Does the New Testament superscede the Old Testament

[Crabtownboy]

The word testament is both a legal and a theological term. It is legal in that we use it in our Last Will and Testament. It is theological in that it means a covenant between God and man. Let us use the definion of coventant as,

the conditional promises made to humanity by god, as revealed in Scripture.

If you write a new will and testament the old one is negated. Nothing holds from the one that has been replaced. The new completely supersedes the old.

To what extent is this true in the Bible. To what extent does the New Testament, God's covenant to mankind through Christ, replace the Old Testament?

If the New Testament does not totally replace the Old Testament, what parts of the Old Testament remain in force? What parts of the Old Testament have been removed?

This question came to my mind as I was reading, Whose Bible Is It? A History of the Scriptures Through the Ages by Jaroslav Pelikan. I am thinking this question over in my mind and I see cans of worms regardless of the position taken on this topic.

 

[Ruiz]

Good post, but innaccurate. Christ said he did not come to do away with the law but to fulfill the law. I think the word is significant in understanding the Old Testament.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Good post, but innaccurate. Christ said he did not come to do away with the law but to fulfill the law. I think the word is significant in understanding the Old Testament.

I appreciate your post and understand what you are saying. I had thought about this. But, it, in my thinking, this does not address the central issue I raised. Christ fulfilled the law ... that is true. However we say we are now under grace not the law. So, if grace replaced the law as a way to salvation what other areas of the OT are superseded or replaced?

Also, philosophically, how can we have a new covenant and yet still be under parts of the old covenant if parts of the old covenant were not included in the new?

 

[RAdam]

Grace did not replace the law as the way of salvation. Grace replaced the law in terms of administration. Nobody was saved by the law, neither was that the intention of the law. The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, Paul explained in the 3rd chapter of Galatians. The law contained lessons about Christ and salvation given to man through types and shadows. Now we are no longer children but are grown up and thus now have something better, the very image rather than the shadows.

People under the administration of the OT were saved the same way as those under the administration of the NT, that being by Jesus Christ. The difference is in the understanding. When Jesus died on Calvary, the vail in the temple was ripped in two. That vail had signified that the way into the holiest of all (picture of heaven) was not yet made manifest (Hebrews 9). When that vail was rent, God was saying, "now it is manifested how man is saved from his sins." You and I today are able to live with a greater understanding than the OT saints in that we are looking back on the cross and are thus better able to understand the OT prophecies and pictures of Christ.

 

[HAMel]

I am far from being a Bible Scholar but by the very definition you posted, Crabtownboy,

"the conditional promises made to humanity by god, as revealed in Scripture"

...would appear to me the Bible, from cover to cover, provides us with His Promises and designed to control, motivate, encourage and enhance our understanding so as to contain our attitude(s) in a Godly fashion and to live as Christ lived.

If the Old Testament was to be taken literally in 2010 there would be folks still offering animals on an Altar for atonement of sins. Eyes for eyes - teeth for teeth, etc.

As for me, my attitude has been drastically altered from what it was when I was in a lost condition. I am now speaking in a New Tongue, if you will, about the wonderful works of God.

Under the Law certainly things needed to be done physically and in order. Under Grace, we perform these same mandates but now with our heart.

 

[Ruiz]

Crab,

A couple of things, first the Bible is clear that the Old Testament is still good for doctrine, reproof, and training in Righteousness (II Timothy 3:16). Secondly, Jesus said that he did not come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it. You keep insisting he came to do away with the law which means you have some answering to do in the Biblical text.

I think you believe the Old Covenant is completely different than the New. The Old was a foreshadow of the New and pointed to the New Covenant. Granted, there are elements not like the other (Jeremiah 31), but there are similarities (the moral law) and fulfillment (the ceremonial law). There are promises, as well, that were not fulfilled and done away, they still remain as all the promises are "yes" to those who are in Christ Jesus. While we are not under Sinai in some regards, they have not totally done away with law. It was fulfilled, the promises remain, and we are still expected to live a moral life, to name a few.

 

[HankD]

The word testament is both a legal and a theological term. It is legal in that we use it in our Last Will and Testament. It is theological in that it means a covenant between God and man. Let us use the definion of coventant as,

If you write a new will and testament the old one is negated. Nothing holds from the one that has been replaced. The new completely supersedes the old.

To what extent is this true in the Bible. To what extent does the New Testament, God's covenant to mankind through Christ, replace the Old Testament?

