Abrogation in the New Testament

[SimmieKay]

In Islam, “abrogation” refers to the idea that a later revelation supercedes/revokes/replaces an earlier one. The earlier revelation was valid and binding at the time, but the later revelation has since been revealed abrogating it.

Now, my question is, does the Islamic concept of “abrogation” accurately describe what Jesus does in Matthew 19:1-12, Matthew 5:31-32, Mark 10:1-12? i.e. God revealed one rule through Moses, now God is revealing a new rule through Jesus which abrogates the old rule reviewed through Moses?

Or, if it isn’t accurate comparison, what specifically is the difference between the Islamic concept and what Catholics (or Christians more broadly) believe is happening here?

 

[wllmjoseph]

In Islam, “abrogation” refers to the idea that a later revelation supercedes/revokes/replaces an earlier one. The earlier revelation was valid and binding at the time, but the later revelation has since been revealed abrogating it.

Now, my question is, does the Islamic concept of “abrogation” accurately describe what Jesus does in Matthew 19:1-12, Matthew 5:31-32, Mark 10:1-12? i.e. God revealed one rule through Moses, now God is revealing a new rule through Jesus which abrogates the old rule reviewed through Moses?

Or, if it isn’t accurate comparison, what specifically is the difference between the Islamic concept and what Catholics (or Christians more broadly) believe is happening here?

Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

As Christians we do read the Old Testament. Our bible consists of the Old Testament and the New Testament. In Scripture Jesus tells us that “You shall love the Lord your God will all your heart, all your mind and all your strength”. He goes on to say that “you shall love your neighbor as yourself”. These are the two greatest commandments. In Matthew 22:40 Jesus states “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

 

[dmar198]

In Islam, “abrogation” refers to the idea that a later revelation supercedes/revokes/replaces an earlier one. The earlier revelation was valid and binding at the time, but the later revelation has since been revealed abrogating it.

Now, my question is, does the Islamic concept of “abrogation” accurately describe what Jesus does in Matthew 19:1-12, Matthew 5:31-32, Mark 10:1-12? i.e. God revealed one rule through Moses, now God is revealing a new rule through Jesus which abrogates the old rule reviewed through Moses?

Or, if it isn’t accurate comparison, what specifically is the difference between the Islamic concept and what Catholics (or Christians more broadly) believe is happening here?

I believe there are several differences between the doctrine of abrogation and what happens in the Bible. Among these differences, one is related to the Catholic distinction between Disciplines and Doctrines.

In Catholicism, disciplines are customs that have symbolic value and can be changed if there are good reasons for it. For example, building churches so that the congregation faces the east used to be a nearly universal custom in Catholic churches, but it has always had some exceptions. I’m not sure if it was ever a requirement of Canon Law, but if it was, that changed by the time the 1983 Code of Canon Law was published. The 1983 Code replaced the previous Code of Canon Law and changed many disciplines in the Catholic Church, but not any doctrines. Doctrines are truths. They cannot change because God is truth, and God cannot change.

When Jesus abolished the ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant, He didn’t change the truth. He only abolished some disciplines. Things like not eating pigs and shellfish, and circumcising children. There’s nothing Wrong with eating pigs or shellfish, or circumcising children, but these were symbolic customs that emphasized the Israelites’s separation from the gentiles and their ways. They did not imply that pig meat was evil or that circumcision was an essential part of being holy. In the New Covenant these disciplines were abolished because their symbolism was finished, the gentiles were welcomed into the covenant as long as they agreed to lead holy lives and believe in the messiah.

In Islam, I don’t think they make the same distinction between disciplines and doctrines as we do. The doctrine of abrogation seems to say that Allah can change anything in their revelation. If my understanding is accurate (which is always questionable), the truth can change in Islam, and a doctrine that used to be true can become false, or a false doctrine can become a true one.

I hope that helps. I’d love to hear some clarification from our muslim brothers and sisters.

 

[SimmieKay]

When Jesus abolished the ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant, He didn’t change the truth. He only abolished some disciplines. Things like not eating pigs and shellfish, and circumcising children. There’s nothing Wrong with eating pigs or shellfish, or circumcising children, but these were symbolic customs that emphasized the Israelites’s separation from the gentiles and their ways. They did not imply that pig meat was evil or that circumcision was an essential part of being holy. In the New Covenant these disciplines were abolished because their symbolism was finished, the gentiles were welcomed into the covenant as long as they agreed to lead holy lives and believe in the messiah.

