Which was at fault, the first covenant, or the people of the covenant?

[Jethro Bodine]

Was it because the first covenant was at fault that it was not able to deliver what it promised, or was it because the people the promises were made to were at fault?

 

[jasoncran]

Was it because the first covenant was at fault that it was not able to deliver what it promised, or was it because the people the promises were made to were at fault?

the people in that per here.
hebrews 7

25Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

26For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

this was planned but. but what is perfection?

the YHWH never required perfection from man.

 

[reba]

Was it because the first covenant was at fault that it was not able to deliver what it promised, or was it because the people the promises were made to were at fault?

God's plan of salvation was from the beginning.


Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. ( the first blood for the first covering)

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


Rom 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

 

[smaller]

Was it because the first covenant was at fault that it was not able to deliver what it promised, or was it because the people the promises were made to were at fault?

None of the above. The Covenant never changed.

Hebrew 4:
2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

The Jews heard the same Gospel that we do today.

The Covenant has always been two fold from the beginning as well. The Word is for good and against evil. Two sides, one Covenant. Same Word, same principles.

s

 

[Jethro Bodine]

None of the above. The Covenant never changed.

Hebrew 4:
2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

The Jews heard the same Gospel that we do today.

The Covenant has always been two fold from the beginning as well. The Word is for good and against evil. Two sides, one Covenant. Same Word, same principles.

s

I'd say the promises are the same, but how does a new covenant of Priest, Sacrifice, and Temple, which the people of God now relate to him through, make the old covenant the same as the New Covenant? Maybe you're confusing the 'gospel' and the 'covenant'(?)

 

[smaller]

I'd say the promises are the same, but how does a new covenant of Priest, Sacrifice, and Temple, which the people of God now relate to him through, make the old covenant the same as the New Covenant? Maybe you're confusing the 'gospel' and the 'covenant'(?)

The difficulty in understanding comes when one tries to eliminate Gods Words by Gods Words. That is common malady within christiandom. It is neither reasonable or logical.

If one considers that the quality of Eternal is inclusive of perpetual expansion (a very poor term to consider without beginning or ending) it becomes easier to grasp at all of same.

s

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The difficulty in understanding comes when one tries to eliminate Gods Words by Gods Words. That is common malady within christiandom. It is neither reasonable or logical.

If one considers that the quality of Eternal is inclusive of perpetual expansion (a very poor term to consider without beginning or ending) it becomes easier to grasp at all of same.

s

Without digging into what you're saying here are we to understand, then, that you believe the fault was with the people, not the covenant (since you don't see that the covenant changed)?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

God's plan of salvation was from the beginning.


Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. ( the first blood for the first covering)

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


Rom 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

So then you're also saying the fault was with the people, not the covenant, right?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

the people in that per here.
hebrews 7

25Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

26For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

this was planned but. but what is perfection?

the YHWH never required perfection from man.

I can't really tell from this if you think it was the people or the covenant that was at fault.

 

[smaller]

Without digging into what you're saying here are we to understand, then, that you believe the fault was with the people, not the covenant (since you don't see that the covenant changed)?

Fault was always with the people, all of us included. That is not even in question. The Law was always meant to 'draw out' those facts.

Imbedded in the same Law however is righteousness apart from Law, which is the New Covenant, undisclosed OPENLY to the Jews but there nevertheless.

The Law came by Moses, Grace and Truth of that same Law came by Jesus Christ:

WHEREIN the Law would be written upon the HEART.

Two covenants? Yes, the Old remains just as active against LAWLESSNESS. That will never change. God is always actively 'against' EVIL/SIN/WICKEDNESS in any form. There is no avoiding this conclusion of the Old Covenant.

The New Covenant is A Spiritual LIFE that was contained 'in the Law' but could only be enacted by Christ in us, our ONLY Hope of Glory.

Yet we can see that the Spirit of CHRIST was in 'some' in this manner even under the Old Covenant.

