I was spending some time the other day perusing another blogsite and, once again, came upon the tried and untrue connection between the Old and New Testaments that well-meaning brothers have been making, since...well, Noah got off of the gopher wood ark. :-) Following, in greater detail perhaps, are some thoughts regarding such use of analogy. I have never completely understood why so many arguments drift to Old Testament argumentation in order to try to prove or approve New Testament authority? Actually, I do understand why this takes place...believers with a certain legal world view seek to defend the New Testament as a primarily legal covenant, as is the Old. If we spend some time absorbing the Sermon on the Mount at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, as well as many of Jesus' other teachings, we begin to understand why this is not feasible or correct. It is legal in its atoning aspect, but in most every other respect, it is about love, grace and mercy. It is not consistent reasoning...the necessity of Noah having to use gopher wood (cypress, if we really want to be technical), Nadab and Abihu's sin, Uzzah reaching out to touch the ark, etc. are fear illustrations that do not apply to a covenant of grace and truth. If we want to make such a "fear argument" concerning keeping rules and regulations, then Ananias and Sapphira should be quoted (which was clearly an exceptional situation, but not without prupose). We no longer rely upon the Old Covenant for our authority and so drawing arguments or conclusions from it in order to propagate New Testament authority is an argument that God never intended for us to make.