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

[Hitch]

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?

Neither.The Low performed its function perfectly as did Israel. Aspects of both were by design temporary.

 

[Fedusenko]

Neither.The Low performed its function perfectly as did Israel. Aspects of both were by design temporary.

Are you suggesting that the law does not apply now? Commit murder, have other gods, don't keep the Sabbath? What about the foods bit... if our bodies are a temple for Yahweh then are we now allowed to eat foods that destroy His temple?

 

[Fedusenko]

The law wasn't just for Jews, but Israelites. Yahweh's selected people. You can become one through birth or induction. Jesus was an Israelite, a member of God's selected people (ironic isn't it). Did that line just stop? Could Christianity be among that community?

Anyways, much of modern Jewish people came from the conversion of the Khazar empire around 8th and 9th century. The remaining Jewish population was very dismal the century prior.

 

[Hitch]

Are you suggesting that the law does not apply now? Commit murder, have other gods, don't keep the Sabbath? What about the foods bit... if our bodies are a temple for Yahweh then are we now allowed to eat foods that destroy His temple?

Valid questions but they are not within the context of this thread.

 

[Hitch]

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

 

[jasoncran]

The law wasn't just for Jews, but Israelites. Yahweh's selected people. You can become one through birth or induction. Jesus was an Israelite, a member of God's selected people (ironic isn't it). Did that line just stop? Could Christianity be among that community?

Anyways, much of modern Jewish people came from the conversion of the Khazar empire around 8th and 9th century. The remaining Jewish population was very dismal the century prior.

no that has been debunked by geneticists. few khazars converted.

if you doubt i will post the link.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

What is or at least should be obsolete is understanding those matters only from a physical perspective.

IOW, they are obsolete as to their required literal fulfillment.

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.

Indeed, Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. The everlasting principles that the Mosaic covenant of sacrifice, temple, and priesthood represented continue in the New Covenant in the form of a new and better Covenant of Sacrifice, temple, and Priesthood. What has changed from the old to the New is how eternal principles of redemption and relating to God are upheld, or fulfilled.

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.

Well, as true as this is, it is very true that we simply do not have to perform many of the literal old covenant worship commands. It isn't necessary to be found imperfect through the attempt to fulfill certain literal requirements of old covenant worship.

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.

This is why I think it absolutely necessary to distinguish between various parts of the old covenant and not lump them together. We are no longer held accountable to and potentially condemned by the literal commands for worship prescribed in the old covenant. But obviously that is not true in regard to 'do not steal', 'do not covet', 'do not lie', etc.

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

Some things are 'done', being fulfilled to God's complete satisfaction, when we believe in Christ such that no literal continuation of the requirement remains. The Day of Atonement is an example. It didn't get abolished. It got forever and perfectly fulfilled through the work of Christ for those who believe such that it is no longer required to approach God in worship in that literal way anymore.

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.

Thankfully, the law only has authority over a person and able to keep them bound to the flesh while a person is living. But we have died with Christ to the power of the law that kept us bound to the flesh (like a marriage certificate). A law that bound us and actually enforced our relationship with the flesh provoking sin in us, not delivering us from it as some mistakenly think it did/ does. We have been set free from the law that bound us to the flesh (like a marriage license binds a woman to her husband), not so we can now sin with impunity, but so we can be free to now be bound to Christ, our new husband, through the law of the Spirit.

 

[smaller]

IOW, they are obsolete as to their required literal fulfillment.

If Paul didn't tell us the Law is spiritual I could possibly agree. Throwing out spiritual matters doesn't make much sense.

Indeed, Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.

Paul stated the Law remains to be fulfilled through us as well in multiple citings. So again writing that off when it's stated otherwise doesn't compute.

The everlasting principles that the Mosaic covenant of sacrifice, temple, and priesthood represented continue in the New Covenant in the form of a new and better Covenant of Sacrifice, temple, and Priesthood. What has changed from the old to the New is how eternal principles of redemption and relating to God are upheld, or fulfilled.