It's more interesting than many handlers give credit for. Any time a man picks up Gods Words and says 'this is it' they are bound to be proven a usurper and a liar. I accept the latter is a fact for myself. I am a liar in comparison to Perfection. That's just the way it is.

s

 

[jasoncran]

I can't really tell from this if you think it was the people or the covenant that was at fault.

the people.

and god knew that and allowed it for a season.

he foreknew so that we could as reba put it learn from them.

when you look at the ot and then what christ came to do and what the foreshadowing meant one can get the idea.

to say that the ot way didnt cleanse sin fully isnt right.

because david. and all those saints werent forgiven?if they were faithful they did receive mercy when the fell and asked for it. god didnt change that.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

There are a number of questions that aren't addressed enough as it relates to Biblical Covenants as well as scriptural "Christs" (the 2 are at times related). We have been conditioned to believe that the New Covenant is directly related to the New Testament and Christianity, but is that real the the case or have we been misinformed?
One of the 1st places in scripture that speaks of a New Covenant is Jeremiah 31, which reads:

31 'Look… days are coming,' says Jehovah, 'when I'll make an arrangement with IsraEl's house, as well as with the house of Judah, and I'll conclude a New Sacred Agreement, 32 that's unlike the Agreement that I made with their fathers, in the day I took hold of their hands, to lead them from Egypt's land. For, they didn't keep My Sacred Agreement, so I let them go,' says Jehovah.
33 'This is my Sacred Agreement, which I'll arrange with IsraEl in those days,' says Jehovah: 'I will write My Laws in their minds and their hearts. Then they'll be My people and I'll be their God. 34 There's no way they will teach their neighbors and brothers, and tell them they must know Jehovah! For, all will know Me from the small to the great, and I'll deal kindly toward their errors and sins… no way will I remember [their sins] anymore.'
35 Thus says Jehovah (who appointed the sun to light the day, and the moon and stars to light the night; the roar of the sea and the sound of its waves; Jehovah the Almighty is His Name.) 36 'If these Laws before Me cease to be, then the race of IsraEl will no longer stand, as a nation before Me, throughout the rest of their days.'
37 Jehovah says, 'If the skies can be raised in their height, and the floor of the ground can be lowered, I can reject the race of IsraEl,' says Jehovah, 'for all the things that they've done.'

This prophesy may be best understood to be applicable to post-exile Israel that was gathered back in the promised land based on a decree of Cyrus The Great. By Ezra 3:1, we find that "the Priests, Levites, [dedicated] people, singers, gatekeepers, and Nethinim went and lived in their own cities, as did all IsraEl."

 

[smaller]

There are a number of questions that aren't addressed enough as it relates to Biblical Covenants as well as scriptural "Christs" (the 2 are at times related). We have been conditioned to believe that the New Covenant is directly related to the New Testament and Christianity, but is that real the the case or have we been misinformed?
One of the 1st places in scripture that speaks of a New Covenant is Jeremiah 31, which reads:

This prophesy may be best understood to be applicable to post-exile Israel that was gathered back in the promised land based on a decree of Cyrus The Great. By Ezra 3:1, we find that "the Priests, Levites, [dedicated] people, singers, gatekeepers, and Nethinim went and lived in their own cities, as did all IsraEl."

While the first portion of your observations are somewhat truthful, it remains logically void to me to NOT PLACE every Word of God as applicable to 'all mankind' as Jesus DID THIS.

Slicing, dicing and eliminating Gods Words as being fully applicable, every Word of same remains scripturally problematic when compared to Jesus' Words.

In the case of your observation it would require Jesus' Words to be changed, altered or eliminated:

How you ask?

Here are Jesus Words on the matters of 'every' Word of God. To me, this can NOT change nor is it possible to change them regardless of the methodologies employed to do so. I am bolding His Truthful Words here to employ the fact:

Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Were any to take your dissection and apply it to Jesus' Words it logically would have to be restated to this:

Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man [man being only post-exile Israel] shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

At some point some might realize that Jesus' Statements about 'every Word' of God being applicable to man is TRUE and that all other dissections are logically/reasonably false by comparison.

In attempting to understand, the Standard has been set by God Himself in Christ, that being from His Own Mouth, Jesus. Not by what others may think or how they may attempt to dissect, eliminate or re-write.

If any man picks up the scriptures they 'may' come to understand that 'every Word' of God 'somehow' applies to them. Those who are not led to this conclusion are being led away from The Word itself and the Truth as stated by Him.

s

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

While the first portion of your observations are somewhat truthful, it remains logically void to me to NOT PLACE every Word of God as applicable to 'all mankind' as Jesus DID THIS.

