Christian: Perhaps people are scared that if you claim that portions of the Bible aren't commands for us, you open up people to decide which commands are still for us today. After all, the Ten Commandments seem to be foundational truths. To decide that the only command of the Ten that we needn't obey is the Sabbath command makes one wonder...why only that one? Are there only nine commandments still relevant for today? And why not kick out the one that says there's only one God? That would help us out a lot with having to explain a Trinity. :)

By the way, the Church of Christ handles this Old vs. New dilemma by claiming that if it's not mentioned in the New Testament, it no longer is valid. Anyone to argue for or against this conclusion?

Hopeful: I would agree with Christian as to why there is so much confusion about the Law. Much of modern-day theology is based upon the commands in the Law. To say that the modern-day value of the Law is not in the command, even while maintaining its inspiration, flies in the face of a lot of doctrine out there. The reason I mention the Sabbath commandment and not the others, is that this is the only commandment that cannot be easily defended, in my opinion, with the top two commandments Jesus mentioned. These were to act in love toward God and in love toward men. This is also the only commandment of which I know for which there is New Testament evidence that it is not required of the modern-day church (Rom 14:5-6, Col 2:16-17).

Finally, I am not sure how explicit things must be mentioned in the New Testament for those in the Church of Christ to accept it as an applicable command. I will say that much of the New Testament seems to be more laying groundwork for how to make decisions in life than listing out what the exact decisions should always be. This groundwork does have relation to the Law (Rom 3:20), but it can be still too vague to make a specific part of the Law a command for us. To even say that specifically reiterating a Law means that part of the law is still a modern command may be semantically incorrect. I would say that the reiteration is the command that we are bound to. To the law, which may command the exact same thing, we are not bound.

Christian: Interesting way to look at it, I must admit. There are verses in the Old Testament that say "This is a permanent law for you. You must carry it out forever." I guess you would say that "forever" is limited to the duration of the covenant? Once the covenant is obsolete, the command no longer needs to be practiced? I think that's pretty interesting. And even tempting to believe.

Here's another question to add to the pot: According to Jesus, the new covenant is His blood. So why should we substitute a Law from the Old Covenant for a New Testament Law. In other words, why make people obey the letter of the New Testament books? Isn't that what the Jesus' new covenant is NOT about? Doesn't that just make the New Testament books simply another Law? Another way to put it: If we appeal to the New Testament books as the final standard for living our lives, are we not claiming it is the Law of God---it's just not as detailed?

Is the new covenant based on Jesus' blood, or is it based on the New Testament books?

Faithful: Incredible question. Could it be that the law we so strongly war against and so grateful to have been freed from is the same as what we submit ourselves to in order to try to meet with Jesus' expectations? It would seem as though just as Paul preached against the legalism of circumcision (and of course, we proclaim that loudly), someone ought to preach against our 100% separation from the world. Oh, that's right - you're not separate - you have a job with non-Christians. Good for you. What about the continual stream of "Christian" music you listen to, religious/"Christian" books you read, and exactly how much time do you spend around non-Christians when you're not at work? So when Jesus said "You are in the world, but not of the world," we so easily like to read that legalistically to mean that even though we are physically present, everything we do is an attempt to get out. And we scoff at the Pharisees.. even when that's exactly who we are.

Christian: Incredible answer. But what does this have to do with the questions I brought up---or this discussion for that matter? The Old covenant was about following the Old Testament to the letter. So why should we strive to follow the New Testament to the letter? Is that what this new covenant is about? Or are you implying that we just shouldn't add regulations to the New Testament that aren't there?

Faithful: It was simply an example of how we ARE striving to follow the New Testament to the letter... so much that we often forget the spirit behind the words and follow the words themselves. Another example: "Abstain from all appearance of evil." (I Thessalonians 5:22). This isn't even a good translation of the Greek, at least not for modern English. Yet how many times do we hear that preached, and when we might head for anything that could be construed to look evil, some dear Christian friend points that very fact out.

The New Covenant is about freedom, paid for with the price of Jesus' blood. Jesus made the law harder (don't even THINK about doing sin or you've already done it), but he also set us free from it so that we could actually break out and do something for him rather than being broken down by all the sin that we've committed. That freedom is what allows true love rather than simple servitude.

Hopeful: Very few books in the New Testament can easily be read as a list of commands to do this and not to do that (James does come to mind). Paul wrote many times that to follow the letter of the law was an empty task indeed. It would seem that the majority of the New Testament pushes for a change in heart that will inevitably change your actions and not vice versa. A good example of this might be Matthew 5:21-48.

Christian: Perhaps what I'm asking is this: Is the New Testament the new testament? Or should we call it "Regarding the New Testament"? I can't see how the New Testament itself is the new covenant. I can see how it discusses and interprets it---how it expounds on it. But I don't see how it is the New Testament itself. The new testament is written on our hearts (the grace of the Gospel), not the written words on a page of a New Testament book, whereas the Old Testament was the Old Covenant itself.

Hopeful: The New Covenant is written on our hearts, not the New Testament. The New Testament is a collection of books that each must be read according to the context in which they were written. The New Covenant is essentially the new law which Christians have been told to live by and can transcend context. Likewise, the Old Testament contained the Old Covenant, but they are not equivalent. The word "covenant" implies a contract. Books such as Job, Psalms, and Proverbs are very obviously not contractual books. The very context in which the phrase "Old Covenant" is used would not allow for the inclusion of the book of Job at the very least.

What is the value of the Law? Are we bound to any of it? If we are, why are we bound to parts and not others? If we aren't, what value does it have? What do you think?

Faithful: "And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. "  Galatians 5: 3-4

We have to be careful about how mandatory we make the Law (or even the "rules" of the New Testament).  Conversely, I would also say we have to be careful about how unimportant we make it in comparison to the New Covenant.  I would disagree with Hopeful in that I see the Law (conceptually, and often specifically) laying down a framework for things we could do to please God.  However, if we make it more than the written set of things we know that please God and do because of our love for Him, then it certainly is a law unto itself.  And that........   that is dangerous.