Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[Cornelius8L]

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.

Ah yes, I mean “Her FIL,” thanks for the correction (I will edit it). Yes, I agree with your explanation here.

Where did Paul speak of Peter's vision?

Thank you for catching the second typo. It was “Peter.” (I will edit it)

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

God declared that prophesies are riddles (Num 12:6-8). They should not be taken literally.

 

[Cornelius8L]

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.

Sin, as we can all agree, is disobedience to God. But if God alters something, refusing to adhere to the alteration is sin. We're discussing whether or not these "changes" happen.

 

[Doug Brents]

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?

Wrong. As I have demonstrated many times, God’s law is restated in the New Covenant. And it is God’s law as stated in the New Covenant that we are bound to today.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

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.

Agreed, meant to use the word “most”, regardless this is not a parable given by Jesus, but a prophecy given to the Prophet Isaiah. Not sure why it being from the OT would make any difference, lots of prophecies about the Second Coming in the OT and prophecies are meant for God’s people to understand.

 

[expos4ever]

I've always found that passage disturbing.

That kinda goes against what Paul said about the Gentiles not having the law but keep some of it.
How do you think they do that?

Are you referring to this from Romans 2:

For when Gentiles who do not have [q]the Law [r]instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having [s]the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them

I suppose that Paul is saying (in Romans 7) that the Law of Moses told him, as a Jew, what sin was. I think that in Romans 2, he is saying that the Gentile knows was sin is instinctively. I agree that seems contradictory - why does the Jew not know what sin is instinctively? I would guess that, to be "fair", God gave these Gentiles the ability to grasp the underlying principles of the Law of Moses without actually having access to it. But, and I suspect you know this from my other posts, I do not believe Paul believes that these Gentiles are given an instinctive knowledge of all the technical details like Sabbath, festivals, kosher laws etc. And I do not think any of this changes the fact, at least in my opinion, that (a) the Law of Moses is now retired; and (b) the specific prescriptions (as contrasted with the underlying principles) of the Law of Moses were ever only for Jews.

 

[expos4ever]

The Mosaic Law.

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

The law of sin taking opportunity through the Mosaic Law.

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

Well, I agree with your answers. What I do not understand is how you do not appear to accept that this means that the Law of Moses played a part in Paul "dying". If you provide an opportunity, for the law of sin to do its thing, you indeed played a part. And as the other text says, without the Law of Moses, sin is dead.

So how is it that the Law of Moses, while of course not the real problem, did not play a part in Paul "dying"? I am not saying the Law of Moses is bad - you should know that I take Paul at his word, as I do in Mark when he says that nothing that goes into a man defiles him. But I am accepting what Paul is saying - that the Law of Moses was one factor that led to Paul's dying. I do not see how one can read these texts and believe otherwise.

And I happen to believe that God intended to use the Law of Moses in this way, that is, to enable the power of sin to reach full expression in Israel. But that is for another post.

However, by you claiming that the Mosaic Law is the law of sin,

I never said this, or anything that could be reasonably understood as implying this. Please read my posts carefully.

you are saying that it is what is good that brought death to him, which is the opposite of what Paul was saying.

Well, I am indeed saying that "what is good" played a part in bringing death to him - the text clearly says this.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

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.

Isaiah 66 is not referring to the earthy temple as it is clearly shown from the very first verse

66 Thus says the Lord:

“Heaven is My throne,
And earth is My footstool.
Where is the house that you will build Me?
And where is the place of My rest?

Isaiah 66 is a prophecy and about judgement. The earthy temple is no more- once the veil was torn it was the end of the earthy sanctuary, God ministers from a heavenly sanctuary not made by man and the earthy sanctuary was just a miniature of God’s Heavenly Temple. Hebrews 8:2 Hebrews 9:11

 

[ralliann]

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 .

Noachide is not doing your own thing. It was taught in their synagogues and still is a teaching in Judaism. Just like clean and unclean sacrifices, in Noah's day. Animals were not given for food yet.
Not every animal is altar kosher. And that was the context of Genesis, was altar kosher.

Ge 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

It is not a health issue either since no poisonous plants were forbidden.

 

[ralliann]

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.

That is why Jesus told them to cast the first stone as witnesses.
De 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
De 17:7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.

The witnesses were to be the first to put them to death......

'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'.

Jesus was not a witness against her.

 

[expos4ever]

Romans 10 says "Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness". In what sense has the Law ended? While I agree that Paul can be hard to understand at times, he surely is saying that the Law has ended in some sense.

Are you (those who think the Law remains) going to say this has to do with obedience to the Law no longer being how we attain "righteousness"? Well, I think Paul never believed that was the case anyway.

So what is Paul saying? In what regard has the Law ended?

 

[expos4ever]

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.

How do you know it was not a valid accusation? if it was not valid, why does Jesus offer an entirely different explanation for not proceeding with the stoning - He says only those without sin are in a position to carry out this element of the Law of Moses.

