With a new generation comes renewed questioning of established orthodoxy, and this is not necessarily a bad thing as without constant discussion, well-reasoned doctrine can quickly become mindless dogma. Recent criticisms of Christianity regarding the relevance of the Old Covenant in the New Covenant era have come from both inside and outside the church walls. From the outside, many have accused Christians of hypocrisy and cherry-picking which biblical rules they choose to live by, citing Levitical laws such as those which forbid eating shellfish or mixing fabrics in clothing. From the inside, groups such as the Hebrew Roots Movement or Torahists have made similar claims, accusing the Church of abandoning Mosaic Law and adopting pagan practices as she swelled with Gentile converts. So, on this eighth day of a new year, it may be the perfect time to examine the biblical texts which produced the Christian understanding of the New Covenant and its application.
Fulfillment of the Law
To fully understand the biblical shift from the Old Covenant to the New, we must understand that the Old was not abandoned, abolished, changed, nullified, or broken, but fulfilled by Jesus.
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." -Mat 5:17-18 NASB
The Greek word translated as fulfill here is plero'o, which means to complete, satisfy, accomplish, or finish. In John's Gospel, Jesus' last words before He died on the cross were recorded as "It is finished," really driving this theological point home. The Greek word Jesus used on the cross was teleo, meaning, to accomplish or complete something—not merely to end it, but to bring it to perfection or its destined goal. But what exactly does it mean to fulfill, complete, accomplish, or finish the Law? Well, when a prophecy is fulfilled, that means it is no longer foretelling a future event as it has already come to pass, and therefore the prophecy itself is no longer active. Similar to verbal prophecies which speak of a future fulfillment, biblical types and shadows are non-verbal prophecies which point to a future fulfillment. For example, Moses was a type or shadow of Christ as he saved the Israelites and gave them the Levitical Law which established the ongoing blood sacrifices for sin. This pointed to the coming of the One who would save all men and be the perfect and final sacrifice for all sin.
When any obligation, contract, agreement, or order is fulfilled, it is no longer active because the stipulations detailed within it have been met. The contract was valid as it was agreed upon by the parties involved, but once the contractual obligation was met, it became fulfilled and therefore no longer current. Conditional covenants or promises in the Ancient Near East entailed obligations for both parties involved, and if either party did not fulfill those obligations, the covenant was broken and the other party was no longer bound to it. Unconditional covenants on the other hand, were promises made by one of the parties alone, with the other party simply being the benefactor with no stipulations, conditions, or obligations on their part.
Before we go any further, it is important to understand that the Levitical Law was not the Old Covenant—the covenant God made was with Abraham, not Moses. The promise of the covenant can be found in Genesis 12:1-3, while the legal ratification of the covenant is detailed in Genesis chapter 15. This covenant was unconditional in that God alone swore to uphold it, Abraham did not have to fulfill any obligations on his end (though later in Gen 17:7-11 circumcision was made a sign of the covenant). The covenant itself entailed God swearing to make a nation out of Abraham, to give that nation the area of land between the Nile and Euphrates rivers (Gen 15:18), to bless them, and to bless all nations through them. The Law given to Moses, or even the sign of circumcision, were not part of the Old Covenant—as Paul makes clear both in Romans and Galatians. They were added later and pointed to the Messiah who would come and fulfill the unconditional promise of the Old Covenant.
Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. -Rom 4:9-14 ESV
To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made... -Gal 3:15-19 ESV
Already we can begin to understand this covenant was not meant to be a solution, it was merely meant to establish the promise of the coming solution—the Messiah, through the lineage of Abraham, in whom all peoples would be redeemed. The Old Covenant occurred in scripture directly after the Tower of Babel incident where the nations were scattered and their languages confused as punishment for them rebelling against their creator once again and turning to other gods. Deuteronomy chapter 32 makes this clear and states that as a result, God separated the nations into 70 distinct peoples (according to the nations listed in Genesis 10) and apportioned regions of the earth for each as well as turning them over to other gods. Paul alludes to this as well in his sermon to the Athenians on Mars Hill (Act 17:22-31).
