How relevant do you think the Old Testament of the Bible is?

[amyjo5995]

I've been reading and hearing a lot about people and some groups saying that the Old Testament of the Bible is completely irrelevant in this day and age. I guess many people are trying to say that everything in the OT was set aside when Jesus preached, that He completely did away with any of the laws that were OT. I know, in my reading (and I will say, I'm not well versed in all the Bible, but I'm making my way through it) that, in my opinion, he replaced some of the old laws, but not all of them, and that there are a lot of laws in the OT that were for the Jews and not the Gentiles. But, I believe that the OT is just as true and relevant now as it was then, along with the NT and that unless it was something that Jesus specifically talked about, it's the same. What had me thinking about all of this, is the uproar over gays/homosexuals. I've read several places that try to say that since Jesus Himself didn't say it was a sin and that there isn't anything in the NT about it, that it's ok. Thoughts?

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

The OT is still relevant and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Let Jesus himself confirm this to you in Matthew 5:17,18.

FL

[neo-x]

A good question to ask is, what do you mean exactly when you say O.T? do you mean the law alone? because that is in the first five books of the O.T. Do you mean Law and prophecies, the law however is not relevant in terms of applying to us. But the O.T is more than just the law.

The second good question to ask is what do you mean by relevant? By relevant you mean commandments you can keep? or you mean relevant to study and understand the N.T in light of the O.T, the fulfilled prophecies and all?

[amyjo5995]

When I say O.T. I mean the whole thing, not just the law. That's what I'm thinking anyway. One of the articles I was reading, the person said basically that the whole OT might as well be thrown out because it has no place in the "modern" world. I don't think that is right at all. I think some people are wanting to go with this theory, especially when it comes to homosexuality, because in the OT it plainly says its a sin, and in the NT, Jesus doesn't really specify that it is a sin. So, some are wanting to go with "since He didn't say it was, then it isn't". And what I mean by relevant, I'm thinking the whole thing-relevant to study, to learn from, and to know what God expects from us.

[PaulSacramento]

The OT is relevant in issues that the NT does NOT address.
In those that both the OT and NT address, the NT takes precedent ( New Covenant).
Christ fulfilled the Law and while that doesn't mean that ALL if it was abolished, it does mean that His teachings superseded those of the Torah.
Then there is the issue of WHICH Laws of the OT are relevant.
Certainly the majority of the 10 Commandments are still relevant, but certainly to old Deuto-levitcal dietary and ritualistic laws are not.

[jlay]

Relevant does not equal applicable.

I teach from the OT a lot, and I can assure you it's relevant. It teaches us the nature of man and the nature of God. Paul said that the scriptures were able to make a man wise unto salvation. The OT teaches us the importance of trusting God.
That doesn't mean we apply the Levitical law. We don't. It doesn't mean we condemn eating shellfish today. It also doesn't mean we condone homosexuality or other sexual sin. People are going to look at things as it suits them. If someone refers to the OT regarding homosexuality, they will say, "So is it OK to stone your child for disobeying?" This only shows that they treat the text with total disregard for sound exegesis.

The OT was definately not set asside when Jesus preached. He was sent to Israel regarding Israel's covenant promises. As Jesus said, "I have not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets." Now, many misapply this verse. This verse was spoken to Israel.
So, are we to practice the OT law today? No. You will not find mention of the church as we know it today during Jesus' earthly ministry. Jesus life, death and resurrection had a much broader impact than was known to His 12 disciples. That is why Paul was sent. During Jesus' earthly ministry all the distinctions were in place. Circumcision versus uncircumcision. During Paul's minsitry a mystery is revealed that God is unveiling a new economy in how God will deal with man. This comes through Israel's rejection of Messiah, cutting off the Isreal program for a time.

Jesus came to fulfill the Law for Israel. To establish and fufill all the promises made by God to this specific people. These promises had to do with a people and a place, earthly. Paul's program is for all people in all places. It is heavenly. During Christ's earthly ministry there was distinction. Under Paul none. (Gal. 6:15)
The word abolish used by Jesus in Matt. 5:17 is the same root word used by Paul in Eph. 2:15. (Kata). Now, if one wants to misapply Jesus' words then they are left with a major contradiction, and place Paul and Christ at odds. Anyone who misses these differences is ignoring the plain teaching of scripture.
We are to interpret the OT in light of this newest revelation. Period. If we "rightly divide the Word of truth," then we will do well. (2 Tim. 2:15)

[PaulSacramento]

Yes, I agree.
And I may add that many a "confusion" in the OT is made clear when read in light of the NT.

[Jac3510]

An excellent article and easy to read. It is focused primarily on the Law, but everything it says is applicable to the entire OT.

