Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[Leaf473]

Even without the temple, Israelis can still make sacrifices. Abraham, Noah, Job did. Without a physical temple, the physical sacrifices can still happen.

That's an interesting observation, especially in light of the idea sometimes presented that we are to follow the same laws that Abraham did.

Genesis 26
Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my requirements, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

 

[ralliann]

You are welcome to come into the Messianic forum and ask questions. If you want, start a thread and list all the commandments of Moses you want my response on.

Maybe you missed my point about the Messianic forum. Can't have an open discussion there.
With such rules as not even being able to discuss Judaisms teaching concerning Noachide, as is said here.
Excerpt from statement of purpose.
"It's not permitted to tell members to keep the Universal (Noachide) laws"
The only opportunity for that is outside of it. If you desire not to answer you do not have to.

 

[Leaf473]

At God's final judgement:

Isaiah 66:17“Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, To go to the gardens After an idol in the midst, Eating swine’s flesh and the abomination and the mouse, Shall be consumed together,” says the LORD.

Not sure why anyone would want to eat something the Lord deems an abomination.

Hi SB,

Great question! Did you mean it rhetorically, or would you like to discuss it seriously?

 

[ralliann]

I think the question is whether or not we are still bound by the OT law today.

The uncircumcision was never bound by the Mosaic covenant. Noah, Abraham etc. were not either. Both were righteous before Moses law, and apart from it.

 

[expos4ever]

There is no knowledge of what sin is apart from that which what defines what sin is, and that is God's law (Romans 7:7, 1 John 3:4).

Here is Romans 7:7

What shall we say then? Is the Law sin?

To say that the Law is not "sin" is not to say it is the only standard that defines sin! This is obvious! Are the parking laws in my city "sin"? Of course not!. Are they the only standards for determining what sin is? Of course not!

And here is 1 Jn 3:4

Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

Lawlessness is a general term - one can be lawless in ways other than by disobeying the Law of Moses.

 

[expos4ever]

Considering that the Son is the exact image of God's nature, faith in Jesus is the same as the faith of Jesus...

Obviously not. There is a very big, and very obvous, difference between a person having faith in Jesus, and the faithfulness of Jesus. I have in my friend Fred that he will remember my birthday. But the faithfulness of Fred in remembering my birthday is an entirely independent matter.

 

[Cornelius8L]

At God's final judgement:

Isaiah 66:17“Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, To go to the gardens After an idol in the midst, Eating swine’s flesh and the abomination and the mouse, Shall be consumed together,” says the LORD.

Not sure why anyone would want to eat something the Lord deems an abomination.

Jesus used Isaiah 6:9–10 in Matt. 13:10–15 to explain to His disciples why He spoke in parables. If Jesus used Isaiah to explain why he told parables, what makes us think that Isaiah should be read literally? When Isaiah 6:9 says, “Go and tell this people, ‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’ - It declares riddles.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Jesus used Isaiah 6:9–10 in Matt. 13:10–15 to explain to His disciples why He spoke in parables. If Jesus used Isaiah to explain why he told parables, what makes us think that Isaiah should be read literally? When Isaiah 6:9 says, “Go and tell this people, ‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’ - It declares riddles.

When Jesus spoke in parables, He explained the parable. This is a prophecy, not a parable.

 

[Leaf473]

Jesus used Isaiah 6:9–10 in Matt. 13:10–15 to explain to His disciples why He spoke in parables. If Jesus used Isaiah to explain why he told parables, what makes us think that Isaiah should be read literally? When Isaiah 6:9 says, “Go and tell this people, ‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’ - It declares riddles.

That's interesting, because the prophecy in Isaiah 6 is literally about Isaiah speaking to the people who were alive during his time.

Jesus applies it to himself and the people who heard him, kind of a symbolic meaning.

Isaiah 6 continued
Then I said, “Lord, how long?”

He answered,

“Until cities are waste without inhabitant,
houses without man,
the land becomes utterly waste,
12 and the Lord has removed men far away,
and the forsaken places are many within the land.

 

[ralliann]

That's an interesting observation, especially in light of the idea sometimes presented that we are to follow the same laws that Abraham did.