But God reserved for Himself a single people and region of land which He began His redemptive process with—Israel. But they were only the first fruits as is clear even in Genesis 12:3 when God told Abraham that through him, all peoples of the earth would be blessed. This future reality of the redemption of the Babel event continues to be hinted at by the prophet Isaiah, but was then made possible through the New Covenant, put into motion by the Great Commission, and is ultimately fulfilled just prior to Christ's return.
"Even those I will bring to My holy mountain And make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples." The Lord GOD, who gathers the dispersed of Israel, declares, "Yet others I will gather to them, to those already gathered." -Isa 56:7-8 NASB
And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” ...Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. -Gal 3:8, 13-14 ESV
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” -Mat 28:19-20 ESV
And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. -Mat 24:14 ESV
And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations. -Mar 13:10 ESV
After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” -Rev 7:9-10 ESV
The "Already, But Not Yet" Kingdom
If Jesus was the fulfillment of the Old Covenant, the offspring of Abraham in whom all the peoples of the earth would be blessed, what need do we then have of the promise of the Old Covenant itself? Well, the covenant also entailed a promise of land for Abraham's physical descendants, the nation of Israel, and this element of the Old Covenant could still be active—depending on your theology. Just as Jesus fulfilled the promise of the offspring of Abraham which all peoples would be blessed through, He was also the fulfillment of the promise to David that a descendant of his would always be on the throne of Israel (2 Sam 7:16 & 1 Ch 17:14).
But as Jesus isn't currently on the earth ruling and reigning, some argue that a spiritual kingdom has replaced the physical and therefore the territory allotted to Israel is no longer valid. However, prophecy clearly foretells of Jesus returning to rule and reign on the earth from Jerusalem, both during the millennial reign and then eternity from the new Jerusalem. Depending on your eschatological views, this isn't just a spiritual kingdom, but also physical with Jesus coming back to reign from the literal Jerusalem. This was such a prominent theme in the prophets, that the Jews expected the Messiah to be a conquering king immediately and was a key reason they rejected Jesus as the Christ.
As such, I find Replacement Theology, also called Supersessionism, to lack some necessary nuance as it claims the Church is the new Israel and the physical descendants of Abraham are all but forgotten by God. We must remember that it was we who were grafted into Abraham, not the other way around. Rather than take an "either/or" approach with the Church and Israel, a "both/and" understanding seems to better fit the biblical texts. The return of the Jews to their Messiah is also a key theme of eschatology in the New Testament, with "the time of the Gentiles" needing to first be fulfilled (Luk 21:24, Rom 11:25, Rev 11:2).
But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you... And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again... Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. -Rom 11:17-18, 23, 25 ESV
Key New Testament Passages
So, we as believers are not necessarily direct replacements of Israel, but rather grafted into the promise given to Israel. However, that does not mean we come under the Old Covenant, because it has been fulfilled—the Messiah has come and sin has been dealt with. We are therefore under a New Covenant of grace. Passages throughout the New Testament establish this fundamental doctrine with Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews in particular hammering this covenantal theology hard.
Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. -Rom 7:1-6 ESV
Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. -Gal 3:23-29 ESV
Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well... For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God. -Heb 7:11-12, 17-19 ESV
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. -Heb 8:13 NASB
As the promise of Old Covenant has been fulfilled by God, the author of Hebrews said it is obsolete and ready to disappear. But it has not disappeared yet as there are those still under the Old Covenant who have not entered the New. However, not only does Hebrews claim the Old is obsolete, it also agrees with Paul's assessment in Galatians that the Law was never effectual in the first place, and was only meant as a placeholder or a guardian until Christ came.
But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. -Heb 8:6-7 ESV
For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. -Heb 10:1-4 ESV
So, if the Old Covenant was fulfilled through Christ and as such, we are free from or released from the Law of Moses, and are no longer serving the old written code, then it is clear it is not necessary to continue to practice it. To illustrate this point, Paul uses the analogy of marriage in Romans, making the case that it is only a legally binding covenant until a death occurs. But upon death, the surviving spouse is no longer bound to that covenant—they are free to marry another. Once death and remarriage occurs, they no longer claim to be married to their deceased spouse or continue to act as if they were. The schedules, habits, compromises, and agreements made in the first marriage are not simply ported over into the second. Telling your new spouse that you have to continue to follow the routines, customs, and traditions of your late spouse in order to honor that covenant is a complete misunderstanding and misapplication of covenantal law and will almost certainly undermine, diminish, or create conflict in the new covenant of marriage you have entered.
