Why would Jesus choose to follow the OT if he wanted Christians to then reject it?

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Well Jesus was said to be a full on Rabbi prior to his resurrection so he did follow the OT fully. However from what i understand the reason why God chose different laws for Christians is because the survival of the Jews was needed in order for the faith of Christianity to be established. In the words of Paul, “the law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, but now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.”
The Old Testament times were very difficult and there were many nations that warred against Israel.Therefore, God instituted laws, as difficult as they were, that were consistent with the culture of the times, that ensured the survival of the Jewish nation, that helped to maintain social structure, and also reflected the harshness of the law.

Hi Expounder: So, I take it from your reply that the thread is in relation to Old Testament law. With regard to those laws, what you have said is very true, except that I would offer that is was the people of those times who instituted those laws as a matter of survival and cultural convenience. And insofar as the authorship of those laws is concerned, I would say that inasmuch as all things, including the human imagination are the handiwork of God at some primary level, then those laws could be said to have come from God. Your ideas that Jewish culture and it’s harsh laws were necessary precursors for the advent of Christianity, are the best defense I have heard of those laws yet. It’s a very plausible idea you have there, and I think it works.

 

[LtTony]

“Jesus himself was an observant Jew.”

We hear this a lot from Muslims in inter-faith dialogue.

The remark begs the question: If Jesus was such a great Jew, why did they crucify Him? The explanation to that question is Mohammad’s story on the crucifixion.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=786902

Which begs another question: If Jesus was such a great Jew, why did he even find Himself in a situation where he needed some unspecfied deception to get Himself out of jam?

Jesus was not “an observant Jew”, and Muslims can’t prove that He was. Not at least the type of Jew Islam wants Him to be. Throughout the Gospels He is doing things so un-Jewish that it is crazy. His message certainly wasn’t Jewish. His spin on salvation was totally outside Judaism. So outside that He established a “New Covenant.”

Observant Jew. My foot.

Besides, even today’s Jews don’t follow those laws. Why should Christians? I know Muslims want us to, so it would validate Islam’s seventh-century and sometimes barbaric beliefs (like executing people for sexual sins).

This is the explanation that Muslims should accept and move on:

Jesus followed the law to fulfill it. We did not cease to follow the OT, but Jesus taught us the reality of the OT. He separated what was the “laws of man”, which is where St. Paul condemned the “works of the law”, vs. the true Christian life. Jesus revealed that what is in the Old Testament was supposed to point to a reality, not to be the end of itself. The Old Testament wasn’t abolished, it was perfected. With our better understanding today, we continue the spirit of what God has taught through the prophets in the Old Testament, but with a clearer understanding because of Jesus Christ.

And this:

I think this may be a rather interesting discussion, but I’m not entirely sure that I understand in what regard we are saying that Jesus followed the Old Testament, or in what way modern day Christians should likewise follow the Old Testament. Are we talking about Old Testament law, or Old Testament myth tradition, or living in some sort of resonance with Old Testament cultural observances? All three can be problematic when cast in the light of the roughly 3,000 years of intellectual, technological and spiritual development that has transpired since many of the books of the Torah in particular were written.

 

[Reuben_J]

Hi expounder. I suppose when you mentioned the Old Testaments you were referring to its laws. There are basically three types of laws of the Old Testament. Jesus as a traditional Jews observed these laws as required of them. But as Jesus began to reveal himself slowly we also see a change in the observation of these laws. In other word, some of these laws would become obsolete or fulfilled by the coming of Jesus himself that they were not necessary anymore.

• Ceremonial Law: This type of law relates to Israel’s worship. (Lev 1:1-13) The laws pointed forward to Jesus Christ and were no longer necessary after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Though we are no longer bound to them, the principles behind the ceremonial laws, that is to worship and love God, still apply.

**• Civil Law: **This law dictated Israel’s daily living (Deut 24:10-11); but modern society and culture are so radically different that some of these guidelines cannot be followed specifically. The principles behind the commands are used to guide our conduct.

• Moral Law: The moral laws are direct commands of God. A good example are the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17). The moral laws reveal the nature and will of God, and still apply to us today. Moral laws do not change because moral and value do not change. These we follow until today.

