Old Covenant?

[Van]

If the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need for a second or new covenant. A better name for the "Old Covenant" might be worn out covenant, having outlived its purpose. It was a temporary covenant, not an everlasting covenant.

What are the features of our "everlasting covenant?"

God promised to never destroy the earth by flood again. See Genesis 9:8-17

In Genesis 17:7, God's everlasting covenant is to be our God, it is a promise, and the promise is to Abraham and his "seed" which includes those with a faith like Abraham. In the following verses, circumcision of the flesh is established as needed to "keep" the covenant. But that requirement was temporary, as it means nothing today.

God's everlasting covenant included the promise to provide a line of descent to "the seed" that would fulfill His promise. This line was primarily a blood line (believing Jews) but includes others not of Jewish blood. Abraham is the father of us all.

Keeping the Sabbath, also established as part of the temporary covenant means nothing today.

Part of God's everlasting covenant was made with David, he is indeed in the bloodline of Jesus through Mary.

We are to remember God's everlasting covenant, giving thanks to our God, singing His praises.

Destruction of the earth is promised as a result of its inhabitants breaking the everlasting covenant.

Now we come to the centerpiece of the Everlasting Covenant, Isaiah 53. The inhabitants of earth are to seek God while He can be found.
We are to listen to God who promises to make our dead in sins soul alive. The lost, when chosen by God will become part of a nation they did not know, a part of "all Israel." We are to be God's witnesses!

As chosen ones, we will receive the riches of the Lord, our offspring, those we helped bring into the kingdom, will be our eternal reward according to the everlasting covenant.

Another part of our everlasting covenant is eternal security, once chosen we are saved forever. See Jeremiah 32:40.

Another part is that we will be aware and ashamed of our failures to walk in accordance with Christ's commands. Thus those who think they are doing fine with their walk with Lord should be in fear of their actual salvation.

Last aspect of our everlasting covenant, God will establish His sanctuary in our midst.

 

[JonC]

I wouldn't say the Old Covenant was faulty. It pointed out man's sin - showed us who we are without Christ.

It is weird that so many Christians turn to the Old Covenant.

 

[Van]

I wouldn't say the Old Covenant was faulty. It pointed out man's sin - showed us who we are without Christ.

It is weird that so many Christians turn to the Old Covenant.

The author of Hebrews in his inspired writings said the Old Covenant was faulty. See Hebrews 8:7.

Yes, the effort to rewrite the New Covenant using Old Covenant scripture is faulty, as the New Covenant alters the Old, not the other way around. The only reason for the effort might be to rewrite God's word to conform it to man-made doctrine.

 

[JonC]

The author of Hebrews in his inspired writings said the Old Covenant was faulty. See Hebrews 8:7.

Yes, the effort to rewrite the New Covenant using Old Covenant scripture is faulty, as the New Covenant alters the Old, not the other way around. The only reason for the effort might be to rewrite God's word to conform it to man-made doctrine.

Verse 8 tells us the fault was the people (Paul tells us the same in Romans 8:3, it was weakened by the flesh).

If that us what you mean, I agree. It was faulty in that it was between God and man (man being the weak link).

 

[Charlie24]

The author of Hebrews in his inspired writings said the Old Covenant was faulty. See Hebrews 8:7.

Yes, the effort to rewrite the New Covenant using Old Covenant scripture is faulty, as the New Covenant alters the Old, not the other way around. The only reason for the effort might be to rewrite God's word to conform it to man-made doctrine.

The fault of the Old Covenant was on man's part, the demands of God were based on the performance of man.

A famous preacher once said that was all that could be done until the atonement.

 

[Van]

Verse 8 tells us the fault was the people (Paul tells us the same in Romans 8:3, it was weakened by the flesh).

If that us what you mean, I agree. It was faulty in that it was between God and man (man being the weak link).

For if that first covenant had been free of fault, no circumstances would have been sought for a second.

