Right there it says plain and simple. The first covenant was FAULTY.
Faulty= defective, erroneous, incorrect, mistaken, fallacious, untrue, FALSE
Not my words, but theirs.
The Levites were given no portion or inheritance because they were disobedient and had been cursed as a result.
As Hebrews 5:6 says “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”
Hebrews 7:11 Therefore if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood, what further need was there that another priest should arise according to the order of Melchizedek and not be called according to the order of Aaron?"
SO… you give no place to this FIRST FAULTY and FALSE covenant… and yet of this FIRST covenant you have elsewhere said…
This above is what you point to Heb 8 and claim it to be FALSE…you cancel out your own argument. Said “fault” was actually found to be in the adherents thereof by their unfaithfulness to keeping the covenant…
Heb 8:8Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—
Davo, you’re the one who brought up Hebrews 8 to make your claim, and it says the first COVENANT , meaning the covenant itself was faulty. Then you point out covenants-plural-and I agree that there was more than one covenant. The first was not the Levitical law as the writer suggests. From what I understand, symbolically, Jesus was the first and the last.
As I mentioned before, God does not change His covenant or Laws just because people are unfaithful and fail to follow. One plus one= two. If you can’t add right then you’ll fail the math course.
No… you are just messing with words because your position is left flatfooted by the Heb 8 text, i.e., the first covenant was replaced…
BECAUSE God found fault with the adherents to whom it was given… Israel, and
as Paul says… it served ONLY as a guardian to Israel UNTIL that which of faith came in Christ (Gal 3:12a, 23-25).
Heb 9:15And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Heb 8:9-10, 13 proves that the writer of Hebrews had the Mosaic covenant in view when he refers to it as the FIRST covenant, WHICH Jesus replaced in the NEW covenant… — that your position has a need to deny these texts is becoming somewhat… “meh”
No. I’m not messing with words as you claim.
Hebrews 8:1 states "For if the first covenant had been faultless, then there would have been no need for a second.
Just as it says, the covenant was false, and by simple logic, those that adhere to a false covenant would be faulty as well.
The followers of a false covenant - both faulty
The followers of a true covenant - both true.
If you do not adhere to a true covenant, the truth does not change.
Isaiah 55:3 “Incline your ear and come to Me. Listen so that your soul may live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, the sure mercies of David.”
God does not give false covenants.
The writer was talking about the Levitical law/ priesthood. (Hebrews 7:11)
According to the author, there were only two covenants.
The first- the Levitical law- which he says is faulty.
The second- the “new” covenant
Obviously, something is wrong with this statement. He says nothing about the EVERLASTING covenant, which was prior to the Levitical law, given to Abraham, established under the order of Melchizedek, who was “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God and remains a priest continually.”
As Hebrews 7:15 says, Jesus was in the “LIKENESS OF MELCHIZEDEK”.
I recently talked here about the Mosaic covenant being misguided.
But would you not agree that the New Covenant ratified in Christ’s blood goes further than the Abrahamic Covenant, since now the Holy Spirit comes inside the blood-washed believer to reside permanently?
(Or, do you think the New Covenant in Christ’s blood was only to get us back under the Abrahamic, as possibly indicated here:
Heb 9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first [Mosaic aberration] covenant.)
So at the end of the day in desperation, like some other members here, you simply jettison great swathes of text deriding them as either “wrong” or “aberrant” or “misguided”, or some other pejorative slight and sleight just to protect your own dogma.
The Levitical priesthood and law ALL came under the auspices of Old Covenant, aka the Mosaic or FIRST COVENANT — that covenant WAS replaced, NOT because it was in or of itself false, BUT BECAUSE God found fault (not false as you wrongly claim) with His people who could not faithfully adhere to it — THAT is what Heb 8:7-8 ACTUALLY says!
The BETTER covenant aka the NEW covenant are one and the SAME as testified by Heb 8:6; 9:15.
It STILL comes back to your original ERRANT and FALSE claim that… “There was no change in covenants.” Again read and weep…
Heb 7:12For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is alsoa change of the law.
