Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

[TMarcum]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

You completely misunderstood me then. When God said he will bless Abraham and his descendants he wasn't referring to their spiritual wellbeing only. My focus is on material wealth and in this regard, Israel is thriving.

You are correct. God richly blessed Abraham and his descendants. Not only Issac, and Jacob. But God also blesses Ishmael and his seed.
Genesis 17:20
And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

But we know the promise came thru Jacob. He foretold this to Abraham, saying:
Genesis 22:18
And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

We know the seed (being one) was Christ Jesus. And Ishmael was a descendant of Abraham also who was blessed in the seed.

[ewq1938]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

You completely misunderstood me then. When God said he will bless Abraham and his descendants he wasn't referring to their spiritual wellbeing only. My focus is on material wealth and in this regard, Israel is thriving.

Right. Just like the rich man, Israel is "thriving". Material wealth is the only thing that matters and spiritual well being not mattering. I understand now.

[Trivalee]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

Right. Just like the rich man, Israel is "thriving". Material wealth is the only thing that matters and spiritual well being not mattering. I understand now.

It's unfortunate you fail to see beyond your personal agenda. I take nothing away from spiritual wellbeing, however, my focus here is God's promise to bless Abraham and his descendants materially. Perhaps, you should avail yourself with Bro TMarcum's post #1231?

[Trivalee]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

You are correct. God richly blessed Abraham and his descendants. Not only Issac, and Jacob. But God also blesses Ishmael and his seed.
Genesis 17:20
And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

But we know the promise came thru Jacob. He foretold this to Abraham, saying:
Genesis 22:18
And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

We know the seed (being one) was Christ Jesus. And Ishmael was a descendant of Abraham also who was blessed in the seed.

Very true indeed. Thanks for the scriptures.

[Jesuslovesus]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

https://drmsh.com/why-an-obsession-w...f-time-part-1/


"Presuppositional Issue #1 – Are Israel and the Church distinct from each other, or does the Church replace Israel in God’s program for the ages? If they are distinct, it would seem that Israel might still have a national future, apart from the church. Keeping Israel and the Church distinct is key to any view of a rapture (because the Church is taken, not Israel).


Let’s unpack this.


“God’s people” in the first installment of the Bible (the Old Testament) was Israel (and a few Gentile converts here and there, who had to join the nation as Israelites — followers of Yahweh). God made a series of covenants with Israel to create and certify that bond. These covenants all had certain promises. As Israel came out of Egypt and entered the Promised Land, the nation inherited certain of these promises — or was it ALL of them? (that’s item #2 for next time). Here’s a list of the promises:


Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 12:1-3; Gen 15:6-7)


1. They would become a nation whose population would be like the sand of the sea and the stars of heaven.
2. They would prosper and be a blessing to all who blessed them (or a curse to those who cursed them).
3. They would inherit a land promised to them (“from the Euphrates to the river of Egypt” – more on that in other installments).


Sinai (“Mosaic”) Covenant (Exod. 20-24)


God’s covenant with the nation at Sinai was given in Exodus 20-24. Its focus is the Mosaic Law. God labeled Israel a “peculiar treasure,” a “kingdom of priests,” and a “holy nation,” and gave them the stipulations (laws) that would guarantee the continuance of fellowship between them and their God (continuation of the Abrahamic covenant). The covenant was ratified by a covenant sacrifice and the sprinkling of blood (Ex. 24:4–8). Various Sinai covenant renewals are recorded in the Old Testament. The most important were those on the plains of Moab (Dt. 29), at Shechem in the days of Joshua (Josh. 24), when Jehoiada was able to restore the Davidic line of kings under Joash (2 K. 11), the days of Hezekiah (2 Ch. 29:10), and in the days under the rule of Josiah (2 K. 23:3).


Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7)


God promised David that his descendants should have an everlasting dynastic rule over the Promised Land and be known as his sons (2 Sam 7:12–17; Psalm 89; Isa. 55).


