The OT means of Salvation are the same as NT means.

[antonio]

I started out looking for an answer to a question: Could anyone go to heaven in the OT times since, Paul says no one can be righteous under the law-we all are sinners.
In my search I came across the following passage which raised an additional point.--that means of salvation under the OT is no different the means of salvation under the NT. If so, why did Jesus Die? i
This is the passage--

"The Old Testament teaches a righteousness based upon works of the Law that God passed down to man:
"Suppose there is a righteous man who does what is just and right. He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of the house of Israel. He does not defile his neighbor's wife or lie with a woman during her period. He does not oppress anyone, but returns what he took in pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked. He does not lend at usury or take excessive interest. He withholds his hand from doing wrong and judges fairly between man and man. He follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws. That man is righteous; he will surely live, declares the Sovereign LORD" (Ezekial 18:5-9, NIV.)
Tto attain such a righteousness, one must obey all of the law. "The LORD commanded us to obey all these decrees and to fear the LORD our God, so that we might always prosper and be kept alive, as is the case today. And if we are careful to obey all this law before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness" (Deuteronomy 6:24-25, NIV.) Similar statements are found in the Old Testament in Numbers 15:40; Deuteronomy 11:32, 12:28; Joshua 1:7, 23:6, and in many other references. The breaking of a single tenet of the entire law is the equivalent of breaking the entire law. Deuteronomy 28:58-59, NIV.)
The only remedy provided for those who lived in Old Testament times was the forgiveness that God gives when the sinner responds to God in repentance through faith and trust in Him.
"And if I say to the wicked man, 'You will surely die,' but he then turns away from his sin and does what is just and right -- if he gives back what he took in pledge for a loan, returns what he has stolen, follows the decrees that give life, and does no evil, he will surely live; he will not die. None of the sins he has committed will be remembered against him. He has done what is just and right; he will surely live. Yet your countrymen say, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' But it is their way that is not just. If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, he will die for it. And if a wicked man turns away from his wickedness and does what is just and right, he will live by doing so" (Ezekial 33:14-19 NIV.)"

If this passage is correct, it seems then that forgiveness of sins is accomplished under the old law the same as under the new. I don’t see the difference. Both require repentance and faith.

antonio

[twobitsmedia]

I started out looking for an answer to a question: Could anyone go to heaven in the OT times since, Paul says no one can be righteous under the law-we all are sinners.
In my search I came across the following passage which raised an additional point.--that means of salvation under the OT is no different the means of salvation under the NT. If so, why did Jesus Die? i
This is the passage--

"The Old Testament teaches a righteousness based upon works of the Law that God passed down to man:
"Suppose there is a righteous man who does what is just and right. He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of the house of Israel. He does not defile his neighbor's wife or lie with a woman during her period. He does not oppress anyone, but returns what he took in pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked. He does not lend at usury or take excessive interest. He withholds his hand from doing wrong and judges fairly between man and man. He follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws. That man is righteous; he will surely live, declares the Sovereign LORD" (Ezekial 18:5-9, NIV.)
Tto attain such a righteousness, one must obey all of the law. "The LORD commanded us to obey all these decrees and to fear the LORD our God, so that we might always prosper and be kept alive, as is the case today. And if we are careful to obey all this law before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness" (Deuteronomy 6:24-25, NIV.) Similar statements are found in the Old Testament in Numbers 15:40; Deuteronomy 11:32, 12:28; Joshua 1:7, 23:6, and in many other references. The breaking of a single tenet of the entire law is the equivalent of breaking the entire law. Deuteronomy 28:58-59, NIV.)
The only remedy provided for those who lived in Old Testament times was the forgiveness that God gives when the sinner responds to God in repentance through faith and trust in Him.
"And if I say to the wicked man, 'You will surely die,' but he then turns away from his sin and does what is just and right -- if he gives back what he took in pledge for a loan, returns what he has stolen, follows the decrees that give life, and does no evil, he will surely live; he will not die. None of the sins he has committed will be remembered against him. He has done what is just and right; he will surely live. Yet your countrymen say, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' But it is their way that is not just. If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, he will die for it. And if a wicked man turns away from his wickedness and does what is just and right, he will live by doing so" (Ezekial 33:14-19 NIV.)"

