Unhitching the OT from the NT

Faith & Science Conversation
102

On the contrary, we love one another because Jesus loves us and we follow the example of God and Jesus.

John 15:
As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. 11 I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete.

12 “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.

103

Not unlike the vast majority of 21st century evangelicals, you don’t understand why The Lord’s Day of rest is the Christian Sabbath.

1 Like
104

Sounds like you are arguing that the OT is not the go-to set of instructions for the church. If it were, we would still do no work from sundown Friday to sundown Sunday.

I agree with that.

105

He is absolutely wrong. It is critical to see how everything in the OT was a type for what was to follow. (And nobody told Jesus, who quotes the OT)

2 Likes
106

Nobody told Jesus what?

I quote from the OT. Andy Stanley quotes from the OT.

The discussion is over whether the OT is the go-to source for any behavior in the church. Do you think it is?

If so, we should stone to death people who gather sticks on Saturday afternoon.

107

It is not just warm and squishy feelings – there are objective ‘laws of love’. There are explicit things that if we do them, we are not loving each other or God. Let’s start with the Ten Commandments.

1 Like
108

Hardly. You have to understand who Jesus is, why he came and what love is.

1 Like
109

This is a completely false dilemma. If one does not “unhitch” from the OT it does not imply that one follows Mosaic Law.

3 Likes
110

So you are still “hitched” to the Law of Moses but you don’t follow it?

What is the nature of this hitch?

111

You need to understand the different types of laws in the Pentateuch – moral, civil, sanitary and dietary, and ceremonial. Moral laws, the laws of love, still are absolutely in effect.

1 Like
112

If all Stanley meant by “unhitch” was that we should not follow the Mosaic law, it would be a “duh” that wasn’t worth the pixels it uses. I assume he meant something more substantive, namely that we should not give much credence to the text. If so, it is total nonsense. Without understanding the Mosaic Law I have a much poorer understanding of its replacement, grace based on Christ’s fulfillment. I am surprised that one has to point this out, but every aspect of the New Testament is best understood by its contrast to the old. It is a New and Better meme if you will.

New and Better Covenant
New and Better Law (Sermon on the Mount)
New and Better Priesthood
New and Better Temple
New and Better Sabbath (as described in Hebrews)
New and Better Sacrifice
New and Better Covenantal Sign (Baptism)

I understand why the new, and why it is better, because I understand the old. My Christianity would have much less context if I “unhitched” myself from the OT.

113

Your assumption is wrong. If you listened to his sermons as I have for a dozen or more years, you would have heard many, many sermons from the OT.

Taking a sound byte and expanding it to say something else sometimes leads to wrong conclusions.

114

Then tell me what he meant by “unhitch”.

115

As I recall, there are more than 600 OT laws. Perhaps you would like to list the ones that you believe you are still under.

116

You want me to summarize the sermon or sermon series?

I can try, but if you are not satisfied you should listen to the sermons on line before asking me more.

Just before He was arrested, Jesus gave us a new command: that we should love one another. He wanted unbelievers to see our love and see God’s love through us.

This new command was foreshadowed in his earlier ministry. For example:

  1. Several times in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus distanced Himself from the Law of Moses and gave a more difficult command starting with “but I tell you.”
  2. Jesus forgave sins, even when the Law of Moses required stoning (as in the case of the woman caught in adultery).
  3. At the Last Supper, Jesus replaced the Passover with His own ritual.

And then, after entrusting the keys to the kingdom and ascending, the church spread to the Gentiles. And, in Acts 15, those with the power to loose and bind decided, in agreement with the Holy Spirit, that the believers of Gentile origin are not under the yoke of the law of Moses.

So the OT was not the go-to set of instructions for the church.

That does not mean the OT has no value.

117

Much sparring and time would probably have been saved if the word “fulfill” had been used rather than “unhitch”. Stanley’s detractors here have been universally translating “unhitch” as “throw out”. I may not have listened to as many of his sermons as Vance has, but I’ve listened to just enough to know that he isn’t trying to “throw out” the old testament. He’s only trying to get those weak in faith (or who abandoned the faith) over their conniptions for what all they find in there to realize that they need not stew over what they fail to understand (or misunderstand) from the old testament. They can pay attention to the new covenant and be just fine. For those who then want to grow in understanding and faith, then yes … a study of the old (in light of the ‘new’ and not vice versa) is appropriate. I haven’t heard Stanley say anything to make me think he would disagree with that last statement above.

As Christians, the foundation of our faith is Jesus, not Genesis. Were it not for Christ, none of us here would be having this conversation right now. Genesis (and all the ‘law and prophets’) would have been long forgotten by everyone except some remnant of faithful Jews.

2 Likes
118

Then I repeat that his statement needn’t be said. Only a very small percentage of professing Christians claim that Mosaic laws should be obeyed [1], except perhaps for the decalogue. The dietary, civil, and ceremonial laws are nearly universally accepted as being abrogated. So the question is really only about the 10 Commandments. And the only real question there is whether they are still “the” law, as they were in the Old Covenant, or if the sermon on the mount is now “the” law. But that is a technical point. As you say, Jesus made the laws harder, addressing motives of the heart more than actions. But clearly the actions are still forbidden.The decalogue may still not be the “codified” law, but it still lists forbidden practices.

Or perhaps you can list which of the Ten Commandments you and/or Pastor Stanley believe we are free to disobey. I predict at most you will say the 4th.

To summarize:

  1. Most Christians only question whether the decalogue is still in effect
  2. Certainly nine of them are, even if they are no longer “the” law, and the one (the Sabbath) is debatable. It can be argued three ways:

i) It is still in effect
ii) We are now in the sabbath eternally (Hebrews teaches this, IMO)
iii) It is no longer in effect

What is Stanley saying beyond the obvious, apart from possibly stating that the Sabbath is no longer in effect?

[1] There are the nutjob theonomists who want to reinstitute the Jewish civil law including stonings. But they are outliers.

119

David, which one of the 10 commandments can a person break, other than keeping holy the period from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, while still keeping the new commandment that Jesus gave to love one another in a way that shows we are his disciples?

120

So you believe that a divorced person is committing adultery against his or her ex?

Jesus is our passover.

Not all, but certainly many, as I have been trying to explain with examples. What the all-or-nothing, black and white thinking anyway? What is up with that?

121

If you open a different thread on this and quote the passage, I will participate. Just let me know where to go.

I am still married to my first wife of 45 years.