The New Covenant

Several passages in the prophets, but most explicitly in Jeremiah, speak of a new covenant in the messianic age (Isa. 42:6; Isa 49:6–8; Isa 55:3; Isa 59:21; Isa 61:8; Jer. 31:31, 33; Jer 32:40; Jer 50:5; Ezek 16:60, 62; Ezek 34:25; Ezek 37:26).


These passages assume a nation in exile due to its sins — its violations of the Sinai covenant. This covenant argues that, though the Sinai covenant was broken, the promise of God would not fail. There would be a remnant through whome God would honor His promises. He would make a new covenant. His law would be written on hearts of flesh. In that day the throne of David would be occupied by one of David’s line (this assume a situation when that was not the case – such as in exile) and the people would enjoy an everlasting covenant of peace in which the nations would also share (Isa. 42:6; Isa 49:6; Isa 55:3–5; cf. Zech 2:11;Zech 8:20–23; 14:16; etc.). In those days worship would be purified (Ezk. 40–48), true theocratic government would be established, and peace would be universal.


Got all that? Good. Now here’s the question: Is the nation of Israel (the national ethnic entity) still the focus of these covenant promises (before and after the final New Covenant) or is the Church their focus now?


Arguments can be made for both sides — depending on presuppositions. We’ll be getting into the details in items # 2 and 3, so let’s preview those items. The two sides of this #1 issue depend on whether one believes the promises of the Abrahamic, Sinai, and Davidic covenant were CONDITIONAL. That is, were there conditions behind receiving the promises (“Israel must do/be X”) or were the promises made without any conditions (“no matter what Israel does in the way of sin, God would still give them the promises”)? If there were conditions, it is obvious that Israel failed (they went into exile at God’s hand). If there were no conditions is that what the New Covenant is about? Is the New Covenant the answer?


These questions are important for #1 because they create a construct by which to parse this first issue’s question: Are Israel and the Church distinct from each other, or does the Church replace Israel in God’s program for the ages?


Jesus very clearly came to establish the New Covenant (“this is the new covenant in my blood” – see Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:13; Heb 12:24). And the Spirit came upon the disciples and their converts after the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2; see the book of Acts thereafter). The church was “circumcision neutral” — it was not only Jews, but also Gentiles, that also was a New Covenant element. But if the Church — and not Israel as a nation — was the focus of the New Covenant, then what purpose is there for national Israel (except to embrace Jesus and become absorbed into the Church)? It also means that the Davidic ruler is Jesus, and the Promised Land is bigger than Israel — it’s the whole world — hence the Great Commission. Let’s ask it this way: Is there any part of the New Covenant *not* answerable by the Church? One might say the “all nations” part — but that is precisely the point of the Great Commission – given to the fledgling CHURCH, not Israel (Matt. 28:18-20).


At this point the common objection is the Land — that the Church isn’t a theocratic kingdom. But it is – it’s head is Christ and its land is the whole earth (back to the Great Commission). Why would we insist that the Land promises must be fulfilled in a tiny portion of the earth (Israel) rather than the whole earth? The answer given would be “well, the Abrahamic covenant guaranteed the Promised Land, and have specific dimensions, and Israel never got all that land … and so they either get *that* land as a national entity, or else God’s promises failed. That, too, is a presupposition. It presupposes that God’s plan doesn’t *succeed* through the New Covenant and the global, Gentile-inclusive Church. It also presumes that Israel never got the land according to the dimensions of Gen 15 (see later on that). But if the covenants were conditional, then Israel sinned the land promises away (they failed; God did not), and this objection about a literal kingdom within the parameters of Genesis 15 may be completley moot.


One more note on the difference and sameness of Israel and the Church, Galatians 3 (read the whole chapter) is crystal clear that Christians — the Church – “inherited” the promises given to Abraham. Should we exclude the land from land? If “the Promised land” has been replaced by “the whole earth,” then the answer is yes — and that is the primary argument for saying that we have no reason to look for a literal kingdom in *Israel* (a millennium) in the future.