Thus your constant claim that… “God does not change His covenant or Laws just because people are unfaithful and fail to follow” proves to be FAKE NEWS!! You can’t even HONESTLY quote Heb 7:11 without deliberately deleting the central portion thereof that likewise demonstrates more error in your position…
Heb 7:11Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?
Heb 8:6But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
Through the Levitical Priesthood the people received / obtained the Law, i.e., were taught, instructed and enjoined in His ways… ‘statutes, judgments and commandments’ for THEM.
The Mosaic Law / Covenant was THE CODIFICATION (for God’s people in transit into the land of promise) and reaffirmation of the Abrahamic covenant — to guide them safely to fruition; just reading Lev 26:1-3, 9, 40-46et al confirms this — referencing BOTH Abraham AND Moses together in the one Law / Covenant / Promise context.
Hermano, Yes, I believe the “new” covenant = the Abrahamic covenant. They were one and the same, Father (Abraham), Son ( Jesus) and Holy Spirit. From all indications it goes as follows
First covenant=new covenant=Abrahamic covenant=Mosaic covenant
2.Second covenant = the first covenant mixed with false teachings and commandments of men= Levitical law
3.New covenant, a return to the first.
No. the covenant itself was faulty as well as the verse clearly states. Perfection was not through the Levitical priesthood or the Levitical law.
As it says in Galatians 4:24-25 “For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Verse 30- “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” The Levitical law was a foreign covenant created by those who worshipped other gods.
Romans 1:21-23 " Although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were they thankful, but became futile in their thoughts , and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man and birds and four footed beasts and creeping things.”
Mark 7:6-9 "This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me; in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.
Leviticus 12:1-8 The Ritual after Childbirth
“If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days.”
“If she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean for two weeks.”
“When her days of purification are fulfilled, whether a son or daughter, she shall bring to the priest a lamb of the first year as a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtle dove as a sin offering.”
“So the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.”
Maybe this is one of those futile commandments of foolish men they are talking about?
According to Psalm 127:3, children are a blessing, a heritage from the Lord and a reward from Him.
Or maybe it’s this one: “If a man causes disfigurement of his neighbor as he has done, so shall it be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has caused disfigurement of a man so shall it be done to him.”
Or maybe it’s the sacrificing of animals for forgiveness of sins, the burning of incense, the New Moons and appointed feasts that Isaiah says are abominations to the Lord, and that He never commanded them. It’s funny how these are pagan practices as well. Maybe there is a connection?
I believe the Law of Moses snuck in because of transgressions and misunderstanding. It was an interruption in the Abrahamic covenant, and bore children into slavery, which can’t be a good or preferable thing (Gal. 3:19, 4:24). But Jesus came and cancelled the “Mosaic covenant” (Hagar, of the flesh), and got us back under the “Abrahamic covenant” (Sarah, of the Spirit).
Like LLC, I believe our mother is either Sarah, or Hagar. Remember: these two mothers—either faith, or works—preceded both Moses and the crucifixion of Christ. But the distinction between these two options was formalized by Moses (under Hagar, the flesh) and by Christ (under Sarah, the promised Seed of the Spirit). Those are the two covenants; Jesus wrested the priesthood from Aaron back to himself–the child of promise in the order of Melchizedek:
Psalm 110:1, 4
Of David.
The Lord says to my lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”
…The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”
But I do think the Abrahamic covenant, initiated with the sacrifice of animals by the Lord Himself (Gen. 15:17), was only completed, and perfected, and extended by the blood of Christ the lamb. And only by completing it with his perfect blood was his Holy Spirit then able to come and permanently reside inside us, and for the “prisoners of hope” (Zech. 9:12) to ascend with Christ, and “Paradise” itself, up to heaven. ("Therefore it says,‘When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.’” Eph. 4:8)
Hermano, I don’t think the Abrahamic covenant required the sacrifice of animals, only a circumcision of the heart. From what I understand, God does not change, and Jesus didn’t need to die on the cross for the Holy Spirit to come into one’s heart. People back then were just as capable of loving others as we are today.