Fortunately for the eye of discernment the New Testament Gospel presentation is firmly imbedded in the Law as well. It's just more difficult to see presented in shadows. Doesn't mean it was invalidated and if New Testament Gospel is imbedded in the Law it might seem to some to be an ally of The New Covenant, not to be tossed. I would also agree that how we are to view the Law itself and to fulfill same in ourselves has been clarified from the Law, not that it was tossed out.

Well, as true as this is, it is very true that we simply do not have to perform many of the literal old covenant worship commands. It isn't necessary to be found imperfect through the attempt to fulfill certain literal requirements of old covenant worship.

Jesus took the Laws of the O.T. and put them as an internal matter. This is a picture perfect view of the Old Cov. and the New. First a natural view, an external one as fleshly Israel practiced, and then the SPIRITUAL elaboration of God Himself of those same Laws. This too is a principle that Paul taught...first the Natural, then the SPIRITUAL in 1 Cor. 15. This fact is shown in the transition from The Old Covenant to the New Covenant. There are many comparisons given by Jesus on these matters to confirm the fact. Several can be cited from the Gospels.

Food laws for example contain many deep spiritual truths that are not easily apparent, but they are applicable 'internally.' Jesus did not invalidate those Laws, but clarified them and applied them as internal matters, like here:

Matt. 15:
2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.


11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.

Jesus was in the above showing an entirely different slant on 'food law' eradicating them as an external matter. NOTHING that goes into a man can defile them, period. This understanding basically wiped out the understanding of the Pharisees regarding 'food Laws.' This does not mean however that the spiritual intention of food laws are void or without spiritual purpose for 'our' applications.

Jesus also clearly pinpointed spiritual matters, even WEIGHTY MATTERS of Law:

Listen to Jesus about THE LAW, not man teachings!

Matthew 23:23
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

IF any reader of LAW can NOT see the matters of JUDGMENT, MERCY and FAITH in the Law they are NOT hearing The Law whatsoever.

If you think these weightier matters are UNIMPORTANT for believers I would certainly beg to say such proposals are absurd. Judgment, mercy and faith are of ULTIMATE importance and such matters are IN LAW and FOR believers. There is in fact no way for the Law to pass away in these regards.

This is why I think it absolutely necessary to distinguish between various parts of the old covenant and not lump them together. We are no longer held accountable to and potentially condemned by the literal commands for worship prescribed in the old covenant. But obviously that is not true in regard to 'do not steal', 'do not covet', 'do not lie', etc.

Again, you decry lying, stealing, murder etc as not being legal and they ARE NOT. How then can you say these matters are void? It makes no sense.

When we see the facts, that it is THE LAW itself that justifies faith apart from the Law, then the LAW is in fact an ALLY of this very important New Covenant position. No surface readings of the Law are going to divulge this information, but IT IS IN THERE. Those who reject Gods Words of LAW will never learn these things and they will be landed in ERROR.

Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets

Now you tell me if the LAW by Paul's own statement is a witness of righteousness APART FROM LAW, how can the LAW possibly be against us as believers.

The answer is, it's NOT. It must be understood spiritually and applied internally.

Some things are 'done', being fulfilled to God's complete satisfaction, when we believe in Christ such that no literal continuation of the requirement remains.

Again, if you think the Law was exacting, Grace is even MORE exacting. Jesus amplified/magnified the Law and made it HONORABLE, as foretold by the prophet.

The full intention of the LAW and Jesus Words as well is to dwell IN US and FULLY FUNCTION with HIS PERFECT REFLECTIONS. The Law is certainly not against us. They are the Words of Jesus in the prophets. Jesus is not against Himself.

Those who claim Jesus or the Apostles eradicated the Law by fulfillment are only suffering from an utter lack of understanding same.

There is a side of the Law that remains to this day against ALL lawlessness in 'whomever' it is found. Even when you point to no murder, lying, stealing...those are LAW matters and can NOT logically be tossed.

The Day of Atonement is an example. It didn't get abolished. It got forever and perfectly fulfilled through the work of Christ for those who believe such that it is no longer required to approach God in worship in that literal way anymore.

The Law's full intention on the bad side of the ledger remains to show us that we factually remain sinners, particularly after 'conversion.' I understand 'why' believers don't like to hear this, but it's a fact.