So, are Israel and the Church distinct? Yes, one is not the equation of the other. But does the Church replace Israel as the people of God? In one sense, this is clearly the case since the Church inherits the promises given to Israel through Christ (Galatians 3). But what about the land? If the land promise is still out there, waiting to be fulfilled, then Israel as a national entity is still distinct in terms of kingdom prophecy. If the land promise was sinned away and is now replaced by the whole earth, then the nation of Israel itself has no special role in biblical prophecy — it’s all about the Church.


And believe it or not, if it’s all about the church, there is no seven year tribulation or rapture, since the former is entirely built on the 70 weeks prophecy given to Jerusalem and Israel, and the latter is in turn built on the literal tribulation."




This is a quote but boy does it feel good to see someone outline my personal objection to the opposition's point of view, in such a stark and objective way.

[Walls]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

https://drmsh.com/why-an-obsession-w...f-time-part-1/


"Presuppositional Issue #1 – Are Israel and the Church distinct from each other, or does the Church replace Israel in God’s program for the ages? If they are distinct, it would seem that Israel might still have a national future, apart from the church. Keeping Israel and the Church distinct is key to any view of a rapture (because the Church is taken, not Israel).


Let’s unpack this.


“God’s people” in the first installment of the Bible (the Old Testament) was Israel (and a few Gentile converts here and there, who had to join the nation as Israelites — followers of Yahweh). God made a series of covenants with Israel to create and certify that bond. These covenants all had certain promises. As Israel came out of Egypt and entered the Promised Land, the nation inherited certain of these promises — or was it ALL of them? (that’s item #2 for next time). Here’s a list of the promises:


Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 12:1-3; Gen 15:6-7)


1. They would become a nation whose population would be like the sand of the sea and the stars of heaven.
2. They would prosper and be a blessing to all who blessed them (or a curse to those who cursed them).
3. They would inherit a land promised to them (“from the Euphrates to the river of Egypt” – more on that in other installments).


Sinai (“Mosaic”) Covenant (Exod. 20-24)


God’s covenant with the nation at Sinai was given in Exodus 20-24. Its focus is the Mosaic Law. God labeled Israel a “peculiar treasure,” a “kingdom of priests,” and a “holy nation,” and gave them the stipulations (laws) that would guarantee the continuance of fellowship between them and their God (continuation of the Abrahamic covenant). The covenant was ratified by a covenant sacrifice and the sprinkling of blood (Ex. 24:4–8). Various Sinai covenant renewals are recorded in the Old Testament. The most important were those on the plains of Moab (Dt. 29), at Shechem in the days of Joshua (Josh. 24), when Jehoiada was able to restore the Davidic line of kings under Joash (2 K. 11), the days of Hezekiah (2 Ch. 29:10), and in the days under the rule of Josiah (2 K. 23:3).


Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7)


God promised David that his descendants should have an everlasting dynastic rule over the Promised Land and be known as his sons (2 Sam 7:12–17; Psalm 89; Isa. 55).


The New Covenant

Several passages in the prophets, but most explicitly in Jeremiah, speak of a new covenant in the messianic age (Isa. 42:6; Isa 49:6–8; Isa 55:3; Isa 59:21; Isa 61:8; Jer. 31:31, 33; Jer 32:40; Jer 50:5; Ezek 16:60, 62; Ezek 34:25; Ezek 37:26).


These passages assume a nation in exile due to its sins — its violations of the Sinai covenant. This covenant argues that, though the Sinai covenant was broken, the promise of God would not fail. There would be a remnant through whome God would honor His promises. He would make a new covenant. His law would be written on hearts of flesh. In that day the throne of David would be occupied by one of David’s line (this assume a situation when that was not the case – such as in exile) and the people would enjoy an everlasting covenant of peace in which the nations would also share (Isa. 42:6; Isa 49:6; Isa 55:3–5; cf. Zech 2:11;Zech 8:20–23; 14:16; etc.). In those days worship would be purified (Ezk. 40–48), true theocratic government would be established, and peace would be universal.