It is obvious Jesus is effectively doing away with this element of the Law, it is impossible to fulfill if only non-sinners can carry it out.

 

[expos4ever]

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 .

Misleading. You have to know that those of us who think the Law has been retired do NOT believe we are free to "do our own thing".

 

[Soyeong]

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.

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

It is a common part of growing up for two siblings fight each other, but that does not mean that they ever intend to kill each other. If two siblings are fighting and something happens that causes one of them to die, then it would be committing murder if they intended to do that, but if it was intentional, then it would be accidental manslaughter.

In Numbers 35:11, it says to select cities refuge that any manslayer who kills without intent may flee to. So the purpose of examining examples like whether or not the manslayer has a history of hating the person that they killed is to help the judge discern whether or not it was done with intent. It is a possible scenario that manslayer had a history of hating the person that they slew, but that it was still an accident, in which case there would not be intent and it would not be serving justice to find them to be found guilty of committing murder, so these are not intended to be understood as being black and white guidelines for judges that should be strictly followed even to the point of doing injustice. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that justice, mercy, and faithfulness are weightier maters of the law, so if someone is doing injustice, then they are not correctly obeying it.

God's righteousness and justice are eternal (Psalms 119:160), so they did not change between Genesis 1 and the giving of the Mosaic Law. It is not the case that God thought that murders should be given protection and change to thinking that murderers should be given the death penalty, but rather God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. God is a righteous judge who knew whether or not Cain slew Abel with intent and He treated Cain accordingly with justice.

 

[ralliann]

It is a common part of growing up for two siblings fight each other, but that does not mean that they ever intend to kill each other. If two siblings are fighting and something happens that causes one of them to die, then it would be committing murder if they intended to do that, but if it was intentional, then it would be accidental manslaughter.

In Numbers 35:11, it says to select cities refuge that any manslayer who kills without intent may flee to. So the purpose of examining examples like whether or not the manslayer has a history of hating the person that they killed is to help the judge discern whether or not it was done with intent. It is a possible scenario that manslayer had a history of hating the person that they slew, but that it was still an accident, in which case there would not be intent and it would not be serving justice to find them to be found guilty of committing murder, so these are not intended to be understood as being black and white guidelines for judges that should be strictly followed even to the point of doing injustice. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that justice, mercy, and faithfulness are weightier maters of the law, so if someone is doing injustice, then they are not correctly obeying it.

And scripture says Cain did evil.

God's righteousness and justice are eternal (Psalms 119:160), so they did not change between Genesis 1 and the giving of the Mosaic Law.

I have never argued that PRIOR law Noachide was abolished at Sinai.

It is not the case that God thought that murders should be given protection and change to thinking that murderers should be given the death penalty, but rather God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. God is a righteous judge who knew whether or not Cain slew Abel with intent and He treated Cain accordingly with justice.

The text of the Levitical law speaks for itself.
And Apostolic scripture does as well.
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.
Jude 1:11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

 

[Soyeong]

Well, I agree with your answers. What I do not understand is how you do not appear to accept that this means that the Law of Moses played a part in Paul "dying". If you provide an opportunity, for the law of sin to do its thing, you indeed played a part.

If that which is good played any part in bringing death to Paul, then it would not be that which is good and he would not have been able to truthfully deny that that which is good brought death to him. In Deuteronomy 30:15-20, obedience to the Law of Moses brings life and a blessing while it disobedience to it that brings death and a curse, and there are many other verses that confirm that it brings life, so it does not bring death. The reason why the Law of Moses plays no part in brining death to him is that there is nothing in innate to it that brings death. For example, there is nothing about the command to love our neighbor as ourselves that brings death. The fact that there is something within us that leads us to do the opposite of what we are told to do is not part of or a side of the Law of Moses, though it takes the opportunity to act through the Law of Moses by leading us to do the opposite of what it instructs.

And as the other text says, without the Law of Moses, sin is dead.

Without the thing that is within us that leads us to do the opposite of what we are told to do, we then would have no difficulty obeying the Law of Moses and sin would be dead, so that is referring to the law of sin, and I see no justification for you continuing to insist that if refers to the Law of Moses.

So how is it that the Law of Moses, while of course not the real problem, did not play a part in Paul "dying"? I am not saying the Law of Moses is bad - you should know that I take Paul at his word, as I do in Mark when he says that nothing that goes into a man defiles him. But I am accepting what Paul is saying - that the Law of Moses was one factor that led to Paul's dying. I do not see how one can read these texts and believe otherwise.

Again, the the Greek word that is used in that verse for "defiled" is not the Greek word that is used very consistently by the Bible to refer to eating unclean animals. Both Greek words can accurately be translated as "defiled" because both refer to a type of defilement, but they refer to two different types of defilement that are never spoken about interchangeably, but you are taking what Jesus said using one of those words and are applying it as through Jesus had used the other word, so you are mixing and matching different concepts.

And I happen to believe that God intended to use the Law of Moses in this way, that is, to enable the power of sin to reach full expression in Israel. But that is for another post.

