The new covenant is made between God and his people through Jesus. In this case "his people" are no longer exclusively Jews. Now, the new covenant comes with it's own "t&c"s but that doesn't necessarily mean that the old covenant is to be abandoned. The covenant made at Mt. Sinai with the 10 Commandments didn't abolish any of the the covenants that came before it (eg: Abraham's covenant of circumcision). BUT...
Through out the new testament, there seems to be this theme of the new covenant superseding and replacing the old. The old covenant is referred to with terms such as "done away with (Rom 3), obsolete (Heb 8), law of death (Rom 8)".
It is on this basis that old testament rules which were given under the old covenant are no longer applicable to us - sabbath keeping, food, clothing, animal sacrifices.
There isn't a consensus among all theologians about this particular understanding of how the new and old covenants interact with eachother. But I find the case for this position more convincing. It seems to make better sense of everything that scripture has to say on the matter, without cherry picking.
Yes, there is Jesus' sermon on the mount. he said he came to fulfill the law and not abolish it. In the old testament, the law was given and said to be "forever". The new testament says that "sin is lawlessness". If we look at only these in isolation (cherry pick) a good case can be made to say that the old testament law applies to us. But keep in mind that the new covenant (Luke 22, 1 Cor 11) had not been made until the last supper, when Jesus gives "a new command" (John 13).
To simply look to the old testament law as a binding set of moral rules for all humanity doesn't accurately represent the circumstances and context in which it was given. It was given as terms of a covenant made between God and the Jews. (Exodus 34, Deut 4, 9, 1Kings 8). The levitical customs too were given that way - as terms of the covenant. So IF the covenant is no longer in effect, if it has been broken, it's terms are no longer binding. In fact the wording of some of the above references seems to say that the 10 commandments or the law as a whole ARE the covenant.
First, let us look closer at Matthew 5.
17 “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. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Does this mean that the old testament law is binding on Christians today? For the following reasons, NO!
- The new covenant had not been made yet when he said this.
- The context of these words were in relation to the necessity of "righteousness" in order to "enter the kingdom of heaven", a principle which is equally in effect under the new covenant.
- He says this as the introduction to when he raises the standard of righteousness above what the law required.
Overall it would seem that the dominant theme in the entire passage, right to the end of chapter 7, is not that the old testament law is binding on everyone, everywhere and 'every-when'. Rather, its purpose is to describe the immensely impossible to attain standard of righteousness which is necessary to avoid God's judgement. Jesus was making his audience aware of how they had fell short of righteousness by far more than they thought! He was priming them to appreciate the new covenant! He was preparing them to receive and understand the gospel! - more on this later.
Is the old covenant abolished or broken? These passages suggest that it is:
Galatians 3. Specifically: that the law was "added til the seed should come". Is there an expiry date? Yes. When? When the seed comes. Has the seed come? Yes if we agree that Jesus is the seed. So is it expired? Yes.
Jeremiah 31. Says the old covenant had been broken, which is why a new one was needed.
Hebrews 8 references Jer 31 and expounds on it.
2 Corinthians 3. The old law refered to as "ministry of death"
Romans 7 Parallels the new and old law to a woman's covenant with her husband. If the first husband (old law) dies, she is free from all obligation to that husband and can marry another (new law).
Unlike the old covenant which maintained the *sign* of the previous covenant - circumcision. The new covenant replaces the signs that came before it with Baptism (Colosians 2, 1 Peter 3). Circumcision was a sign of the seal of righteousness for Abraham (Romans 4). For us, our seal is the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1, 2 Corinthians 1).
In all these ways, the new covenant seems to mirror the old covenant. So if one were to ask what is the relevance of the old covenant to us, it sets up the context in which we are to understand the new covenant. That's how the new testament seems to present them when they are both mentioned together. Parallels and distinctions are drawn between the two.
Why not keep the sabbath but honour our parents? Actually, the case being made is that ALL of the rules under the old covenant are obsolete as they've been superseded by the new covenant.