Sin is lawlessness and WE ALL HAVE SIN. So do the math. Paul said the law is for the lawless. We all have sin and are therefore lawless via that presence within us. The Law pinpoints this fact quite sufficiently. Even were an O.T. adherent to do every jot and tittle obediently THEY WOULD STILL BE SINNERS.

It is from the conveyance of THIS HARD FACT that we learn WHY we are in DIRE NEED of Gods Abundant and Eternal MERCY. There is a reason 'we need' MERCY from God. This is a weighty matter of LAW. If you do not take this matter of fact finding by the LAW you would perhaps not know so well WHY we need His Mercy.

When Israel of the O.T. placed blood upon their doorposts, they did so in order for GOD not to KILL THEM on the spot. God PASSED OVER them but He could have just as easily KILLED THEM as well for THEIR SIN.

God chose not to do that, and in that 'external manner' purveyed the ETERNAL FORGIVENESS that was to come. Israel had temporal forgiveness. The Perfect Sacrifice SEALED THE DEAL. This does not mean that some principles such as SIN being present in Israel as shown therein does not have some continuing things to say about our condition POST SALVATION.

Paul said that 'all of those things' were written for our examples. Why TOSS? Again, such methods make no sense. I could write VOLUMES of what is taught in the O.T. LAW as NEW TESTAMENT PRINCIPLE.

You think Paul pulled the New Testament Gospel out of his own mind? No. He was TAUGHT those matters FROM THE LAW by Jesus Himself via REVELATION.

It's a much much deeper subject than people who TOY with the scriptures are used to dealing with. They are positions born of ignorance coupled with the spirit of ERROR.

Thankfully, the law only has authority over a person and able to keep them bound to the flesh while a person is living. But we have died with Christ to the power of the law that kept us bound to the flesh (like a marriage certificate).

Many believers suffer under the delusion that since the Law has no supposed SWAY over them any longer that somehow the LAW working AGAINST sin in them has ceased.

Nope. The Law remains against the LAWLESS. Sin is LAWLESSNESS. ALL have sin.

Understanding this we are FORCED by the Law to understand our need for MERCY and UNmerited favor of GRACE. What forces us is the SIN in us and the continuing need. The Law NEVER stops working against SIN and never will as long as SIN exists in man.

If you think the Law against MURDER which is LAWLESSNESS is not in force under GRACE to a believer you would be sadly sadly mistaken.

Grace is a much harsher task Master. It makes us BE HONEST about our condition not ignore it or cover it up LIKE A PHARISEE.

Grace has actually created far more Pharisees than the Old Covenant ever could have imagined.

The same principles in the Law that aroused SIN in man to make men HYPOCRITES about themselves have been unleashed as A VERITABLE TORRENT within Christiandom.

Were you to look at every practice of Pharisees such activity is READILY and OPENLY apparent in EVERY CHURCH on earth today and almost IDENTICALLY.

A law that bound us and actually enforced our relationship with the flesh provoking sin in us, not delivering us from it as some mistakenly think it did/ does. We have been set free from the law that bound us to the flesh (like a marriage license binds a woman to her husband), not so we can now sin with impunity, but so we can be free to now be bound to Christ, our new husband, through the law of the Spirit.

Well, you may certainly believe what you say. I know better.

The Law remains firmly against ALL SIN in whomever it is found and it is FOUND IN ALL. That is why we are not to put our SIN under it because the power of SIN in believers will get WILD. This is a factual and adverse relationship between The Law and the power of sin.

Nevertheless, THIS is how Paul 'served' the Law and any believer would be well advised to DO THE SAME:

Romans 7:25
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

The Sword of Gods Word of LAW has TWO EDGES. They are described right there in blue and red.

enjoy!

s

 

[Adullam]

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 covenant at Sinai was a plan B. The people had already rejected a direct contact with God. They wanted Moses to intercede for them. So God undertook an impossible set of rules to confound the people with a religion that was to try to make up for the direct relationship with God. So Plan B was for a fallen creation....a marker until the better plan could be revealed.

Plan A is the new covenant of the new creation in Christ.

