Scripture interpretation

[coksiw]

Esaias,
There are covenants in the Bible not called directly “covenant” but have covenant language. That’s why, for example, there is a “Adamic” covenant.

Also, a covenant created that fulfills an old covenant can effectively replace the old:

Hebrews 8:13 (NKJV) In that He says, “A new [covenant,]” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that the replacement means nothing is carried over. That’s a related but different topic. Virtually all covenants carry things from the previous ones, because God does not change, and what he cared about before, he still cares about. Mind you, we still practice things from Noahic covenant.

[donfriesen1]

COVENANTS Re: Ge21

Does God make a covenant with Hagar, thereby adding the Hagaric Covenant to the mix of covenants?

Perhaps the first covenant, because the first time covenant is mentioned in the Bible is with Noah, is the one made with him. But this could be false reasoning. In it, God tells Noah to do some things and then says 'I am making a covenant with you'. In other words: do what I say and those who comply are in covenant with me, reaping any benefits while fulfilling any obligations, without an initiatory ceremony (like circumcision or the new birth). However it was, Noah entered covenant without a ceremonial rite.

If this is the Biblical definition of covenant then Adam may have had the first covenant, not Noah, which covenant he broke when eating that fruit. This Adamic covenant was nullified when it was made impossible to re-enter Eden by the presence of the cherubim or is it possible that it somehow continued?

This definition deviates, in my mind, from when a covenant is called an agreement, where 2 or more parties come together, presenting and agreeing to mutual duties and benefits, which we today might call a contract. If the previously mentioned is the Biblical definition, appearing to be so according to Ge6, then any are under covenant just by agreeing to abide with God's requirements. Or, is the definition a fluid definition, changing over time as necessary? Duties and benefits may change but would God change the basic definition, showing God changing his mind?

Thinking of the principle of the liberty that Man was created with, God not forcing Man to comply with any of his laws (therefore Adam was not created in a covenant state of being, entering covenant without ceremony by simple obedience like Noah) unless freely choosing to do so, this might open the possibility that any with obedience to God's will places themselves in a covenant, the major feature being the decision. When you decide to come My way then we are in covenant like Noah and Adam, even without a formal ceremonial agreement.

(Putting that definition aside) Hagar was within the Abrahamic Covenant when she lived under Abraham's roof. She was kicked out, Ge21, but this didn't prevent a relationship with God outside of this Covenant. She received blessings in spite of not having formally entered into Covenant like Abraham had. Does the principle shown show that those outside of Covenant aren't cut-off from God's blessings, that they too could receive a blessing? If any live right, by the only God-given standard they know, the conscience, when they have never heard the Covenant, what would prevent a receiving of a (eternal) blessing for it? Aren't people who respond to the conscience doing what the Maker of the conscience intends and could be described as being like in a covenantal situation, fitting the Noah/Adam provided pattern? Does God make a differentiation in blessings -- I can't bless this non-covenantal one with this blessing because it is an eternal blessing? A blade of grass is as much the will of God as the heart of Man and both come about from a decision God made. The decision to make grass was his spiritual decision. The decision to make the heart of Man was his spiritual decision. God doesn't separate decisions into two groups; spiritual and non-spiritual. To him they are all his spiritual decisions. In his mind they may all be eternal decisions. Or can we correctly say God dwells in both time and eternity at once, and divides decisions into temporal and eternal? Judgments of punishment are divided into temporal and eternal so it might be right to say that blessings are divided into two groups, temporal and eternal, if decisions are made in this regard. In the same way, God may bless, with what appears to Man to be temporal or eternal blessings. They are all spiritual decisions he has made. Whether blessings are in covenant or not in covenant, if indeed Hagar had no covenant, they are all spiritual decisions God makes.

Hagar shows God blessing outside of a formal covenant, for she had fled from being under the roof of Abraham. Or, was Hagar under a per se covenant because of what happened in Ge16, using the Noah/Adam provided obedience definition? If so, was this covenant separate from Abraham's covenant or should it be seen, as linked by Abraham's sexual relations (made one) with Hagar, with Abraham's covenant?

