This is what is troubling me. Without any sort of consensus, we end up agreeing on sola scriptura and the sufficiency of the Scriptures, but people reference the Old Testament as authoritative in wildly different ways. We feel perfectly justified in quoting Old Testament verses to support our view and just as cavalierly rejecting others as no longer applicable that don’t support our view. I am horribly guilty of doing this. In the local gathering of the church I think it is a common occurrence. I would hazard that we have all heard someone reference something out of the Old Testament in a sermon and apply it under the New Covenant where it probably doesn’t fit and likely we have done the same thing ourselves.
The principles enumerated in the book of Proverbs are not any less valid under the New Covenant. What is wise or what is foolish is pretty straightforward. The accounts of the Exodus, of the flood, of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, of God establishing His covenant with Abram, these are all historical events and all impact the New Testament. On the other hand, there are lots of civil laws and ceremonial laws that don’t seem to be still in effect. The covenant with Abram is fulfilled/being fulfilled in Christ but the sign of the covenant (circumcision) is not binding on the church, either in form or application. The covenant with Moses was broken by the Jews but the new and better covenant has come that supersedes that Old Covenant. How we relate to the world, how we worship God, the grafting in of Gentiles to the people of God, lots and lots of stuff is different now than in the Old Testament.
So how should we use the Old Testament? As still fully binding? As not binding at all? Case by case?
3 comments:
Arthur,
This is a great post that asks a good question. I find myself struggling with this issue. Like you, I have and continue to be inconsistent in my use and application of the O.T.
It does seem that regardless of the specifics in the O.T., we can pull principles from the situation to inform our lives. However, we often even see those principles somewhat differently among ourselves.
This is a tough one. Quite honestly, it is probably one of the reasons why I find myself teaching mostly from the N.T.
When you figure it out, please post about it. Thanks.
Arhtur,
I quite agree that it is a complicated situation. I'm under the opinion that we moderns don't quite understand what God's law is, what it's nature is, and why he gave it. This leads to much of our confusion.
One thing I've most recently been thinking about is the emphasis God places on the separation of the Jews from the other peoples, especially in the physical sense. You know, mixed fibers and all. Also, Satan doens't rule the earth the way he did before Christ. I'm thinking a lot of God's law was because the heathen were more under control of demonic activity, thus the physical separations as an extreme form of protection. Now that the principalities and powers have been defeated and Satan cast out of heaven like lightning, a change has been made. Gentiles are now part of the tree, as they have been grafted in. This is why many of the laws are no longer needed in the NT.
Another is that Israel as a civil nation is no longer part of God's plan for his people. Capital offenses as part of civil law had something to do with the demonic nature of the surrounding nations. God's people no longer exist as a civil nation, but it is now our task to disciple all the nations. So, certain civil laws don't apply.
Also, I read an interesting examination of the Law that seemed to include language suggesting part of the law was for all peoples of all times as opposed to merely for the Jewish nation state. I'll have to find the link to that and post it.
I believe there's a method to the madness which is a proper "pick and choose" theology. It is based on reasons for the law, and I admit reasons that we don't easily comprehend. I've been wanting to do an intensive study of the law, but as usual, time is not on my side.
Excellent question!
My father has always preached that any "Anything from the Old Testament which Jesus did not explicitly change in the new testament is still in effect." Makes sense, wouldn't you say? I agree with this.
Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it.
If we look to the Old Testament civil laws for the basis of our modern legal questions, we find what is written there makes a whole lot more sense than what's being thrown around today and written into the law of the land by our "enlightened" legislators.
Post a Comment