Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[expos4ever]

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

Well God appears to be OK with Gentiles eating them:

You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make [r]yourselves detestable by animal or by bird, or by anything [s]that crawls on the ground, which I have distinguished for you as unclean. 26 So you are to be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy; and I have singled you out from the peoples to be Mine.

This text clearly tells us that these food restrictions mark the Jew out as distinct from the Gentiles.

So God, the maker of all things, apparently has no objection to vast majority of humanity eating these things.

 

[expos4ever]

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?

And is Paul talking about handwashing in this text?:

Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean,..... (Roman 14:20)

Or is Paul just "obfuscating"?

 

[expos4ever]

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?

The Law of Moses is a particular set of rules. Just because this set of rules has been set aside does not mean that there are not other rules we are to follow.

 

[expos4ever]

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.”

Where, and please be specific, is there anything in this text that requires us to believe the Law of Moses is still in force?

 

[expos4ever]

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

Yes, I meant the kosher law.

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

What does this have to do with what I posted? I posted that there is nothing inconsistent between the following 2 assertions:

(a) The Law is a good thing
(b) The Law provided the means for sin to be empowered.

 

[expos4ever]

By knowing what God' laws are and not following them is not 'sin being increased by that law.

What does this have to do with the text? Paul clearly says the Law played a role - not the major role - but a role nonetheless in his "death".

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

Indeed he does. And I, for one, believe him, because I believe he is writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Consider these verses:

But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.

For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

Sin is a thing that "seizes".

Sin is a thing that can be "dead"

Sin is a thing that can "spring to life"

Sin is an agent that animates Paul's body and causes him to sin.

Sure seems like Paul believes, at least here in Romans 7, is an active force, not merely an event entailing breaking a moral law.

And here is the kicker. Here in Romans 8, Paul writes that, on the cross, God condemns sin, not Jesus:

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh

Where I come from, only "agents", only "persons", if you will, are subject to condemnation.

In summary, I think Paul does indeed use the word "sin", at least here, to refer to an active agency, and not a "judgement" that a law has been broken.

 

[Doug Brents]

I stated probably at least 3-5 times this verse is not referring to the earthy temple so disagreeing on this same topic one more time is not really doing anyone any good, so like I said you are free to believe what you want, I stated my reasons with scripture and if you want to believe something else, that's your choice.

What you state is meaningless. It is Scripture that is paramount, and it is clear from the context that the majority of chapter 66 is talking about the current situation of that time, not the end times.

You tell me that man cannot build God’s Heavenly home, and then you tell me that this passage is not talking about the Earthly Temple that God is asking man to build for Him. One of your statements is in error, and we both know the first is not in error.

The clearest indication that this is not speaking of the end times is the fact that he is speaking of unclean animals. In the New Covenant there are no unclean animals. What goes into a man cannot make him unclean, because it does not interact with his soul, only his body (Matt 15:11). Only that which comes out of his mouth, that which comes from the heart makes him unclean. So then, in the end times what a man eats will have zero impact on his eternal destiny.

 

[Doug Brents]

Didn't you say this?

"The Old Covenant; all of it, every single command and ordinance, was surely cancelled.
That includes the

• dietary restrictions,
• sabbath observance,
• sacrificial system,
• and the 10 commandments"

Absolutely, that is what I said. How do you get that I am saying we can break God’s law from that?

The Old Covenant has been canceled, and that means it no longer has any relevance to us today. But there are laws of God stated in the New Covenant, and those are the laws to which we are bound. Of course there are still laws from God, just not the ones that bound the Jews under the Law of Moses.

 

[expos4ever]

Was Paul living in the 1300's bce? That's when the commandments were given and written down.

We know that Paul is not speaking literally - this is beyond obvious: He refers to what happened to him when the Law was given.

Are you suggesting that I am not aware that the Law was given many many years before Paul was born?

Paul is obviously speaking of himself as a representative Jew.

There was a literary device in use in Paul's day where, indeed, the "I" terminology was used in a representative fashion, whereby the “I” denoted an entire class of people (and not a specific individual). So it is at least plausible that this is what Paul is doing in Romans 7.

But the evidence from Romans 9 is more instructive, especially when compared to Romans 7. In Romans 9, Paul writes this:

For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh.

He uses the phrase "according to the flesh", suggesting a rather strong identification between himself and the Jewish people. Paul here is grieving over his kinsmen according to the flesh. Given that he uses such strong language - basically seeing his lost kinsmen as his own flesh - suggests that we should not be surprised if, in Romans 7, he refers to these lost Jews using the "I" construct.