If covenant is simply agreeing to do that which God has asked Man to do, as exampled by Noah, it seems to change the focus of covenants from only of dynamics of mutual formal agreements to dynamics of compliance to God's requirements alone, yet not preventing any deeper formal covenants. It is said by some that the Old Covenant wasn't completely done away with, and that the NT is an extension/continuance of the covenants previously made; ie that God has one continuing covenant. It's requirement for Man is -- do the will of God as it is revealed. This would align with what is seen exemplified in the first covenants, except Adam's, continuing them but not erasing the previous.

Does the Bible show us per se covenants and also formal covenants entered into by a ceremony? The ceremonies required of those for formal covenant may be for reasons of testimony to others that closer/deeper covenants are possible, among other reasons.

[Amanah]

Hi Don

Biblical examples of covenants include:

1. Noahic Covenant (Genesis 9:8-17)
2. Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 15:9-21, Genesis 17:1-14)
3. Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 19:1-24:11)
4. Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:12-16)
5. New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews 8:6-13)

In each covenant above, God initiates and defines the terms, and humanity responds with obedience or disobedience, leading to blessings or consequences

In simple terms how does your definition of covenant compare?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Esaias,
There are covenants in the Bible not called directly “covenant” but have covenant language. That’s why, for example, there is a “Adamic” covenant.

Also, a covenant created that fulfills an old covenant can effectively replace the old:

Hebrews 8:13 (NKJV) In that He says, “A new [covenant,]” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that the replacement means nothing is carried over. That’s a related but different topic. Virtually all covenants carry things from the previous ones, because God does not change, and what he cared about before, he still cares about. Mind you, we still practice things from Noahic covenant.

What is the covenant language used in regards to Adam? Not saying there wasn't an Adamic Covenant, just trying to identify the basis for saying there definitely was.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Hi Don

Biblical examples of covenants include:

1. Noahic Covenant (Genesis 9:8-17)
2. Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 15:9-21, Genesis 17:1-14)
3. Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 19:1-24:11)
4. Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:12-16)
5. New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews 8:6-13)

In each covenant above, God initiates and defines the terms, and humanity responds with obedience or disobedience, leading to blessings or consequences

In simple terms how does your definition of covenant compare?

Don,

I see in your post above you are using Hagar as an example of a covenant relationship.

Abraham had two sons:
Ishmael by his servant Hagar (Genesis 16)
Isaac by his wife Sarah (Genesis 17)

Hagar and Ishmael represent the works of the flesh.
Sarah and Isaac represent justification by faith and Spirit.

Galatians 4:22-31 says to cast out the bondwoman Hagar and her Son because you can't be justified by the works of the flesh, but only by the Spirit through faith.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What is the covenant language used in regards to Adam? Not saying there wasn't an Adamic Covenant, just trying to identify the basis for saying there definitely was.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Don,

I see in your post above you are using Hagar as an example of a covenant relationship.

Abraham had two sons:
Ishmael by his servant Hagar (Genesis 16)
Isaac by his wife Sarah (Genesis 17)

Hagar and Ishmael represent the works of the flesh.
Sarah and Isaac represent justification by faith and Spirit.

Galatians 4:22-31 says to cast out the bondwoman Hagar and her Son because you can't be justified by the works of the flesh, but only by the Spirit through faith.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Don,

I see in your post above you are using Hagar as an example of a covenant relationship.

Abraham had two sons:
Ishmael by his servant Hagar (Genesis 16)
Isaac by his wife Sarah (Genesis 17)

Hagar and Ishmael represent the works of the flesh.
Sarah and Isaac represent justification by faith and Spirit.

Galatians 4:22-31 says to cast out the bondwoman Hagar and her Son because you can't be justified by the works of the flesh, but only by the Spirit through faith.

How ironic. We are quoting portions of the same passage on different threads. With opposing views.

[Tithesmeister]

I personally don’t believe God made a covenant with Hagar. I instead understand that he made a promise. While a covenant does contain a promise, in my opinion, a promise doesn’t necessarily include a covenant.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

COVENANTS Re: Ge21

Does God make a covenant with Hagar, thereby adding the Hagaric Covenant to the mix of covenants?

