The weakness of the "First Covenant".

[praise_yeshua]

Rom 8:3 For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,

Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 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:
Heb 8:9 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.

Jer 18:4 And the vessel which he was making with his hands fell: so he made it again another vessel, as it seemed good to him to make it.

It is rather obvious that the weakness of the "First Covenant" is found in the weakness of the "clay".

If you read Jeremiah 18:4.... and pay attention to the words chosen. You will notice that there is no mention of the clay in the "new vessel". The clay fell.

The "new" covenant isn't established in the clay. It is more than clay can support. It is a "new creation".

Yet, we still have this "treasure in clay/earthen vessels" for a reason....

2Co 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

 

[JoshebB]

Rom 8:3 For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,

Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 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:
Heb 8:9 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.

Jer 18:4 And the vessel which he was making with his hands fell: so he made it again another vessel, as it seemed good to him to make it.

It is rather obvious that the weakness of the "First Covenant" is found in the weakness of the "clay".

If you read Jeremiah 18:4.... and pay attention to the words chosen. You will notice that there is no mention of the clay in the "new vessel". The clay fell.

The "new" covenant isn't established in the clay. It is more than clay can support. It is a "new creation".

Yet, we still have this "treasure in clay/earthen vessels" for a reason....

2Co 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

What do you think it means for the Law to be "weakened through the flesh"?

 

[praise_yeshua]

What do you think it means for the Law to be "weakened through the flesh"?

There are more than one aspect of "keeping the law" but I start with....

The flesh is incapable of endlessly keeping the "Law".

Regardless of how you establish any law. Man is incapable of endlessly keeping the law. That is why any law exists. It is the very reason for the law itself.

Adam is proof of this. He wasn't impeccable. Adam was taken from dust. He was weak.

 

[David Koberstein]

The Law or Torah is a bench mark that nobody will keep because of sin (hamartia) which is the Greek word for sin and it means "missing the mark"
Shalom

 

[JoshebB]

There are more than one aspect of "keeping the law" but I start with....

The flesh is incapable of endlessly keeping the "Law".

I completely agree. The (sinful) flesh is incapable of endlessly keeping the "Law" (the Law of Moses). That fact is one of the reasons the Law was provided in the first place.

What does that have to do with the weakness of the first covenant? Perhaps you would specifically identify the "first" covenant. Would that be the covenant of Christ first alluded to in Genesis 1-3? Would that be the implied covenant of Genesis 1:28 and 2:16-17? Would that be the covenant spoken to Noah? Or would that be the covenant with Abraham first initiated in Genesis 12 (but not labeled as such until chapter 15). Or perhaps, since we're taking about the Law, the covenant spoken of in Exodus 24 after the Law had been given at Sinai?

Which one is the "first covenant" a reference?

Regardless of how you establish any law. Man is incapable of endlessly keeping the law. That is why any law exists. It is the very reason for the law itself.

Well, according to scripture, there is more than one reason for God giving the Law. Yes? Would you like me to list them? I agree with your basic premises: the Law was given to show it could not be adhered to perfectly and sinful flesh is unable to do so.

Adam is proof of this. He wasn't impeccable. Adam was taken from dust. He was weak.

Adam did not have the Law. Adam had only two commands to obey: Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 2:17 and he disobeyed both of those commands. In point of fact, had he obeyed God's directive to rule then he never would have disobeyed the command not to eat. Adam did not obey two rules. Those two rules can be boiled down into a single principle: Do not disobey me or you will die. I, personally, believe that is what Paul is referring to when he makes mention of the "law of sin and death." If you sin, then you die. Christ sets us free from that law. Both the Decalogue and the Law of Moses (with its many ordinances) are simply a detailed expansion of the law of sin and death and the two commands Adam was given.

