[blue]Amen, the people broke that covenant, not God.[/COLOR]
Yet Hebrews 8:6-7 lays the blame for the recipient's failure to abide by them directly onto the covenant itself:
6: But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a
better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7:
For if that first had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
[[FON=Comic Sans MS]Notice what that verse does NOT say. It does NOT say not according to the LAW that was in the Old Covenant
.just not according to the covenant I made with their fathers
.. [/FONT]
That is correct. The new covenant was not "according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt", a reference to the
covenant made at Sinai.
What was that covenant?
Exodus 34:27-28
27: And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
28: And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And
He wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Deuteronomy 4:13
And he declared unto you
His covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even
ten commandments; and he wrote them upon
two tables of stone.
THE covenant is answered above.
[Why are you so determined that God's will for His people was so completely different then than it is for His people now? Was God pleased that Cain murdered Abel? Nothing was written on stone then, Victor, but it was still against Gods will for His people to murder each other!
Relevence?
Ecc 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
Relevence?
What happened in the Old Covenant when someone didnt keep the commandments? What did they have to do then that we do not have to do now? They had to sacrifice animals for atonement
shed innocent blood for their sins. Death.
Perhaps you're not familiar with the legal concept behind the propitiation mentioned in Romans 3:25, the
hilasterion common with the mercyseat mentioned in Hebrews 9:5.
But, this still has no relevence.
Ministry of death
.you betcha. The people themselves didnt have to die, but something sure did, amen? Blood was necessary for atonement.
Sin is the transgression of the lawatonement means to cover over, pacify, propitiate. As long as there is sin, there will always be law.
False. Propitiation is the satisfaction of the law's penalty.
The law has no provision for double-jeopardy, which is how it loses its jurisdiction over the redeemed from the law.
1 John 4:2 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Christ gave the ultimate sacrifice of His life to cover our sins, but did that take away what sin IS? Did it take away what one must transgress in order to BE a sinner?
The new covenant is built on better promises....who broke the first promises, God? Or was it His people? We already know that answer, right?
Exo 24:3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said willwedo.
It was a commanded covenant, but they promised theyd keep it. They didnt. THEYbroke their promise(s), God did not.
There isn't any relevence in what I read here.
Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Agreed. It doesn't not qualify the law, addressing all of the law given by Moses.
We cannot achieve righteousness by keeping the law anymore (not that they ever could then either) and we dont have to shed blood when we transgress anymore either. Christ is our righteousness and He is our remission of sins.
But in order to be cleansed of unrighteousness, what are we told to do?? Confess our sins!
By golly, Im thinking we should know what sins were transgressing if all we have to do is ask for forgiveness in order to be righteous.
Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Sin IS the transgression of the law, so there was already LAW when more laws were ADDED. The laws that were added were for sacrifices and atonement for sins
..hello.
Still no relevence.
So of course the New Covenant is not according to the Covenant before it, in that we do not have to sacrifice animals when we sin! Its still the same law though Victor, the consequence of breaking it is what changed. Jesus paid our debt.
If the new covenant dismisses the old covenant, how is it that you're trying to import the old covenant back into the new?
After just quoting Romans 10:4 dismissing the entire law, how is it that you're retaining the abolished in the new covenant based on promises made to Abraham, and not the law mediated by Moses?
Here is the simple disposition of the forst covenant, the ten commandments, summarized in one small verse:
Hebrews 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.
He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
However, if you think Him dying on the cross, the perfect unblemished Lamb being nailed to a cross and dying there, means we can murder, lie, cheat, steal, covet, etc
.you are sorely mistaken and Im pretty sure you have to know that. My guess is that you are in full agreement that Christians should keep 9 of the commandments and that your only beef is with one of them, am I right?
Did you think this was the first time this line of reasoning has been used? Nay, take a look at Romans 3:7-9:
7: For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
8: And not rather, (
as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,)
Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
9: What then?
are we better than they? No, in no wise: for
we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin...
Add to this the many posts that Patti and I have both presented to you, showing you that you do
not keep the sabbath
holy, which is the wording of the actual commandment in Exodus 20:8.
Christs blood is the New Covenant. Do you agree?
I would qualify that as Christ's Blood
mediated the new covenant. I argue that it is actually the Spirit of adoption.
You act like the Old Covenant was an ugly thing
but it wasnt at all. David LOVED the Lords law and called it perfect.
David loved the law so much he looked forward to his
Redeemer to redeem him from it, in Psalm 19:14.
Luke 1:71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; 72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember His holy covenant; 73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, 74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, 75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.
I remind you that Abraham preceeded the law by 430 years, and it is by the promise made to him that our salvation is based - not the law mediated by Moses.
Did what was IN the covenant change? Did Gods will seriously change so drastically that now we can do any of the things we were commanded NOT to do and its now okay? I know you dont really believe that.
[/quote]
We? Who is "we"?
I have told you more than once I am a Gentile, who has never received the covenant mediated by Moses.
What tribe do you hail from, anyway?
[
GODS promises couldnt get any better than they were the first time! Perfect cannot get better.
Was Gods law faulty in the first covenant, or were the people faulty? Seriously Victor, the way you present these verses is almost like youre saying that God wasnt perfect from the beginning. He has ALWAYS been perfect, He IS righteousness!
You're confusing the
Creator with the
created. You don't seem to be aware that Jesus mediated as our High Priest after an order disallowed under Moses
after the termination of the law according to Hebrews 7:28.
Look at what happened In Exodus 16 when God told the children of Jacob (Israel) not come outside looking for manna on the seventh day! Sure enough
there goes a bunch of little Victors (haha) out there to gather it on the seventh day anyway.
It was the first time Israel ever had a sabbath, and it took them a couple of trys to understand the new concept
Was His command NOT to gather it on the seventh day, faulty? Was His promise to supply twice as much manna on the sixth day, faulty? OR were the PEOPLE faulty?
I wonder sometimes if you're reading my post when you posted this. Hardly anything has relevence to the points I made.
Victor
