The question of how continuity and discontinuity between the Convenants
(Old and New) is hotly debated among Christians.  Especially in the
area of judicial and penal law.  However there is near unanimous
agreement that the Old Covenant ceremonial laws are abrograted.
Evidence for this is contained in the Letter to the Hebrews and
scattered other places in the New Testatment (NT).  This makes sense
when you consider that the thrust of the entire Old Testament (OT) is
about the Savior and preparing God's people for him.  The ceremonial
law was to act as a kind of drama to God's people to show to them what
kind of savior was to come and what his work would be on their behalf.
Once he came and accomplished all that the OT pointed forward to, this
aspect of the law was no longer needed.  The perfect (or complete and
actual) came and did away with the shadows.

The moral law (as summarized in the 10 Commandments) is widely regarded
as still in force, but how it is brought forward from Old to New is a
matter of debate.  I am a reforemd Chrisitian and as such my heritage
is to ask the question in this manner; What OT commands did the NT
specifically abrogate?  Asking the question in this way assumes that
all is brought forward, unless the NT says otherwise.  The other way to
ask the question is; What does the NT specifically command and
therefore confirm as still in force from the OT?  This assumes are
fresh start, so all is abrogated and new commands are substituted.

How you ask this question of continuity and discontinuity is crucial to
how the question of what laws are brought forward.  Of course, this
begs the question; which of these approaches is taught by the Bible?
If anyone is interested we can continue this discussion.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/10/05 8:09:34 PM