Perhaps the first covenant, because the first time covenant is mentioned in the Bible is with Noah, is the one made with him. But this could be false reasoning. In it, God tells Noah to do some things and then says 'I am making a covenant with you'. In other words: do what I say and those who comply are in covenant with me, reaping any benefits while fulfilling any obligations, without an initiatory ceremony (like circumcision or the new birth). However it was, Noah entered covenant without a ceremonial rite.

If this is the Biblical definition of covenant then Adam may have had the first covenant, not Noah, which covenant he broke when eating that fruit. This Adamic covenant was nullified when it was made impossible to re-enter Eden by the presence of the cherubim or is it possible that it somehow continued?

This definition deviates, in my mind, from when a covenant is called an agreement, where 2 or more parties come together, presenting and agreeing to mutual duties and benefits, which we today might call a contract. If the previously mentioned is the Biblical definition, appearing to be so according to Ge6, then any are under covenant just by agreeing to abide with God's requirements. Or, is the definition a fluid definition, changing over time as necessary? Duties and benefits may change but would God change the basic definition, showing God changing his mind?

Thinking of the principle of the liberty that Man was created with, God not forcing Man to comply with any of his laws (therefore Adam was not created in a covenant state of being, entering covenant without ceremony by simple obedience like Noah) unless freely choosing to do so, this might open the possibility that any with obedience to God's will places themselves in a covenant, the major feature being the decision. When you decide to come My way then we are in covenant like Noah and Adam, even without a formal ceremonial agreement.

(Putting that definition aside) Hagar was within the Abrahamic Covenant when she lived under Abraham's roof. She was kicked out, Ge21, but this didn't prevent a relationship with God outside of this Covenant. She received blessings in spite of not having formally entered into Covenant like Abraham had. Does the principle shown show that those outside of Covenant aren't cut-off from God's blessings, that they too could receive a blessing? If any live right, by the only God-given standard they know, the conscience, when they have never heard the Covenant, what would prevent a receiving of a (eternal) blessing for it? Aren't people who respond to the conscience doing what the Maker of the conscience intends and could be described as being like in a covenantal situation, fitting the Noah/Adam provided pattern? Does God make a differentiation in blessings -- I can't bless this non-covenantal one with this blessing because it is an eternal blessing? A blade of grass is as much the will of God as the heart of Man and both come about from a decision God made. The decision to make grass was his spiritual decision. The decision to make the heart of Man was his spiritual decision. God doesn't separate decisions into two groups; spiritual and non-spiritual. To him they are all his spiritual decisions. In his mind they may all be eternal decisions. Or can we correctly say God dwells in both time and eternity at once, and divides decisions into temporal and eternal? Judgments of punishment are divided into temporal and eternal so it might be right to say that blessings are divided into two groups, temporal and eternal, if decisions are made in this regard. In the same way, God may bless, with what appears to Man to be temporal or eternal blessings. They are all spiritual decisions he has made. Whether blessings are in covenant or not in covenant, if indeed Hagar had no covenant, they are all spiritual decisions God makes.

Hagar shows God blessing outside of a formal covenant, for she had fled from being under the roof of Abraham. Or, was Hagar under a per se covenant because of what happened in Ge16, using the Noah/Adam provided obedience definition? If so, was this covenant separate from Abraham's covenant or should it be seen, as linked by Abraham's sexual relations (made one) with Hagar, with Abraham's covenant?

If covenant is simply agreeing to do that which God has asked Man to do, as exampled by Noah, it seems to change the focus of covenants from only of dynamics of mutual formal agreements to dynamics of compliance to God's requirements alone, yet not preventing any deeper formal covenants. It is said by some that the Old Covenant wasn't completely done away with, and that the NT is an extension/continuance of the covenants previously made; ie that God has one continuing covenant. It's requirement for Man is -- do the will of God as it is revealed. This would align with what is seen exemplified in the first covenants, except Adam's, continuing them but not erasing the previous.

Does the Bible show us per se covenants and also formal covenants entered into by a ceremony? The ceremonies required of those for formal covenant may be for reasons of testimony to others that closer/deeper covenants are possible, among other reasons.

What are you trying to say Don? Could you give me a condensed version?