Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[ralliann]

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.

It did give more opportunity to sin, in commands not given to the nations. Levitical law. Where there was no law their was no sin. It stands to reason adding law/increasing law did give rise to increasing sin. Why is God's wrath is seen as something unjust and not good ? It is holy, just and good. Change in the priesthood changed law.

 

[Soyeong]

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.

There is nothing innate to the commandment not to covet that causes coveting to increase, but rather that command leads people not to covet, and causes coveting to decrease. However, there is a law of sin that is seizing the opportunity through the commandment to produce all kinds of wring desires, so it is the law of sin that is causing sin to increase, and it is apart from the law of sin that sin is dead. I agree that the commandment refers to the Law of Moses, but the thing that seizing the opportunity through the commandment is not the Law of Moses. Paul did not blame what was good for brining death to him, but that is precisely what you are trying to use his words to blame.

Paul said that the Law of God is good and that he wanted to do good, but described the law of sin as something that was working within his members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do, and the Law of Moses does not hinder him from doing the good that he wants to do, but rather it is the good that he wants to do. In Romans 7:25, Paul directly contrasted the Law of God with the law of sin, so the law of sin can't be referring to the law of God. So I am not rewiring what Paul said about the Law of Moses, but rather you ignoring how Paul described the law of sin and that he contrasted it with the Law of God.

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.

In 2 Peter 3:15-17, it says that the writings of Paul are difficult to. understand, that those who are ignorant and unstable twist his words to their own destruction, to be careful not to be carried away by the error of lawless men, and to grow in grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. So we can be confident that when Paul is correctly understood that he never spoke against obeying God's law. There is not need to muzzle Paul or bend his words, but rather there is only the need to interpret him as though he were in complete agreement with the attitude that David expressed towards God's law in the Psalms, which he was (Romans 7:22).

Likewise, there is nothing innate to telling a child not to take candy from the candy jar that causes that to increase, but rather it leads children to refrain from doing that, which causes it to decrease. The problem is that there is something within the child that seizes the opportunity through being told not to do that that causes them to want to do the opposite, which is what cause it to increase.

 

[expos4ever]

There is nothing innate to the commandment not to covet that causes coveting to increase, but rather that command leads people not to covet, and causes coveting to decrease.

Please read the following text:

What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? Far from it! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.”But sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me [m]coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.

And now please answer these questions. I want to know what you think Paul is saying, not what you might believe Please answer each one - they are clear and meaningful:

1. What is the "commandment" a reference to, if not the "thou shalt not covet" commandment?

2. Where does "sin" get its "opportunity" from? Again, I am not asking what you believe, I am asking you what Paul is saying.

3. What is the full, repeat full, subject of the verb "produced"?

4. Did sin "reveal" something in Paul or "produce" something in Paul?

5. What is the status of "sin" apart from the Law?

And now consider these words:

I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin came to life, and I died;

1. What is the "commandment" here, if not a reference to either the 'thou shalt not covet' commandment or the Law of Moses more generally?

2. What was Paul's status after the Law came

3. What changed in the status of "sin" when the commandment came?

I am looking forward to your answers to these questions.

 

[Doug Brents]

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.

My apologies, from what I read I thought that was the direction of your comment.

Isaiah 66:17 is not predictive of the end times, but a warning for those who are living during that time. 66:1 asks, “Where then is a house you could build for Me? And where is a place that I may rest?”
God is asking the people returning from Babylonian captivity when they are going to finish the rebuilding of the Temple. The rest of the chapter is speaking of those who worship as a matter of form, but their heart is not in it. And other forms of false worship. During that time, the Law was still in effect, and those returning from Gentile areas had learned to eat foods that were unclean according to the Law of Moses. But the writer here is reminding them that those animals were still unclean according to the Law of Moses, and forbidden to the Jews.

 

[Lulav]

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.

You were implying I do not keep the laws of Moses, not the Noachide laws, why make it about that now?

 

[Cornelius8L]

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

Not all parables were explained by Jesus. The Father says that every prophecy is a riddle (Numbers 12:6-8). This claim was made around the time that the OT laws were given. And Isaiah was in the OT.

 

[Soyeong]

Please read the following text:

What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? Far from it! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.”But sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me [m]coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.

And now please answer these questions. I want to know what you think Paul is saying, not what you might believe Please answer each one - they are clear and meaningful:

1. What is the "commandment" a reference to, if not the "thou shalt not covet" commandment?

The Mosaic Law.

2. Where does "sin" get its "opportunity" from? Again, I am not asking what you believe, I am asking you what Paul is saying.

"Sin" is referring to the law of sin and it got its opportunity through the Mosaic Law.

3. What is the full, repeat full, subject of the verb "produced"?

The law of sin taking opportunity through the Mosaic Law.