If this passage is correct, it seems then that forgiveness of sins is accomplished under the old law the same as under the new. I don’t see the difference. Both require repentance and faith.

antonio

The only justification in the OT was the law...which called for a lot animal sacrifices. The Ezekiel passage is correct, but even it has a conditon "if he.....follows the decrees that give life and does no evil" (i.e, the law). the death of Jesus took care of all the need for sacrifices once and for all.

[antonio]

The only justification in the OT was the law...which called for a lot animal sacrifices. The Ezekiel passage is correct, but even it has a conditon "if he.....follows the decrees that give life and does no evil" (i.e, the law). the death of Jesus took care of all the need for sacrifices once and for all.

oops, you went too fast for me there. Thank you for your reponse and I really appreciate short and to the point. However, I need some explanation. when you say Jesus' death took away the need for sacrifice, do you mean that I no longer need to repent or avoid sin yet I still have salvation by the grace of God?
I'm dense on this stuff so I appreciate your help.
antonio

[twobitsmedia]

The only justification in the OT was the law...which called for a lot animal sacrifices. The Ezekiel passage is correct, but even it has a conditon "if he.....follows the decrees that give life and does no evil" (i.e, the law). the death of Jesus took care of all the need for sacrifices once and for all.

oops, you went too fast for me there. Thank you for your reponse and I really appreciate short and to the point. However, I need some explanation. when you say Jesus' death took away the need for sacrifice, do you mean that I no longer need to repent or avoid sin yet I still have salvation by the grace of God?
I'm dense on this stuff so I appreciate your help.
antonio

Under OT law the blood sacrfice of sheep and goats was needed to "cover" sin. In a sense, I guess you could say one had to have some kind of faith in that blood sacrifice to take away sin. But, it had to be done periodically. Under the NT covenant, Jesus died and shed his blood once and for all. A true conversion is covered through believing on Him and what he has done. He will take care of the sin and lead you to any repentance you need to deal with.

[antonio]

It's getting clearer--Thank you again. Some more questions:

1.Ezekiel doesn't say anything about sacrifices only repent and believe. Is there an explanation for that?

2, Are you saying that after Jesus' sacrifice, all my sins are forgiven,/not remembered by God? In other words. I don't have to make an effort, the sins I commit tomorrow are already forgiven?

3.This thing about bloody sacrifice and burnt offerings, sounds like something out of King Kong or Joe and the Volcano. I know that humans use to do that and that some primitive people (we call them) still do it. Am I suppose to believe that my Father in heaven wanted them to do that and that He pleased by burnt offerings?

thank you--I am anxious to read your replies.
antonio

[Goat]

Under OT law the blood sacrfice of sheep and goats was needed to "cover" sin. In a sense, I guess you could say one had to have some kind of faith in that blood sacrifice to take away sin. But, it had to be done periodically. Under the NT covenant, Jesus died and shed his blood once and for all. A true conversion is covered through believing on Him and what he has done. He will take care of the sin and lead you to any repentance you need to deal with.

Now, that is 100 percent incorrect. The Tanakah has plenty of alternative to 'blood sacrifice' for sin. There is the sacrifice of ceral, the sacrifice "of the lips". In fact, there are phrases that indicate that animal sacrifice si the least of the ways to atone for sin.

[Easyrider]

Hi Antonio -

You're right about the means of salvation being basically the same in both the OT and NT. We see that Abram believed (had faith in) God and it was credited to him as righteousness (Genesis 15:6). And this was before he was circumcised and before the Law was given. So, justification / salvation was available then apart from keeping the Law, just as it is in the NT.