[1stjohn0666]

About Gentiles coming to the faith Acts 15 is a good read (and yes there are food laws) Anyway, if you take the BULK of scripture you would have the OT in your hand. To not have the OT or "tossed out" the fundamental and core doctrines would collapse. One without the other is half truth.

[cheezerrox]

The Old Testament's entirely relevant. It's 3/4 of the Bible, and ALL of the NT concepts of G-d, the Messiah, faith, the afterlife, etc. are derived from the OT, and all of the OT's teachings are assumed in the NT. Anyone trying to divorce the two either has a ridiculously damaged understanding of what the NT actually says, or is antisemitic.

As far as how relevant the Torah (Law) is, I personally believe that it's still completely relevant, and that the NT supports this view.

[neo-x]

The Old Testament's entirely relevant. It's 3/4 of the Bible, and ALL of the NT concepts of G-d, the Messiah, faith, the afterlife, etc. are derived from the OT, and all of the OT's teachings are assumed in the NT. Anyone trying to divorce the two either has a ridiculously damaged understanding of what the NT actually says, or is antisemitic.

Cheez, I think it is important that we define the word "relevant" how do you mean its relevant, relevant to what? to understanding, to practice, to obey?
For a theological construct and its understanding, the O.T is helpful. From a historical point it is completely relevant. Yet the concept of God, faith and afterlife while may be derived from the O.T do not specifically need O.T to explain themselves. I think N.T has a sufficient understanding of these concepts.

We often forget that people who came to God, without the Bible and the O.T specifically were believers like all others. Consider the Church in Rome to whom Paul wrote the epistle, they didn't have the O.T, they were a gentile church.

Divorcing the O.T from the N.T doesn't affect the purpose or function of the N.T at all, but yes it results in a lot less explanation of things yet I don't see how that makes O.T a must. Its a valuable addition but to the point and function and purpose of the N.T, the O.T doesn't add anything to those parts. The authenticity of the O.T is not in question here but the relevance to the new covenant where the old covenant was not good enough.

I wonder why would you call people antisemitic or having a damaged understanding of the N.T, for believing anything different? I understand how for messianic Jews the O.T is crucial but that is because in that context the O.T matters as it was written to Israel. I don't see the relevance elsewhere apart from getting a background additional understanding of the historical context.

[cheezerrox]

Cheez, I think it is important that we define the word "relevant" how do you mean its relevant, relevant to what? to understanding, to practice, to obey?
For a theological construct and its understanding, the O.T is helpful. From a historical point it is completely relevant. Yet the concept of God, faith and afterlife while may be derived from the O.T do not specifically need O.T to explain themselves. I think N.T has a sufficient understanding of these concepts.

I would consider it relevant in all of those ways; to understanding, to practice, and to obey.
And you may be right, many central concepts are explained well-enough in the NT, such as G-d, faith, and the afterlife, but these are simply because they're such central concepts that they're talked about often. I'm not saying that the NT doesn't bring anything new or different than the OT, what I'm saying is that any doctrine not supported by the OT can't be true. The Trinity, salvation by faith, the bringing in of the Gentiles, a new covenant based on the forgiveness of sin, and many other things are all found in the OT, either explicitly or implicitly. But, reading the NT on its own can result in misunderstandings, as often the NT doesn't explain concepts at length as it ASSUMES the reader's familiarity with the OT's concepts.

We often forget that people who came to God, without the Bible and the O.T specifically were believers like all others. Consider the Church in Rome to whom Paul wrote the epistle, they didn't have the O.T, they were a gentile church.

True, many Gentiles came to faith without having any prior knowledge of Scripture or the G-d of Isra'el, but, I would say it's incorrect that the Roman congregation didn't have the OT. Paul frequently quotes from it and alludes to it, and assumes their understanding of Jewish concepts and beliefs. It was a Gentile congregation, but included Jews as well. The early believers very often worshipped and met alongside non-Messianic Jews in the Temple (in Jerusalem) and synagogues (outside Isra'el). They still were taught from the Torah alongside Jews every Sabbath in the synagogues. Acts 15:19-21 states that the four requirements were all that needed to be required, as the Torah of Moses was being taught every week, so the moral requirements absent from the four ones specified in the counsel would be taught to the Gentiles regularly without need for specific instruction. ALL the first believers were Jewish, and later when the Gentiles started being saved too, they joined the already existing congregations where the Scriptures were present and taught from.