Got all that? Good. Now here’s the question: Is the nation of Israel (the national ethnic entity) still the focus of these covenant promises (before and after the final New Covenant) or is the Church their focus now?


Arguments can be made for both sides — depending on presuppositions. We’ll be getting into the details in items # 2 and 3, so let’s preview those items. The two sides of this #1 issue depend on whether one believes the promises of the Abrahamic, Sinai, and Davidic covenant were CONDITIONAL. That is, were there conditions behind receiving the promises (“Israel must do/be X”) or were the promises made without any conditions (“no matter what Israel does in the way of sin, God would still give them the promises”)? If there were conditions, it is obvious that Israel failed (they went into exile at God’s hand). If there were no conditions is that what the New Covenant is about? Is the New Covenant the answer?


These questions are important for #1 because they create a construct by which to parse this first issue’s question: Are Israel and the Church distinct from each other, or does the Church replace Israel in God’s program for the ages?


Jesus very clearly came to establish the New Covenant (“this is the new covenant in my blood” – see Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:13; Heb 12:24). And the Spirit came upon the disciples and their converts after the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2; see the book of Acts thereafter). The church was “circumcision neutral” — it was not only Jews, but also Gentiles, that also was a New Covenant element. But if the Church — and not Israel as a nation — was the focus of the New Covenant, then what purpose is there for national Israel (except to embrace Jesus and become absorbed into the Church)? It also means that the Davidic ruler is Jesus, and the Promised Land is bigger than Israel — it’s the whole world — hence the Great Commission. Let’s ask it this way: Is there any part of the New Covenant *not* answerable by the Church? One might say the “all nations” part — but that is precisely the point of the Great Commission – given to the fledgling CHURCH, not Israel (Matt. 28:18-20).


At this point the common objection is the Land — that the Church isn’t a theocratic kingdom. But it is – it’s head is Christ and its land is the whole earth (back to the Great Commission). Why would we insist that the Land promises must be fulfilled in a tiny portion of the earth (Israel) rather than the whole earth? The answer given would be “well, the Abrahamic covenant guaranteed the Promised Land, and have specific dimensions, and Israel never got all that land … and so they either get *that* land as a national entity, or else God’s promises failed. That, too, is a presupposition. It presupposes that God’s plan doesn’t *succeed* through the New Covenant and the global, Gentile-inclusive Church. It also presumes that Israel never got the land according to the dimensions of Gen 15 (see later on that). But if the covenants were conditional, then Israel sinned the land promises away (they failed; God did not), and this objection about a literal kingdom within the parameters of Genesis 15 may be completley moot.


One more note on the difference and sameness of Israel and the Church, Galatians 3 (read the whole chapter) is crystal clear that Christians — the Church – “inherited” the promises given to Abraham. Should we exclude the land from land? If “the Promised land” has been replaced by “the whole earth,” then the answer is yes — and that is the primary argument for saying that we have no reason to look for a literal kingdom in *Israel* (a millennium) in the future.


So, are Israel and the Church distinct? Yes, one is not the equation of the other. But does the Church replace Israel as the people of God? In one sense, this is clearly the case since the Church inherits the promises given to Israel through Christ (Galatians 3). But what about the land? If the land promise is still out there, waiting to be fulfilled, then Israel as a national entity is still distinct in terms of kingdom prophecy. If the land promise was sinned away and is now replaced by the whole earth, then the nation of Israel itself has no special role in biblical prophecy — it’s all about the Church.


And believe it or not, if it’s all about the church, there is no seven year tribulation or rapture, since the former is entirely built on the 70 weeks prophecy given to Jerusalem and Israel, and the latter is in turn built on the literal tribulation."