4. Did sin "reveal" something in Paul or "produce" something in Paul?

The Law of God revealed what sin is. The law of sin produced coveting of every kind through the Mosaic Law.

5. What is the status of "sin" apart from the Law?

Apart from the law of sin, sin is dead because the law of sin is acting through the Mosaic Law to cause sin to increase. In the words, if there were no law of sin, then everyone would be living in obedience to the Mosaic Law and there would be no sin.

And now consider these words:

I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin came to life, and I died;

1. What is the "commandment" here, if not a reference to either the 'thou shalt not covet' commandment or the Law of Moses more generally?

The Mosaic Law.

2. What was Paul's status after the Law came.

He died.

3. What changed in the status of "sin" when the commandment came?

Sin came to life.

I am looking forward to your answers to these questions.

Again, in Romans 7:10-13, Paul said that the law of sin brought death to him through the Mosaic Law, that the Mosaic Law is good, and that it was not what was good that brought death to him, but the law of is producing death in him through what is good. However, by you claiming that the Mosaic Law is the law of sin, you are saying that it is what is good that brought death to him, which is the opposite of what Paul was saying.

 

[ralliann]

You were implying I do not keep the laws of Moses, not the Noachide laws, why make it about that now?

I would say you imply you are keeping the law of Moses. You are not because you cannot. My comments concerning Noachide law was about the Messianic forum and any full discussion of ideas there.

 

[Cornelius8L]

Also a question concerning the OT law/Oral law, if the law demands life for a life (Deu 19:21), then why didn’t God kill Cain for murdering Abel but shield him instead (Gen 4:15) if the Genesis law is the same as the Mosaic law?

 

[Soyeong]

Also a question concerning the OT law/Oral law, if the law demands life for a life (Deu 19:21), then why didn’t God kill Cain for murdering Abel but shield him instead (Gen 4:15) if the Genesis law is the same as the Mosaic law?

Committing murder carries the death penalty, so the fact that Cain wasn't given the death penalty strongly indicates that he was not found guilty of committing murder. Rather, his concern for being avenged and with him being given protection shows that he was treated as someone who was guilty of accidental manslaughter in accordance with Deuteronomy 19. So Cain was angry at his brother and intended to cause him harm, but did not premeditatively intend to commit murder.

 

[ralliann]

Committing murder carries the death penalty, so the fact that Cain wasn't given the death penalty strongly indicates that he was not found guilty of committing murder. Rather, his concern for being avenged and with him being given protection shows that he was treated as someone who was guilty of accidental manslaughter in accordance with Deuteronomy 19. So Cain was angry at his brother and intended to cause him harm, but did not premeditatively intend to commit murder.

The fact that he was angry and wanted to cause him harm, was premeditated and made him guilty.

De 19:4 And this is the case of the slayer, which shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso killeth his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past;

De 19:6 Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him; whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past.

Nu. 35:22 But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait,
23 Or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm:

1Jo 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.

 

[Lulav]

More from Greg Boyd on the matter of Jesus "breaking" the Law of Moses:

Along similar lines, it seems that Jesus functionally repudiated a law of the OT when he ingeniously prevented a woman caught in the act of adultery from being executed (Jn 8:1-11, Cf. Lev. 20:10; Deut 22:22). Jesus caught her (all male!) accusers in their self-righteousness by pointing out only people without sin are in a position to execute a sinner. Since all humans are sinners, the principle Jesus is illustrating in this episode would seem to apply not just to this particular accused sinner and this group of sinful accusers, but to all accused sinners and all sinful accusers. And this, in turn, renders it impossible to ever put into practice any of the OT’s commands to put people to death. Indeed, if followed through consistently, the principle that Jesus illustrates in this story challenges the moral justification, if not the apparent divine sanctioning, of all human-on-human killing in the Bible.

I wouldn't hold too much weight in this guys ideas about the Torah and Jesus keeping it or not.

The story about the woman found in adultery - it was not a righteous accusation. One reading of the Torah would show anyone willing to investigate.

If they 'found her in the act' then where was the other partner? You can't commit adultery by yourself yet they only brought forth the woman to Jesus. That is unrighteous and against the ordinance about that kind of thing.

'If a man commits adultery with a married woman—committing adultery with another man’s wife—the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.' Lev​

​

'If a man is found lying with another man’s wife, both of them—the man and the woman with whom he lay—shall die. Thus you will sweep away evil from Israel.' Deut.​

The fact is that Jesus state that she did sin when he told her to 'go and sin no more'.

 

[Lulav]

It does not matter what the Jews believed, what matters is what Jesus was saying.