The Transition from Old to New
But old habits die hard, and just as letting go of a deceased spouse and joining another in marriage can present some challenges, the transition from the Old to the New Covenant wasn't without its bumps. Not only were the disciples unsure at first how to proceed with Gentiles coming to the faith, they were unsure how to proceed themselves as Jews. Peter seemed particularly, or at least most notably conflicted. It was he who God gave the vision of unclean food being offered to eat, declaring all things now clean (Act 10:9-15). This vision convinced Peter that he could fellowship with Gentiles, but he still struggled with the idea, fearing being judged by other Jews. Paul confronted Peter with his duplicity, as recorded in Galatians chapter 2.
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" -Gal 2:11-14 NASB
This dilemma was officially addressed at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts chapter 15, where the apostles and elders gathered to consider the issue. It was here the transition from the Old to the New was made clear as many thought that regarding Gentile believers, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses" (Act 15:5). It was here that Peter argued the case for the Gentiles not observing the Law of Moses (v7-11) with the others then agreeing and sending an official letter to the churches stating:
"... For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." -Act 15:28-29 ESV
This was not the end of the discussion or the transition, however, as conflict and disagreements continued to arise between Jewish and Gentile believers, with the former often arguing the latter must follow the Law of Moses despite the apostles' and elders clear teaching. This group of contentious Jews became known as "Judaizers" and the book of Galatians was written, in large part, as a response to their claims. Further development of the instruction regarding meat sacrificed to idols can be found in 1st Corinthians chapter 8 and 10:23-33 where Paul clarifies that all food is now lawful, but not always beneficial as differences of conscience exist. Therefore, we are free to eat and drink anything, unless it causes someone else present to stumble—either a fellow believer who believes it to be sin, or an unbeliever who offered it to an idol and would interpret your eating it as worship to their god. In Paul's letters to the Romans and Colossians, he likewise makes this understanding both plain and clear. One person values one day over another, another values every day the same. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and the one who eats, does so with regard to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and the one who does not eat, it is for the Lord that he does not eat, and he gives thanks to God. -Rom 14:5-6 NASB
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. -Col 2:16-17 NIV
Here we see Paul expands the issues of conscience beyond meat or drink to include holy days, festivals, new moons, and even the Sabbath day. These additions are further commands found in the Law of Moses with feasts, festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths all strictly observed by Jews. From the context of Colossians chapter 2, we can see Paul is again addressing Judaizers as he compares and contrasts physical versus spiritual circumcision (v11-14). We see this teaching regarding circumcision throughout the New Testament in Romans, 1st Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Titus, all denouncing both the practice and its proponents. Paul was quite clear regarding the claims of the Judaizers.
For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. -Tit 1:10-11 ESV
But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery—to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. -Gal 2:3-5 ESV
It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. For even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh. But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. -Gal 6:12-15 ESV
Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called. -1 Co 7:17-20 ESV
Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. -Gal 5:2-6 ESV
These passages should make it painfully clear that the apostles understood and taught that the Law of Moses and even earlier practices under the Abrahamic Covenant not only weren't necessary under the New Covenant, but could actually become a hinderance, mixing law with grace and so offering opportunity for the flesh to boast.
Three Categories of Law
With an understanding that there is no part of the Old Covenant which carries over to Gentile believers, and that even Jewish believers are no longer required to observe it, the question is then, what parts of the Old Testament do apply in a New Testament era? The simple answer is, only that which is repeated, restated, reiterated, or affirmed in the New Testament texts. But theologians since the ancient Church Fathers have found it helpful to distinguish between three categories of Law in the Old Testament: Civil Law, Ceremonial Law, and Moral Law.