 

[smaller]

Romans 16:
24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. 25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,


26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The covenant at Sinai was a plan B. The people had already rejected a direct contact with God. They wanted Moses to intercede for them. So God undertook an impossible set of rules to confound the people with a religion that was to try to make up for the direct relationship with God. So Plan B was for a fallen creation....a marker until the better plan could be revealed.

Plan A is the new covenant of the new creation in Christ.

Is there anything faulty about an "impossible set of rules" (the old covenant) for a people who are not faulty and could actually keep them?

Surely the old covenant had lawful limitations on how close you could get to God and when, but does that make it faulty, or just less than what a covenant could be? God did clearly promise great and wonderful things for keeping even the less than adequate stipulations (compared to the New Covenant) of the old covenant.

It's 'fault' seems to be in how inappropriate it is for a fallen people that can't keep it, not faulty in and of itself, for surely a perfect people could have kept it and been wonderfully blessed.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If Paul didn't tell us the Law is spiritual I could possibly agree. Throwing out spiritual matters doesn't make much sense.

So you believe in the complete and total literal keeping of the old covenant?

Paul stated the Law remains to be fulfilled through us as well in multiple citings. So again writing that off when it's stated otherwise doesn't compute.

When we believe in Christ the ceremonial requirements of the law are satisfied through our faith in Christ for the forgiveness of sin. And through that same faith we uphold the law summarized in 'love your neighbor as yourself' (Gal. 5:6). No literal action is required for the ceremonial parts of the covenant (they became obsolete in regard to being literally required), while the moral requirements of the law are fulfilled through the actions of the new creation expressed in love towards others.

It is exactly these literal, ceremonial requirements that Paul is talking about here in Hebrews when he says they have become obsolete and inapplicable to a people totally and forever declared righteous in the eyes of God through Christ:

"...by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." (Hebrews 10:14 NIV1984)

"...it (the old covenant of priest, sacrifice, and temple) can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all..." (Hebrews 10:1-2 NIV1984)

See? If a person is made perfect by a sacrifice, they can stop offering up the repeated sacrifices of the old covenant for the sin guilt they no longer have, for they have been made perfect and no longer guilty of sin as a matter of legal record. Belief in Christ secures that declaration of perfect righteousness, therefore the old covenant procedure for dealing with sin guilt is not necessary.

Does this mean the old covenant was faulty, or just inadequate? Or does it mean the people it governed were faulty?


7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said:

“The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.
(Hebrews 8:7-9 NIV1984)


The 'what's wrong' of the old covenant seems to be relative to the fact that the people didn't keep it, not that it was somehow faulty in and of itself. Inadequate? Yes. Inappropriate? Yes. But faulty? Apparently not for a people who could actually keep it.

 

[jasoncran]

Is there anything faulty about an "impossible set of rules" (the old covenant) for a people who are not faulty and could actually keep them?

Surely the old covenant had lawful limitations on how close you could get to God and when, but does that make it faulty, or just less than what a covenant could be? God did clearly promise great and wonderful things for keeping even the less than adequate stipulations (compared to the New Covenant) of the old covenant.

It's 'fault' seems to be in how inappropriate it is for a fallen people that can't keep it, not faulty in and of itself, for surely a perfect people could have kept it and been wonderfully blessed.

actually i disagree slightly

unless you are calvinist the law was given with the intent that it was to be followed as best as possible.

considered this, you are fat, you choose to lose weight

which of these is the most logical course of action?

not eat at all weight is shed
eat less and work out
do nothing and hope weight is shed

the middle is the best of course.

the law very much works like the for the early isrealites and then was to keep isreal straight.

moses didnt know god? david didnt speak of his mercy?or the others?

the writers of of the books seem to know. the priests spoke of his joy how is it that the a priest could speak of the JOY of the lord if he didnt know god that closely?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

actually i disagree slightly

unless you are calvinist the law was given with the intent that it was to be followed as best as possible.

considered this, you are fat, you choose to lose weight

which of these is the most logical course of action?

not eat at all weight is shed
eat less and work out
do nothing and hope weight is shed

the middle is the best of course.

the law very much works like the for the early isrealites and then was to keep isreal straight.

moses didnt know god? david didnt speak of his mercy?or the others?

the writers of of the books seem to know. the priests spoke of his joy how is it that the a priest could speak of the JOY of the lord if he didnt know god that closely?