It is totally illogical and would cause many scriptures to be contradictory to do what you suggest. Your 1st presumptous move was to assume that Luke 4:4 is talking about the Bible. The problem with your assumption is that it is flat wrong as the Bible was not fully written and virtually the ENTIRETY of the Torah was applicable exclusively to the sons of Israel. Jesus was not saying what you are making him out to have said. It is far more likely that he was simply saying that man is to live in accordance with/under the authority of the will of God.

Were any to take your dissection and apply it to Jesus' Words it logically would have to be restated to this:

Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man [man being only post-exile Israel] shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

At some point some might realize that Jesus' Statements about 'every Word' of God being applicable to man is TRUE and that all other dissections are logically/reasonably false by comparison.

In attempting to understand, the Standard has been set by God Himself in Christ, that being from His Own Mouth, Jesus. Not by what others may think or how they may attempt to dissect, eliminate or re-write.

If any man picks up the scriptures they 'may' come to understand that 'every Word' of God 'somehow' applies to them. Those who are not led to this conclusion are being led away from The Word itself and the Truth as stated by Him.

s

What you charactorize as a dissection is not at all a dissection. It is simply pointed out that applying the New Covenant to the New Testament is a flawed methodology much like applying the 1st/Sinai Covenant would be.
Truth be told, if we all picked up our Bibles, studied, and objectively looked into the scriptural contexts, what we would find is that much of it, overwhelmingly so was directed to immediate audiences and very little, if any was written with a post 1st century audience in mind.

 

[smaller]

It is totally illogical and would cause many scriptures to be contradictory to do what you suggest.

No, the observation is just bucking what you present. Nothing more. Your view 'requires' only those in the immediate vicinity to be the ones affected by Gods Words. Jesus did not say that, but quite the opposite.

What Jesus said remains the fact. All other comers must jump that measure OR they must eliminate or re-write the Words of God in Christ.

If Jesus said that man shall live by every Word of God, then that is the fact that must be accepted.

Pretty simple really. Any other dissection requires INSERTED TAMPERING.

Your 1st presumptous move was to assume that Luke 4:4 is talking about the Bible.

Uh, well, one might suppose that the Bible does contain The Word of God, yes.

The problem with your assumption is that it is flat wrong as the Bible was not fully written

I'm certainly not saying that the Word was not an ongoing process. But that still does not require elimination of any of that Word as INapplicable to 'man.'

In some way the first command to Adam, [presumed to be recorded by some from the pen of Moses, but others will see the matter as before that, perhaps Enoch, perhaps through the entire physical lineage of Israel who were given the "Oracles," The Word of God in recorded form from the beginning] is applicable to ALL man.

Discounting any subsequent Word of God to man does not fit or compute. Jesus clearly said 'man' and 'every Word.' That remains the way it is by any simplicity.

Even looking at the first command to Adam, we can easily see the fulcrum of ALL subsequent laws as well, even though more Laws came later. The essence of all LAW of God is
A.) Thou shall and
B.) Thou shall NOT

This simplicity can be applied to ANY Law of God and can in spiritual understanding apply to ANY MAN.

and virtually the ENTIRETY of the Torah was applicable exclusively to the sons of Israel.

I consider that to be patent absurdity. The law clearly remains and was written to be against evil and lawlessness from the beginning. Every law of God remains that way and will remain that way FOREVER.

Jesus was not saying what you are making him out to have said.

His Words speak for themselves and are not in need of a 'rewrite' or personal tampering. They are either true as they are recorded or they are not. To accept your view requires both alteration and tampering via your own subjective insertions.

On the other hand I accept those Words 'exactly' as HE stated them and have no need for alteration or tampering.

It is far more likely that he was simply saying that man is to live in accordance with/under the authority of the will of God.

Again, one logically might presume that 'every Word' of God IS an expression of Gods Will, so by your own statement you have applied every Word of God to MAN.

When you transition to 'insertion of your determination of Gods Will' you may very well be tampering again with the outright and plain statement of Jesus. Jesus' Words are fully capable of standing exactly as recorded. You read the statement of Jesus and re-write it to this:

"It is far more likely that he was simply saying"

I say He said what He said. Far be it from me to demand a re-write.