This is a quote but boy does it feel good to see someone outline my personal objection to the opposition's point of view, in such a stark and objective way.

This theory was thrashed out within the first hundred postings - pro and contra. But it is always good to refresh, especially as God's honor is at stake. Throughout the Bible, the Covenant made with Abraham was called the Covenant of PROMISE. Initially, it was UNCONDITIONAL (Genesis Chapter 12), but when Abraham insisted of "being sure", God entered into Covenant in Genesis Chapter 15. The only part of this Covenant that Abraham and his seed were to fulfill was circumcision. If a man is of the bloodline of Abraham, and he is circumcised, God is OBLIGED to give the Land of Canaan to that man. And God is so adamant about this that in Hebrews 6:13-17 the severity and immutability of God's PROMISE is highlighted again. Thus, God's honor is at stake concerning Israel's future. And this honor is, by default, overturned by at least one side of the debaters. Sobering stuff!

I would suggest you start a fresh thread if you do not want to wade through a thousand postings, but it would be nice if YOUR arguments are published. Then we can debate with somebody who will answer, and not the ether.

[Glorious]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

The covenant is God the Father's direction established upon the promise. In other words, there must be the promise (possession) in place before a covenant follows.

Down the line, the promise must be established upon the evidence that is established upon service. Let's leave discussing this digression for, perhaps, another time in future.

An example of the covenant established upon the promise is in Genesis 15 that you mentioned. Note that the promise (verse 14) came as the sun was going down before the covenant (verse 18) was given when the sun went down.

In light of the above, Ephesians 2:12 KJV should read as follows (emboldened in mine):

That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants, strangers of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

[Jesuslovesus]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

This theory was thrashed out within the first hundred postings - pro and contra. But it is always good to refresh, especially as God's honor is at stake. Throughout the Bible, the Covenant made with Abraham was called the Covenant of PROMISE. Initially, it was UNCONDITIONAL (Genesis Chapter 12), but when Abraham insisted of "being sure", God entered into Covenant in Genesis Chapter 15. The only part of this Covenant that Abraham and his seed were to fulfill was circumcision. If a man is of the bloodline of Abraham, and he is circumcised, God is OBLIGED to give the Land of Canaan to that man. And God is so adamant about this that in Hebrews 6:13-17 the severity and immutability of God's PROMISE is highlighted again. Thus, God's honor is at stake concerning Israel's future. And this honor is, by default, overturned by at least one side of the debaters. Sobering stuff!


I would suggest you start a fresh thread if you do not want to wade through a thousand postings, but it would be nice if YOUR arguments are published. Then we can debate with somebody who will answer, and not the ether.

Not sure what you mean my view was shared in this thread multiple times Pretty sure my latest post on this thread was #1218. Also, your statement is false here "Initially, it was UNCONDITIONAL (Genesis Chapter 12), but when Abraham insisted of "being sure", God entered into Covenant in Genesis Chapter 15. The only part of this Covenant that Abraham and his seed were to fulfill was circumcision."


God's covenant with Abraham was always conditional you even named one of the conditions namely "circumcision".


As you quoted

Genesis 12.1 Now the Lord said[a] to Abram, “Go from your country[b] and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you.

2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”[c]

4 So Abram went, as the Lord had told him, and Lot went with him

Looks conditional to me if Abram doesn't "Go" in your view would he still get the promise??

[Trivalee]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

Not sure what you mean my view was shared in this thread multiple times Pretty sure my latest post on this thread was #1218. Also, your statement is false here "Initially, it was UNCONDITIONAL (Genesis Chapter 12), but when Abraham insisted of "being sure", God entered into Covenant in Genesis Chapter 15. The only part of this Covenant that Abraham and his seed were to fulfill was circumcision."


God's covenant with Abraham was always conditional you even named one of the conditions namely "circumcision".


As you quoted

Genesis 12.1 Now the Lord said[a] to Abram, “Go from your country[b] and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you.