Genesis 26
Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my requirements, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Along with other men such as here
Ge 20:4 But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?
Ge 20:8 Therefore Abimelech rose early in the morning, and called all his servants, and told all these things in their ears: and the men were sore afraid.
Ge 20:9 Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him, What hast thou done unto us? and what have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done.

Deut 5:2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.
4 The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire,

The patriarchs did not have the Sinai/Horeb covenant, made with Israel through Moses. Since God's mercy was in fulfilling the promises to Abraham, How can it be a covenant not made with them? Certainly, Paul does speak of the law as all the books from Moses.

Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

So, how is it a covenant Not made with Abraham, is made necessary to fulfill promises to Abraham?

 

[Soyeong]

Here is Romans 7:7

What shall we say then? Is the Law sin?

To say that the Law is not "sin" is not to say it is the only standard that defines sin! This is obvious! Are the parking laws in my city "sin"? Of course not!. Are they the only standards for determining what sin is? Of course not!

And here is 1 Jn 3:4

Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

Lawlessness is a general term - one can be lawless in ways other than by disobeying the Law of Moses.

Romans 7:7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

The reason why I cited Romans 7:7 was not to refer to Paul saying that God's aw is not sin but to refer to him saying that he would not have known what sin is if it had not been for God's law. Sin is the transgression of God's law, not the laws of your city, so that is irrelevant. In 1 John 3:4, it is speaking in regard to God's law, so the fact that one can be lawless in ways other than by disobeying God's law is again irrelevant. The Mosaic Law is how the Israelites knew what sin is, which is reflected in verses like Romans 3:20, Roman 7:7, and 1 John 3:4. How else do you think that the Israelites knew what sin is if not through the Mosaic Law?

Obviously not. There is a very big, and very obvous, difference between a person having faith in Jesus, and the faithfulness of Jesus. I have in my friend Fred that he will remember my birthday. But the faithfulness of Fred in remembering my birthday is an entirely independent matter.

I did not claim that our faithfulness is the same as the faithfulness of Jesus, but that faith in Jesus is the same as the faith of Jesus. Two people can both believe the same thing while having different levels of faithfulness.

 

[ralliann]

Romans 7:7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

The reason why I cited Romans 7:7 was not to refer to Paul saying that God's aw is not sin but to refer to him saying that he would not have known what sin is if it had not been for God's law.

Do you suppose to "know sin" is inclusive of the idea of knowing a woman? What I mean is, to engage in something, as an experience. The law increased sin. What was not sin prior to the law of Moses, became sin for the circumcision.

Sin is the transgression of God's law,

Certainly, the circumcision was judged by Moses/Levitical law. Moses law was not for all men everywhere. It set Israel apart. It also increased sin.

not the laws of your city, so that is irrelevant. In 1 John 3:4, it is speaking in regard to God's law, so the fact that one can be lawless in ways other than by disobeying God's law is again irrelevant. The Mosaic Law is how the Israelites knew what sin is, and this is reflected in verses like Romans 3:20, Roman 7:7, and 1 John 3:4.

I did not claim that our faithfulness is the same as the faithfulness of Jesus, but that faith in Jesus is the same as the faith of Jesus. Two people can both believe the same thing while having different levels of faithfulness.

Noachide law is also God's law. Abraham's law is also God's law, as is Moses law, God's law. In covenants
I have heard it often said by people who focus on the Mosaic covenant. Christians only read the last part of the Scripture. I think a valid point, pretty much true historically (not so much today). But isn't it also true of those who make Moses law, the only law and scripture, and covenant, leaving out the first part which is found in the text of Genesis?

 

[expos4ever]

The reason why I cited Romans 7:7 was not to refer to Paul saying that God's aw is not sin but to refer to him saying that he would not have known what sin is if it had not been for God's law.

And you clearly beg the question here, that is you assume the very thing you need to make a case for. You are simply assuming that because, at some time in past - note the past tense in Paul's statement "I would not have known" - the Law gave (past tense) Paul knowledge of sin, that the Law is therefore still in force.

This is an assumption - where is your case?

Imagine if I posted this:

"The reason you are wrong, Soyeong, is that the Law has already been done away with"

That would be begging the question - assuming the very thing I need to make a case for.

Any readers who know the first thing about proper debating will recognize begging the question as an illegitimate move.