Therein lies the dilemma for re-writers who can't accept it as Written. Their own minds transition THE WORD AWAY FROM THE WORD and on to their OWN suppositions.

What you charactorize as a dissection is not at all a dissection. It is simply pointed out that applying the New Covenant to the New Testament is a flawed methodology much like applying the 1st/Sinai Covenant would be.

The entire methodology of trying to divide and pit Gods Words against each others or to use Gods Words to eliminate Gods Words contains the flaws.

There are no FLAWS in Gods Words. They don't need elimination or tampering.

"IT IS WRITTEN" What is written will not change, WILL come to pass exactly as God Himself intended. No man can alter His course no matter what his imaginations may dictate.

Truth be told, if we all picked up our Bibles, studied, and objectively looked into the scriptural contexts, what we would find is that much of it, overwhelmingly so was directed to immediate audiences and very little, if any was written with a post 1st century audience in mind.

And again, I find such conclusions to be patent nonsense when compared to the Word of God in Christ Himself.

Man shall live by EVERY WORD exactly as Jesus stated. To try and slice it any other way requires Jesus to be a liar.

s

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

It would appear that you know you promote your personal religious understand as being equal to what is actually taught is the scriptures Smaller. You have developed a personal philosophy around John 4:4 that makes it into something it is not. John 4:4 has Jesus replying to the temper with a semi-quote of Deuteronomy 8:3, which in context reads:

Deuteronomy 8:
'You must be careful to obey all the Commandments that I'm giving you today, so you can live and grow, then enter and inherit the land that Jehovah your God promised to your ancestors. 2 Don't forget how Jehovah your God led you through the desert where He tested and tried you in order to show what's in your hearts… whether you would keep His Commandments or not. 3 For, He tested you and corrected you with hunger, and then He fed you with manna (which was something that your ancestors had never heard of) to show you that men don't just need bread to live, they also require all the words that come from the mouth of God.

Context is a powerful tool to aid in understanding what has been written. So rather than using the text to bolster your chosen manifesto, try understanding the context and being contextually as well as intellectually honest in how you apply the texts. You said: “EVERY WORD OF GOD is APPLICABLE TO ALL MANKIND.” I replied by saying that your assertion is illogical and wrong because in scripture we find that to not be the case. The Law and Commandments given to the Israelites in Exodus and repeated in Deuteronomy were not APPLICABLE TO ALL MANKIND. Many, many, many recorded commands in scripture were given explicitly to particular audiences only, and saying otherwise is flat out denying much of what is written.

In order for your view to make sense, you must cherry pick commands leaving out commands given that YOU DON’T THINK are applicable based on your own subjectivity. This may sound like a personal criticism, but it isn’t. What it is is in fact the flawed methodology that anyone that believes the Bible to be the Word of God must utilized in hopes of harmonizing that which is internally contradictory.

---------
Be very specific in your answer to this question please. Are you able to give 10 examples of "Words" or commands given in scripture are directed at people living today?

 

[smaller]

It would appear that you know you promote your personal religious understand as being equal to what is actually taught is the scriptures Smaller.

OR it may appear to some that every Word of God is True and applicable to mankind. Take yer pick. Doesn't matter to me if you see it or not.

You have developed a personal philosophy around John 4:4 that makes it into something it is not.

Show me where I changed it. Accusations without facts are known falsehoods in those who bring same.

John 4:4 has Jesus replying to the temper with a semi-quote of Deuteronomy 8:3, which in context reads:

Deuteronomy 8:
'You must be careful to obey all the Commandments that I'm giving you today, so you can live and grow, then enter and inherit the land that Jehovah your God promised to your ancestors. 2 Don't forget how Jehovah your God led you through the desert where He tested and tried you in order to show what's in your hearts… whether you would keep His Commandments or not.

You may think the trial function of the Word is eliminated as well. I don't and I don't by The Word.

3 For, He tested you and corrected you with hunger, and then He fed you with manna (which was something that your ancestors had never heard of) to show you that men don't just need bread to live, they also require all the words that come from the mouth of God.

I also know The Word is spirit/spiritual. That requires me to transition AWAY from historical in time applications to those 'hearer's only' or applying Gods Words to a limited set of people. Using the historical 'only in time' method logically requires The Spirit of the Word to drop away and be INapplicable going forward. It's just another 'method' to KILL GODS WORD.