I saw you spoke of this in another thread.

David, and others enjoyed the benefits of God that the law did not make provision for. By grace they enjoyed those benefits outside and apart from the law. David was an adulterer and a murderer. There is no provision in the law for such a person to live. Yet he did live, and was forgiven. God's grace outside of the law is what made this possible, not the law. The law demanded justice in such a case and had no provision for forgiveness and mercy for such a sinner. And the New Covenant makes the grace of God that a few people enjoyed in the old covenant, like David, openly available to all men regardless of office or status, race or nationality, or depth of sin. A grace accessed by the faith that has now been completely revealed and unveiled with the appearing of Jesus Christ, but which has existed from the beginning.


(It would be interesting to start a thread to talk about how the law legislated a person's distance from God. IOW, by law a person was restricted on when, and how, and where to approach God...or die. Not true in the New Covenant)

 

[smaller]

So you believe in the complete and total literal keeping of the old covenant?

As stated prior, most 'hearers' of the O.T. Laws and Prophets only hear them 'on the surface.'

The matters are much more interesting than what such see.

When we believe in Christ the ceremonial requirements of the law are satisfied through our faith in Christ for the forgiveness of sin. And through that same faith we uphold the law summarized in 'love your neighbor as yourself' (Gal. 5:6). No literal action is required for the ceremonial parts of the covenant (they became obsolete in regard to being literally required), while the moral requirements of the law are fulfilled through the actions of the new creation expressed in love towards others.

The Spirit of The Word of the Old Covenant is revealed in the New Covenant.

Therein and therefore there is no dichotomy, except IN those who do not understand it.

Your claim and that of most who deny the Word of God: IT IS ONLY THIS as I see it.

Such see little if anything therein with faulty imposition.

Wherein then is the fault? Uh huh. The faulty impositions of what they 'think' they see.

It is exactly these literal, ceremonial requirements that Paul is talking about here in Hebrews when he says they have become obsolete and inapplicable to a people totally and forever declared righteous in the eyes of God through Christ:

And such views are and remain fleshly, carnal and exterior views only that present such Words as external matters ONLY. They are not and can not be 'only that.'

See? If a person is made perfect by a sacrifice, they can stop offering up the repeated sacrifices of the old covenant for the sin guilt they no longer have, for they have been made perfect and no longer guilty of sin as a matter of legal record.

No longer guilty of sin? lol

Sin at your leisure. again, lol

Try a real picture of 'sin in you' sometime and you may find the TEMPTER involved therein.

You may very well be forgiven of all sin, but this does not speak to 'all' that transpires 'in you.'

There the Law steps in to reveal and condemn the tempter that also 'works' in man. Too many ignorant of this fact cover themselves FALSELY in GRACE and IGNORE they are in fact dragging the TEMPTER into the equations with them.

The Law tells a believer who the Lawless one is and where he is located. That would be 'within us all.'

Those who deny the Law do so at the behest of the lawless one who does not seek to be seen in them.

And such pour Grace over their SINS which are of THE DEVIL.

Such are an abomination to GRACE.

There will be NO MERCY given to the tempter IN MAN. None. There will be NO FORGIVENESS to the TEMPTER in man. NONE.

It will be for that working JUDGMENT WITHOUT MERCY.

and yes, 'all' are CARRIERS. Those who do not know this are blinded by that working. The Law teaches us about lawlessness.

Belief in Christ secures that declaration of perfect righteousness, therefore the old covenant procedure for dealing with sin guilt is not necessary.

You are welcome to excuse your sin in Grace however you see it. I don't see it. Sorry. Grace never became a cover up operation.

Grace teaches Honesty and DIVISION from SIN.

Does this mean the old covenant was faulty, or just inadequate? Or does it mean the people it governed were faulty?

If you had all the parties on the table you'd probably be better equipped to have a factual conversation about the matters.

Look, the TEMPTER is in up to his eyeballs IN MAN.

So anytime a conversation transpires apart from bringing that fact to the table it is bound to be the conversation of a blind man who does not even know his own situation.

When you see 'your situation' with SIN and it's relationship to the DEVIL and THE LAW you will know who the LAW is against and who it is for.