The above is a more comprehensive than usual explanation of WHY and HOW certain old testament rules don't apply to us such as sabbath keeping. But that's only 1 of the 10 commandments, let alone the rest of the law. All the scripture we looked at above doesn't single out sabbath keeping. It talks about the WHOLE law being "obsolete" etc. It doesn't make sense to pick out Sabbath keeping when the text doesn't do that. So if the whole old testament law is inapplicable to us, can we then live as we please? Should we start stealing, murdering and committing adultery if we feel inclined to do so? THIS is the same objection that is addressed several times in Paul's letters.
In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul says that while he is free from "THE law" he IS under "Christ's Law". In Galatians, he instructs believers to "fulfill the Law of Christ". There is no consensus on what "law of Christ" fully means. BUT, clearly it is not the same as the old testament law. This law which WE are still to fulfill is not the old testament law.
Just as everything else about the new covenant mirrors the old, the new covenant also has a better version of the old testament law. It could refer to one or both of these:
The call to "love" as the all-encompassing equivalent of the entire old testament law and any other moral virtue (Romans 13, John 13).
To live by the spirit and not by the flesh (Galatians 5, Romans 8)
So how are Christians called to live righteously, if not according to the OT law?
Romans 7:6 "But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code."
2 Corinthians 3:6, Jesus "has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."
Look at what it says in 1 John 3:23-24. Notice that it doesn't mention the OT law anywhere. Instead, the reason why we honour our parents, love our families, not murder, not commit adultery, not steal, be honest, and ANYTHING ELSE that we consider to be morally virtuous is because of our obedience to the new covenant command, "love". (Romans 13, Galatians 5)
However, considering that the Old Testament foreshadows and is an inferior reflection of the New Testament, has it completely lost its value even as a reflection? Is there not a pattern of living discernible from Old Testament law that would not contradict Christ's law? Particularly considering that 'All the Law and Prophets hang from' the two most important commandments Jesus had for us?
"All the law and prophets hang on these two" are the words of Jesus from Matt 22.
Does this mean that just because something is there in the old covenant, it's morally advisable for us - thou shalt not wear clothes made of linen and wool (Leviticus 19)? Is the material of our clothes a morally significant matter?
Note that the Matthew 22 quote from Jesus saying all the law and prophets hang on the first two is something he said before making the new covenant. Not to take away anything from what he said, but it should not be taken to mean that we, under the new covenant, ought to be using the old testament law in its entirety as our moral compass.
The Old Testament (including the law) IS informative in that it contains so much revelation about the heart and mind of God that it would be difficult for us to act according to Romans 12:1-2 without taking seriously what the Old Testament has to say.
So is the OT law completely irrelevant to us? Not at all! The OT is relevant to us in that although it is non-binding, it is still informative. By "we aren't required to live according to the old testament law", we don't mean that we should live contrary to it but that it's not the standard we are aiming to live by. It's non-binding.
To better understand Matt 22, consider this. Take for example some of the non-morally weighted rules in the old covenant like not eating pork. Does this tell us that God is morally opposed to eating pork? Is it SINFUL to eat pork? We know from the new testament that it's not. But was it sinful for a Jew under the old covenant to eat pork? Absolutely, as they would be disobeying the God who they're supposed to love and value more highly than anything else (breaking the first two commandments).
It's highly plausible that one reason why God gave them these rules to live by is to make them distinctly different and unique to the idolatrous peoples who lived around them. It was so that they'd be God's UNIQUE people. And what He wanted from them was simply their obedience - which is the practical implication of keeping the first two commandments. He wanted them to treat Him as their Lord, King, and ruler, while all other nations had human kings, emperors, pharaohs, etc.
So here is what Jesus means when he says all of the law and prophets hang on the first two commandments. He meant that the purpose behind every rule that Jewish people had to observe, wasn't so that they could consider themselves morally superior than non-Jews, but so that they could live out the essence of the first two commandments. Note that he said this as a response to a question from a member of the pharisees and Sadducees, "What is the greatest commandment?". He was saying this to a group of people who were seen as the most morally superior people, because of how strictly they followed all the rules. This best fits in with the context surrounding those words of Jesus.
Recommended Resources:
A more comprehensive verse by verse video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HpPEdNOyK0&index=1...
To hear both sides of the debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdfeMkgqgrQ
Book: Should Christians Keep The Sabbath, Chris White
http://www.amazon.com/Should-Christians-Keep-The-Sabbath-ebook/dp/B00C5IGPCW
No comments:
Post a Comment