When did/will the old covenant end?

[claninja]

The point again is going back to willful sin vs. unintentional sins. A person with the Holy Spirit cannot sin intentionally. It is just not in their nature. But in times of weakness, we will trespass unintentionally, but just not lawlessness (willful sins). 1 John 3:9

So why would a true Christian ask God for forgiveness in prayer if, as you say, true Christians don't willfully sin, and the only sin requiring to confess is willful sin?

 

[1stcenturylady]

So why would a true Christian ask God for forgiveness in prayer if, as you say, true Christians don't willfully sin, and the only sin requiring to confess is willful sin?

The point in the Lord's Prayer is for us to forgive others their trespasses against us. If we don't, then our trespasses won't be forgiven either. Again, the whole counsel of God. The Lord's prayer is not covering willful sins, but debts. Those are trespasses, and trespasses are unintentional.

Paul points out rather vividly that willful sins do not have any further sacrifice. You were cleansed of all your past willful sins at the beginning, not what another false doctrine claims - "past, present and future willful sins", which is another tentacle of the false doctrine regarding 1 John 1:8 and Romans 7:14-23. If you are being taught that false doctrine - RUN!

 

[Strong in Him]

for the past almost 2000 years, the old covenant law has been impossible to follow, as the earthly tabernacle (temple) was destroyed in 70 ad.

I know.
Jews don't offer sacrifices in the temple, or even have a temple. But they would still say they follow the law of Moses and reject Jesus as the Messiah.

Hebrews 7:12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.

I know.
I believe that Jesus' blood was of the new Covenant, prophesied by Jeremiah. He brought in, delivered and sealed this New Covenant. As Hebrews also says, where there is a new covenant, it means the old is obsolete.
Jews, and maybe others too, don't accept this New Covenant, however.

 

[claninja]

Correct. 1 John 1:8 is NOT about a Christian.

Considering John says 'we', does that mean John was not a Christian?
1 John 1:8 If WE say WE have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us

The point in the Lord's Prayer is for us to forgive others their trespasses against us. If we don't, then our trespasses won't be forgiven either. Again, the whole counsel of God. The Lord's prayer is not covering willful sins, but debts. Those are trespasses, and trespasses are unintentional.

This is incorrect, the defintion of the greek word Jesus uses for sin is defined as any sin committed against God, both intentional and unintentional.

" equivalent to τό ἁμαρτάνειν a sinning, whether it occurs by omission or commission, in thought and feeling or in speech and action"

 

[1stcenturylady]

Considering John says 'we', does that mean John was not a Christian?
1 John 1:8 If WE say WE have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us

Of course not. He is talking to his congregation, thus "we." Not everyone in his congregation were Christians. However, the use of first person is common practice in Semitic writing styles to include a broader base.

Paul did the same thing in Romans 7, another use of first person that westerners conclude he is speaking of himself. But in Romans 7:9 was Paul even alive when mankind received the law on Mt. Sinai? "9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died."

1 John 1:8 is the same sentiment as Paul's "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." He is talking since Adam sinned. But Who can save us from sin? Jesus. When reading 1 John 1:8 it is best reading it in context. There is a before and after sense to the verse then and what John is actually meaning, even though his wording points directly against Gnosticism who really did not believe their sins of the flesh were sin. Thirteen or more translations of the Bible start the next verse with the word, "but" tying them together.

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 But, if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

Think about it. If you are cleansed of all filth are you still dirty? This is why a true Christian is no longer a sinner, but a saint. It is important to tell yourself the truth, for most of our behavior stems from what we believe. This is why in Romans 6, Paul tells us a fact - we are dead to sin. But later in the same chapter tells us to also reckon ourselves dead to sin. Why? Isn't it still a fact? Yes, but we have free will, and there is power in our thoughts. Don't hide away the fact in your closet. Therefore Paul also says,

But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.

and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.

Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

We have been given righteousness, but not over filth as a cover-up, as was true with the blood of bulls and goats; but over a cleansed heart and mind that has been washed clean by the blood of Jesus that takes away sin, not just covers it up. Do not stir up the flesh and resurrect it, when you've been given a new nature that loves righteousness.