If the New Testament does not totally replace the Old Testament, what parts of the Old Testament remain in force? What parts of the Old Testament have been removed?

This question came to my mind as I was reading, Whose Bible Is It? A History of the Scriptures Through the Ages by Jaroslav Pelikan. I am thinking this question over in my mind and I see cans of worms regardless of the position taken on this topic.

The short answer IMO is the Book of Galatians

Galatians 3

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.​

The law was never in competition with salvation by grace through faith.
The promise spoken of in Galatians 3:19 preceeded and overrides the Law of Moses. The promise was the Abrahamic Covenant. That the seed of Abraham would be a blessing to ALL nations.​

This hearkens back to Genesis 3
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.​

The law was a means to an end to clearly show that the end - salvation by grace through faith could not be achieved by the keeping/doing of any law apart from a degree of perfection unattainable by fallen adamic creatures.​

Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.​

The law must stand however as long as there is fallen flesh (sarx) to restrain/constrain​

1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,​

The Spirit of God reproving through the law to bring us to Christ:

John 16
8 And when He (The Spririt of truth) is come, He will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;​

In short, there is no "Old Testament" as such, it was a means to an end.
An experiment for us, not for God. To provide empirical evidence against and stop every mouth claiming salvation by obedience to a law.​

Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.​

There is only the grace of God. We are helpless and hopeless apart from that grace. There is no human means of salvation not even via the God-ordained Law of Moses.​

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.​

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.​

HankD​

 

[Berean]

Good post, but innaccurate. Christ said he did not come to do away with the law but to fulfill the law. I think the word is significant in understanding the Old Testament.

Understanding the Old & New Testaments is easier when you understand what is being written to Israel and what to the Church. Also what are facts and what are metaphors.

 

[RAdam]

Understanding the Old & New Testaments is easier when you understand what is being written to Israel and what to the Church. Also what are facts and what are metaphors.

OT Israel was a picture of the church in many respects.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Understanding the Old & New Testaments is easier when you understand what is being written to Israel and what to the Church. Also what are facts and what are metaphors.

Your reply is more to the point I was thinking about.

For the sake of discussion, the laws in Leviticus are many and varied. Are all those laws still in force? If not are some of them negated and some still in force? If so, how do we determine those that apply and those that do not?

The history in the OT is still history. That, of course, would not change.

What is the best way to determine what if fact and what is metaphor? I find this a very interesting topic to mull over.

 

[annsni]

Thus far in this thread, I can walk behind RAdam and say "Amen" to his posts.

 

[Ruiz]

Let me explain the difference in Galatians and Matthew in this discussion. Just posting verses without explanation on how they are different only adds to the confusion.

Galatians is dealing with Sinai in the sense of the ceremonial law. The Galatians thought they could be justified or had to keep the ceremonial law. In this regard, we all, hopefully, can say with one accord that this is not the Gospel. We are not justified by the law and keeping the ceremonial aspect is counter to the Gospel because Christ was the great High Priest.

However, Matthew is dealing with the moral law. The Sermon on the Mount is dealing with how we apply the moral law. To that, while Christ fulfilled the law he did not overthrow this law. He still expects us to keep the moral law, to not kill nor to even look upon a brother with hate. In that regards, the moral law is still in force and was not abrogated.

Now, when someone makes a blanket statement that the law is abrogated, they may believe Matthew's Sermon was as well. Traditional dispensationalists would say that the Sermon was a part of the Old Covenant and thus not applicable today. In my opinion, that is a form of anti-nomianism and should be rejected by all Christians. Jesus fulfilled the law but did not do away with the law (he perfectly obeyed all the moral law, but we are still bound to the moral law).

Thus, did God abrogate the entire law, is it no longer valid at all? No! Jesus' own sermon showed us the law is still good, if used lawfully. However, are we justified and required to keep the ceremonial aspect of the law in order to be justified? No! Christ was the great high priest who made the once and for all sacrifice for all people.

Did God abrogate all the law? No! In every way he fulfilled the law so that in some cases it is no longer valid but the law is still lawful.

 

[HankD]

We (children of God) are not under the law, we are dead to the law, the law has nothing to say to a dead man.

Romans 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.​

We are alive in the Spirit, led of the Spirit, live and walk in the Spirit.

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.​

Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law

Galatians 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.​

Being led of the Spirit, our human will and subsequent actions are controled by faith not the law of Moses - that which is not of faith is sin.

Unregenerate mankind is under the law.

