Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 3

Origen points to the post–AD 70 reality (no priesthood, sacrifices, Levites, temple feasts, stoning, etc.) as “proof of the death of the law”—how should this historical argument affect the way Christians talk about “keeping biblical law” today, especially when some commands are literally impossible to obey?

Another way to ask: If many Old Testament commands became impossible after AD 70 (no temple, sacrifices, etc.), how should Christians talk today about “keeping biblical law”? What does that change about how we apply those commands?

Direct Answer Based on the transcript, this historical argument should make Christians cautious about speaking as if “keeping biblical law” (in its Mosaic, literal form) is still a required path to salvation, since key commands became impossible after the temple’s destruction. It supports Paul’s claim that believers are “delivered from the law” and must serve God in a new covenant way.

Support from Transcript:

Origen treats the disappearance of temple life as “proof of the death of the law.”
Specific examples are listed: “no longer a priesthood, sacrifices, or the ministry of the Levites,” all gone after “the destruction of the temple in AD 70.”
Commands became unworkable: males could no longer appear “three times a year at the temple,” and Jews “cannot keep their feasts in the place which the Lord God appointed.”
Civil penalties also became impossible: “the whole synagogue has become unable to stone those who have committed this or that sin.”
Paul’s conclusion in v.6: “now we are delivered from the law,” shifting service to “newness of the Spirit and not… oldness of the letter.”

Discussion Follow-ups When people today call for “Torah obedience,” do they mean literal ceremonies or the Law’s moral intent? How does the lesson’s “Spirit vs. letter” distinction clarify what obedience should look like now?

Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 3 of 10