Sin is the transgression of God's law, not the laws of your city, so that is irrelevant.

Where, and please be specific, does Scripture say anything that would justify a conclusion that sin does not exist if the Law were not there. We know that Paul, for one, disagrees with you:

for until the Law sin was in the world,

Paul could not be more clear - before the Law was even given, there was sin. So how can you say "sin is the transgression of God's Law"

In 1 John 3:4, it is speaking in regard to God's law,

Begging the question! How do you know that the author is referring to the Law of Moses? "Lawlessness" is a general term with no necessary connection to any particular law. I suggest you accept this obvious fact. Am I "lawless" when I drove 100 mph? Of course! Is driving 100 mph against the Law of Moses?

I did not claim that our faithfulness is the same as the faithfulness of Jesus, but that faith in Jesus is the same as the faith of Jesus. Two people can both believe the same thing while having different levels of faithfulness.

No, even this is obviously mistaken: faith in Jesus is something someone other than Jesus possesses, and that someone directs that faith at Jesus. Faith of Jesus is a characteristic of the one person Jesus - a statement about His inner mind.

 

[Doug Brents]

When Jesus spoke in parables, He explained the parable. This is a prophecy, not a parable.

Jesus did not always explain His parables. He gave the Apostles understanding through the Holy Spirit so they could understand what was meant. Jesus’ express purpose of speaking in parables was so that those who did not have the Spirit’s understanding would not understand.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Jesus did not always explain His parables. He gave the Apostles understanding through the Holy Spirit so they could understand what was meant. Jesus’ express purpose of speaking in parables was so that those who did not have the Spirit’s understanding would not understand.

You are making an argument that I’m not making I never said parables is the only way Jesus taught. The point of Isaiah 66;17 it is a prophecy not a parable.

 

[Soyeong]

Do you suppose to "know sin" is inclusive of the idea of knowing a woman? What I mean is, to engage in something, as an experience. The law increased sin. What was not sin prior to the law of Moses, became sin for the circumcision.

There is a difference between having head knowledge of which actions are sinful and having experiential knowledge of those things. Paul sad that God's law is good and that he wanted to do good, but that there was a law of sin that was working within his members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do, so it is the law of sin that causes sin to increase. In Romans 7:7, God's law is not sinful, so it does not cause sin to increase, but rather it is how we know what sin is, and when our sin is revealed, then that leads us to repent and causes sin to decrease. For example, there there is nothing inherent to the command against coveting that causes coveting to increase, but rather that command leads us to refrain from coveting and causes coveting to decrease. The issue is that there is something within us that that acts through the command against coveting that causes all sorts of covetousness, which is what causes sin to increase

In Romans 5:13, sin was in the world before the law was given, so there were no things that were to sin before the law was given that became sin after it was given, but rather the Mosaic Law revealed what has always been and will always be sin.

Certainly, the circumcision was judged by Moses/Levitical law. Moses law was not for all men everywhere. It set Israel apart. It also increased sin.

Noachide law is also God's law. Abraham's law is also God's law, as is Moses law, God's law. In covenants
I have heard it often said by people who focus on the Mosaic covenant. Christians only read the last part of the Scripture. I think a valid point, pretty much true historically (not so much today). But isn't it also true of those who make Moses law, the only law and scripture, and covenant, leaving out the first part which is found in the text of Genesis?

There are many verses that describe the Mosaic Law as being God's way, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, 1 Kings 2:1-3, Psalms 103:7, and so forth. In Genesis 18:19, God knew Abraham that he would teach his children and those of his household to walk in His way by doing righteousness and justice that the Lord may bring to Abraham all that he has promised, namely, in Genesis 26:4-5, God will multiply Abraham's children as the stars in the heaven, to his children He will give all of these lands, and through his children all of the nations of the earth will be blessed because Abraham heard God's voice and guarded His charge, His commandments, His statutes, and His laws. In Deuteronomy 30:16, if they love God with all of their heart by walking in His way by guarding His commandments, statutes, and laws, then they will live and multiply and God will bless them in the land that they go to possess. So all of the promises were made to Abraham and brought about because Abraham walked in God's way in obedience to His law, he taught his children how to do that, and because the children of Abraham did that.