Now back to Romans 7. Paul writes this:

But now it is no longer me doing it, but sin that lives in me. For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh.

It should be clear from the Romans 9 use of "my flesh" to refer to his fellow Israelites that, indeed, Paul could be using the "I" here as a literary device to represent his own people, and not himself as a specific individual.

 

[HIM]

There's that "nothing" word again. Same word as is used in Mark, I think it was... nothing going in our mouths makes us unclean.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/14-14.htm

Bad translation of Romans 14. That word is common in the Greek. It can be translated impure but shouldn't be translated unclean. Peter's vision contrast both words. common and unclean. Showing there is a difference. Please take note that God does not mention cleansing the unclean only the common in verse 15.

Acts 10:14 And Peter said, “Not so, Lord; because at no time did I eat anything common or unclean”;
Acts 10:15 and there is a voice again a second time to him: “What God cleansed, you do not declare common”;

 

[HIM]

And is Paul talking about handwashing in this text?:

Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean,..... (Roman 14:20)

Or is Paul just "obfuscating"?

Bad translation of Romans 14. That word is common in the Greek. It can be translated impure but shouldn't be translated unclean. Peter's vision contrast both words. common and unclean. Showing there is a difference. Please take note that God does not mention cleansing the unclean only the common in verse 15.

Acts 10:14 And Peter said, “Not so, Lord; because at no time did I eat anything common or unclean”;
Acts 10:15 and there is a voice again a second time to him: “What God cleansed, you do not declare common”;

 

[SabbathBlessings]

What you state is meaningless. It is Scripture that is paramount, and it is clear from the context that the majority of chapter 66 is talking about the current situation of that time, not the end times.

You tell me that man cannot build God’s Heavenly home, and then you tell me that this passage is not talking about the Earthly Temple that God is asking man to build for Him. One of your statements is in error, and we both know the first is not in error.

Perhaps you also think the apostles words are meaningless and in error too, as he quotes Isaiah verbatim …

Acts 7:48 “However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands. As the prophet says: 49 “ 'Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me?

God dwells in the believer those He knows who follow Him and obey, 1 John 2:3-4 John 14:15-18 Acts 5:32 God's ministers from a heavenly kingdom. not built by human hands. Hebrews 9:11

The clearest indication that this is not speaking of the end times is the fact that he is speaking of unclean animals. In the New Covenant there are no unclean animals. What goes into a man cannot make him unclean, because it does not interact with his soul, only his body (Matt 15:11). Only that which comes out of his mouth, that which comes from the heart makes him unclean. So then, in the end times what a man eats will have zero impact on his eternal destiny.

I choose not to cancel out the OT and trust the many prophecies about judgement and the Second Coming of Jesus , which better prepares God’s people on what to do or not do and how to be clean both physically and spiritually to allow the Holy Spirit to dwell amoung His people. We have free will to believe what we want and it will get sorted out soon enough.

 

[expos4ever]

Bad translation of Romans 14. That word is common in the Greek. It can be translated impure but shouldn't be translated unclean.

From Strong's:

clean, pure, unstained, either literally or ceremonially or spiritually; guiltless, innocent, upright.

So why can Paul not be saying "all things indeed are clean"?

Either way, surely this does not change the fact that, just as Jesus overturns the kosher laws in Mark 7 (nothing that goes into a man defiles him), Paul is here declaring that all foods are now OK.

 

[Leaf473]

Bad translation of Romans 14. That word is common in the Greek. It can be translated impure but shouldn't be translated unclean. Peter's vision contrast both words. common and unclean. Showing there is a difference. Please take note that God does not mention cleansing the unclean only the common in verse 15.

Acts 10:14 And Peter said, “Not so, Lord; because at no time did I eat anything common or unclean”;
Acts 10:15 and there is a voice again a second time to him: “What God cleansed, you do not declare common”;

We might not be talking about the same thing, there.

The word for "nothing" just means "nothing", it wouldn't be translated as unclean, impure, or common.

Peace be with you, my man!

 

[expos4ever]

Rom. 10: 2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Is Jesus not perfect? Is HE not the "Intent" of the Law for Righteousness? Should I not "believe" in Him, and the ONE who sent Him?

But you are not dealing with what Paul means when he says "Christ is the end of the Law.....". Surely he used the word "end" for a reason. So what do you think Paul means by Christ being the end of the Law.

Matt. 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

The Jesus of the Bible teaches me not to even "THINK" HE came to destroy HIS Father's Law. He knew I would be contending with men, who call Jesus Lord, Lord, who would try and convince me, using "Some" of God's Words, that He came to destroy God's Law.