The Law remains against all sin and lawlessness in WHOMEVER it is found, period.

enjoy!

s

 

[jasoncran]

its always been grace. the law was to set apart the nation of isreal.

we are no different, imagine if christ said well its a sin free for all now. just repent once and thats it.

the law was for you to know what sin was and then for you to go to god and ask for mercy. it wasnt meant to save you.

i see that you have that missunderstood god demanded a perfect sacrifice doctrine when he didnt.

he never asked moses or the isrealites to be perfect. just to be faithful. moses said god was merciful.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

the law was for you to know what sin was and then for you to go to god and ask for mercy. it wasnt meant to save you.

What you're not understanding is there is no provision for mercy available in the law for certain sins. A person has to go outside of the law for that mercy. It was available during the old covenant. As you point out, David secured it for himself, but it surely did not come from the law! With the appearing of Christ that complete mercy for all transgressions is fully revealed for all men, everywhere.

i see that you have that missunderstood god demanded a perfect sacrifice doctrine when he didnt.

he never asked moses or the isrealites to be perfect. just to be faithful. moses said god was merciful.

I know this. It's called being 'blameless'. The problem is there really were things that the law made no provision for forgiveness for. But even during the time of the law, by grace God led people high and above the law to a love that really could forgive what the law could not forgive. That love, which has existed from eternity past, is now fully revealed to all with the appearing of Christ.

"38...my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses." (Acts 13:38-39 NIV1984)



22 But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. (Gal. 3:22-24 NIV1984)

 

[jasoncran]

of course, the law wasnt meant to do that.

but that is the point of the law.

we christians cant sin all we want . so we have to have rules that say hey that doesnt please god and then when we do that we repent.

the law points to the YHWH and i never said it didnt

but in the law mercy was obtained , it did have means of pentance and what was to be done with animals etc.

surely you see that. yes the act was done but it was aimed to a higher being that was offended.

david didnt just offer some made up sacrifice did he? he offered up some lamb for his sin.

mercy was given when that act was done.

they are had to some contrition.even the assyrians that jonah preached to did that. they sat in ash clothe and torn their clothes and did fast.

that in essence what the sacrifices were for.

forgiveness cost somebody so to speak.

for god it "cost"him his son for us to be forgiven and for us it cost our old ways.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

we christians cant sin all we want . so we have to have rules that say hey that doesnt please god and then when we do that we repent.

True enough, but not in regard to what used to be required to do to worship God in various Feasts and appointed days. It's no longer a sin to not keep the old covenant worship schedule and the associated sacrifices that we would be convicted as lawbreakers and have to repent and begin doing them when we learn about them.

And I don't think that means that first covenant of priesthood, temple, and sacrifice was faulty. But it was surely inadequate for a faulty people. Faulty people need a better covenant.

the law points to the YHWH and i never said it didnt

but in the law mercy was obtained , it did have means of pentance and what was to be done with animals etc.

surely you see that. yes the act was done but it was aimed to a higher being that was offended.

david didnt just offer some made up sacrifice did he? he offered up some lamb for his sin.

mercy was given when that act was done.

What animal sacrifice atoned for murder and adultery? The law demanded justice, not mercy for those sins. Only in Christ is mercy available for capital crimes. But I don't think that makes the old covenant faulty. Inadequate compared to the New and better Covenant, but not faulty. Do you agree?

 

[Adullam]

Is there anything faulty about an "impossible set of rules" (the old covenant) for a people who are not faulty and could actually keep them?

Surely the old covenant had lawful limitations on how close you could get to God and when, but does that make it faulty, or just less than what a covenant could be? God did clearly promise great and wonderful things for keeping even the less than adequate stipulations (compared to the New Covenant) of the old covenant.

It's 'fault' seems to be in how inappropriate it is for a fallen people that can't keep it, not faulty in and of itself, for surely a perfect people could have kept it and been wonderfully blessed.

The people were faulty because they were unwilling. God contrived a set of rules that showed the impossibility of a holiness without a direct relationship to God.

It reminds me of the sailors diet.

Day 1: one crumb. Half a button. one strand of rope. etc....


Of course no one can live on such a diet. That is just the point.