Old Law: New Law: OT not valid for apologetics?

[Philomena]

When answering questions about things like Purgatory, we often refer to the Old Testament for explaination or pre-figuring. How do you refute the objection that the OT is the OLD and the New Testament is Jesus’ NEW Law, therefore the OT law doesn’t matter; it’s old wine skins, so to speak. Jesus made all things new.

I’m teaching a class of middleschoolers, apologetics and I’d like to prepare them for these types of objections. Thanks!

 

[otm]

One needs to distinguish what is meant by Old Law, and by New Law.

Christ also said that he came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.

Paul talks of works, and he means the required observance of the many laws (600+) which a faithful Jew had to observe, along with the 10 Commanments, and the 2 Great Commanments (love God and love neighbor).

Saying that one does not have to follow the Old Law, without distinguishing what that means, is very narrow and limited proof-texting, and is easily demolished.

The issue about Purgatory, from Macabees, can be distinguished between law (requirement to pray), and doctrinal information (the existence of Purgatory). Further, there is a difference between ritualistic laws (e.g. kosher preparation of food), and moral laws (praying for the dead, keepoing the Sabbath).

 

[Philomena]

**Christ also said that he came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.
**
*Thanks, otm! This is just the comeback I was looking for!:tiphat: *

 

[kepha1]

Most Protestants teach this truth:

THE NEW TESTAMENT IS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT CONCEALED, AND THE OLD TESTAMENT IS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT REVEALED.

I think St. Augustine said much the same thing.

Refering to the Old Testament as “old wineskins” does not mean abandonment and rejection of all that was hidden in it, for then you would have to reject all that was revealed in the New Testament because you can’t just toss out such a valuable frame of reference.

 

[davidv]

Philomena:

When answering questions about things like Purgatory, we often refer to the Old Testament for explaination or pre-figuring. How do you refute the objection that the OT is the OLD and the New Testament is Jesus’ NEW Law, therefore the OT law doesn’t matter; it’s old wine skins, so to speak. Jesus made all things new.

I’m teaching a class of middleschoolers, apologetics and I’d like to prepare them for these types of objections. Thanks!

Another thing to consider is that there were two bodies of Old Law. The first being the original received by Moses from God. The second was given to the new generation, after the old generation died off in the desert wanderings. This law, as documented in Dt, included many concessions, like divorce. When Jesus introduces the New Law (Sermon on the Mount, Mt 5-7), he doesn’t diminish the old law but raises to even a higher level. He insists on the spirit of the law.