As to Adam's impeccability, I agree but wonder how that is relevant since the Law had not yet been given. I also wonder who it is that asserts Adam as impeccable. 1 Corinthians 15 makes it clear that we (humans) are "sown corruptible." That cannot be interpreted as a reference to the grave because by the time anyone is buried in the grave, they are corrupted, not merely corruptible. The corruptibility has been realized. Some will beg to differ because some translations say "perishable," but the perishability is juxtaposed against mortality. If the two words meant the same then the text would be unnecessarily redundant. The Greek is a reference to rot or decay. We were sown into creation corruptible, rottable, decayable; not already rotten, decayed, or corrupted.

Adam was not impeccable.

Jesus is impeccable, but not Adam. Adam was good, unashamed, and sinless, but he was also corruptible. He was able to sin. But..... I again wonder how Adam is relevant to the weakness of the first covenant. Neither am I certain how Adam's being taken from the dust of the earth automatically makes him weak. You and I were taken from the dust, but we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us.

So let me summarize:

• Sinful flesh cannot keep the Law.
• The Law was provided to prove that fact (but it also serves other purposes).
• The first covenant has yet to be identified, so to which covenant are you referring as the "first" one?
• Adam was not impeccable, but neither did Adam have the Law.
• A dustily origin proves irrelevant in Christ.

.

 

[praise_yeshua]

What does that have to do with the weakness of the first covenant? Perhaps you would specifically identify the "first" covenant. Would that be the covenant of Christ first alluded to in Genesis 1-3? Would that be the implied covenant of Genesis 1:28 and 2:16-17? Would that be the covenant spoken to Noah? Or would that be the covenant with Abraham first initiated in Genesis 12 (but not labeled as such until chapter 15). Or perhaps, since we're taking about the Law, the covenant spoken of in Exodus 24 after the Law had been given at Sinai?

I copied the words from the Scriptures. Those words identify my reference. Assume I can read.

Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 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:
Heb 8:9 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.

This is the second time you're made an argument to me that was already answered previously.

Well, according to scripture, there is more than one reason for God giving the Law. Yes? Would you like me to list them? I agree with your basic premises: the Law was given to show it could not be adhered to perfectly and sinful flesh is unable to do so.

No. I already know them. I don't need you to teach me anything. This is a debate. You're not my teacher. Please try to embarrass me. You have my permission to try. I prefer to be humiliated. I believe most people need to be humiliated before they will change.

Adam did not have the Law. Adam had only to commands to obey: Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 2:17 and he disobeyed both of those commands. In point of fact, had he obeyed God's directive to rule then he never would have disobeyed the command not to eat. Adam did not obey two rules. Those two rules can be boiled down into a single principle: Do not disobey me or you will die. I, personally, believe that is what Paul is referring to when he makes mention of the "law of sin and death." If you sin, then you die. Christ sets us free from that law. Both the Decalogue and the Law of Moses (with its many ordinances) are simply a detailed expansion of the law of sin and death and the two commands Adam was given.

You don't know what Adam had. The narrative that God gave to Moses to give to Israel at Mount Sinai, is exactly what I referenced. It is why the "first covenant" is referenced as the "first covenant". It was "FIRST" to them.

Now as far as ADAM is concerned......

Adam and HIS immediate descendants are dealt with in the first chapter of Romans.

Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Adam knew much more about God than those at Sinai. It is where Paul begins his letter to the Gentiles at Rome. It is the basis of his argument about the Gentiles having a law "unto themselves".

As to Adam's impeccability, I agree but wonder how that is relevant since the Law had not yet been given. I also wonder who it is that asserts Adam as impeccable. 1 Corinthians 15 makes it clear that we (humans) are "sown corruptible." That cannot be interpreted as a reference to the grave because by the time anyone is buried in the grave, they are corrupted, not merely corruptible. The corruptibility has been realized. Some will beg to differ because some translations say "perishable," but the perishability is juxtaposed against mortality. If the two words meant the same then the text would be unnecessarily redundant. The Greek is a reference to rot or decay. We were sown into creation corruptible, rottable, decayable; not already rotten, decayed, or corrupted.

Adam was not impeccable.

Adam already had commands from God. I'm rather certain you're a Covenant Theologian. Don't act like a Dispensationalist. I know you're just considering what I've said here but be open minded. Covenant Theology is wrong. Protestants.... ( I've been one myself).