1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,​

HankD

 

[RAdam]

God's moral law existed and was enforced by Him prior to the giving of the Mosaic Law. The ten commandments, for instance, are an enumeration of commandments God had been enforcing since day one. Murder, fornication, lying, following false gods, etc were all rules God held man to before the giving of the Mosaic Law.

Matthew 5-7 is all about explaining the difference between the spirit and letter of those laws. The Jewish people only saw the letter and some thought they were keeping the law without spot or blemish. However, Jesus explained to them that there was a spirit behind those commandments and that all are guilty of breaking these commandments, save Jesus Himself.

When we say that Christ fullfilled the law, what we mean is He fullfilled every requirement of the law. The law required penalty to be dealt out for those who break it. Jesus fullfilled this at calvary, taking upon Himself the penalty we had earned. The law also cannot justify a violator of its precepts, but rather requires entirely perfect obedience. Jesus fullfilled this by living a totally and completely righteous life according to God's law, and we are said to be just because that righteousness Christ wrought out while living under the law is freely given to us by God. Thus we say Christ fullfilled the law. The implications of this are that those things that were pictures of what Christ would do were done away, having been fullfilled. Thus there is no more need for a tabernacle/temple with animal sacrifices, because we now have the very image. God shook the thing and those temporal things were done away with. Hebrews 9 says those things were imposed on them until the time of reformation. Those things which are eternal, like His moral law, remain but are applied with the understanding of Christ's work - meaning that we understand that trying to keep the commandments of God doesn't get us to heaven, but is out of a heart to serve and love God. Christ is our righteousness and kept the law for us, but He also said if we love Him we should keep His commandments.

 

[HankD]

God's moral law existed and was enforced by Him prior to the giving of the Mosaic Law. The ten commandments, for instance, are an enumeration of commandments God had been enforcing since day one. Murder, fornication, lying, following false gods, etc were all rules God held man to before the giving of the Mosaic Law.

Matthew 5-7 is all about explaining the difference between the spirit and letter of those laws. The Jewish people only saw the letter and some thought they were keeping the law without spot or blemish. However, Jesus explained to them that there was a spirit behind those commandments and that all are guilty of breaking these commandments, save Jesus Himself.

When we say that Christ fullfilled the law, what we mean is He fullfilled every requirement of the law. The law required penalty to be dealt out for those who break it. Jesus fullfilled this at calvary, taking upon Himself the penalty we had earned. The law also cannot justify a violator of its precepts, but rather requires entirely perfect obedience. Jesus fullfilled this by living a totally and completely righteous life according to God's law, and we are said to be just because that righteousness Christ wrought out while living under the law is freely given to us by God. Thus we say Christ fullfilled the law. The implications of this are that those things that were pictures of what Christ would do were done away, having been fullfilled. Thus there is no more need for a tabernacle/temple with animal sacrifices, because we now have the very image. God shook the thing and those temporal things were done away with. Hebrews 9 says those things were imposed on them until the time of reformation. Those things which are eternal, like His moral law, remain but are applied with the understanding of Christ's work - meaning that we understand that trying to keep the commandments of God doesn't get us to heaven, but is out of a heart to serve and love God. Christ is our righteousness and kept the law for us, but He also said if we love Him we should keep His commandments.

Indeed. Love one another, believe on Him who sent me...

The law of love is not a yoke around our necks but the infusing of the like-kinded nature of the one who gave birth to us.

2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature,
having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
​

HankD

 

[Ruiz]

God's moral law existed and was enforced by Him prior to the giving of the Mosaic Law. The ten commandments, for instance, are an enumeration of commandments God had been enforcing since day one. Murder, fornication, lying, following false gods, etc were all rules God held man to before the giving of the Mosaic Law.

Matthew 5-7 is all about explaining the difference between the spirit and letter of those laws. The Jewish people only saw the letter and some thought they were keeping the law without spot or blemish. However, Jesus explained to them that there was a spirit behind those commandments and that all are guilty of breaking these commandments, save Jesus Himself.