In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him His way that he might know Him and Israel too, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so knowing God and Jesus is the goal of the Mosaic Law, which is the only way to eternal life (John 17:3). The Mosaic Law is the way (Psalms 119:1-3), the truth (Psalms 119:142), and the life (Deuteronomy 32:47), and the way to know the Father, and Jesus embodied the way, the truth, and the life, and the way to know the Father because he set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to it (John 14:6-7), so Abraham and the the children of Abraham walked in God's way in obedience to the Mosaic Law, and all who consider themselves to be followers of The Way as children of God through faith in Christ and children of Abrahams as heirs of the promise should also walk in God's way. In John 8:39, Jesus said that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doing the same works that he did, so again there is a connection between the works that they should be doing in obedience to the Mosaic Law and the works that Abraham did.

In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is an integral part of the Gospel message, which he prophesied would be proclaimed to all nations (Matthew 24:12-14), and which he commissions his disciples to teach to the nations (Matthew 28:!6-20). This is also the Gospel of the Kingdom that was made known in advance to Abraham, which he spread to those in Haran in accordance with the promise (Genesis 12:1-5). The Mosaic Law is how the children of Abraham knew how to be blessed by walking in God's way, so the way to inherit the promise through faith of being a blessing to the nations is by blessing the nations by turning them from their wickedness and teaching them to walk in God's way, which has its fulfillment in Jesus who was sent to bless us by turning us from our wickedness (Acts 3:25-26).

In other words, God's goal is to bless the world and His game plan is to teach the children of Abraham how to live blessed lives so that they would by teaching them to repent from their wickedness and how to walk in His way so that they would then be equipped to go out into the world and bless the nations by teaching them to repent from their wickedness and how to walk in God's way. This is how people are blessed and the children of Abraham are multiplied in accordance with the promise and how the Kingdom of God is spread in accordance with the Gospel. So when people try to say that this is only for Israel, then they are missing the whole point of spreading the Gospel to the nations. Israel was not set apart for the sake of being set apart, but for the sake of being a light and a blessing to the nations.

 

[Soyeong]

And you clearly beg the question here, that is you assume the very thing you need to make a case for. You are simply assuming that because, at some time in past - note the past tense in Paul's statement "I would not have known" - the Law gave (past tense) Paul knowledge of sin, that the Law is therefore still in force.

This is an assumption - where is your case?

Imagine if I posted this:

"The reason you are wrong, Soyeong, is that the Law has already been done away with"

That would be begging the question - assuming the very thing I need to make a case for.

Any readers who know the first thing about proper debating will recognize begging the question as an illegitimate move.

Where, and please be specific, does Scripture say anything that would justify a conclusion that sin does not exist if the Law were not there. We know that Paul, for one, disagrees with you:

for until the Law sin was in the world,

Paul could not be more clear - before the Law was even given, there was sin. So how can you say "sin is the transgression of God's Law"

The issue of whether God's law is still in force is independent of the issue of how what sin is and I have not claimed that God's law is still in force because Paul said that he would not have known what sin is if it weren't for God's law, so you are burning a straw man.

It is meaningless gibberish to speak about the existence of something apart from what defines what it is, so in order to speak about the existence of sin in an intelligible manner, there needs to also exist something that defines what sin is, and that something is what is against God's eternal nature, which has been revealed through His eternal law. For example, God's law reveals which actions have always been and will always be in accordance with God's eternal righteousness and sin has always been and will always be contrary to God's eternal righteousness. Sin can be in the world before God's law was given because people can act in a way that is contrary to God's eternal nature before they have been informed that that is the case, but it would be meaningless gibberish if Paul had been saying sin existed in the world before anything that defined what sin is. In other words, people were sinning by transgressing God's law before the had been informed that it was against God's law, so their sin was not changed against them.

The only way that instructions for how to act in accordance with God's eternal righteousness can become no longer in force would be for God to no longer be eternally righteous, so instructions for how to act in accordance with God's nature will be in force for as long as God's nature is eternal. While we are under the New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, we are nevertheless still under the same God with the same nature and therefore the same law for how to act in accordance with His nature (Jeremiah 31:33).