Believed about what was considered 'food'? And you know you are including Jesus in that statement as he was most defiantly a Jew. And Yes, it does matter because what was food for God's people was determined by the Creator who made man as well as the other creatures.

Jesus was talking and so were the Pharisees about germs, dirt that could be on your hands. Today we all know about that if not before. It is the unseen thing that can hurt. Yes, the food, goes into the stomach and goes through the digestion process. However if you touch your food with unclean (unwashed) hands you may have added more to it than you can see.

There is a difference between it making someone sick and what Jesus was talking about. They were considering it to eat with unwashed hands a way to 'defile' a person. You need to understand what that means and it has nothing to do with him 'declaring all food clean'.
He didn't have to declare all food clean as it was already done through Moses of what was clean and what wasn't.

Defiling oneself he was speaking of was not by eating with unwashed, dirty hands but by the things that proceed out of the mouth that either raises him to be righteous or unrighteous.

Your reasoning here is imaginative, I will grant you that, but I don't think it works. The challenge you face is daunting: Jesus says that nothing that goes into a man defiles him. It appears that you are trying to argue that when Jesus says this:

there is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him

He was speaking of he dirty hands, not the food (defined by God as Fit to Eat). If it was already declared 'clean' thus being called ' food' then how does it suddenly switch to taking unclean things and making them fit to eat. Just how would that happen?

.....Jesus is effectively saying this instead:

there is no food outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him

That's because he was talking about what got on the food from the dirty hands.

And since Jews, including Jesus, did not consider pork, etc. to be food, the scope of the "nothing" excludes food.

There are things which are alive that are considered by their CREATOR to be Fit to eat for his people. Anything not included in the Torah about that list is NOT considered Food. Just as you wouldn't include a car as food or a cell phone as food or a bedsheet.

The Creator has the priority and absolute authority to make those distinctions, not mankind, Jew or Gentile.

There are a big problem with this: As you guys often do, you gloss over the explanation that follows Jesus' initial statement:

Do you not understand that whatever goes into the person from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?”

Not glossing over anything, and am not a guy so please don't refer to me as such.
Yes, he was speaking of being made unclean, by eating clean food with unwashed hands.

The point should be obvious: even if we grant that Jews did not consider shellfish, pork, etc. to be "food", these things will, if taken in, "go into the stomach and be eliminated".

No, God the maker of all things considered them to not be something to be 'taken into the body'.

Is a piece of shellfish something that would "go in and be eliminated"? Obviously yes. And Jesus's audience, even if they themselves, did not consider shellfish to be "food", they would know that others do.

Others do what? This conversation was not about the heathen gentiles, but the Jews and the Laws of God as well as the man-made laws he was contending with them about.

If Jesus was really thinking along the lines you are, he would not have offered this kind of explanation as a follow up to His initial statement.

No, I think along the lines he did as I know where and have studied where his teaching came from.

 

[Lulav]

I think the question is whether or not we are still bound by the OT law today. If not, we can naturally eat unclean animals. If it does, was the law the same before Mount Sinai as it was after? If so, why was Tamar’s action thought to be acceptable? Why did Paul do away with circumcision, etc?

Don't see how that pertains to the quote you made from one of my posts ??

By saying 'we can eat unclean animals' you are agreeing that there are such thing as clean and unclean animals and thus testifying against yourself that you know the difference yet choose to follow your own fleshly desires, not the desires of the LORD.

 

[Lulav]

Removed, canceled, made obsolete, no longer applicable. The Old Covenant does not have any power in the New Testament Christian’s life.

This is not really the point. The point is that the argument that Romans 3:20 tells us the Law still teaches us about what constitutes sin is profoundly challenge by the the "but now" in verse 21. It is almost certain that this means that verses 1-20 are about the past. And while this does not necessarily mean the Law does not continue to tell us what sin is, it is at least plausible that it no longer has this role. If something served a role in the past, it may or may not continue to serve this role.

If sin is the disobedience to God's Laws and they are done away with then there's no longer any sin in the world, right?

- Jesus has ultimate authority over the Law of Moses
- Since Scripture never clearly declares the Law is truly eternal, Jesus can "retire" the Law if He wishes.
- If Jesus decides the Law no longer applies, then breaking it would, logically, not be sin
- Therefore, if Jesus breaks the Law it would not be sin if this is way Jesus chooses to announce the Law no longer applies.

Now then, please feel free to challenge any of these points.

Then Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me. 45And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me. 46I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. 47And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.

49For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. 50And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak.”

This is a direct violation of the Torah purity laws.

Now, are you going to try that act of exegetical desperation, the one where you claim that this is about handwashing only? If so, I will remind you of three things:

1. Just because a conversation starts with a focus on a particular topic, this does not mean that the conversation cannot then subsequently evolve in a different direction.