Civil Law was the judicial law and practices of the nation of Israel. This law established everything from the tax code to the punishments and penalties for crime, up to and including capital punishment. While believers today can certainly take note of the principles at work in the Civil Law, it is virtually impossible to actually practice them as no government on earth currently adheres to that code of law precisely, and individuals operating outside of the law raise other theological questions. While taxes and both corporal and capital punishment are obviously maintained as legitimate uses of government authority in the New Testament—in fact our entire faith rests upon the principle of capital punishment—the New Testament does not dictate a list of offenses worthy of such a penalty or define an appropriate tax structure. Instead, it simply acknowledges (and warns) that governments do indeed hold the authority in these matters (Rom 13:1-7).
Ceremonial Law dealt with customs and practices relating to ritual and worship under the Old Covenant. These laws were called hukkim or chuqqah in Hebrew, which literally means “customs of the nation” but the words are often translated as “statutes.” They could be regarding the customs of blood sacrifices in the temple and ceremonial cleanliness, customs in the form of feasts and festivals meant to remember God's faithfulness to Israel, dietary and clothing customs which were designed to distinguish Israel from surrounding nations, and customs such as the Sabbath, Passover, and the redemption of the firstborn which pointed to the coming Messiah. These customs were shadows of things to come, symbolic in nature, and no longer necessary to observe or practice as the Messiah has now come and fulfilled them. However, that does not mean they offer believers no benefit as often symbols and metaphors can highlight an insight or understanding that may not always be apparent in the actual.
Moral Law, called mishpatim in Hebrew and usually translated as "ordinances," is the law of God relating to justice and judgment based on His holy nature. The purpose of these laws are to define right from wrong and righteousness from unrighteousness based on God's identity and authority, and in doing so, promote the welfare of those who adhere to His definitions. These definitions establish and protect the identity and value of God, ourselves, and others. It is this category of law which scripture states is "written on our hearts." For example, the innate understanding that murder is wrong is universal among human societies, but the customs of each society establishing ethics and criminal penalties is not.
It is important to note that the Moral Law of God is consistent throughout both the Old and New Testaments in that there is not a moral sin given in the Old Testament which is redefined as "not sin" in the New. The New Testament affirms that God's definition of sin remains under the New Covenant and vehemently denounces behavior such as lying, stealing, murdering, kidnapping, sexual immorality, idolatry, etc. That is not to say the New Covenant simply ported over the definitions of the Old, however, as Jesus clearly made some changes, adding clarity and making the Moral Law in the New Covenant even more strict than in the Old.
"You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire." Mat 5:21-22 ESV
"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." -Mat 5:27-28 ESV
"It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." -Mat 5:31-32 ESV
"Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all... Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil." -Mat 5:33-34, 37 ESV
"You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." -Mat 5:38-39 ESV
"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven... You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." -Mat 5:43-45, 48 ESV
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." -Joh 13:34-35 NASB
Common Arguments
Most of the arguments and claims from outside the Church are simply taking Old Covenant passages indiscriminately and assuming they must be applied under the New. Other times, the exact opposite is attempted and critics will ignorantly claim Jesus or the apostles didn't explicitly condemn a certain moral sin mentioned in the Old Testament, so the Church shouldn't either. These arguments are easily refuted with basic literacy, hermeneutics, and logic. However, there is a small but growing sect within the Church that rejects the orthodox understanding of covenants and face-value reading of the texts, and argues that all of the Law still applies under the New Covenant. Their arguments are often more nuanced and complex and their motives usually appear more commendable, which makes their position harder to refute or defend against.
What is held in common between both of these views, however, is the idea that the Church doesn't understand the texts it purports to adhere to and that for thousands of years, the Church simply cherry-picked what it liked and ignored what it didn't. Both the secularists and the Torahists seem to ignore the fact that thousands of years of careful study by billions of dedicated and God-fearing men and women produced an orthodoxy which all church traditions have understood, whether they be Catholic, Coptic, Ethiopian, Syrian, Celtic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant. They instead, assert that the Church doesn't understand their own theology and that their hermeneutical approach for two-thousand years was deeply (and even purposely) flawed. As arrogant and historically ignorant as these claims are, they still need to be engaged with rather than simply dismissed, so let us address some of the common assertions.