Divorcing the O.T from the N.T doesn't affect the purpose or function of the N.T at all, but yes it results in a lot less explanation of things yet I don't see how that makes O.T a must. Its a valuable addition but to the point and function and purpose of the N.T, the O.T doesn't add anything to those parts. The authenticity of the O.T is not in question here but the relevance to the new covenant where the old covenant was not good enough.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Again, the NT is only one quarter of the whole Bible. Yes, someone can read the NT alone and be saved (I was), but their understanding is hampered. What is a Messiah? Who are Jews to G-d? What prophecies are being fulfilled? What is the Law? What is the Old Covenant? Who was Abraham? Concepts, history, symbolism, fulfillment of prophecy, explanation and expansion on former prophecies, and many other things are lost when you leave out the foundation of what our beliefs are based on; the Scriptures. Remember how much importance Jesus placed on the Torah and the Prophets at Matthew 5:17-19. And if the OT isn't as important as the things of the New Covenant, how come after His resurrection, instead of letting that be enough, He taught them how everything related to the Scriptures, as seen at Luke 24:27, 44-45?

I wonder why would you call people antisemitic or having a damaged understanding of the N.T, for believing anything different? I understand how for messianic Jews the O.T is crucial but that is because in that context the O.T matters as it was written to Israel. I don't see the relevance elsewhere apart from getting a background additional understanding of the historical context.

Believing that the Scriptures; no, actually, just the specifically Hebrew Scriptures; are no longer relevant to believers is at best terrible theology, and at worst antisemitic. Trying to get rid of the Jewish Scriptures alone from our faith is an attempt to leave Isra'el and the Jewish people out of our faith, when they're in reality inseparable. Imagine watching simply the last quarter of a movie. You might be able to understand a good deal of the plot through logic, but you'll be missing so much; not just important things (though you will), but also the details and subtleties, recurring motifs, fulfillment of previous subplots, etc.
I think this is a serious issue. Is the NT a superior revelation to the OT? Is it more inspired? Is the OT unnecessary for a complete and accurate understanding of G-d, Christ, the life He wishes us to live, among other things? The OT wasn't just written to the Hebrew people. Yes, it was written to the Jewish people, since they were G-d's chosen nation, but they were meant for anyone who believed in and followed the G-d of Isra'el; the Same G-d we have now. Who was Ruth? What was it that she said? "Your people will be my people, and your G-d will be my G-d" (Ruth 1:16).

[neo-x]

Cheez,

I would consider it relevant in all of those ways; to understanding, to practice, and to obey.
And you may be right, many central concepts are explained well-enough in the NT, such as G-d, faith, and the afterlife, but these are simply because they're such central concepts that they're talked about often. I'm not saying that the NT doesn't bring anything new or different than the OT, what I'm saying is that any doctrine not supported by the OT can't be true. The Trinity, salvation by faith, the bringing in of the Gentiles, a new covenant based on the forgiveness of sin, and many other things are all found in the OT, either explicitly or implicitly. But, reading the NT on its own can result in misunderstandings, as often the NT doesn't explain concepts at length as it ASSUMES the reader's familiarity with the OT's concepts.

Well, it depends on how one view God's nature. for instance, any doctrine not supported by the O.T can not be true is only because any such doctrine would invalidate the concept of the same God that gave the two testaments. It is therefore not the O.T or N.T which bring consistency to the table but the nature of God. I agree that reading the N.T can result in misunderstandings but reading the O.T alone and as some have done it already reading the whole Bible and still reading it wrong can happen again, so I am not sure how this is very helping. But let not this point derail the point, I have already stated above that for a greater understanding of the scriptures the O.T is a must indeed, only that it doesn't serve any profit when it comes to salvation, which can occur regardless of studying or following it and in that sense it is not relevant, since the function of the gospel is to not assert the O.T but prove that Christ is the redeemer of all mankind. The focus is on Christ and Christ alone.

You would also have to see that whatever is not supported by the N.T is also irrelevant now in the O.T. Circumcision, dietary laws and may other laws which form the bulk of the first 5 books of the Bible. Because the new supersedes the old, that much is clear in N.T and as much as someone would like to argue for the opposite it is just not there. The Old covenant was not perfect where the new one is, the old was not eternal the new one is, infact the only reason we have a new one is because the old one was just not enough.

True, many Gentiles came to faith without having any prior knowledge of Scripture or the G-d of Isra'el, but, I would say it's incorrect that the Roman congregation didn't have the OT. Paul frequently quotes from it and alludes to it, and assumes their understanding of Jewish concepts and beliefs. It was a Gentile congregation, but included Jews as well. The early believers very often worshipped and met alongside non-Messianic Jews in the Temple (in Jerusalem) and synagogues (outside Isra'el). They still were taught from the Torah alongside Jews every Sabbath in the synagogues. Acts 15:19-21 states that the four requirements were all that needed to be required, as the Torah of Moses was being taught every week, so the moral requirements absent from the four ones specified in the counsel would be taught to the Gentiles regularly without need for specific instruction. ALL the first believers were Jewish, and later when the Gentiles started being saved too, they joined the already existing congregations where the Scriptures were present and taught from.

