If you keep the Sabbath, you cannot heat your house in the dead of winter on Saturday.
Luke 11:41, But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and behold, all things are clean to you.The fact that 1 Timothy 4:1 describes what he was speaking about as the doctrines of demons should be a major clue that he was not speaking about the holy, righteous, and good commands of God. Everything in verses 1-8 is clearly describing pagan practices with the possible exception of teaching to abstain from eating certain meats. However, in Colossians 2:20-23, Paul interacted with people who were teaching human precepts and traditions, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body. In other words, they were teaching abstinence from certain meats that God said were good to eat in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. God's Law is truth (Psalms 119:142), so those who believe and know the truth know that we are permitted to eat those things and that they should be received with thanksgiving. We also know that God's Word has not sanctified unclean animals and that we should not receive with thanksgiving that which God was was an abomination for us. So every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused IF it is something that is to be received with thanksgiving that has been sanctified by God's Word.
The topic of Romans 14 is stated in the first verse, namely it is in regard to how to handle disputable matters of opinion, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow His commands, so nothing in the chapter should be interpreted as speaking against obeying God. In verse 5-6, Paul spoke about those who were eating or refraining from eating unto the Lord, so he was speaking about fasting. The only day that God commanded fasting is on the Day of Atonement, but in the 1st century it had become a common practice to fast twice a week or to commemorate certain events (Luke 18:12). Those who esteemed certain days for fasting were passing judgement on those who did not and were in turn being resented and this was exactly the sort of judging each other over opinions that Paul was seeking to quelle in this chapter. So whether someone fasts twice a week is a disputable matter of opinion, but whether someone chooses to fast on the Day of Atonement is a matter of obedience to God. Paul was not suggesting that obedience to God is optional as long as we become convinced in our own minds that it is ok to do, but rather he instructed us in Galatians 6:1-4 to gently restore those who are caught in sin.
I believe that Paul never spoke against anyone obeying any of God's commands, but the bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so when God has commanded something and you think that Paul said that we don't need to obey what God commanded, then you should be quicker to disregard what he said than to disregard what God commanded. No one had a greater authority than God, so no one has the authority to countermand Him or to tell us not to obey any of His commands, nor should we listen to anyone who tries to tell us that.
It does not say "if" it says "For".
I am not going to argue with you about words, for that is unprofitable and useless, and is to the subverting of the hearers (1 Timothy 6:4, 2 Timothy 2:14). Suffice it to say that I hold my kjv to be inspired, inerrant, and authoritative.
There is NO MORE OLD COVENANT, it has passed away.
God is no longer having anything to do with the Old Covenant.
We also have circumstantial proof, God destroyed the temple at Jerusalem. The entire animal sacrificial system is gone away for 2000 years now.
And we have absolute scriptural proof.
I receive it with thanksgiving, it is not to be refused; whether it be clam chowder or chorizo and eggs or biscuits and gravy. 1 Thessalonians 5:18 says in everything give thanks.1 Timothy 4:4-5 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, IF it be received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
If you don't want talk about how it should be interpreted, then let's talk about the consequences of what should happen if your interpretation is correct. According to Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from what God commanded, so if Paul tried to do that, then he sinned and needed to repent. Likewise, according to Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for him was if they taught against obeying what He commanded, so that would mean that according to God we should disregard Paul as being a false prophet. We must obey God rather than man, so when God has commanded something and if Paul spoke against obeying God, then we should be quicker to disregard what he said than to disregard what Paul said. It should not be difficult to figure out whether God or Paul has the higher authority, which one we ultimately answer to, and which one we should follow. Though again, I do not think that Paul ever spoke against anyone obeying any of God's commands.
That brings to mind these passages from the Olivet Discourse.If the Sabbath is still valid, you cannot heat your house in the winter on Saturday. Or cook for that matter.
There is NO MORE OLD COVENANT, it has passed away.
The New Covenant does not agree with you, not one bit it seems.Really? Then we might as all well quit all this Christian stuff.
Why do I say that? Well, there are at least 5 major covenants in the OT. All of them valid and still in effect.