Context is a powerful tool

I quit playing the 'contextual elimination' of Gods Words game. There is no requirement for that methodology as it is not reasoned.

Theology in the Christian sense is an approach of reasoning, which The Word requests us to do. Reason does not dictate elimination.

to aid in understanding what has been written. So rather than using the text to bolster your chosen manifesto,

Let's get a reasoned point in here. I read Jesus' statement, stated it, didn't change it. That does not make it 'my' statement or 'chosen' manifesto. In fact those who can not grapple with the statement or those who seek to eliminate same are doing what they say I'm doing.

So if you think I changed Jesus' Statement by 'my personal manifesto' show the fact.

try understanding the context and being contextually as well as intellectually honest

Intellectual honesty does not dictate elimination of Gods Words. Any of them being applicable to 'man.' If Jesus' Statement is not fact, what is? Your 'this is what "I THINK" He really said? How about 'what He Said' instead?

Pretty simple.

in how you apply the texts.

That is not the case. It is Jesus' Statements that make the application. The faults remain in the 'hows' of those so applying when they eliminate plain statements.

I can't honestly say JESUS DIDN'T SAY WHAT HE SAID regardless of 'how' I may think to apply them.

You said: “EVERY WORD OF GOD is APPLICABLE TO ALL MANKIND.”

Read it how you will:

Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

If you think my quote you cite is a dire misstatement, then show 'how.'

I will take Jesus' Statement over my own if you think they somehow differ and differ to His Statement.

I replied by saying that your assertion is illogical and wrong because in scripture we find that to not be the case.

So, you do what? You place Gods Words as applicable only to a given set of people at a given point of time.

But you see that is NOT what Jesus said, even while you think what you say may be the case. It doesn't match up to Jesus' Own Statement of 'every Word' of God to man.

What you present is common methodology used to eliminate Gods Words. So, convince me that Jesus' plain statement is NOT true and applicable 'to man.'

What I usually encounter is 'what you think Gods Words are, for O.T. Law' let's say, is where the real fault lies.

The Law and Commandments given to the Israelites in Exodus and repeated in Deuteronomy were not APPLICABLE TO ALL MANKIND.

So says you. Even with Paul however your understanding of O.T. Law is proven false. How?

You accept faith apart from O.T. Law? Yeah or NAY?

Many, many, many recorded commands in scripture were given explicitly to particular audiences only, and saying otherwise is flat out denying much of what is written.

O.T. Law presents many matters, not all of them contained strictly in 'how' you may read them. Again, the issue is IN THE HEARER, not The Word of Law. Please address the question immediately above and Paul will show your hearing the O.T. Law 'may' be lacking.

In order for your view to make sense, you must cherry pick commands leaving out commands given that YOU DON’T THINK are applicable based on your own subjectivity.

Not at all. I would submit that most 'hearer's of The Law of the O.T. can in fact NOT HEAR it accurately. I'll show you as soon as you tell me that you adhere to a basic fundamental understanding of fundamental Christianity, that being salvation via Grace through Faith APART FROM O.T. Law. Yes or No?

This may sound like a personal criticism, but it isn’t. What it is is in fact the flawed methodology that anyone that believes the Bible to be the Word of God must utilized in hopes of harmonizing that which is internally contradictory.

I would submit there are no contradictions in Gods Words. The contradictions reside in the eyes of the readers and the ears of the hearers ONLY. I also understand harmony is one very difficult gig. There are reasons presented in Gods Words on 'why this is so' as well.

Be very specific in your answer to this question please. Are you able to give 10 examples of "Words" or commands given in scripture are directed at people living today?

That depends 'entirely' on how good your own ears are at hearing those commandments.

So, salvation via Grace through faith apart from O.T. Law? Yes or No?

s

 

[Sinthesis]

All people are at fault. The first covenant did exactly what it was supposed to do; prepare the way for the second covenant.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Well, I think it's pretty clear from scripture that some of God's Words, namely certain stipulations of the Mosaic covenant, are now obsolete. IOW, God is not speaking those words anymore to the hearts of his people because they have become inapplicable to a people forever made perfect through the work of Jesus Christ (for example, the need to obey a literal Mosaic Day of Atonement to remove sin). That being true, is it because those Words were faulty that God made them obsolete through Jesus Christ, or because the people they were given to were faulty?

