Why did God change the laws that man must obey from the Old to New Testament?
Clarify
•
Share
•
Report
•
Asked February 16 2015
•
Gary Creel
Ariel HaNaviy
God did not change any of his laws. God does not change (Mal. 3:6). Nor did his Son Yeshua (Jesus) change any of the laws. Yeshua also does not change, for he is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb. 13:8). But, some will object, didn't the writer of Hebrews speak about a change in the Law? Yeshua did in fact walk into a priestly office that was radically different from the established Law spelled out in the Torah: “For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.” (Heb. 7:12-14) This difference is termed “change of law” (Greek=nomou metathesis) in Hebrews, but it should not be understood as having changed the Torah Law, particularly the earthy law governing priests. The verse primarily teaches that Yeshua originates from a different line of priests, that is, one taking its governance from a heavenly authority, a line that is “changed” from the earthly line. For as we will read below, earthly Levitical priests will again be serving in their office in the 1000 year reign of Christ here on Earth. This means both earthly lines and heavenly lines work in tandem to bring about the Will of God. They do not compete with one another. On the contrary, they compliment one another. Concerning the author’s point in Hebrews, we can safely conclude as follows: If he were teaching that the Torah has been abolished and is no longer applicable, then he would not be teaching that a change of the Torah must take place. One would never consider that a law which has been decommissioned ever needs to be changed! Once a law ceases to be law, it no longer is enforceable and is therefore no longer considered viable or necessary to be administrated. So, the fact that our author speaks of a change taking place means that he considers the Torah to be active and viable. Indeed, the viability of the Torah is why he feels the necessity to speak to the issue of priestly lineage in the first place. Moreover, the so-called the three-fold division of the Law idea must be abandoned if we are to accept the whole Bible as one harmonious unit. The TaNaKH (called Old Testament by some) never differentiates between so-called moral, ceremonial, and civil commandments. For instance, many call the Sabbath a ceremonial command, yet repeated remorseless violation of it drew the death penalty (Ex. 31:14, 15). If it is merely a ceremonial commandment, and not a moral one, why attach the death penalty to its violation? Besides, we know it too (along with sacrifices) will be enforced during the Millennium. Case in point: read Isa. 66:21-23 which has all the world keeping the seventh day Sabbath in the Millennium: “And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the Lord. “For as the new heavens and the new earth that I make shall remain before me, says the Lord, so shall your offspring and your name remain. From new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath. All flesh shall come to worship before me, declares the Lord.”