God Can't Change His Law
This argument correctly claims that God cannot change, but incorrectly then concludes that His law cannot change, and therefore believers must observe all the laws of the Old Covenant, including ceremonial and civil. This leap of logic ignores the fact that God revealed His truth to humanity progressively, not all at once. It also ignores all human parallels, such as parenting. As a father, I do not give the same rules and restrictions to my kids all the time—some of them are maturity-dependent, others are situationally-dependent, and yet others are behaviorally-dependent. The fact that my rules are not 100% consistent across time, space, and children, does not mean I've changed, it means something else has. But we don't have to rely on human analogies or logical reasoning to refute this argument, as both can be flawed or have limitations. Instead we can simply show irrefutably in scripture the fact that God has indeed changed his laws and commandments.
For example, take the dietary law. In Genesis, God gave only plants and seeds as food for man (Gen 1:29), but after the flood, a major change occurred and God told Noah that all animals could be eaten as food as well (Gen 9:2-4). Then God changed his law regarding diet again when he told Moses only certain animals could be eaten. And then that law changed yet again when God told Peter that once more, all animals were permissible to eat (Act 10:9-16). The Torahists will argue that Peter's vision didn't mean all animals were now clean, it meant that all Gentiles were now clean. But the text clearly meant both/and, not either/or as a few chapters later in Acts, Peter makes his case to the apostles and elders and as a result, they wrote a letter to the Gentile believers stating that they could eat any animal they wanted. This understanding was repeated several times by Paul in his letters to Gentiles, and by the writer of Hebrews to the Jews.
I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean... Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. -Rom 14:14, 20 ESV
"All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be dominated by anything. "Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food"—and God will destroy both one and the other... -1Co 6:12-13 ESV
Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak... Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble. -1Co 8:8-9, 13 ESV
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. -Col 2:16-17 NIV
They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings--external regulations applying until the time of the new order. -Heb 9:10 NIV
This argument is further defeated by Jesus' own words in the previously quoted Matthew chapter 5 when he repeatedly said, "You have heard... But I tell you..." as He was quoting Old Covenant law and commandments, and then changing them to even stricter definitions. Hebrews makes this argument even more ridiculous when it states not only does a change in priesthood allow for a change in law, it necessitates it (Heb 7:12). So, yes, God can change His commandments, and He clearly did as He led us into truth.
Jesus, Peter, and Paul Kept the Law
This argument asserts that Jesus, Peter, and Paul all kept the Law of Moses, therefore all Christians should. Of course Jesus kept the Law because He was born under it, and His mission was to fulfill it and redeem everyone under it:
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. -Gal 4:4-5 ESV
But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. -Rom 7:6 ESV
Yes, Jesus had to keep the letter of the Law, but He made a way so that now we follow the spirit of the Law, not the letter. However, the claim that Peter and Paul kept the Law is patently and demonstrably false—scripture makes it very clear that both of them only kept the Law when around Jews. This was the reason for Paul's rebuke of Peter, because Peter was eating with Gentiles until "the party of the circumcision" showed up, and then he withdrew out of fear. And lest you think that Peter (Cephas) was only eating with them and not eating what they ate, re-read Paul's rebuke:
But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?" -Gal 2:14 ESV
Paul makes it clear that Peter was living like a Gentile, not simply associating with them. And this is not why Paul rebukes Peter, but rather because Peter is being hypocritical and applying a different standard to others. Paul himself openly admitted that he only kept the Law when around Jews or Jewish believers:
For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. -1Co 9:19-21 ESV
The Old Covenant was Everlasting
This argument asserts that because language used in the Old Testament speaks of an Everlasting covenant between God and Abraham (Gen 17:7), that means it cannot come to an end and therefore must always be observed and practiced. First of all, remember that the Old Covenant cannot be conflated with the Law of Moses—it was an unconditional covenant made by God to fulfill His promise to Abraham. Jesus was the fulfillment of that covenant and that promise, and through Christ, that promise is indeed everlasting. But that does not mean the Law of Moses is everlasting or even that the sign of circumcision given to Abraham is. Not coincidentally, soon after Christ's atonement for sin on the cross, the temple was destroyed by the Romans, so observing the Law of Moses isn't even possible, let alone necessary. The argument that you can keep most of the Law without the temple is also self-defeating: For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. -Jas 2:10 ESV
I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. -Gal 5:3 ESV
Furthermore, Revelation clearly states that there will be no more death and no temple in the new Jerusalem (Rev 21:4, 22), so the Law of Moses obviously won't be able to be practiced in eternity either. As such, the Law of Moses quite clearly is not "everlasting," but God's promise to Abraham to make him into a great nation and bless all the people of the earth through his offspring is. The new Jerusalem even makes God's promise of the land between the Nile and Euphrates as the inheritance of Abraham's offspring everlasting, as well as God's promise to David that his offspring would forever occupy the throne of Israel.