 

[smaller]

Well, I think it's pretty clear from scripture that some of God's Words, namely certain stipulations of the Mosaic covenant, are now obsolete.

What is or at least should be obsolete is understanding those matters only from a physical perspective. There remains deeply spiritual conveyances in ALL of Gods Laws and Precepts, NONE of which have passed away.

The 'types and shadows' contained therein are to be TREASURED and HANDLED. Performance on the exterior is quite fruitless, but that does not eradicate all of what those same Words are intended to convey.

Paul lays out a simple principle of understanding in 1 Cor. 15. It's used by some, but not many. The principle is: FIRST THE NATURAL, then THE SPIRITUAL.

We can certainly see this matter in O.T. LAW as being first the NATURAL or EXTERNAL fleshly function of the O.T. Law, but there is also THE SPIRITUAL that is summed up and performed in and By Christ. The fact certainly doesn't eradicate the Word. Not at all. O.T. Law in the fleshly manner was prescribed to prove us all IMperfect. Anyone who picks up a single tenement of any command will quickly be proven to be A SINNER IN MIND.

Read the law of adultery for example, and it perhaps would not take long to have an adulterous thought. That is and REMAINS the action of the LAW in the mind of the person.

If the person is a gay person, they will soon be having adulterous homosexual thoughts if they read the laws against homosexuality.

This IS how the Law continues to work and to prove and to arouse SIN in the present world, that we may come to the factual conclusion that WE ALL HAVE IT.

Any who try to eradicate this fact of COVENANT are blowing hot air.

There is and REMAINS a relationship, an ADVERSE one between the SIN in the WORLD and the WORD. Believers can try to eradicate the fact, but they are wasting their time. The O.T. LAW will continue to prove EVERY believer remains A SINNER, period. You don't even have to pick it up to prove it. In the fact of just READING it, it will make IT'S PROOF in the mind of the reader by inserting various SIN thoughts. That is just what happens when mankind reads Gods Words. Any of them.

IOW, God is not speaking those words anymore to the hearts of his people

That conclusion remains absurd. Gods Words still say DO NOT do certain things and to DO OTHER things. This is just a fact.

The difficulty is 'what those things' might mean.

One can be a dire murderer in HEART and never have murdered. One can be a dire adulterer in heart and never physically committed adultery.

Get the picture here yet? This is what the Law was really trying to say. It was always meant to convey our INTERNAL CONDITION. The external is quite pointless. It was never possible for the people of Israel to BE LEGAL. Why? Because they ALL had sin just as we do and SIN is and remains 'an internal matter' of the HEART.

So has the covenant then passed in this view? Assuredly NOT. The covenant remains firmly and forever against ALL SIN AND EVIL in the hearts of man and so DOES JESUS CHRIST. This is an ETERNAL FACT. May it EVER be so.

What understanding should pass away is only our understandings of LAW as an external obedience matter. That is not what it is whatsoever, nor is it possible for our internal lawlessness to EVER be LAWFUL.

Paul said the Law is for the LAWLESS. We are factually ALL lawless because of the presence of SIN.

Therefore the Law is factually against us all and rightfully so. The Law does retain this kind of relationship with all of us and is fully valid in this regard.

because they have become inapplicable to a people forever made perfect through the work of Jesus Christ (for example, the need to obey a literal Mosaic Day of Atonement to remove sin). That being true, is it because those Words were faulty that God made them obsolete through Jesus Christ, or because the people they were given to were faulty?

I can assure you that under either Law or Grace God has not authorized our sin in whatever form it takes.

The notion that law no longer proves sin in the believer is absurd. Those who believe under Grace that they no longer have sin proven under Law remain deceived. Those who believe that they can dodge the fact by tossing the Law are also deceived. They toss it because they know for a fact that it brings condemnation to sin.

I say why don't believers just get real about their own sin? They can't. They prefer to slide past the facts.

The fact about sin is and remains this. All have SIN and SIN IS OF THE DEVIL.

No believer can confront this fact in themselves and they can not because they are not 'IN TRUTH' on this particular matter.

They prefer to LET THE DEVIL in their own minds slide by.

Sorrow on such I say. Sorrow.

enjoy!

s