Jesus is impeccable, but not Adam. Adam was good, unashamed, and sinless, but he was also corruptible. He was able to sin. But..... I again wonder how Adam is relevant to the weakness of the first covenant. Neither am I certain how Adam's being taken from the dust of the earth automatically makes him weak. You and I were taken from the dust, but we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us..

We have something Adam didn't have when HE was created. Christ in us. However, even then, you're not doing all things in Christ. I'm not either.

That is a declaration of faith. We in "faith" embrace the ability to do all things in Christ. It is a goal. Not a realty. We are weak through the flesh. We are not what we SHALL be.

If we were already what we shall be.... then we would have no need of change.

So let me summarize:

• Sinful flesh cannot keep the Law.
• The Law was provided to prove that fact (but it also serves other purposes).
• The first covenant has yet to be identified, so to which covenant are you referring as the "first" one?
• Adam was not impeccable, but neither did Adam have the Law.
• A dustily origin proves irrelevant in Christ.

What I just told you is new to you. Think about it. Mediate on it. I'm not your teacher but realize that I've been with God on this..... Accept it or not. Please continue.

You're smart enough to ask the right questions. I'll give you that. Like I said, you don't need me. You are much like me. I tend not to take correction well. I tend (because of my experience) to not to be surprised very often. You're confident. Over confident.

God's mercy is for all those made from DUST.....

Psa 103:14 For he knows our frame: remember that we are dust.
Gen 18:27 Abraham answered and said, “Behold, I have undertaken to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes.

Adam was never what God intended him to be until Christ.

Adam was a "work in progress". Christ was ordained before the foundation of the world. The purpose of humanity is to be in the image of God in Christ.

I have much more to say about this. You're capable of having this discussion. Please continue.

 

[JoshebB]

This is the second time you're made an argument to me that was already answered previously.

Bye.


When you prove capable of stating what you intend without need to harp about your suspiciousness then I will reconsider.

• State your purpose.
• State your position.
• State your intent so everyone knows how to proceed.
• Stop thinking you've answered questions when you have not.

You and I get into dispute because you do not do those four things. You've got a lot in your head, but it does not come out of your keyboard in a very articulate manner. It try to HELP you but the effort is not recognized or received with the goodwill intended and you get your panties all bunched up because you cannot do those four bullet points and refuse to collaborate when anyone asks you to do so.

How can anyone possibly discuss the weakness of the first covenant without first identifying that first covenant?

No, I already know them.

Then do not post foolish incorrect statements like, "It is the very reason for the law itself," because that is not THE very reason for the Law.

I don't need you to teach me anything.

Apparently, you do.

This is a debate.

No, it's train wreck.

The train wreck begins because you've come into a discussion board with a self-professed intent to debate, not discuss. The wreck becomes a disorganized pile up because you quoted scripture without salient commentary. My seven-year-old can copy and paste scripture into a discussion board. The pile up becomes worse because you haven't stated a thesis, nor specified a particular point of commentary or inquiry intended for discussion and when anyone asks defensiveness and attack ensue.

If you read Jeremiah 18:4.... and pay attention to the words chosen. You will notice that there is no mention of the clay in the "new vessel". The clay fell. The "new" covenant isn't established in the clay. It is more than clay can support. It is a "new creation". Yet, we still have this "treasure in clay/earthen vessels" for a reason....

So what?


There's a pile of stuff wrong with that portion of the op but you lack any ability to face your own errors. For example, the fact there is no mention of the clay in the new vessel does not mean there is no clay. Logically speaking, that's called an argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio). There's no mention in the Jeremiah text of any air, water, or Spirit in the vessel, either, but the vessel holds something. There's no mention of purple polka-dotted elephebras in the Jeremiah text, either, but that does not mean such a position has any validity in logical discourse. What the Jeremiah text does not mention is endless. What the Jeremiah text does not mention is endless.

