Was the Old Law paritally wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wolves
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wolves

Guest
Jeremiah 7
21Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Heap your holocausts upon your sacrifices; eat up the flesh!22In speaking to your fathers on the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I gave them no command concerning holocaust or sacrifice.23This rather is what I commanded them: Listen to my voice; then I will be your God and you shall be my people. Walk in all the ways that I command you, so that you may prosper.24But they obeyed not, nor did they pay heed. They walked in the hardness of their evil hearts and turned their backs, not their faces, to me.25From the day that your fathers left the land of Egypt even to this day, I have sent you untiringly all my servants the prophets.26Yet they have not obeyed me nor paid heed; they have stiffened their necks and done worse than their fathers.
Jesus directly contradicted Leviticus:
**Matthew 5 **
38"You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
39But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well."
Is it then at all possible that Leviticus was wrong? Keep in mind that this was before Jesus abrogated the Old Law that he contradicted Leviticus. Maybe he was correcting Scripture that had been diluted?

Please note that this is a hypothesis and I would just like to see what others think about it.
 
Jesus directly contradicted Leviticus:

Is it then at all possible that Leviticus was wrong? Keep in mind that this was before Jesus abrogated the Old Law that he contradicted Leviticus. Maybe he was correcting Scripture that had been diluted?

Please note that this is a hypothesis and I would just like to see what others think about it.
I think that part of the problem we have is that we view the Old Testament with the New Testament’s revelations… the Old Testament is the Old Covenant under the old economy: a direct relationship between the temporal world and temporal discipline (and eye for an eye… the various sacrifices…).

Yet, even while the old economy existed, there was a projection into the new economy ("…God is Spirit and true worshipers must worship in spirit and truth…"); the practices of the Law were meant to move Israel into the New Covenant… that is why Scriptures seem to be contradictive (sacrifice and holocaust I did not want…) when it states both the establishment of the Mosaic Law (old Covenant) and the requirement of the Life in Christ (new Covenant).

Note that the physical demands of the old Covenant were only a mirror to the Spiritual requirements of the new Covenant:

1 So, since the Law contains no more than a reflection of the good things which were still to come, and no true image of them, it is quite incapable of bringing the worshippers to perfection, by means of the same sacrifices repeatedly offered year after year. 2 Otherwise, surely the offering of them would have stopped, because the worshippers, when they had been purified once, would have no awareness of sins. 3 But in fact the sins are recalled year after year in the sacrifices. 4 Bulls’ blood and goats’ blood are incapable of taking away sins,
5 and that is why he said, on coming into the world: You wanted no sacrifice or cereal offering, but you gave me a body. 6 You took no pleasure in burnt offering or sacrifice for sin; 7 then I said, ‘Here I am, I am coming,’ in the scroll of the book it is written of me, to do your will, God. 8 He says first You did not want what the Law lays down as the things to be offered, that is: the sacrifices, the cereal offerings, the burnt offerings and the sacrifices for sin, and you took no pleasure in them; 9 and then he says: Here I am! I am coming to do your will. He is abolishing the first sort to establish the second. 10 And this will was for us to be made holy by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ made once and for all. 11 Every priest stands at his duties every day, offering over and over again the same sacrifices which are quite incapable of taking away sins. 12 He, on the other hand, has offered one single sacrifice for sins, and then taken his seat for ever, at the right hand of God. (Hebrews 10:1-12)

When the old Covenant Laws were practiced devoid of Love and Obedience they were devoid of any value to Yahweh God; only in our fellowship with Christ do we acquire true value in the eyes of God.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Jesus directly contradicted Leviticus:

Is it then at all possible that Leviticus was wrong? Keep in mind that this was before Jesus abrogated the Old Law that he contradicted Leviticus. Maybe he was correcting Scripture that had been diluted?

Please note that this is a hypothesis and I would just like to see what others think about it.
You have to be careful about literalist interpretations of the Old Law. A rabbi I know once noted to me that all of those death sentences in the Old Testament were probably rarely carried out because the familes of the accused would not have lightly accepted the death of their beloved family member, and so confronted the accuser’s family with the prospect of counter-accusations. For example, how easy was it to qualify for the death penalty if one stoops and picks up a stick on the Sabbath, and that merits death!!!

See Numbers 15:32-36.

The message of Judaism is only the first half of the message. THE LAW. The message of Christianity is Part 2 – THE CROSS, TO SAVE US FROM THE LAW.

So, I don’t think that it was “wrong.” i think that it is more accurate to ay that God took His time in revealing the full truth to man.

Note that Christ said that He do not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. Also he noted that not one jot or tittle of the law will be eliminated, until after the End. Both are in Matthew 5.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top