2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”[c]

4 So Abram went, as the Lord had told him, and Lot went with him

Looks conditional to me if Abram doesn't "Go" in your view would he still get the promise??

I'm yet to see a covenant (either between God and man or even in our everyday life, e.g. contracts, etc) without a caveat of sorts. So I'm with you on this one.

[Walls]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

Not sure what you mean my view was shared in this thread multiple times Pretty sure my latest post on this thread was #1218. Also, your statement is false here "Initially, it was UNCONDITIONAL (Genesis Chapter 12), but when Abraham insisted of "being sure", God entered into Covenant in Genesis Chapter 15. The only part of this Covenant that Abraham and his seed were to fulfill was circumcision."


God's covenant with Abraham was always conditional you even named one of the conditions namely "circumcision".


As you quoted

Genesis 12.1 Now the Lord said[a] to Abram, “Go from your country[b] and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you.

2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”[c]

4 So Abram went, as the Lord had told him, and Lot went with him

Looks conditional to me if Abram doesn't "Go" in your view would he still get the promise??

You've got a point: I'll concede that Abraham had to do something in Chapter 12. But you still have an obstacle. A Covenant with God, because of man's sin, must be ratified in blood. Noah sacrificed in Genesis 8 and God made the Covenant of the Rainbow with him. Moses ratified the Covenant of Sinai with blood, and the new Covenant of Law to be made with Israel is ratified in Christ's blood. Hebrews 9:17-26 is not to be circumvented. Even the word Covenant means "cutting". Were, in Genesis Chapter 12 is the blood-ratification? A lot happened between Chapter 12 and Chapter 15.

Added to this, it was, "In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, ..." - and this in Chapter 15 (Genesis 15:18) - not Chapter 12.

[Walls]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

I'm yet to see a covenant (either between God and man or even in our everyday life, e.g. contracts, etc) without a caveat of sorts. So I'm with you on this one.

In the main I agree with you. God loves to make Covenant. He loves to be put under pressure to show His power and ability to keep a contract. But if you maintain, by agreeing with the posting you quoted, that there is a Covenant in Chapter 12, well ... all you have to do is show it in plain language in verse ....?

[Jesuslovesus]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

You've got a point: I'll concede that Abraham had to do something in Chapter 12. But you still have an obstacle. A Covenant with God, because of man's sin, must be ratified in blood. Noah sacrificed in Genesis 8 and God made the Covenant of the Rainbow with him. Moses ratified the Covenant of Sinai with blood, and the new Covenant of Law to be made with Israel is ratified in Christ's blood. Hebrews 9:17-26 is not to be circumvented. Even the word Covenant means "cutting". Were, in Genesis Chapter 12 is the blood-ratification? A lot happened between Chapter 12 and Chapter 15.


Added to this, it was, "In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, ..." - and this in Chapter 15 (Genesis 15:18) - not Chapter 12.

I'm not saying your point is wrong i'm just saying on the main a lot of people (myself included) have argued that the covenant with Abraham was "unconditional". But as we examine Genesis 12 we see there was a condition namely Abraham had to obey God. This same condition is repeated even more explicitly in Genesis 17:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, 2that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly.”


Once more we see that God's covenant with Abram was "conditional", he had to walk before God, and be blameless.


So in light of these passages how can one argue that the Abrahamic covenant was "unconditional"?






I'm not saying your point is wrong i'm just saying on the main a lot of people (myself included) have argued that the covenant with Abraham was "unconditional". But as we examine Genesis 12 we see there was a condition namely Abraham had to obey God. This same condition is repeated even more explicitly in Genesis 17:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, 2 that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly.”


Once more we see that God's covenant with Abram was "conditional", he had to walk before God, and be blameless.


So in light of these passages how can one argue that the Abrahamic covenant was "unconditional"?