Christ is the mediator of a "better" covenant. To be better means the second had fewer if any flaws.

No, I did not mean the fault was in adherence by sinners, as that charge can be leveled against the New Covenant.

 

[th1bill]

Van, I'm sorry you are confused but as already pointed out the "Old Covenant" is perfect but as illustrated by the need for grace, people are not. If we were able to live without breaking God's Covenant, we would remain in the Garden and not eating of the tree in the middle of it.

 

[Van]

The fault of the Old Covenant was on man's part, the demands of God were based on the performance of man.

A famous preacher once said that was all that could be done until the atonement.

I think you are claiming God's first covenant could not be faulty because God is perfect. This is claiming an attribute of God prevents a verse from meaning what it says. I disagree.

The first covenant provided as temporary covering for sin, the second or New covenant provided everlasting removal of the consequence of sin.

The road to success is paved with partial victories, the first covenant provided the stepping stone to the second covenant. God uses "broken reeds" to accomplish His perfect purpose.

 

[Charlie24]

I think you are claiming God's first covenant could not be faulty because God is perfect. This is claiming an attribute of God prevents a verse from meaning what it says. I disagree.

The first covenant provided as temporary covering for sin, the second or New covenant provided everlasting removal of the consequence of sin.

The road to success is paved with partial victories, the first covenant provided the stepping stone to the second covenant. God uses "broken reeds" to accomplish His perfect purpose.

I'm not going to comment on this, some things are best left alone.

 

[Ascetic X]

Van, I'm sorry you are confused but as already pointed out the "Old Covenant" is perfect but as illustrated by the need for grace, people are not. If we were able to live without breaking God's Covenant, we would remain in the Garden and not eating of the tree in the middle of it.

The old covenant was faulty, though I think that means faulty in results, due to human imperfection.

The "fault" mentioned here is not with the covenant itself, as it was divinely instituted, but with the inability of the people to uphold it due to their sinful nature.

This highlights the limitations of the Law in bringing about true righteousness and points to the need for a more effective means of reconciliation with God. The Apostle Paul echoes this sentiment in Romans 8:3, where he discusses the Law's inability to fully address sin.

The First Covenant was unable to cleanse the conscience of the worshiper fully. Hebrews 9:9 notes, "This is an illustration for the present time, because the gifts and sacrifices being offered were unable to cleanse the conscience of the worshiper."

The sacrificial system under the First Covenant required continual offerings for sin, which were not able to provide a permanent solution. Hebrews 10:1-4 explains, "The law is only a shadow of the good things to come, not the realities themselves. It can never, by the same sacrifices offered year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship."

The First Covenant focused on external adherence to laws and rituals, which could not transform the inner person. Hebrews 9:10 describes these as "external regulations applying until the time of the new order."

The first covenant also was conditional upon the obedience of the Israelites and was primarily national in scope, applying specifically to the people of Israel. God’s ultimate desire was to save the entire world, which became possible with Christ on the cross and risen from the dead,

Hebrews 8:7,8,9

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

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; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

 

[JonC]

No, I did not mean the fault was in adherence by sinners, as that charge can be leveled against the New Covenant.

Then you may have made a mistake that could have been prevented by reading verse 8 instead of stopping at 7.

But that depends on what you mean. A covenant is between more than one party. Under the Old Covenant we could not be righteous. But that is because if our part in the covenant.

Heb 8:7-13. For if that first covenant had been free of fault, no circumstances would have been sought for a second. For in finding fault with the people, He says,

“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
When I will bring about a new covenant
With the house of Israel and the house of Judah, Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers...For they did not continue in My covenant, and I did not care about them, says the Lord.

Rom 8:3-4 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Rom 7:12-13 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? Far from it! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by bringing about my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.

 

[Van]

I am sorry folks, but several have claimed my view is in error, but have not addressed why the second covenant was better than the first, as both were made with sinners. They have not explained why "if the first covenant had lacked nothing, there would be no need for a second.

