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.

[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?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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

I think he is saying people can go to heaven without being born again.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I think he is saying people can go to heaven without being born again.

As I was reading his lengthy tome of a post (I tend to be wordy myself) I kind of thought the same thing. Yet, I thought maybe I was missing something that Don could skinny it down for me. Therefore not wanting to start another ecclesiastical wrestling match here in another thread.

So, Don, could you please condense your thought in a few words? I mean sometimes these discussions are like homework. Many times I just read posts I disagree with and ponder "is this going to be worth the trouble?" I usually give in and end up loosing friends, and get disfellowshipped. Since you are a foreigner, and pretty much left the Apostolic faith in the weeds, I don't mind if you don't like me. But, I asked you to join in another discussion on a topic you would enjoy. I feel obligated to parley with you if you did. Yet, I'm really not looking to discuss some baloney on how God loves everyone and wants to save everyone. No matter what theology or ideology they hold.

Anyway, could you please place your apples of gold in pictures of silver a little lower on the shelf so I could understand?

[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.

[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.

[coksiw]

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.

Before the Fall:

Covenant Scriptures:

[Genesis 1:28-30 NKJV] 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." 29 And God said, "See, I have given you every herb [that] yields seed which [is] on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 "Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for food"; and it was so.

[Genesis 2:15-17 NKJV] 15 Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

[Hosea 6:7 YLT] 7 And they, as Adam, transgressed a covenant, There they dealt treacherously against me.

Participants: God and Adam
Provisions: multiply, subdue, have dominion, keep the Garden, stay away from the tree of good and evil, death as penalty for disobedience.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Before the Fall:

Covenant Scriptures:

[Genesis 1:28-30 NKJV] 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." 29 And God said, "See, I have given you every herb [that] yields seed which [is] on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 "Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for food"; and it was so.

[Genesis 2:15-17 NKJV] 15 Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

What I had hoped to point out about Noah's covenant was, that God had asked something of Noah and he then said that he was making a covenant, making this an example of covenant making and making covenants very uncomplicated. Elements of covenants then are: 1. God asks someone to do something. 2. Any one doing what God asks has entered a covenant by obedience to God's will. Adam's experience was the same as Noah. God asked him to do something. Adam did it. If the Noah story conveys covenant making rightly, then Noah wasn't the first to make covenant. Adam was. The example from Adam I was using was the apple. I too agree that the other requirements of Adam and Eve, ie go and multiply, (and other things too) have covenant elements (I just didn't want to get into it for time reasons) if we are basing our covenant definition on what happened with Noah.

[Hosea 6:7 YLT] 7 And they, as Adam, transgressed a covenant, There they dealt treacherously against me. [B]Very interesting verse, and I wasn't aware of this. Thx. It reinforces my main thought because the word covenant isn't used in Ge1-3. /B]

Participants: God and Adam
Provisions: multiply, subdue, have dominion, keep the Garden, stay away from the tree of good and evil, death as penalty for disobedience.

.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

[Hosea 6:7 YLT] 7 And they, as Adam, transgressed a covenant, There they dealt treacherously against me.

Hosea 6:4-7 KJV
O Ephraim, what shall I do unto thee? O Judah, what shall I do unto thee? for your goodness is as a morning cloud, and as the early dew it goeth away. [5] Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth: and thy judgments are as the light that goeth forth. [6] For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. [7] But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.

Uhhh...