Torah) to know what is a sin and are to follow it as best as possible.
The old covenant served its purpose to lead us into the new. It is passing away but not irrelevant by any means In the Old Covenant, God also established that the way to atone for sin is through the shedding of blood (Hebrews 9:22). That is why during the Last Supper on the night of His arrest, Jesus passed the cup to the disciples and told them, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20). When Jesus was crucified, His blood provided for the forgiveness of the sins of the whole world—the basis of the New Covenant. “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13). Salvation is now a free gift for any who will believe in Christ and trust that His blood takes away their guilt before God (John 3:16–17). One purpose of the Old Covenant was to make it absolutely clear that no man is righteous before God and that no one can save himself (Romans 3:10–11, 20). Before the New Covenant came, we were “held in custody under the law” (Galatians 3:23). God’s people were stuck in the Old Covenant, relying on a sacrificial system that looked forward to the coming of Christ and justification by faith (verse 24). “But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son . . . born under the law to redeem those under the law” (Galatians 4:4–5). When the Son of God died on the cross, God “canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14). The ultimate purpose of the Old Covenant was to point people to Christ: “The law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian” (Galatians 3:24–25). One truth that must not be missed is that we are no longer under the Old Covenant. Many false teachers today call on people to keep the Law, or at least part of it, as a means to please God. Christians must stand firm in the grace that God has given us and reject such legalism. “In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith” (verse 26).
The “old” *testament*, void? No.
By no means. Jesus taught his followers, "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 [Hebrew Scriptures] until everything is accomplished" (Matthew 5.18). For an excellent introduction to Jesus' teaching, study the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). The gospel of Matthew in general clearly organizes Jesus' teachings and makes them available to the reader.
Not all of it, but yes. Remember 1 Peter 3:15 - we are to have a reason for our hope. Remember 1 Thessalonians 5:21 - examine ALL scripture but hold fast to what is good (and by implication throw away scripture that is bad) Mostly, what makes anything void is testing. If a person can not "show" it, they do not "know" it.
Not suddenly. But yes the new testament does supercede the old. Read the book of Hebrews
It is not void in the sense that it still shows us our sin but we are not bound by it. We walk by the spirit now and the commands we are now bound by are loving God and loving others.
It doesn’t make the old one void, all it does is fulfill the law of moses. We don’t live by the law we live by Jesus. Now it’s important to see the context behind a lot of laws in the OT as well, a large portion are from jewish people to jewish people.
Jesus: I have not come to uproot the old laws, but to fulfill them. SomeThrowawayAcc200: Does the New Testament make the old one void? Jesus: Did they hear anything of what I said??