Ultimately, arguing the Law of Moses is everlasting, like most of the Torahists claims, runs aground of simple, plain-text readings of the New Testament. A simple question posed by theologian R.L. Solberg, who wrote the book, Torahism: Are Christians Required to Keep the Law of Moses? is this: Does God still require animal sacrifices to atone for sin? Leviticus clearly states that animal sacrifices are required to atone for sin (Lev 16:24, 16:34, 17:11 et al), yet Hebrews states that due to Jesus' sacrifice, there are no longer any sacrifices for sin.
Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. -Heb 9:25-26 ESV
When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), then he added, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. -Heb 10:8-10 ESV
"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds," then he adds, "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more." Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin. -Heb 10:16-18 ESV
So, if you answer no, God no longer requires animal sacrifices to atone for sin, then you must acknowledge there was a change in God's commandments and the Law of Moses is no longer in effect. If you answer yes, God still requires animal sacrifices to atone for sin, then you must acknowledge the sacrifice of Christ on the cross fulfilled and accomplished nothing and most, if not all of the New Testament texts—and the New Covenant as a concept—are meaningless.
The Law Just isn't Necessary for Salvation
This argument asserts that the New Testament writers meant the Law was not necessary for salvation, but was still a commandment of God which, if we love him, we will keep (Joh 14:15, 14:21, 15:10, 1Jn 5:2-3, 2Jn 1:6). Again, this rationale ignores the obvious fact that God's commandments can and have changed as demonstrated by the dietary law. There were also many commandments given to specific people at specific times in specific circumstances, so clearly every commandment of God is not applicable at all times for all people. He commanded Noah to build an ark, so for Noah, not obeying that instruction would be sin. That doesn't mean I have to build one in order to uphold all the commandments of God. The Law of Moses was a set of commandments given to Israel as a guardian until the Messiah came. Just as I am not Noah, I am not Israel, nor am I living under the circumstances they were when those commandments were given.
This argument also relies on a logical fallacy which is prevalent in this line of reasoning—the argument from silence. There isn't a single verse in the entire New Testament which claims that believers should observe the Law of Moses other than in specific instances of issues of conscience. Those who argue for the Law have to dance around this fact, make excuses for it, and often even invent conspiracy theories to account for it. None of the New Testament writers said the Law is simply no longer necessary for salvation—because it never was. The Law never produced salvation and was never a requirement for salvation, it was merely the guardian until salvation came through Christ.
The New Testament does, however, explicitly state the Law was fulfilled, that we were released from the Law, that we died to the Law so that we could be joined to Christ, and that the Law is now obsolete. There is no language anywhere in the New Testament texts which either states, or suggests the Law is necessary for obedience. This is simply assumed to be true due to the erroneous a priori argument that God's commandments cannot change. Furthermore, if not observing the Law was considered disobedience or sin, then the New Testament writers would be condoning and encouraging sin unless they instructed believers to follow it in any and every context.
The Catholic Church Distorted the Gospel Due to Antisemitism
This argument is probably the most nefarious. It typically alleges that the original New Testament texts were written in Hebrew (not Greek), and originally taught the Law of Moses should be followed, but the Catholic church edited the manuscripts and even destroyed the originals in order to preach a gospel that was more conducive to Gentile conversion. This argument relies heavily on Dan Brown, DaVinci Code-esque conspiracy theories similar to "the New Testament has been corrupted" claims of Islam that are equally historically ignorant. These allegations must ignore the fact that we have early New Testament manuscripts which predate even the Council of Nicaea by as much as two centuries and they show no signs of corruption, editing, or manipulation.