The bottom line is, the person who is walking in the Spirit, does not have uncleansed sin in their life. You don't commit willful, presumptuous sin which is lawlessness, and the trespasses you commit are automatically cleansed per 1 John 1:7. So don't quench the Spirit.

Of course, this is all based on the premise that the person professing to be a Christian, actually is one - they have the Spirit of Christ empowering them to not commit willful/presumptuous sin. In other words, a liar or con-artist is not a Christian. Nor any committing these sins of the flesh in Galatians 5:19-21.

 

[1stcenturylady]

This is incorrect, the defintion of the greek word Jesus uses for sin is defined as any sin committed against God, both intentional and unintentional.

" equivalent to τό ἁμαρτάνειν a sinning, whether it occurs by omission or commission, in thought and feeling or in speech and action"

What I'm talking about and the Bible translators are differentiating against are not the high-handed presumptuous sins that in the Old Testament are sins unto death. In other words, all transgression is sin, but not all sins are worthy of death. This is why it has been translated as "debt" and "trespasses" by most. But I will concede that in times of weakness, you can "know" what you are doing in committing one of these lesser sins. You just do not know it is sin.

But I like the way you think. Yes, these are not holy. And we should strive to yield to the Spirit's leading and develop the fruits of love and self-control in most cases of these kinds of sin. And yes, ask forgiveness. Always remembering not to hold the same sins against someone else, but to forgive them. Otherwise, your trespass remains.

 

[claninja]

And we should strive to yield to the Spirit's leading and develop the fruits of love and self-control in most cases of these kinds of sin. And yes, ask forgiveness. Always remembering not to hold the same sins against someone else, but to forgive them. Otherwise, your trespass remains.

Amen

 

[1stcenturylady]

Amen

Did you read #145, or miss it. There were two posts to you.

 

[Adam Raffell]

So how do you handle Hebrews 8?

Good question and thank you for raising. The most obvious reading would indeed suggest the 'first' covenant (defined above at the 'Mosaic') is nullified. "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete." Hebrews 8:13

My answer to this would depend upon a need to compare and interpret Hebrews 8:13 alongside e.g. Matthew 5:18. Jesus saying everything must be accomplished before anything disappears. Together, I would interpret these two verses (we could add others) as teaching that what makes the 'Old' Covenant 'obsolete' specifically is the end of sin. God had promised Israel, "I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts." (Hebrews quotes the end of Jeremiah 31) This interpretation would also align with Jesus allusion to "everything being accomplished", when all sin and death are brought to an end.

Obviously, if there is no sin, there is no need for the law in the present sense. The instructions and provisions for defining sin, and the provisions for making atonement are no longer necessary and much (all?) of the provision may one day simply simply fade away to memory. We could then describe this as being the 'end' of a covenant or 'obsolete'. Another way of describing that would be to say that the old covenant is fully incorporated into the new - not 'replaced' or 'nullified' but continued as we are clothed by the righteousness and Torah-observance of Christ. In this sense it continues, and will never fade away.

For some people, specifically Jews, who inherited that Mosaic covenant as part of their faith-identity already, it is perfectly acceptable to understand that living in obedience to God is going to involve continuing to observe Torah (this may not be strictly necessary, but it's what obedience to God looks like for them). For the majority of us who received Christian faith as Gentiles and for whom Torah-observance is alien, there is no necessity for us to adopt that. As Paul taught,

Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. (1 Corinthians 7:18-19)

Even within the New Covenant as Christians, forgiven as we are and having received the Holy Spirit, even we still have 'commandments' God gave us preserved in the Mosaic covenant and the teaching of Jesus (the two greatest commandments, etc).

What will really fade away is not the covenant itself, but the sin which the covenant redresses. I believe this explains and accounts for the teaching we find in Hebrews 8, without leading to tensions with other parts of Scripture which appear to assume the continuation of the covenants. In addition to Matt 5:18, e.g. Romans 9:4, expanded in Romans 11:29.