The New Covenant vs the laws of the OT

Christians say that because of the New Covenant, they are not required to follow the laws of the OT, the laws of the old covenants.

Is that a Biblical position? Or just more convenient?

But Jesus said...

In fact, Jesus was very clear that the old laws of the OT still apply:
Mat 5:18 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.
The usual response is to say that actually these laws only apply to Jews.

Really? So God is a racist, and considers it only an abomination when a Jew eats shellfish? If it is an abomination for a Jew to eat shellfish, why is it not an abomination when a Christian does it?

The New Covenant is for Jews

It is especially odd because the Bible states that the new covenant is specifically for Jews:
Jeremiah 31:31 "The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.
And we know that this is the new covenant of Christianity because Hebrews 8 explicitly states that:
Hebrews 8:7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said[b]:
“The days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
So this new covenant is for Jews, the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. If a Christian does not uphold the old covenants because they are only for Jews, why think the new one, which is clearly stated as for Jews, applies to gentiles?

A New Covanent the replaces the old?

Now Hebrews does go on to say:
Hebrews 8:13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
So on the one hand we have Jesus saying the laws (of the Jews, perhaps) will not change in the slightest, and on the other we have the author of Hebrews saying they will soon disappear! No wonder Christians are so confused.

Of course, it is quite possible the author of Hebrews thought they would disappear at the apocalypse, when heaven and earth disappear and all is accomplished, and entirely reasonable to suppose that the author thought this would be soon - Jesus did say within that generation, after all.

But as that has yet to happen it does not help Christians who really do not want to keep the OT laws. And so they have to pretend the Bible says one thing, when really it does not.

A moral buffet?

If the OT laws only apply to the Jews, does that mean Christians reject the Ten Commandments? Of course not! What it apparently means is that Christians are free to cherry pick what they want from the OT - a moral buffet, as it were.

A couple of centuries ago, Christians used the laws of the OT to support slavery; nowadays they do not. Some Christians are very anti-homosexuality, others are not. Some are very antiabortion, others are not. This cherry-picking approach to the OT allows a lot of flexibility is what an individual thinks is right or wrong.

The only thing they all have in common is the certainty that they are right!

What is the New Covenant?

Can you point to the where the laws of this supposed new covenant are set out in scripture?

The other covenants are there. The Noahic (Genesis 9:8-17), the Abrahamic (Genesis 12–17) and the Mosaic (Exodus 19-24) (there is also a priestly covenant that applied only to Aaron and his descendants, and a Davidic covenant, which involved only a promise from God, but no additional laws for the Jews to keep).

Each one builds on the earlier ones, an agreement where God makes a new promise to his people, and in return they will keep additional laws - that is, they keep all the laws of the earlier covenants, but agree to keep the new ones as well, because God is likewise doing something extra.

This supposed new covenant is not like that. It is not set down, it does not uphold the previous covenants. Why is that?


Because Jesus had no new covenant

Timing

Most Christians say the New Covenant started at the last supper. But Hebrews tells us that it had not started when that was written decades later.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Southern Baptist Convention Position on Abortion

Evangelical Christians in the US are very strongly anti-abortion. However, it was not always so. As recently as 1970 the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) - the largest Protestant denomination in the US - advocated for legalising abortion. A Complete Reversal The landmark law case in the US was Roe v. Wade, in 1973, and abortion has been legal since that time. Jane Roe was the pseudonym of the woman wanting the abortion; Henry Wade the district attorney who stood for the state, prohibiting it. Roe was represented by two attorneys; one was Linda Coffee, a member of the SBC. The Baptist Press interviewed her after the successful conclusion of the trial. The decision of Roe v Wade was generally regarded as a good one by the SBC. To evangelicals of that time abortion was seen as a Catholic issue. You can find a list of abortion-related resolutions made by the SBC from 1971 onwards  here . It is clear that in 1971 they saw abortion - quite reasonably - as undesirable, but it was consi
Read more

Kent Hovind: Third wife in three years?

Kent Hovind is, perhaps the very worst of the creationists, so it is with some interest I note that he is now on this third wife in three years. For many years he was married to Jo Hovind, who ended up going to prison for a year due to her involvement in tax fraud. Once Kent got released from his rather longer prison sentence, it was not long before Jo filed for divorce (early 2016) - possibly to distance himself from any further gaol sentences. A few months later, 24th Sptember 2016, and he married Mary Tocco - not a full marriage, but a covenant before God. It looks like she got various assurances that Kent's new business was entirely honest before she got married. However, she later cam to realise that that was not really the case, and, again to avoid ending up in prison , she left him in November 2017. http://kehvrlb.com/mary-tocco-on-leaving-kent-hovind Less than a year later and he has a new wife, Cindi Lincoln, a former friend of Mary's. It is not clear if they
Read more

Hinman's "Argument From Transcendental Signifier"

ETA (23/Jun/20): I have just heard Joe is in hospital. I wish him a speedy recovery. All the best, Joe. This is an argument for God that Joe Hinman has presented several times on various of his sites: http://www.doxa.ws/Ontological/TS2.html https://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2020/05/transcendental-signifier-argument.html http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2011/06/transcendental-signifier-argument.html http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2018/01/premises-4-7-ts-argumet.html The argument is a seven step syllogism: 1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops) 2. OP's summed up in TS 3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind. 4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe. 5. minds organize and communicate meaning 6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS 7. Concept of God unites TS with universal m
Read more