I agree, but I was only pointing out that even if the church in Romans had knowledge of the O.T, they were certainly not practicing it. In that sense it was not relevant, except for understanding.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Again, the NT is only one quarter of the whole Bible. Yes, someone can read the NT alone and be saved (I was), but their understanding is hampered. What is a Messiah? Who are Jews to G-d? What prophecies are being fulfilled? What is the Law? What is the Old Covenant? Who was Abraham? Concepts, history, symbolism, fulfillment of prophecy, explanation and expansion on former prophecies, and many other things are lost when you leave out the foundation of what our beliefs are based on; the Scriptures. Remember how much importance Jesus placed on the Torah and the Prophets at Matthew 5:17-19. And if the OT isn't as important as the things of the New Covenant, how come after His resurrection, instead of letting that be enough, He taught them how everything related to the Scriptures, as seen at Luke 24:27, 44-45?

Again, as I said before only for understanding the history and context is when the O.T is very handful. You seem to agree when you wrote the above. So you agree that when it came to salvation, the O.T was irrelevant, but only to get a higher understanding that you went in and studied it. My original point stays, the purpose and function of the gospel does not need the O.T at all, it is only when one needs to study its roots is when you got the O.T. So the context matters greatly, Jesus was among Jews and so he made them look to the scriptures but when he was with non-Jews he did not quote the O.T to them.

Believing that the Scriptures; no, actually, just the specifically Hebrew Scriptures; are no longer relevant to believers is at best terrible theology, and at worst antisemitic.

Again what is relevance, if it means, study, understand and obey than I disagree brother. I think understanding and studying it alone is what is a good measure, nothing beyond that is what a Christian is required off (though once can still follow it as an extra). It is not terrible theology, it could result in a less understanding of scriptures but believing Christ to be the son of God and your savior, through the N.T alone is theology enough to be called good.

I still do not get the anti-Semitic part, I am not saying this because I hate Jews only that I do not find the definition of relevance to be the same.

Trying to get rid of the Jewish Scriptures alone from our faith is an attempt to leave Isra'el and the Jewish people out of our faith, when they're in reality inseparable.

I do not think there is a conspiracy going on around here to do so. I am not trying to get rid of the Jewish scriptures only saying that they are for understanding alone, in that sense they are relevant. For salvation and the function of the gospel, they are irrelevant.

The OT wasn't just written to the Hebrew people. Yes, it was written to the Jewish people, since they were G-d's chosen nation, but they were meant for anyone who believed in and followed the G-d of Isra'el; the Same G-d we have now. Who was Ruth? What was it that she said? "Your people will be my people, and your G-d will be my G-d" (Ruth 1:16).

It was not the O.T that granted Ruth to be a part of what she became but the eternal grace of God which preceded the O.T, through which by faith alone she came into Israel. Because the O.T is not for everyone, sure anyone can decide to follow it doesn't mean it was for everyone, the audience was Israel and it was specifically for them that they should be separate from the people around them. Anyone can see you doing something good and follow it but that doesn't mean the teaching or action was intended for that person in the first place, you were doing it for some reason other than to show people how good you are. So if someone follows the Torah it was not that it was given for them, it is just that they find it nice to follow.

Is the NT a superior revelation to the OT?

Christ is the complete revelation of God. As you said in another post, a spirit filled life, does not demand a walk in the O.T style. The O.T was not perfect, neither it was eternal, with Christ we have the new covenant which is eternal.

I am not trying to convert you or accuse of you anything bad. I understand that at some point our opinions will clash, but lets not mis-read each other. Have a good day.

[PaulSacramento]

It is very important to realize that why we as Christian do NOT need the OT or the Torah for salvation, to lack the historical significance of the OT makes us less able to defend our faith and while, at times, it seems that are faith is tested BECAUSE of some problem passage sin the OT, it is important to realize that tremendous value of the OT to a Christian.
Are we under the Torah Law?
No and for those that believe we are that is fine, that is their perogative to feel that way, BUT I do like to point out that very few outside of Judaisim follow ALL of the Law.

[1stjohn0666]

As Gentile Christians we are not under the Torah Law. But a "real Jew" is under the Torah Law. We are all under the Sh'ma "Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord... etc"
The bible makes it clear not to judge against those who keep the law and those that do not. The Sh'ma is an OT decree, that Jesus also affirms in the NT. One without the other would not be right. 2 Tim 3:16 "All scripture" isn't that nice to know?