You cannot build a logical debate on fallacy. No one can! You look dumb when you do that, and you are not dumb. You look foolish when you refuse well-meaning guidance. The reason you don't like trading posts with me is because I reveal the places needing improvement and you do not like that. Rather than treating those occasions as opportunities to refine and improve your position(s), you get defensive and rancorous.

You are going to have to prove the selective use of Romans 8:3, Hebrews 8:7-9, Jeremiah 18:4, and 2 Corinthians 4:7 is valid and you are going to have to prove the specific compilation or intersection you are asserting with these four texts are valid if you're going to prove your position correct. and only 7 posts into this "debate" and you've got your panties all bunched up. Fix your panties and put on your big boy pants because the op shows the intellectual prowess of a seven-year-old and you are better than that. I expect your next post will be more of the same so this will probably be my last post in this thread. But, if you fix your attitude and answer the specific questions I have asked and address the specific comments I have made op-relevantly, then I'll reconsider. I expect you post another defensive rancorous post, but I hope you won't.

• What do you think the author of Hebrews means when he says "first covenant"?
• Why have you chosen to couple Hebrews 8:7-9 with Romans 8:3 when the Romans verse makes no mention of any covenant?
• Why have you chosen to couple Hebrews 8:7-9 with Romans 8:3 when the Hebrews text makes no mention any flesh?
• Why have you chosen Jeremiah 18:4 as some sort of intersection between Romans 8:3 and Hebrews 8:7-9 when the Jeremiah verse makes no mention of flesh or covenant and the other two texts do not mention any vessel?

These are just a few of the many, many question anyone might. This op is a mess. It's a copy-and-paste hodgepodge of randomly selected verses, all of which were removed from their original contexts. The op leaves out critically important passages about the flesh, vessels, the covenant including the specific OT references from which Paul and the author of Hebrews were making their appeals.

What I just told you is new to you.

Nothing you ever post is new to me. It is because you think you have something new to post that you get yourself into trouble and prove incapable of having a courteous, focused, topical discussion.

I have much more to say about this. You're capable of having this discussion. Please continue.

if you do not have the tolerance to answer questions succinctly when asked, comment op-relevantly on valid points made, and receive affirmation where offered, correction where needed, and stay on topic throughout without getting defensive then do not expect others to treat your ops with respect. It will not matter what more you have to say. You will never prove to anyone you know something they do not until you're able to do so.

I'm going to give you the opportunity to IGNORE this post and start this discussion over. In the next post I will again summarize the salient op-relevant points of comment and inquiry that have arisen thus far, and I hope you will answer the questions asked without getting defensive or posting a single word about either of us. I hope you will address the op-relevant points op-relevantly in the same manner.

 

[JoshebB]

Here's the do over:

I completely agree with the op regarding the Law being given to show human inability to keep the Law. I also agree Adam was not impeccable, and I agree we, the regenerate Christians, have something Adam lacked: Jesus. However, it is worth noting Jesus was available to Adam had he only partaken from the fruit of the tree of life that was in the garden. These are the places where we have agreement and you, therefore, should feel affirmed and be able to build on that consensus.

There remain several matters that need clarification. Among them are...

• The weakness of the Law lays in the fact even uniform obedience is insufficient to obtain salvation because salvation is by grace, not works.
• The Law was provided to prove that fact (but it also serves other purposes).
• The first covenant has yet to be identified, so to which covenant are you referring as the "first" one?
• Adam was not impeccable, but neither did Adam have the Law.
• A dusty origin proves irrelevant in Christ.
• What do you think the author of Hebrews means when he says "first covenant"?
• Why was Hebrews 8:7-9 coupled with Romans 8:3 when the Romans verse makes no mention of any covenant?
• Why was Hebrews 8:7-9 coupled with Romans 8:3 when the Hebrews text makes no mention any flesh?
• Why was Jeremiah 18:4 asserted as some sort of intersection between Romans 8:3 and Hebrews 8:7-9 when the Jeremiah verse makes no mention of flesh or covenant, and the other two texts do not mention any vessel?

Try really hard to address those bullet points op-relevantly without ever mention any poster at all.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Bye.

When this ever going to be true??????