And we are contending with men who have yet to offer a credible refutation with the assertion that Jesus:

(a) drawing on clear Biblical precedent, is using metaphorical language in the phrase "till heaven and earth pass"
(b) intends us to see what I see as the rather obvious connection between "till all be fulfilled" and His last words: "It is finished".

 

[Lulav]

Please note that according to the verses you quoted, only Moses received the "plain words," not any other prophet.

That passage was words directed to Miriam and Aaron, God was showing them that Moses had special consideration over them as prophets. Besides, it shows that what was given to Moses was easy to understand so no one could dispute it.

Yes, Messianic prophecy is indirect.

Most likely for a reason you haven't considered. Bringing about the Messiah was a covert operation.

In fact, you also change the law from the Old Testament.

Making personal accusations now ?

Did you give a sin offering when you gave birth? (Lev 12:5)

How would you know if I ever gave birth? What if I was barren, that would be an awful unkind and unloving thing to say to any woman, especially one your really don't know.

Otherwise, you break the law and are guilty of all (James 2:10). Even without the temple, you can still offer sacrifices like Abraham did.

1. I am not in the land
2. Sacrifices for sin are paid for
3. Woman did not make the sacrifices

because Peter said we are priests (1 Peter 2:9). Whoops, Peter's words that we are priests already changed the law.

Really? That sarcasm bug must really be going around.

Peter didn't change anything don't make such a slandering accusation against him.

Exodus 19 And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”

 

[Bob S]

Then we read what Paul wrote in Eph2:
11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations.

Yes expos4ever, we do have a Savior that came AND finished what He came to do. He set aside the Law with its commands and regulations that never saved one soul and introduced a covenant that brings eternal life to all who trust Him and love others as He loves us. Just think what would happen if everyone loved each other as Jesus loves us. Real peace on Earth. What more would Jesus want? Yet here we are debating whether we are or not under a covenant that could not save one soul versus one that guarantees eternal life.

It is not so much what we do, it is what Jesus has done for us.

 

[Bob S]

That passage was words directed to Miriam and Aaron, God was showing them that Moses had special consideration over them as prophets. Besides, it shows that what was given to Moses was easy to understand so no one could dispute it.

Most likely for a reason you haven't considered. Bringing about the Messiah was a covert operation.

Making personal accusations now ?

How would you know if I ever gave birth? What if I was barren, that would be an awful unkind and unloving thing to say to any woman, especially one your really don't know.

1. I am not in the land
2. Sacrifices for sin are paid for
3. Woman did not make the sacrifices

Really? That sarcasm bug must really be going around.

Peter didn't change anything don't make such a slandering accusation against him.

Getting a little testy?

Exodus 19 And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”

I do declare, you forgot to add verse 5 which has a stipulation and that stipulation is an "IF". If Israel follows the covenant I will present, you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. We all know the rest of the story.

 

[expos4ever]

Yes expos4ever, we do have a Savior that came AND finished what He came to do. He set aside the Law with its commands and regulations....

I assume that you know that I agree with you, and that in Ephesians 2 the writer is indeed referring to the Law of Moses. I am, frankly, amazed at the maneuvers used to evade the obvious reading of this passage. For one, we get the claim that this wall is really a set of signs that have been removed in the temple courtyard. That analysis fails to do justice to the sweeping nature of what Paul is saying. We all know that it is the Law of Moses more generally, not just some signs, that separates the Jew from the Gentile. We also get desperate attempts to try to argue that Paul is writing about man-made additions to the Law of Moses being torn down / abolished. I find those arguments equally untenable.

Paul means what he says - the Law of Moses has been set aside.

 

[Lulav]

It was in response to whether or not "we" are "still" subject to Moses law. So, of course I brought it up. There are those of us (the uncircumcision) which have never been subject Moses law in the first place. Including Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

I still don't see the connection. Moses laws given by God are just that, the Noachide laws are different.
The law of Moses is the Laws given to Moses to give to the people.
The patriarchs were given individual laws that brought about the covenant. The reason the covenant was handed down to Isaac is because his father obeyed the LORD in all that he had commanded him to do.

I am sorry you consider it harping, but I believe it is an important tid bit.

Rom 4:9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

That is a good example of bad translation.

It comes from the Greek translation of the Torah called the Septuagint with which it's been found to be Pauls' source of biblical passages.

The passage should read like this:

6 And he (Abraham) believed the Lord; and he (Abraham) counted it to HIM (the LORD) for righteousness.