 

[504Katrin]

Which ones are the “laws of man” that ConstantineTG mentioned in post #5 in y’alls opinion?

 

[expounder]

Why is it that everyone has a different opinion on this matter?
Are we just speculating?

 

[InServiceofGod]

Why is it that everyone has a different opinion on this matter?
Are we just speculating?

Why is it you care?

 

[expounder]

Why is it you care?

Why did you make an account just to say that?
Are you an alt?

 

[InServiceofGod]

Why did you make an account just to say that?
Are you an alt?

If you are going to troll then you will find yourself not here much longer,
I do not have to explain myself to others least of all you.
Now answer the question what do you hope to achieve by asking us this?

 

[expounder]

If you are going to troll then you will find yourself not here much longer,
I do not have to explain myself to others least of all you.
Now answer the question what do you hope to achieve by asking us this?

Why are you angry?
I think i have a good idea of who you might be so until you tell me the truth, i won’t be answering your question.

edit: Don’t pm me

 

[Sam_777]

InServiceofGod & expounder please stop the personal matters and discuss that main topic.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Why is it that everyone has a different opinion on this matter?
Are we just speculating?

The problem I have seen in my short time on this forum is that people seem to be expecting uniformity in thought in a world that is not uniform. Even the simplest of ideas can and will have different meanings when you start asking people what they think about these ideas. I can control the transmission of an idea or thought from my mind to someone else’s through language or other means of expression, but have no idea of what actually goes on in the mind of the recipient when exposed to those ideas. I can clearly see what is sent, but cannot see what is received and how that which is received is processed by another mind. On a very basic level, I can hold up something that is red and understand what I know red to be, but have no idea to what extent the color red is processed by someone else’s cornea, retina, optic nerve and brain. Perhaps there are differences in depth and intensity when perceiving color from one person to the next, and then there are some people who can’t see red at all. I don’t even know whether what I see as red is really red when compared to what the majority of the population sees as red. I only know what I see, and the idea I am transmitting when I hold up something red for others to look at.

Then we get to more complex things like Bible stories and the idea of Jewish tradition and Jesus. I see Jesus as a man who didn’t have much regard for Jewish law and tradition, and yet He lived and went about His affairs within the contexts created by that society. Others read those same passages and see a devout Jew. I honestly don’t know what went on in the mind of Jesus. I only know how I have processed His words and actions through the lens of my own experience, cultural background and orientation, compounded by my own perceived relationship with God on a day to day basis. So, when I post something here, I am only doing my best to express what I see and what I think. I have no idea of how that resonates with others until I see responses, and I often wonder if I am even understanding the responses in the same way as the people sending them.

 

[LtTony]

Why is it that everyone has a different opinion on this matter?
Are we just speculating?

Notice there are no examples of contradictory statements. This is a fallacious argument, a tactic, a ploy intended to avoid direct and rational statements.

Everyone has said essentially the same thing. Every source that answers this frequently asked question is consistent. Each person that answers, however, is going to give a personalized reply, each possibly emphasizing one aspect more than another in this multi-facted concept. It’s likely that none of us here is a recognized theologin authorized to state the official position of our church(es). To expect the replies to be identical is absurd. Uniformity is no more common in Islam than it is in any other religion, btw. There is always some diversity in every tenet of every faith; it does not diminish those beliefs.

The next thing we will hear from Muslims is Matthew 5: 17-18 – ““Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

Muslims refuse to look up the simple definition of “fulfill.” They also gloss over the implication and context of “until all is accomplished.” And they say we “pick and choose.”

Last but not least, Muslims fail to grasp that Jesus established a New Covenant, a new religion basically. Further, none of the laws that applied strictly to Jews apply to Gentiles.

 

[expounder]

The problem I have seen in my short time on this forum is that people seem to be expecting uniformity in thought in a world that is not uniform. Even the simplest of ideas can and will have different meanings when you start asking people what they think about these ideas. I can control the transmission of an idea or thought from my mind to someone else’s through language or other means of expression, but have no idea of what actually goes on in the mind of the recipient when exposed to those ideas. I can clearly see what is sent, but cannot see what is received and how that which is received is processed by another mind. On a very basic level, I can hold up something that is red and understand what I know red to be, but have no idea to what extent the color red is processed by someone else’s cornea, retina, optic nerve and brain. Perhaps there are differences in depth and intensity when perceiving color from one person to the next, and then there are some people who can’t see red at all. I don’t even know whether what I see as red is really red when compared to what the majority of the population sees as red. I only know what I see, and the idea I am transmitting when I hold up something red for others to look at.

