Did the coming of Jesus render the Law of the old testament null and void

I have not been on in a long time.I agree with this except you are calling the New Jerusalem Heaven. The building is a building together in the divine life and love human beings. The building is really not Heaven. It is the building of people together into the habitation of God in spirit - the church and by extension the New Jerusalem.Now let me post this and see if I remember how to quote and post.

The revelation of the Law of God and the house of God are progressive and gradually unfolding in the whole Bible. Therefore, the truth of God's building a habitation for God and man is more symbolic in the Old Testament. It in type in the Old Testament. It is in reality in the New Testament.The typology of God giving the Law in order to secure a dwelling place on the earth is undeniable in the Hebrew Bible. Yet it is seen my in type and in symbolism. The truth of it is there in spite of Purpledawn's failure to notice it.The Law of Moses was related to God having a people, a city, and a house on the earth. The Law of God was given which God said in keeping it a man may live.God gave the Law at Mt. Sinai. At that time He also gave the revelation of the TABERNACLE which was a portable dwelling place where God would be on the earth, in the Holy of Holies, amidst His law keeping people. This was the strong relationship between the Law and the dwelling place of God.The details of the tabernacle were given with exquisite percision. This shows that God is the Designer of this dwelling place. And it shows that it mattered to God most vitally. The tent or tabernacle where God dwelt was the total center of the theocratic covenant people. And in Deutoronomy God prophesies much about the place on earth where His name would be. The idea is that God Himself would have a spot on His earth where He and His people would dwell together.The tabernacle was the movable dwelling place. A further development was the building of the house or temple of God. This was a more permenant dwelling place of God. The relationship between the Law of God and the House of God is very strong. In Ezekiel there is even a reference to "the law of the house".What we have to grasp here is the symbolism. God gains a people through the Law. God gains a Good Land, through the Law of God. God gains a city in that Good Land through the Law. And in that city God BUILDS a house as His dwelling place where God and His people meet together.The People are gained by the Law.
The Good Land is gained by the Law.
The City is gained by the Law.
The Tabernacle is gained by the Law.
Eventually the Temple, the house is gained by the Law.Therefore, emphatically, the Goal of the Law of Moses was for God to gain a dwelling place. And that is a BUILDED dwelling place. That is a habitation for God on the earth.Now much of this is more im symbolism in the OT. But the symbolism is entirely powerful and not trivial. To God it was vital. And He spoke of dwelling with His people and in His house. Actually God is aiming at dwelling with man and man dwelling with God.Actually God is aiming at dwelling IN man. In otherwords God is both building Himself into man and building man into Himself.The complete reality of this eternal purpose of God is with the New Jerusalem. Hawkins identified the New Jerusalem as Heaven. Actually it is seen in the New Testament coming down OUT of Heaven from God. If it comes down out of heaven then we should not say that it IS Heaven. "He who overcomes, him I will make a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall by no means go out anymore, and I will write upon him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which descends out of heaven from My God, and My new name." (Rev. 3:12,13) "And I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. " (Rev. 21:2) We can see here that the ultimate "city" in which God and man dwell together in a life union and mingling, is seen in the sign coming down out of heaven. So it is better not to think of the building of the New Jerusalem as the building of Heaven. But it is definitely the building of both the bride and wife of God, of Christ, and the building of the tabernacle of God, the temple of God. "And I heard a loud voice out of the throne, saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will tabernacle with them, and they will be His peoples and God Himself will be with them and be their God." (v.3) That is all I will write in this post. Much needs to be added. But you should see that in BOTH the Old Testament and the New Testament the goal is the dwelling place of God.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

My last post was in response to, I believe, messages 61 and 62. Partly I responded to Hawkins' equivocation of Heaven and the New Jerusalem, in order to say something about the distinction.Other comments were in response to your difficulty is seeing some of the points Hawkins made which I thought had validity.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

That is interesting because I intended for the most part to support what you had been writing.These are not hollow words. But they do need more explanation. Take for example that God gained a people through the Law. Is that too abstract? It was the Law of Moses which separated the Hebrews from the Gentiles. He gained a people THROUGH the Law.I don't think I need proof texts to "unhollow" these words. But if so consider - "For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as Jehovah our God is whenever we call upon Him? And what great nation is there that has statues and judgments so righteous as all this LAW which I am setting before you today?" (Deut. 4:7,8) You see ? The uniqueness of the nation is because they have been given God's law.So these are not "hollow words" at all.That is all the time that I have right now. But I can go through each of the other "abstract" ideas you complained about as well. The Law that God gave was central in obtaining the people and the land and the kingdom in the land.My post was meant to be supportive of yours more so than purpledawn's concept. But that's Okay. I can back up what I wrote regardless.I don't write things here that I cannot back up, by far, most of the time.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I wrote: Deuteronomy 4:7,8 is one of many passages showing that the possession of God's Law was the unique factor separating Israel from the other nations.What about the good land ? It was adherance to the law of Moses which would inable them to dwell on the land. And if they violated God's law they would be vomited out of the land. So the keeping of the law was the factor making it possible for Israel to possess the good land of Canaan.The entire chapter of Deutoronomy 28 is completely sufficient to prove that keeping the law entitled Israel to the good land and breaking the law would forfeit that priviledge.Now the city refers to the central location where the temple was. This was to be the place where God would put His name. Three times a year they were to come to the place where God put His name and offer up their sacrifices. This is ALL according to the Law. Deuteronomy chapter 12 reveals the place where God would put His name. That is the CITY with the TEMPLE. Both matters were instrinsically bound up with the Law of Moses. That was the holding factor - the law. "But to the place which Jehovah your God will choose out of all your tribes to put His name, to His habitation, shall you seek, and there shall you go.

​

And there you shall bring your burnt offerings and your sacrifices and you tithes and the heave offering of your hand and your vows and your freewill offerings and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock. And there you shall eat before Jehovah your God, and you and your households shall rejoice in all your undertakings, in which Jehovah your God has blessed you." (Deut. 12:5-6) The habitation of God is the central place where the offerings of the Levites were to be performed. This worship and feasting was to take place three times a year. They were not to do it anywhere. They had to come to the place where God put His name.Eventually that was Jerusalem and the temple in Jerusalem. So the law was central to the holding center of the theocratic capital with its temple.When the law was repeatedly violated and transgressed against, what did the Hebrews lose ? They lost the temple. They lost the city. They lost the land.Until there should be a recovery of a remnant coming BACK to the law in Nehemiah, Ezra, Haggai, and Zechariah they lost very much. When they did come back to rebuild the walls of the city and the temple, what did they first do ?Did they build the WALL of the city first ? No indeed. Read it. They understood where the priorities really lay. FIRST - they put the altar in its place. They first restored the Altar for the consecration offerings to Jehovah their God. That was MORE crucial than even the WALL of the city.The offerings according to the Law held the top priority. The returned exiles realized that if they did not keep the Law with its offerings there was no chance that they would keep the temple, the city, or the good land.In other words, Babylon's 70 years of captivity had taught some of them a lesson. The Law of God was the holding factor they must give utmost attention to.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.