When you prove capable of stating what you intend without need to harp about your suspiciousness then I will reconsider.

You always fail to realize that you're not controlling my responses with your debate tactics. We'll let God settle it one day. Till then..... I'll give you some well deserved fatalism....

"It is what it is".......

• State your purpose.
• State your position.
• State your intent so everyone knows how to proceed.
• Stop thinking you've answered questions when you have not.

Like you did in all those other threads you've started? Physician. Heal thyself.

It always "do what I say. Not what I do" with you. I can tolerate it to a point. I've tolerated it well recently. You're the issue here.

The train wreck begins because you've come into a discussion board with a self-professed intent to debate, not discuss. The wreck becomes a disorganized pile up because you quoted scripture without salient commentary. My seven-year-old can copy and paste scripture into a discussion board. The pile up becomes worse because you haven't stated a thesis, nor specified a particular point of commentary or inquiry intended for discussion and when anyone asks defensiveness and attack ensue.

So what?

I think I will chime in every thread and post this list back to you......

There's a pile of stuff wrong with that portion of the op but you lack any ability to face your own errors. For example, the fact there is no mention of the clay in the new vessel does not mean there is no clay. Logically speaking, that's called an argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio). There's no mention in the Jeremiah text of any air, water, or Spirit in the vessel, either, but the vessel holds something. There's no mention of purple polka-dotted elephebras in the Jeremiah text, either, but that does not mean such a position has any validity in logical discourse. What the Jeremiah text does not mention is endless. What the Jeremiah text does not mention is endless.

I never said there was. I said the mercy of God is relative to the fact we are but dust. I made that argument. So now that this is a DEBATE.... as you see it. Then lets go.....

YOU are dust. YOU will die even though God has marvelously saved you. You will SUFFER the judgement of sin in your own life. You are weak because of what you came from. God didn't make Adam exactly like Him in creation. It was a work in progress. God sure will make Adam like Himself. Oh what a glorious day.

You cannot build a logical debate on fallacy. No one can! You look dumb when you do that, and you are not dumb. You look foolish when you refuse well-meaning guidance. The reason you don't like trading posts with me is because I reveal the places needing improvement and you do not like that. Rather than treating those occasions as opportunities to refine and improve your position(s), you get defensive and rancorous.

I actually enjoy debating you. It just never goes anywhere. Now. That doesn't have to happen. I treat you the same way you treat me and then YOU blow up. I can NEVER do a thread to please you..... even when you do the same things I do myself.

I was right at this point 30 years ago that I am today with debate. You don't realize what you're doing when it comes to how you criticize others when you're just as guilt yourself. I want to have a conversation. I'm not writing a thesis statement because they go NOWHERE. Most people, like yourself, are too fond of their own methods. You believe you are superior to others when it comes to "debating". You always have. At least since I've meet you. I said we have things in common. We do. This is one of them. This is WHY... YOU.... have done the exact same things in this very forum.

Like I said. Humble me. Prove me wrong. Stop going about this "improper form" when you do it yourself.

You are going to have to prove the selective use of Romans 8:3, Hebrews 8:7-9, Jeremiah 18:4, and 2 Corinthians 4:7 is valid and you are going to have to prove the specific compilation or intersection you are asserting with these four texts are valid if you're going to prove your position correct. and only 7 posts into this "debate" and you've got your panties all bunched up. Fix your panties and put on your big boy pants because the op shows the intellectual prowess of a seven-year-old and you are better than that. I expect your next post will be more of the same so this will probably be my last post in this thread. But, if you fix your attitude and answer the specific questions I have asked and address the specific comments I have made op-relevantly, then I'll reconsider. I expect you post another defensive rancorous post, but I hope you won't.

You made me laugh there...... I'm serious. You made me laugh. "Panties".....

We know the Scriptures. You know them. Stop this floundering..... If you want to have a video debate, I will offer it. If you don't want to do it publicly. Then PM me. I will take the time. It might be a few days but I'll try to get it in....

I am going to ignore the remainder of your post for now. PM me.

Thanks