Then we get to more complex things like Bible stories and the idea of Jewish tradition and Jesus. I see Jesus as a man who didn’t have much regard for Jewish law and tradition, and yet He lived and went about His affairs within the contexts created by that society. Others read those same passages and see a devout Jew. I honestly don’t know what went on in the mind of Jesus. I only know how I have processed His words and actions through the lens of my own experience, cultural background and orientation, compounded by my own perceived relationship with God on a day to day basis. So, when I post something here, I am only doing my best to express what I see and what I think. I have no idea of how that resonates with others until I see responses, and I often wonder if I am even understanding the responses in the same way as the people sending them.

 

[Reuben_J]

Notice there are no examples of contradictory statements. This is a fallacious argument, a tactic, a ploy intended to avoid direct and rational statements.

I would agree with this. There are some Christian posters who want to engage them in a more furitful discussion but more often than not posts are generalized into one liner and there is no attempt to be specific.

Everyone has said essentially the same thing. Every source that answers this frequently asked question is consistent. Each person that answers, however, is going to give a personalized reply, each possibly emphasizing one aspect more than another in this multi-facted concept.

Agreed.

 

[Reuben_J]

Why is it that everyone has a different opinion on this matter?
Are we just speculating?

Expounder, if you read the response properly, you would see that there is not much difference in the thrust of their posts. They are merely said in different ways. It goes to show that topic like this is probably not black and white but rather needs more explanation which an internet forum may not be quite sufficient to do it properly.

You titled the thread, “Why would Jesus choose to follow the OT if he wanted Christians to then reject it?” To a Christian this is very vague. You have to be more specific and ask specific question so that a more specific answer may be given. The question seems to generalize and thus it is not a true statement. We do not reject the OT. Rather the OT is fulfilled in the NT.

What do you mean Jesus chose to follow the OT? We can only assume what you are trying to say. The OT is part of the Bible and there are plenty there that may need addressed. Do you mean the laws, the Jews practice of worship, or the covenant or the various narrative of lives story of the prophets and kings? There are just too many there hence you need to be specific.

There is no speculation here because we can explain to you the OT. All you need to do is to point one instance and we will discuss on it. How about it?

 

[JohnVIII]

He doesn’t want Christians to reject the OT. We aren’t Marcionists.

Speak for yourself!

Christ established a New Covenant in the fullness of time to give us the fullness of truth. The OT prepares for the Passion and Glorification of Christ, and the New Covenant Christ established perfects the Old Covenant and abolishes its rules that aren’t needed in the New Covenant (i.e sacrifices, since Christ is the final and definitive sacrifice).

The Cross abolished the whole “Old Testament” law. It was BEFORE the Cross that Jesus followed the old law, not after! The God who made the law ruled over all who were under the law of sin and death. Through the Cross Jesus made a way that all who were in Christ became dead to the law. Where there is no law the is no transgression. Actually Marcionite Christians are at peace with the God of the “Old Testament” because there is no longer any debt owed to him because the Cross made full satisfaction!

There is such a thing as a “new law” in Christ. It is that those who are spiritually strong shall love and serve those who are weak. With a new law comes a new debt. The new debt is that we owe our love to others. That is why Paul said, “Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law” (Romans 13:8)

 

[504Katrin]

Speak for yourself!

The Cross abolished the whole “Old Testament” law. It was BEFORE the Cross that Jesus followed the old law, not after! The God who made the law ruled over all who were under the law of sin and death.

There is such a thing as a “new law” in Christ. It is that those who are spiritually strong shall love and serve those who are weak. With a new law comes a new debt. The new debt is that we owe our love to others. That is why Paul said, “Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law” (Romans 13:8)

You paint quite a sinister picture about G-d in the “old testament” in my opinion. You are saying that G-d ruled over sin and death, and you make it look like the law to love and serve G-d and one another was something new and established around the time Jesus lived, which is not true. This is not a new law but the law that G-d gave the people back in the day at Mount Sinai.