The distinction between the Old and New Testaments is often misunderstood by Christians. On the one hand, there are Christians who believe the entire Old Testament, right down to the food laws, is important to obey. On the other hand, some Christians take "no longer under the law" to such an extent that they almost seem ready to burn the Old Testament completely. Both of these extremes are horribly, horribly wrong.
As I was standing outside my favourite café one morning, I decided to snap a picture of the closed sign, because I believe it can be used as an excellent illustration. An open and closed sign leaves little room for interpretation. "Sorry, we're closed" is a direct command to all customers: Do not enter. "Come in, we're open" is an open invitation to customers to enter the premises.
The meaning of a closed sign is always the same. However, the application is not. The thing about these signs is that they are usually double sided. They aren't changed, they are merely turned around so that the relevant side faces the entrance. "Sorry, we're closed" always means "Sorry, we're closed", but it does not always prevent customers from entering.
In much the same way, the Old Testament always has the same interpretation, but not always the same application. It is 100% true that the Old Testament forbids Jews from eating pork, for example. But does this mean a Christian cannot eat pork? The New Testament makes it amply clear that it does not. There are countless passages telling us that whatever we believe we can eat, we can eat, and thank God for it.
So, we can just throw the Old Testament away then, right? Wrong! Absolutely, 100%, without any hint of doubt, wrong. First, let's go back to our closed sign analogy. Once the sign is turned to "open", does that allow us to go behind the counter? Does it allow us to smash through the windows instead of just opening the door like a normal person? Does it even allow us to put our feet on the table like we own the place? Of course not. The whole reason we have to obey a closed sign is because we don't own the place. When a closed sign is turned around, that only alters the application of a select handful of rules. Other rules still have to be obeyed, including other rules that pertain to trespassing. In the same way, the Old Testament still contains moral principles that exceed the Mosaic covenant. In Romans 6, Paul tells us that just because we are no longer under law, but under grace, does not mean we get to sin.
In Galatians 3, specifically verses 24-26, Paul explains the purpose of the law. Depending on your translation, we are told the law was a guardian, schoolmaster, teacher, tutor, the YLT1898 even calls it our "child-conductor", until Christ came.
I want you to take a moment to think back to your school days. For my home schooled audience, this will have a different application, but for those of us who were public/private schooled, we all had tutors whom we are no longer under. Are their teachings, therefore, irrelevant? My teachers taught me to read, to write, to count, to add/subtract, to tell the time, should I just disregard them because I am no longer under them? If I did, I wouldn't be typing this to you, because I wouldn't have the faintest idea how to use a keyboard. If I, as a student, cannot consider my fallible, human teachers to be irrelevant, how then can I consider the Old Testament, which is the infallible and imperishable word of the Living God, to be irrelevant? If you take your Christian faith seriously, you simply cannot allow your Old Testament to get dusty. It has a lot to teach us. It has so much to teach us that without it, we actually could not understand the New Testament! Especially not the countless Old Testament quotes found within. "As it was written by the prophet: (OT reference deleted)".
As Christians, we are not required to apply the Old Testament law as an Old Testament Jew would. But also as Christians, we cannot afford to disregard the Old Testament, just as no customer can afford to burn the closed sign during opening hours. If you love Jesus, keep your Old Testament, study your Old Testament, learn from your Old Testament. No other view is compatible with the Christian faith.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An attempted response from an atheist
When this article was originally published as a post on the Path Treader Ministries Facebook page, an atheist attempted to respond with the following:
"Matthew 5:17-19 quotes Jesus as saying "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. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
The old testament still applies, which means the only thing Jesus ever did was end blood sacrifice."
Everything in the New Testament, up to and including Matthew 5:17-19, militates against this interpretation. The key phrase in that verse is "I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill". First, notice in the article, I explicitly condemned the idea that Christ came to abolish the law. What did He do? Fulfil it.
In the verse the atheist cited, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, shall disappear until all is accomplished. Yet, he have admitted that Jesus ended blood sacrifice. I know from multiple conversations with him that he hadn't read the Old Testament, but there's a lot of blood sacrifice in there. It's a fair bit more than "the least stroke of a pen". And yet, it's gone, because Christ succeeded in His mission to fulfil it. So he's right, the Old Testament still applies, but just as a closed sign, it no longer applies in the same way. In Christ, the law was fulfilled, which is why Paul was able to say "since faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian", as well as why countless Old Testament laws not related to blood sacrifice are explicitly spoken against (see, for example, Romans 14, where all foods are explicitly permitted so long as the Christian's conscience is clear), and why Paul at one point even says he wishes Judaizers (that is, people who went around teaching that the gentiles had to obey Old Testament law) would castrate themselves (Galatians 5:12).
The only real way to make the interpretation that Christians are still under the law work would be to hone in on the fact it says "until Heaven and Earth disappear", neither shall a letter from the law. However, once again, I am not contending that a letter of the law has disappeared, but am very explicitly opposing such a position. In the first paragraph of this very article, I said "On the other hand, some Christians take "no longer under the law" to such an extent that they almost seem ready to burn the Old Testament completely. Both of these extremes are horribly, horribly wrong." To conclude, I said "But also as Christians, we cannot afford to disregard the Old Testament, just as no customer can afford to burn the closed sign during opening hours. If you love Jesus, keep your Old Testament, study your Old Testament, learn from your Old Testament. No other view is compatible with the Christian faith." Clearly, therefore, I never intended to claim anything from the law has passed away, or disappeared. Neither do any knowledgeable, faithful Christians. In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus states everything I have said in the article: The law has been fulfilled (i.e. it has served its original purpose and changed application), but not abolished (i.e. don't get rid of it, it is a reliable revelation from God without which our faith makes no sense).