This argument also follows a very predictable pattern of cults which claim Christianity, but allege it has fallen away from truth, and that their group and unique interpretation of scripture alone represents the real gospel. Not coincidentally, the cult of the Worldwide Church of God—also known as Armstrongism, after its founder and leader Herbert Armstrong—held very similar beliefs to modern Torahists. After the death of Armstrong and his movement's subsequent rebranding and return to orthodox Christian theology, many of its ministers became theologically homeless, scattered, and either began, or infiltrated other churches, bringing their Armstrong theology with them. It is at this point in history where the modern Hebrew Roots Movement began to crop up.
It is important to note that Christianity wasn't institutionalized by the Roman government until the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 AD—55 years after the Council of Nicaea. So how the Boogeyman of Rome was able to accomplish the conspiracy alleged by this argument isn't just historically implausible, but anachronistic. In the first century, the Church was a loosely associated group of fledgling communities. Due to the vast geography it was spread across and the relational rather than institutional nature of its structure, it was best characterized as a decentralized, grassroots movement. As such, a centrally-organized conspiracy requiring hundreds, if not thousands of manuscripts to be located, collected, edited, and then redistributed by a small group of like-minded individuals would have been extremely challenging to pull off. We haven't found any original manuscripts (yet), but there is no reason to believe that they were first written in Hebrew (Paul's audience was primarily Gentile after all), and certainly no evidence that they were altered. All the evidence actually points to the contrary, so again, an argument from silence (or ignorance) is utilized.
We do know from the texts of the New Testament itself that tensions definitely grew between Jewish and Gentile believers, but those same texts claim it was the Jews who were distorting the gospel for their own purposes, not the Gentiles. It seems both logically plausible and historically evidenced that as the original disciples died off and the Gentile percentage of the Church grew, that sentiment probably flipped by the second century AD. But scholars date the latest New Testament texts as completed well within the first century and there is no evidence of them being edited by Gentiles with an agenda. So, the unfortunate and unbiblical sentiment of antisemitism which we do have some evidence of by the second century, cannot be used as an explanation for why the New Testament says what it does.
Paul's Writings are not Inspired
And the New Testament so clearly states what it does, that some Torahists have given up trying to twist or explain away the texts and simply rip all of Paul's epistles out of their Bible, claiming by fiat that his writings were not inspired so that they can maintain their a priori conclusion that the Law of Moses should be observed by believers. To do this though, they must also reject the writings of Peter as he claimed Paul's writings were scripture (2Pe 3:16), so more of the New Testament gets tossed. The book of Hebrews obviously has to go as well, and at some point, the Torahists also find Jesus Himself to be problematic for their views. So, in the end, the logical conclusion of Torahism is the Messiah must be rejected and Judaism accepted in order for the Old Covenant to be practiced in purity, though obviously not in totality until there's a third temple.
A Better Hope
Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law, He was the pure and spotless lamb of God, the perfect atonement for sin. He was the fulfillment of the promise given by God to Abraham, the offspring through whom all the peoples of the earth would be blessed. In Him we have adoption as sons and daughters into a righteous lineage rather than the fallen one of Adam. The Old Covenant was a promise of the Messiah, the New Covenant is the result of His coming. The Law saved no one, nor was it meant to. It's purpose was to identify sin, not atone for it, and to communicate spiritual truths with physical symbols. But now that the spiritual has been made manifest to us, the symbol is no longer necessary. There is no reason to cling to the hope of the promise when it has been fulfilled, the promise has come, and He is with us.
That is not to say that it is wrong to study and understand the Old Testament—we absolutely should. That is not to say that it is wrong to observe the Jewish feasts and fasts—there are symbolisms and insights there which could be beneficial to ponder. By no means is the Old Covenant now unlawful to practice, it's just completely unnecessary because it is obsolete and fading away. To make it a requirement of the Christian faith completely misses the foundational truth of what the Christian faith is. It is the recognition that Jesus is the Messiah, the promised one who would come and take away the sins of the world, who would redeem all peoples and all things unto Himself, who would conquer death, ransom the dead, and set the captives free. We have been released and set free from the Law because the covenant was fulfilled. The New Covenant is infinitely superior to the Old, so let us embrace it with joy and gratitude. The New has come, so let the Old pass away.
Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. -1Co 5:6-7 ESV
Comentários