One might sweat out an entire lifetime trying to keep just one of God's laws, much less all of them. No, keeping the law was not the way to justification. The law had four major purposes:

1. It shows us the moral character of God
2. It serves as a tutor to lead us to Christ, by defining what sin is.
3. It is a guide for Godly living.
4. Knowing the law can keep us from suffering the adverse consequences of sin.

Many Biblical theologians say the OT sacrifices were a shadow of, and looked forward to, the NT sacrifice of Christ. Certainly the Passover Lamb (without blemish) is such a case, as it says in the NT that "Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been crucified."

God bless!

[Metatron]

You're right about the means of salvation being basically the same in both the OT and NT.

Attaining righteousness with YHWH through the Law is the same as salvation via Jesus' martyrdom is the same? Nah!

One might sweat out an entire lifetime trying to keep just one of God's laws, much less all of them. No, keeping the law was not the way to justification.

I suspect this will come as something of a shock to the Jewish people.

It serves as a tutor to lead us to Christ, by defining what sin is.

The writer of Leviticus, etc. didn't know Jesus from Quetzalcoatl.

Knowing the law can keep us from suffering the adverse consequences of sin.

How does that work? We are told that we are ALL sinners unworthy of the Kingdom of Heaven whose only recourse is Jesus' martyrdom. If all sins lead to Hell what possible adverse consequences are their for not following the Law.

[Easyrider]

You're right about the means of salvation being basically the same in both the OT and NT.

Attaining righteousness with YHWH through the Law is the same as salvation via Jesus' martyrdom is the same? Nah!

Abram's belief in God = belief in Christ, who is God. Your curt reply doesn't explain Genesis 15:6, BTW.

One might sweat out an entire lifetime trying to keep just one of God's laws, much less all of them. No, keeping the law was not the way to justification.

I suspect this will come as something of a shock to the Jewish people.

Show me a perfect Jew who never sinned? Got a name and address?

It serves as a tutor to lead us to Christ, by defining what sin is.

The writer of Leviticus, etc. didn't (know?) Jesus from Quetzalcoatl.

Well he certainly prophesied about him. So he wasn't completely in the dark.

Knowing the law can keep us from suffering the adverse consequences of sin.

How does that work?

You know how it works. Rob a bank and pay the consequences, either on earth or in the hereafter, or both.

We are told that we are ALL sinners unworthy of the Kingdom of Heaven whose only recourse is Jesus' martyrdom. If all sins lead to Hell what possible adverse consequences are their for not following the Law.

Was Abram justified by faith in God (Genesis 15:6) or not?

[twobitsmedia]

It's getting clearer--Thank you again. Some more questions:

1.Ezekiel doesn't say anything about sacrifices only repent and believe. Is there an explanation for that?

He doesn't detail it, but if one is to "follow the decrees that give life" (i.e. the law) then that is part of it.

2, Are you saying that after Jesus' sacrifice, all my sins are forgiven,/not remembered by God? In other words. I don't have to make an effort, the sins I commit tomorrow are already forgiven?

Your sins are forgiven upon acceptance of the reality that he has truly died and took your place in death. It is realizing that you have sinned, and then realize that you are guilty and should die because of it. (All have sinned and fall short). Then, you realize that God has taken your place so that you do not have to die because of your sin. The "effort" you don't need to deal with is trying to deal with your own sins. He will do that. Paul answers your question in great detail in Romans as he asks himself the similar question. I cannot preach that you can do whatever you want, but then again, the work of redemption has already taken place. I don't know how clear that is sounding. It took me many years to finally figure it out and have it make sense. The book of Romans was like reading Greek. Somewhere along the line it started to make sense.

3.This thing about bloody sacrifice and burnt offerings, sounds like something out of King Kong or Joe and the Volcano. I know that humans use to do that and that some primitive people (we call them) still do it. Am I suppose to believe that my Father in heaven wanted them to do that and that He pleased by burnt offerings?

That's the way it was. In fact, the law is still in affect for those who wish to pursue it. So, if one wants to follow Levitical Law and do animal offerings, that is an option. I would, however, recommend the Jesus way as PETA would have a field day in your front yard otherwise.