When we say that Christ fullfilled the law, what we mean is He fullfilled every requirement of the law. The law required penalty to be dealt out for those who break it. Jesus fullfilled this at calvary, taking upon Himself the penalty we had earned. The law also cannot justify a violator of its precepts, but rather requires entirely perfect obedience. Jesus fullfilled this by living a totally and completely righteous life according to God's law, and we are said to be just because that righteousness Christ wrought out while living under the law is freely given to us by God. Thus we say Christ fullfilled the law. The implications of this are that those things that were pictures of what Christ would do were done away, having been fullfilled. Thus there is no more need for a tabernacle/temple with animal sacrifices, because we now have the very image. God shook the thing and those temporal things were done away with. Hebrews 9 says those things were imposed on them until the time of reformation. Those things which are eternal, like His moral law, remain but are applied with the understanding of Christ's work - meaning that we understand that trying to keep the commandments of God doesn't get us to heaven, but is out of a heart to serve and love God. Christ is our righteousness and kept the law for us, but He also said if we love Him we should keep His commandments.

A couple of notations. First, the 10th commandment was not a "law" before the law and there is debate about the 4th commandment. The greatest commandment was a part of the Sinai. Next, when Jesus says, You have heard it said, you have to go back to where it was written. That is clearly going back to Exodus 20 in most situations. As well, As well, he seems to quote other aspects of the law like Divorce in this scenario. Thus, to say that most of these were around before the law is not taking the entirety of the Sermon. I believe any Jew would see that he was referring to the law of Sinai.

As well, Jesus still refers to this as the law and makes illusions to Sinai. I will agree that he was showing how the law was more than a mere keeping of the external law, but he still upheld the law as the law.

 

[RAdam]

A couple of notations. First, the 10th commandment was not a "law" before the law and there is debate about the 4th commandment. The greatest commandment was a part of the Sinai. Next, when Jesus says, You have heard it said, you have to go back to where it was written. That is clearly going back to Exodus 20 in most situations. As well, As well, he seems to quote other aspects of the law like Divorce in this scenario. Thus, to say that most of these were around before the law is not taking the entirety of the Sermon. I believe any Jew would see that he was referring to the law of Sinai.

As well, Jesus still refers to this as the law and makes illusions to Sinai. I will agree that he was showing how the law was more than a mere keeping of the external law, but he still upheld the law as the law.

He's referring back to Exodus 20 because that was where God's moral law was stated clearly. Up until this time, it hadn't been put into writing and given to man as such. But, these were principles put into place much earlier. That is manifest given two things: 1) God upheld these commandments by punishing those that violated them and 2) Jesus referred to creation with respect to the divorce in the Mosaic Law. Obviously these principles were in play before Exodus 20, though that is where they were stated and given to man in such a form.

 

[convicted1]

Here is a thread that has been dormant for almost a year; last post was 6/17/10. I guess I missed this one?

Now, lets look at the differences between the two testaments:

OT was looking towards the cross, whereas the NT believers look back to the cross.

OT was full of sacrifices that had to be kept every year, whereas Christ's sacrifice fulfilled them all.

These are the two I am concerned with. Jesus fulfilled the OT, and we no longer live under it, but we live under grace now. In the OT, they had to keep it, whereas in the grace covenant, it keeps us. The OT was a "fleshly" covenant that kept us in bondage to it. If they didn't keep it(and they didn't), there were major consequences for them. The grace covenant is directed towards our soul, the inner man, and it is kept by the power of God.

Will anyone else expound on this? I'd like to see this thread revived and go into some really good(and civil) discussions.

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

[revmwc]

No both reveal God's plan for man and the Gospels of course fulfill many O.T. prophecies.

 

[JesusFan]

The word testament is both a legal and a theological term. It is legal in that we use it in our Last Will and Testament. It is theological in that it means a covenant between God and man. Let us use the definion of coventant as,

If you write a new will and testament the old one is negated. Nothing holds from the one that has been replaced. The new completely supersedes the old.

To what extent is this true in the Bible. To what extent does the New Testament, God's covenant to mankind through Christ, replace the Old Testament?

If the New Testament does not totally replace the Old Testament, what parts of the Old Testament remain in force? What parts of the Old Testament have been removed?

This question came to my mind as I was reading, Whose Bible Is It? A History of the Scriptures Through the Ages by Jaroslav Pelikan. I am thinking this question over in my mind and I see cans of worms regardless of the position taken on this topic.

NT states that the OT was a shadow, a type of what to come, while Christ is the sunstance/fulfillment of the OT promises God had made...

OT was "just" as inprired as the NT, but not all of it is applicable to us today, as much of it dealt with laws/rules/ordinances governing relationship between Isreal and the Lord..

With a doubt principles and illustrations on how God operates with man, how He is the same way even today...

have to read NT as completer/finisher to OT, as we are now under Grace, not the Law!