[Walls]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

I'm not saying your point is wrong i'm just saying on the main a lot of people (myself included) have argued that the covenant with Abraham was "unconditional". But as we examine Genesis 12 we see there was a condition namely Abraham had to obey God. This same condition is repeated even more explicitly in Genesis 17:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, 2that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly.”


Once more we see that God's covenant with Abram was "conditional", he had to walk before God, and be blameless.


So in light of these passages how can one argue that the Abrahamic covenant was "unconditional"?

I think that we must make a difference between a COMMAND of God and a CONTRACT. Let us assume that Chapter 12 is a CONTRACT and that Abraham's part was to "walk before God and be blameless". Well, in the very same Chapter Abraham acts the coward, lies to a king, puts his wife in danger, puts God's plan in danger, and brings plagues on Pharoah's family when he was supposed to bring blessings on "all the families on earth".

1. Was the Covenant broken?
2. What were the penalties for this breach?

Well ... none that we can ascertain.

In the next Chapter, Chapter 13, Abraham again thwarts God's commands. In Genesis 12:1 we hear God's command; "Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee". But in Genesis 13:1 we learn; "And Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the south." And as it turns out, Lot causes Abraham a lot of strife. Lot fought with Abraham over grazing rights, Lot was captured from a Sodomite City and Abraham had to risk his life to get him back, and Lot had to be interceded for by Abraham to save his life from the fiery rain on Sodom.

1. Had Abraham broken the Covenant by not leaving his kindred?
2. If so, which one, and where was it ratified, and by which blood?
3. What were the penalties of this Contract?

I propose that the PROMISE of Chapter 12 was not yet a Covenant, and it was UNCONDITIONAL. But on Abraham's insistence, because his faith flagged a bit and he needed a sign, God institutes a Covenant. God would give Abraham and his seed the Land of Canaan and Abraham, and every male (inheritor) coming from his blood, must be and would be circumcised. So, the PROMISE is UNCONDITIONAL, but once it became a COVENANT, ratified by blood, It was CONDITIONAL. Thus we see God sparing Moses in the slaughter of Hebrew males, sparing him the dangers of the Nile, preparing Moses in kingly court for 40 years, preparing Moses in the rigors of the wilderness for 40 years, revealing Himself and the burning bush, equipping Moses for the task of saving and leading His people, and after all that investment, SEEKING TO KILL MOSES (Ex.4:24-26).

Abraham's weaknesses are overlooked, but God's huge investment in Moses would have been be wiped out in seconds if his heathen wife had not hacked off her son's foreskin. There .... is the Covenant in action.

[Jesuslovesus]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

I think that we must make a difference between a COMMAND of God and a CONTRACT. Let us assume that Chapter 12 is a CONTRACT and that Abraham's part was to "walk before God and be blameless". Well, in the very same Chapter Abraham acts the coward, lies to a king, puts his wife in danger, puts God's plan in danger, and brings plagues on Pharoah's family when he was supposed to bring blessings on "all the families on earth".

1. Was the Covenant broken?
2. What were the penalties for this breach?

Well ... none that we can ascertain.

In the next Chapter, Chapter 13, Abraham again thwarts God's commands. In Genesis 12:1 we hear God's command; "Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee". But in Genesis 13:1 we learn; "And Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the south." And as it turns out, Lot causes Abraham a lot of strife. Lot fought with Abraham over grazing rights, Lot was captured from a Sodomite City and Abraham had to risk his life to get him back, and Lot had to be interceded for by Abraham to save his life from the fiery rain on Sodom.

1. Had Abraham broken the Covenant by not leaving his kindred?
2. If so, which one, and where was it ratified, and by which blood?
3. What were the penalties of this Contract?