Begging the question! How do you know that the author is referring to the Law of Moses? "Lawlessness" is a general term with no necessary connection to any particular law. I suggest you accept this obvious fact. Am I "lawless" when I drove 100 mph? Of course! Is driving 100 mph against the Law of Moses?

Do you affirm or deny that the Israelites had knowledge of what sin is? I don't see how you can deny it given verses like Romans 7:7, and if you affirm it, then there are no options for how they gained that knowledge other than through the Mosaic Law. Indeed, "lawlessness" general term with no necessary connection to any particular law, but within the context of what Israelites considered to be sin, it could only be referring to the Law of Moses.

No, even this is obviously mistaken: faith in Jesus is something someone other than Jesus possesses, and that someone directs that faith at Jesus. Faith of Jesus is a characteristic of the one person Jesus - a statement about His inner mind.

Jesus is the exact image of the nature of God, so faith in Jesus putting our trust in the nature of God to correctly divide between right and wrong rather than leaning on our own upstanding, which is expressed by obeying the Mosaic Law (Proverbs 3:1-6), and Jesus expressed the same faith by living in obedience to it, so obeying the Mosaic is both the way to have faith in Jesus and the way that Jesus expressed his faith, which means that it is the same faith.

 

[expos4ever]

There is a difference between having head knowledge of which actions are sinful and having experiential knowledge of those things. Paul sad that God's law is good and that he wanted to do good, but that there was a law of sin that was working within his members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do, so it is the law of sin that causes sin to increase.

Misleading. Paul is clear that the Law of Moses itself does indeed play a role in causing sin to increase:

8 But sin, seizing the opportunity through the commandment {***in context, has to be the Law of Moses}, produced in me all kinds of wrong desires.[q] For apart from the law {***obviously the Law of Moses still}, sin is dead.

In context, it is certain that Paul is talking about the Law of Moses in both these sentences. You cannot make a reference to a "commandment" be anything other than the Law of Moses. And the "for" necessarily requires us to understand that the "law" apart from which sin is dead is, yes, the Law of Moses.

The fact that there is also a "law of sin" at work does not give you the right to rewrite what Paul is saying about the Law of Moses.

 

[expos4ever]

In Romans 7:7, God's law is not sinful, so it does not cause sin to increase, but rather it is how we know what sin is, and when our sin is revealed, then that leads us to repent and causes sin to decrease.

We have to respect what Paul actually says. As I have just shown (previous post), Paul certainly does believe that the Law of Moses, admittedly against common sense, functions to amplify and empower sin - to offer it an opportunity to grow within us:

8 But sin, seizing the opportunity through the commandment {***in context, has to be the Law of Moses}, produced in me all kinds of wrong desires.[q] For apart from the law {***obviously the Law of Moses still}, sin is dead.

Let's be clear: Paul is ultimately blaming "sin", not the Law of Moses. And on this face we agree. But, and we have to respect what he actually writes and not deform his words, Paul clearly says that the "commandment" produced in me wrong desires".

Case closed - the Law is indeed a participant in producing sin. Yes, the "law of sin" is the real culprit. But the Law, even though it is good in and of itself, still empowered the development of sinful impulses. This is what Paul clearly says. You disagree with Paul, fine you are free to do so. I fully expect you will take the concept "produced in me" and morph it into "revealed in me". That would be to take it upon yourself to tell Paul he is mistaken - to produce sin is decidedly not the same things as to reveal sin.

 

[expos4ever]

I want to talk about Romans 7 and what it says about the Law of Moses. It is clear that in our tradition many have taken it upon themselves essentially muzzle Paul and bend his words to meet their expectations. Is that the way to approach scripture? Not to me. Look, Paul says the Law of Moses does indeed play a kind of facilitating role to enable sin to fully express itself. That may seem odd - how can something good function in this way? How can a good thing play a role in making us more sinful? Well, that is what Paul says, and we need to accept it.

Consider this analogy. A child is told "do not take candies from the candy jar". I think we all know that although this rule is a good one, in the child's best interests, the very act of giving this command may cause the child to desire the candy even more. It is therefore not at all implausible that the Law of Moses, although good in and of itself, does indeed have this negative impact of energizing sinful impulses within us.