1 Corinthians 10:1-4 says this: “Moreover brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.”
Apparently, those coming out of Egypt received the word of Christ and were baptized in the Spirit.
Not always. As 1 Corinthians 10:10 -12 says “nor murmur as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed by the destroyer. Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they are written for our admonition, on whom the end of the ages have come. Therefore let him wo thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.”
God works through the hearts and minds of people. The provisions and blessings provided to those who were disobedient came from those who were faithful to God and shared their stuff.
I don’t think this is the case. The covenant was exchanged by those who rejected the Holy Spirit and “returned to Egypt”. In other words they brought their pagan practices with them and incorporated them into the law, and basically turned the God of Israel into a pagan god.
I think that John the Baptist helps us to better understand the Old Testament saints.
-Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. Matthew 11:11.
-Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water AND the Spirit. John 3:5.
Old Testament believers had the Holy Spirit, and they were saved by faith—looking forward to the promise of the Messiah. But they were not born again or born from above into the kingdom of God that we born again Christians now live in.
Additionally, Old Testament believers after physical death went below to the “Paradise” side of the grave, waiting until the visit, resurrection, and ascension, of Christ, at which time they, and Paradise, ascended to heaven.
I believe these were types and shadows, with a later fulfillment in Christ: in his crucifixion, his breathing on the disciples to receive the Holy Spirit after his resurrection (Jn. 20:22), and his sending of the Baptism in the Spirit, with outflowing manifestations like tongues, at Pentecost (Acts 2).
That destroying by the destroyer occurred only after Mount Sinai, under the Mosaic Covenant.
Even the “New Testament” saints didn’t have the spirit of God remaining in them until that special day of Pentecost. Jesus put it this way to His disciples. “The spirit of truth…dwells with you and will be in you.”
Hermano, as Corinthians says: all were baptized into Moses in the cloud (Spirit) and in the sea(water).
Yes, they were born again, just as born again Christians are today.
Sea change- a profound or notable transformation; conversion
We don’t know what happens after physical death, and neither did the writers of the Bible.
From what I understand, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy peace, forbearance, kindness goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control. What you are suggesting is that no person that ever existed before Jesus had such qualities. I find that very hard to believe.
I disagree. On the contrary, they all agreed to obey the true,everlasting covenant of God, as it says in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4. However, some turned away as is told in the parable of the sower and the seed. Acts 7:37-50 also speaks about what happened. Some took up the tabernacle of Molech, but those who remained faithful received the inheritance and came into the promised land.
Paidion, As Moses said, “The word is very near you in your mouth and in your heart that you should obey it.”
No, not under the Mosaic covenant but under the Levitical law. Under the Moses, they received the “bread of heaven”, “whom our fathers( the Jerusalem that now is- Gal. 4:25) would not obey, but rejected. And in their hearts they turned back to Egypt, saying to Aaron, ‘Make us gods to go before us; as for this Moses who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him’.”
Acts 7:44-45 'Our fathers ( the Jerusalem which was free) had the (true) tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as He appointed, instructing Moses to make it according to the pattern that he had seen, which our fathers, having received it in turn brought with Joshua into the land possessed by the Gentiles…"
As Acts 7:51 goes on to say: you stiff -necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did , so do you."
Abraham cast out Hagar and her son.
Moses cast out the Levites giving them no portion in the inheritance- Simeon and Levi being murderers from the start.
Joshua relegated them to the cities of refuge-for the slayer.(Joshua chapter 21)
So there were two covenants- the Mosaic covenant and the Levitical law
Two rocks-Mount Horeb and Mount Sinai.
Two priesthoods- the order of Melchizedek and the Levitical-the order of Aaron
Two trees -the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Two sons-Isaac- of the Spirit and Ishmael -of foreign gods
Two kingdoms- one of man and one of God
And as Galatians 4:27 says, the desolate( Hagar) had many more children than the one who had a husband(Sarah).