1) Adamic Covenant
2) Noahic Covenant
3) Abrahamic Covenant
4) Mosaic or Sinai Covenant
5) Davidic Covenant
It can be argued to some degree that the 4th is conditional and therefore doesn't apply to Believers, but even that is debatable, unlike the others.
All of the rest of those covenants are unconditional. God made all of them only conditional on His word and promise, not on anything that can be broken by Man. Only the Mosaic Covenant was a dual conditional covenant, and Israel broke that one and it led to their punishment and dispersion from the land.
For instance, the Noahic Covenant. The Lord said that He would never again destroy the earth by a flood. Period. Has no conditions placed on it. Either the earth will never again be destroyed by a flood or the Lord is a liar. I'll let you decide that one.
Another, the Abrahamic Covenant. The sacrifice of the animals being split in half was a ancient ritual where both parties of the covenant would walk between the pieces and recite the words of the covenant. The symbolism is that if either party breaks the covenant, that they be dealt the same way as those animals. Abraham was put into a sleep and the Lord passed between the animals on His own. That made it conditional only upon the Lord's faithfulness to the covenant. Abraham, including all his descendants, couldn't abrogate the covenant if they wanted to. It was a land covenant that is still in effect and will be fully realized during the Millennial Kingdom.
To add a little humor to that... the West Bank will take on a whole new meaning in the Millennial Kingdom. As opposed to the West Bank of the Jordan River now, the new West Bank will be on the Euphrates River in Iraq. The United Nations will have no input in deciding that.
The Davidic Covenant, that a descendent of David would occupy the authority of the king over Israel and all the earth. If that is no longer in effect, then what are we wasting our time on here. Yeshua is never coming back to rule over this earth. Of course, that is silly. He indeed is coming back to do a hostile takeover of the earth and will rule from Jerusalem in the authority of the throne of David. That will be the Millennial Kingdom.
The New Covenant does not eliminate the others, it amplifies and builds upon them.
But there is an old and new covenant which is the same thing. Yet one is better.Makes the first obsolete. Which first? In paul’s Day there was no “Old Testament”. That is the name man gave the collection of books generally referred to as the Tanakh when they put the Bible we have now together. To lump all the covenants as being made obsolete is lousy arm chair theology.
Actually Hebrews is expounding on Jeremiah 31:32
God calls the first covenant an old one. Now we have a new one.But there is an old and new covenant which is the same thing. Yet one is better.
I think it's safe to say that the new covenant is the last covenant, not thru various means and prophets but thru His Son.God calls the first covenant an old one. Now we have a new one.
God says it has vanished. There is no longer an old covenant relationship between God and men.
And scripture talks about the first covenant being that old covenant of the law.
So I reject a multiplicity of covenants, to those who wrote down the scriptures there was the 'first covenant' and the second, new covenant, not 7 covenants.
If the 'first' covenant was number 6, or whatever number you want to assign it, why does scripture call it the first covenant.
I think we have an example of man's doctrines playing with the wording numbering a whole lot of different covenants. The apostles recognized the first covenant as the one of the Law of Moses.
But I have not thought too hard on what I view as meaningless numbering schemes.
Hebrews 8
13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
I have read some nonsense before about the old covenant with the Jews and God being refreshed during the millenium! , including temple worship, reestablishing of the levitical priesthood and animal sacrifices for sin offerings, which is totally unscriptural, actually of antichrist. The people who desire that will end up experiencing Satan seated in some earthly temple demanding he be worshipped as God, a false Christ.
And dont doubt that such craziness will not be rejected by them, God sends on them at that time a strong delusion to believe the LIE, because they refused to love the truth (Christ's new covenant in His blood) and be saved.
But there is an old and new covenant which is the same thing. Yet one is better.
Neither is the Noahic which holds promises too.Yes, but it must be delineated which Covenant is the “old” one being referred to. It can’t be, for instance, the Davidic Covenant which is the one that promises the Messiah will one day rule over Israel and the earth.
The first Covenant is the Adamic Covenant. That one is not done away with either.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?