2. a discussion of handwashing is an entirely plausible context in which Jesus can steer the conversation to a treatment of the Torah purity laws.

3. context only can do so much - it cannot make "there is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him;" magically mean "there is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him, except shellfish, pork, non-cloven hoofed animals etc; "

How is that a direct violation of purity laws? Do you know what they entail? I think you meant kosher law?

Did, or did Jesus not, say this?:

there is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him;

This is a direct violation of the Torah purity laws.

Now, are you going to try that act of exegetical desperation, the one where you claim that this is about handwashing only? If so, I will remind you of three things:

1. Just because a conversation starts with a focus on a particular topic, this does not mean that the conversation cannot then subsequently evolve in a different direction.

2. a discussion of handwashing is an entirely plausible context in which Jesus can steer the conversation to a treatment of the Torah purity laws.

3. context only can do so much - it cannot make "there is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him;" magically mean "there is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him, except shellfish, pork, non-cloven hoofed animals etc; "

12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good. 13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? Absolutely not! But sin, so that it would be shown to be sin, produced death in me through what is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.

Yes, Paul believes the Law is good, but he is also clear that, even though the Law is good in and of itself, it did indeed provide the means for sin to amplify in him and kill him.

Yes, this is a hard teaching, but it is what it is - Paul believes the Law of Moses amplifies, empowers, and energizes sin.

So then the Messiah did not die to atone for Paul's sins?

But Deut. 25:5–10 says that if both parties agree, the brother can turn down the widow. Tamar lied, and she lied not to Judah's youngest son, but to his father-in-law. Does a law support what she did?

Judah' father in law? I think you mean she deceived HER FIL. The law of the levirate marriage was not given then, however, Judah claimed her more righteous than he was as he held back his son from her.

Your quote on my last post was a good summary of what I had read about this event. The fact that Paul repeated the vision in order to comfort the Jew further supports this. We also know that Jews say that non-Jews are unclean. You told it your way because you have to defend the tradition that says unclean animals should not be eaten. Anyway, that's just one of the events that happened to show that the law has changed, which is what the whole New Testament is about.

Where did Paul speak of Peter's vision?

NT explains how the law has progressed. And Paul got rid of circumcision (Gal. 5:2), but aren't you making him say things he didn't say? “Paul ruled against requiring circumcision for incorrect reasons, but he did not rule against obeying what God has commanded,”

As the law progresses, Paul did say in a letter written after Acts 15 that food that was given to an idol, which is an example of a principle, can also be eaten. (1 Cor 8, 1 Cor 10:28-29)

And that was rebuked by the Real Risen Messiah in Revelation.

 

[Cornelius8L]

Committing murder carries the death penalty, so the fact that Cain wasn't given the death penalty strongly indicates that he was not found guilty of committing murder. Rather, his concern for being avenged and with him being given protection shows that he was treated as someone who was guilty of accidental manslaughter in accordance with Deuteronomy 19. So Cain was angry at his brother and intended to cause him harm, but did not premeditatively intend to commit murder.

How does your explanation fit with the verses given in post#453

 

[Lulav]

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.

By knowing what God' laws are and not following them is not 'sin being increased by that law.
It actually means if you know what the law is and don't obey it, then that is called rebellion.

Rebellion of God.

Paul speaks of sin as something that has it's own mind and ability to force someone to follow it, into rebellion.

It is just as Eve did, passed the buck.

Adam claimed it wasn't his fault because the woman God gave to him caused him to eat of it.
When questioned Eve blamed the serpent, that he beguiled her into doing it.

Pass the buck, I sin because God told me what sin was so I rebelled all the more.

 

[Lulav]

I would say you imply you are keeping the law of Moses. You are not because you cannot. My comments concerning Noachide law was about the Messianic forum and any full discussion of ideas there.

All that pertains and is available to me.
I do not 'not keep' it because I believe it was done away with and just do my own thing and say God ordains it .

 

[Cornelius8L]

Don't see how that pertains to the quote you made from one of my posts ??

By saying 'we can eat unclean animals' you are agreeing that there are such thing as clean and unclean animals and thus testifying against yourself that you know the difference yet choose to follow your own fleshly desires, not the desires of the LORD.

You should probably go back and read what I wrote in my post. I was obviously making a point about the fact that animals that were once regarded as unclean are now edible; is the context of my statement so difficult to understand?

 

[Lulav]

You should probably go back and read what I wrote in my post. I was obviously making a point about the fact that animals that were once regarded as unclean are now edible; is the context of my statement so difficult to understand?

You are mixing up two words and two concepts. Something edible and something clean, not the same thing.

The physiology of those pronounced by GOD as unclean in Moses time are still so today, they didn't miraculously change.