I never said this, or anything that could be reasonably understood as implying this. Please read my posts carefully.

It is the law of sin enables the power of sin to reach full expression in Israel, so I don't see how you can say that this is true of the Law of Moses, you are saying that it is the law of sin, so I don't see how you can say that while also denying that you are saying the Law of Moses is the law of sin.

Likewise, you said in Post #394 that the Law of Moses has a dark side that energizes and empowers Paul's sinful nature, but it is the role of the law of sin, so again you are saying that the Law of Moses is the law of sin rather than the thing that acts upon the Law of Moses to energize and empower Paul's sinful nature. If there something other than the Law of Moses that acts upon it to energize and empower Paul's sinful nature, then that thing is not a dark side of the Law of Moses. Something that is holy, righteous, and good can't also be something that energizes and empowers Paul's sinful nature or that sits up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, so there is not a dark side of the command to love our neighbor as ourselves that produces sin.

Well, I am indeed saying that "what is good" played a part in bringing death to him - the text clearly says this.

Paul denied that what is good brought death to him, so the text clearly contradicts you saying that what is good played a part in bringing death to him.

 

[Doug Brents]

Isaiah 66 is not referring to the earthy temple as it is clearly shown from the very first verse

66 Thus says the Lord:
“Heaven is My throne,
And earth is My footstool.
Where is the house that you will build Me?
And where is the place of My rest?

This portion of Isaiah was written after the return from exile before the Temple was rebuilt. The author is speaking God’s question to the repatriated Jews. Yes, Heaven is God’s throne, and Earth is His footstool, but where is the house (Temple) that you will build me?

Isaiah 66 is a prophecy and about judgement. The earthy temple is no more- once the veil was torn it was the end of the earthy sanctuary, God ministers from a heavenly sanctuary not made by man and the earthy sanctuary was just a miniature of God’s Heavenly Temple. Hebrews 8:2 Hebrews 9:11

Yes, the Temple, a shadow of the Heavenly throne of God, is no more now, but it was still to be rebuilt when this was written. It was rebuilt and then destroyed again.

 

[Soyeong]

And scripture says Cain did evil.


The text of the Levitical law speaks for itself.
And Apostolic scripture does as well.
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.
Jude 1:11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

I didn't deny those things.

I have never argued that PRIOR law Noachide was abolished at Sinai.

@Cornelius8L asked "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?

So part of the issue that we are discussing is whether the law in Genesis 4 is the same as the Mosaic Law. If God's law protected murderers in Genesis 4, then it would not be the same as at Sinai, though that would mean that God's righteousness and justice are not eternal, but if they are eternal, then God's law does not protect murderers as Cain was protected, which would mean that he was not found guilty of murder.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

This portion of Isaiah was written after the return from exile before the Temple was rebuilt. The author is speaking God’s question to the repatriated Jews. Yes, Heaven is God’s throne, and Earth is His footstool, but where is the house (Temple) that you will build me?

Yes, the Temple, a shadow of the Heavenly throne of God, is no more now, but it was still to be rebuilt when this was written. It was rebuilt and then destroyed again.

Are you claiming the New Heaven and New Earth when the saints are reconciled with God has already happened? God ministers from a heavenly Temple, so the earthy one being rebuilt and destroyed does not change where God's heavenly sanctuary is.

 

[ralliann]

I didn't deny those things.

@Cornelius8L asked "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?

So part of the issue that we are discussing is whether the law in Genesis 4 is the same as the Mosaic Law. If God's law protected murderers in Genesis 4, then it would not be the same as at Sinai, though that would mean that God's righteousness and justice are not eternal, but if they are eternal, then God's law does not protect murderers as Cain was protected, which would mean that he was not found guilty of murder.

No, it is not the same. The murder of abel, was not according The law of Moses conerning the avenger of blood. That became the issue here in our discussion.

It does say cain was cursed.

However I believe these scritpture apply.

Ro 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Ro 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

It was not until Noah, that the imputing of blood.
Avenger of blood announced here......
Ge 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Ge 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man.
Ge 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

It is what the patriarchs feared was upon them for their brother Joseph's blood.
They thought it was the cause of their troubles at that time.

Ge 42:22 And Reuben answered them, saying, Spake I not unto you, saying, Do not sin against the child; and ye would not hear? therefore, behold, also his blood is required.

 

[Doug Brents]

Are you claiming the New Heaven and New Earth when the saints are reconciled with God has already happened?

Absolute not. But then, this passage does not speak of that at all, so I have no idea where you get that idea, smh.

God ministers from a heavenly Temple, so the earthy one being rebuilt and destroyed does not change where God's heavenly sanctuary is.

Indeed. But during the time of the Mosaic Law, God “lived” in the Temple, in the Most Holy Place (also called the Holy of Holies). But, as you said, when the veil was torn in two God ceased to “live” in the Temple. And now He lives in the hearts of the members of the Body of Christ (the Church, aka Israel).