Old Law vs. new law?


#1

My wifes grandma is a protestant and she mentioned that because something is in the Old Testament it is old law. That only new law from the NT should be followed. I asked her about the 10 commandments and she said that because Jesus said to follow them it is OK to follow them. I know some of our Traditions come from the OT. How do I explain to her that the OT is still to be used as guidance with the NT. When it comes to things like some of our beliefs they are from the OT. How do I explain to her that just cause it is in the OT does not mean it should be ignored. She did say that her preacher uses the OT for teaching just that it is not “Law” like the NT is.


#2

“Think not that I have come to destroy the Law. Not to destroy, but to fulfill.”


#3

[quote=DavidFilmer]“Think not that I have come to destroy the Law. Not to destroy, but to fulfill.”
[/quote]

Very good! I will remind her of that, but do you know where in the Bible it is?


#4

Matthew 5:18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled

The old laws still stand except in cases where the apostles and their successors have used the authority of binding and loosing to make a change in those laws.


#5

Also Matt 5:17 "“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.”

The law was actually Jesus’ OT counterpart, the way I once heard it explained. Jesus’ ministry changed the law from a static one into a living one. The law actually became Jesus.

How we decide which parts of the OT we pick and choose, though, is way beyond me, and is one irritating thing when I try to discuss what Jesus said or did in context. The same person will argue with an OT verse, and then five minutes later deny an OT verse I might talk about as being “Old Testament” and went away with Jesus.

Aaargh! I think that Jesus is sufficient to be bound to, since technically His coming freed from the law that brings sin and death, and He gave us His Spirit which brings life.

The Ten Commandments are not a good example of absolute teaching, anyway. If that sounds strange, consider just the one “thou shalt not kill.” The Catholic Church teaches there are several reasons when killing people is not necessarily sinful. Some say it really meant “murder” and I’m sure scores of Bible scholars would tell me that somehow the way and context in which it was originally written all those caveats were implied, but to me it sounds like the First Law of Experimentation: “First draw your curve, then plot the points.”

Alan


#6

Thanks guys! By reading other threads I guess I can also inform her that her 10% of tithing also comes from the OT and therefore according to her beliefs is an “Old Law.” I just want to be able to educate her on why we continue practicing what we do even if it was in the OT. She is accepting of my family (includes her granddaughter and 4 great grandchildren) being Catholic but she is still against the religion.


#7

riverman

Your grandma is not making a distinction between the moral law of the OT and the disciplinary laws of the OT that were temporary rules that were added for the transgressions of the Jews as a form of corporate penance.

The OT moral laws still are binding on Christians since the moral laws can never change.

The whole of the OT moral law can be summed up in these two OT scriptures: You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might
Deuteronomy 6:5

You shall love your neighbor as yourself
Leviticus 19:18

[quote=AlanFromWichita]The law was actually Jesus’ OT counterpart, the way I once heard it explained. Jesus’ ministry changed the law from a static one into a living one. The law actually became Jesus.
[/quote]

The moral laws of the OT are absolute truths that were written down in sacred scriptures.

Jesus didn’t say that he came to speak the truth, he said that he IS the truth, and that distinction is important. The truth of the moral laws existed before anything was created, since these truths are eternal. In the fullness of time, the Truth became flesh and dwelt among us. In that sense, the law became Jesus, because the Truth became incarnate.

The moral law was never some sort of “static” system of rules and regulations that can change in time, since the Truth is God, and God cannot change.


#8

[quote=DavidFilmer]“Think not that I have come to destroy the Law. Not to destroy, but to fulfill.”
[/quote]

Paul a pharisee understood what this quite meant. For the pharisee’s taught that one was saved by adhering to the 613 laws in the OT… However when Jesus died on the cross he became the fulfillment of the law in that from then on people would be saved through the merits Jesus gained by dying for us. Paul understood that either one was saved by the law or saved by Jesus Christ. He understood the contradiction and brought about the decision made by He, Peter, and James at what is sometimes called the first Council of the Church in Jerusalem. The dietary laws, circumcision, and the Shabat rules no longer applied to the new converts…


#9

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.