LLC, I’ve got to ask, where or what is your position as to those of us can learn about what you believe give us a signal head to what you believe. Can you give us a view of what you think about scripture, and how you see it as defiant against Christianity…
Davo, Genesis 49:5-7 says this: “Simeon and Levi are brothers; instruments of cruelty are in their habitation. Let not my soul enter their council; let not my honor be united in their assembly; for in their anger they slew a man, and in their self will they hamstrung an ox. Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce; and their wrath for it is cruel! I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel.”
This is why Moses gave them no inheritance or portion with the children of Israel. They built a golden calf at the bottom of Mount Sinai. Do you think that he would suddenly turn around and call them holy people of God and put them in charge of the priesthood?
As Moses says in Deuteronomy 32:3-5 “For I proclaim the name of the Lord; ascribe greatness to our God. He is the Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are justice, a God of truth and without injustice; righteous and upright is He. they have corrupted themselves; they are not His children, because of their blemish, a perverse and crooked generation.”
Levite means snake. And yes, I believe Moses gave them their priesthood in the sense that he allowed them freedom of worship, and that they could eat the fruit of the gods which they chose to follow.
We all know what happened in the end. The Levitical priesthood was tossed out the door along with their law. So Moses’ words were true.
MM, To me, the Levitical law was not the covenant given to Moses, nor was it the covenant Moses gave to the children of Israel. There are some who claim that the books of Moses were all written by Moses himself. I don’t believe that’s the case. If you have a chance, you may want to read up on the Documentary Hypothesis.
“Levi” of which Levite became the tribal extension, e.g., Judah = Judahite etc. The name LEVI actually means: attached / joined — which IF you consulted the bible as opposed to wherever you glean your ideas from you’d know…
Gen 29:34She conceived again and bore a son, and said, “Now this time my husband will become attached to me, because I have borne him three sons.” Therefore his name was called Levi.
This is so far removed from reality it can’t even be said you have the cart before the horse… the cart is NOWHERE NEAR the horse! The VERY REASON WHY the Levites had Jacob’s curse turned into God’s blessing was because of their zealous display in honour of God IN THE FACE OF Israel’s idolatrous golden calf incident. It was from THIS that they were then drawn from among the other tribes and given THEIR portion IN THE LORD as HIS PORTIONas previously noted from scripture, but consider further…
Ex 32:25-29Now when Moses saw that the people were unrestrained (for Aaron had not restrained them, to their shame among their enemies), then Moses stood in the entrance of the camp, and said, “Whoever is on the Lord’s side—come to me!” And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together to him. And he said to them, “Thus says the Lord God of Israel: ‘Let every man put his sword on his side, and go in and out from entrance to entrance throughout the camp, and let every man kill his brother, every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.’” So the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses. And about three thousand men of the people fell that day. Then Moses said, “Consecrate yourselves today to the Lord, that He may bestow on you a blessing this day, for every man has opposed his son and his brother.”
The fulfillment of THAT blessing came as follows…
Num 3:5-9And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: “Bring the tribe of Levi near, and present them before Aaron the priest, that they may serve him. And they shall attend to his needs and the needs of the whole congregation before the tabernacle of meeting, to do the work of the tabernacle. Also they shall attend to all the furnishings of the tabernacle of meeting, and to the needs of the children of Israel, to do the work of the tabernacle. And you shall give the Levites to Aaron and his sons; they are given entirely to him from among the children of Israel.
In fact the Levites were taken specifically BY GOD being dedicated TO HIM as HIS FIRSTBORN in exchange for and on behalf of all Israel…
Num 3:11-13Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: “Now behold, I Myself have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of every firstborn who opens the womb among the children of Israel. Therefore the Levites shall be Mine, because all the firstborn are Mine. On the day that I struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I sanctified to Myself all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast. They shall be Mine: I am the Lord.”
This then contradicts FULLY your errant notion here…
The texts of scripture say NOTHING LIKE what your beliefs claim — as welcome as you are to them.