In Islam, I don’t think they make the same distinction between disciplines and doctrines as we do. The doctrine of abrogation seems to say that Allah can change anything in their revelation. If my understanding is accurate (which is always questionable), the truth can change in Islam, and a doctrine that used to be true can become false, or a false doctrine can become a true one.

Your answer may work for dietary laws, Sabbath observance, circumcision, etc. However, the verses I was citing were specifically to do with marriage and divorce. Moses said that divorce was allowed; Jesus says, yes, Moses allowed it, but that wasn’t God’s original plan, so I’m not allowing it any more. Can that specific issue be explained in terms of the discipline vs. doctrine distinction? Marriage/divorce doesn’t really fit under the heading of “ceremonial law”–it’s more “moral law” (like “Thou shalt not kill”) than “ceremonial law”–unlike those other things you mentioned.

 

[Reuben_J]

In Islam, “abrogation” refers to the idea that a later revelation supercedes/revokes/replaces an earlier one. The earlier revelation was valid and binding at the time, but the later revelation has since been revealed abrogating it.

Now, my question is, does the Islamic concept of “abrogation” accurately describe what Jesus does in Matthew 19:1-12, Matthew 5:31-32, Mark 10:1-12? i.e. God revealed one rule through Moses, now God is revealing a new rule through Jesus which abrogates the old rule reviewed through Moses?

Or, if it isn’t accurate comparison, what specifically is the difference between the Islamic concept and what Catholics (or Christians more broadly) believe is happening here?

In a way, what Jesus did/introduced was indeed abrogation.

As far as abrogation was concerned, which involves ‘supercedes/revokes/replaces an earlier one’, they are basically the same.

The difference is in Islam, abrogation was done to avoid introducing new law/practice suddenly but more to give people/society time to be able to accept them. Kind of preparing or familiarizing them first and introducing the Islamic law/belief/practices gradually.

In the Gospel, abrogation was done simply because of who Jesus is, that he is the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

 

[dmar198]

Your answer may work for dietary laws, Sabbath observance, circumcision, etc. However, the verses I was citing were specifically to do with marriage and divorce. Moses said that divorce was allowed; Jesus says, yes, Moses allowed it, but that wasn’t God’s original plan, so I’m not allowing it any more. Can that specific issue be explained in terms of the discipline vs. doctrine distinction? Marriage/divorce doesn’t really fit under the heading of “ceremonial law”–it’s more “moral law” (like “Thou shalt not kill”) than “ceremonial law”–unlike those other things you mentioned.

I think the law concerning divorce and remarriage was reversed in the New Covenant without a change in doctrine. There are several reasons why I think this, some of which involve doctrine and some of which involve speculation.

On the doctrinal level, I think it is important to point out that only Sacramental marriages are indissoluble. Natural marriages are marriages between non-Christians, or a Christian and a non-Christian, and those are dissoluble. That’s part of our doctrine. The marriages of the Old Covenant were natural marriages, and as such, our doctrine says they were dissoluble. Not without sin, perhaps, but dissoluble nonetheless. Thus there is no need for a change in doctrine in order to explain Jesus’s words. Jewish marriages were and are dissoluble, and thus certain people can be given authority to dissolve them. But Sacramental marriages are indissoluble both intrinsically and extrinsically, and so divorces do not give the spouses the right to remarry.

On the speculative level, I think our doctrine holds that the Mosaic law was imperfect, and this can be one of its imperfections. Hebrews 8:7 – “if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.” The Mosaic law did not punish all sins, for several reasons. One is that it was partly a civil law, and it would be immoral for a civil law to punish all sins. Also, civil laws are supposed to be accommodated to the moral level of the people they governs. Moses’s law on divorce doesn’t need to imply that because you could Legally get a divorce you could therefore Morally get a divorce. It could still be a sin, as indicated perhaps by Malachi 2:16. If that is the case, then again, no change in doctrine is needed to explain Jesus’s words. He might just be willing them that just because Moses made it Legal to get a divorce doesn’t mean he made it Moral. And that might be the exact same message the Old Covenant gave, as evidenced by Malachi 2:16.

I hope that helps. Please let me know.