I have explained my interpretation, and have been met with, you did not read or "the first covenant is perfect" or the fault was due to human imperfection. Well the second was made with those of human imperfection.

 

[Charlie24]

I am sorry folks, but several have claimed my view is in error, but have not addressed why the second covenant was better than the first, as both were made with sinners. They have not explained why "if the first covenant had lacked nothing, there would be no need for a second.

I have explained my interpretation, and have been met with, you did not read or "the first covenant is perfect" or the fault was due to human imperfection. Well the second was made with those of human imperfection.

I think it's simple why there was fault with the Old, "the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin." It pointed to the One who could and would.

But as I mentioned before, that was all that could be done until the atonement that ushered in the New.

 

[Van]

I think it's simple why there was fault with the Old, "the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin." It pointed to the One who could and would.

But as I mentioned before, that was all that could be done until the atonement that ushered in the New.

The first covenant was lacking in that it did not provide everlasting forgiveness of sins, provided by the blood of Jesus. This is not the fault of the people, it is finding that the first covenant did not make the people perfect, for they not made blameless by the first covenant. In fact, no flesh was justified by the Law.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the fault found with the people was their imperfection due to the "fault" in the first covenant!

 

[percho]

The first was made with man in the first man Adam the second is made with man in the last Adam, the second man the resurrected Christ, the Lord from heaven.

for since through man is the death, also through man is a rising again of the dead, for even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive, and each in his proper order, a first-fruit Christ, afterwards those who are the Christ's, in his presence,

there doth remain, then, a sabbatic rest [a Sabbath] to the people of God,

How can there remain one if there is not one?

IMHO the sabbath will also be a part of the new covenant which spiritual man by nature will obey.

but that which is spiritual is not first, but that which was natural, afterwards that which is spiritual.

 

[Charlie24]

The first covenant was lacking in that it did not provide everlasting forgiveness of sins, provided by the blood of Jesus. This is not the fault of the people, it is finding that the first covenant did not make the people perfect, for they not made blameless by the first covenant. In fact, no flesh was justified by the Law.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the fault found with the people was their imperfection due to the "fault" in the first covenant!

That's true, Van, but it was the fault of man that placed him in that position.

 

[JonC]

I am sorry folks, but several have claimed my view is in error, but have not addressed why the second covenant was better than the first, as both were made with sinners.

The second was better than the first. The first did not provide a way to be righteous (it only reflected ones identity). The Second is transformative and based on Christ as the reconciliation of God and man.

I am not saying you are wrong. The first covenant was flawed by definition based on the members of the covenant. If we look at Christ, I think the Old Covenant woukd testify to His righteousness.

 

[Van]

The first was made with man in the first man Adam the second is made with man in the last Adam, the second man the resurrected Christ, the Lord from heaven.
for since through man is the death, also through man is a rising again of the dead, for even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive, and each in his proper order, a first-fruit Christ, afterwards those who are the Christ's, in his presence,
there doth remain, then, a sabbatic rest [a Sabbath] to the people of God,
How can there remain one if there is not one?
IMHO the sabbath will also be a part of the new covenant which spiritual man by nature will obey.

Every born anew believer has, past tense, entered His rest, and thus is continually "keeping the Sabbath."

 

[Van]

That's true, Van, but it was the fault of man that placed him in that position.

No, the fault in the first covenant was that it did not make those covered perfect. That is why we now have the Everlasting New Covenant providing eternal security.

 

[Van]

The second was better than the first. The first did not provide a way to be righteous (it only reflected ones identity). The Second is transformative and based on Christ as the reconciliation of God and man.

I am not saying you are wrong. The first covenant was flawed by definition based on the members of the covenant. If we look at Christ, I think the Old Covenant woukd testify to His righteousness.

The first covenant was NOT flawed based on the members, those taken to Abraham's bosom. Everyone of them was subsequently taken to heaven. The flaw was the first covenant did not make the flawed members perfect, but the second one did.