I propose that the PROMISE of Chapter 12 was not yet a Covenant, and it was UNCONDITIONAL. But on Abraham's insistence, because his faith flagged a bit and he needed a sign, God institutes a Covenant. God would give Abraham and his seed the Land of Canaan and Abraham, and every male (inheritor) coming from his blood, must be and would be circumcised. So, the PROMISE is UNCONDITIONAL, but once it became a COVENANT, ratified by blood, It was CONDITIONAL. Thus we see God sparing Moses in the slaughter of Hebrew males, sparing him the dangers of the Nile, preparing Moses in kingly court for 40 years, preparing Moses in the rigors of the wilderness for 40 years, revealing Himself and the burning bush, equipping Moses for the task of saving and leading His people, and after all that investment, SEEKING TO KILL MOSES (Ex.4:24-26).

Abraham's weaknesses are overlooked, but God's huge investment in Moses would have been be wiped out in seconds if his heathen wife had not hacked off her son's foreskin. There .... is the Covenant in action.

To me, it seems the promise was conditional on Abram's obedience. If we start at the beginning God called Abraham and told him what to do and there was a promise attached if Arbham had remained in his father's house and didn't leave to go to the promised land, no covenant no anything. Personally I would love to see you address Genesis 17:1-3, I think it gets to the root of our conversation. In that passage, we see that Abraham had a condition to make a contract with God and that contract did come with conditions. If Abraham had decided not to walk before God and be blameless (which I believe means not worshiping other gods) then there would never have been a Conditional covenant at all. None of what you mentioned above to me was a breach, not Lot going with him nor how he acted in Egypt. If at any point he had stopped believing in God or following God's commands then he would not have received what was promised to him. Essentially the precondition to the Conditional covenant was believing loyalty. If at any point Arbham had started willfully disobeying God there might not have even been a Covenant.

1. If he didn't follow God command to go to the holy land (if Arbham had disobeyed no promise)
2. If he didn't circumcise himself and his family (if Arbham had disobeyed No Covenant)
3. If he didn't trust and Obey God command regarding Issac (if Arbham had disobeyed no additional promise)

I think that we must make a difference between a COMMAND of God and a CONTRACT. Let us assume that Chapter 12 is a CONTRACT and that Abraham's part was to "walk before God and be blameless". Well, in the very same Chapter Abraham acts the coward, lies to a king, puts his wife in danger, puts God's plan in danger, and brings plagues on Pharoah's family when he was supposed to bring blessings on "all the families on earth".

1. Was the Covenant broken?
2. What were the penalties for this breach?

Well ... none that we can ascertain.

In the next Chapter, Chapter 13, Abraham again thwarts God's commands. In Genesis 12:1 we hear God's command; "Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee". But in Genesis 13:1 we learn; "And Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the south." And as it turns out, Lot causes Abraham a lot of strife. Lot fought with Abraham over grazing rights, Lot was captured from a Sodomite City and Abraham had to risk his life to get him back, and Lot had to be interceded for by Abraham to save his life from the fiery rain on Sodom.

1. Had Abraham broken the Covenant by not leaving his kindred?
2. If so, which one, and where was it ratified, and by which blood?
3. What were the penalties of this Contract?

I propose that the PROMISE of Chapter 12 was not yet a Covenant, and it was UNCONDITIONAL. But on Abraham's insistence, because his faith flagged a bit and he needed a sign, God institutes a Covenant. God would give Abraham and his seed the Land of Canaan and Abraham, and every male (inheritor) coming from his blood, must be and would be circumcised. So, the PROMISE is UNCONDITIONAL, but once it became a COVENANT, ratified by blood, It was CONDITIONAL. Thus we see God sparing Moses in the slaughter of Hebrew males, sparing him the dangers of the Nile, preparing Moses in kingly court for 40 years, preparing Moses in the rigors of the wilderness for 40 years, revealing Himself and the burning bush, equipping Moses for the task of saving and leading His people, and after all that investment, SEEKING TO KILL MOSES (Ex.4:24-26).

Abraham's weaknesses are overlooked, but God's huge investment in Moses would have been be wiped out in seconds if his heathen wife had not hacked off her son's foreskin. There .... is the Covenant in action.

To me, it seems the promise was conditional on Abram's obedience. If we start at the beginning God called Abraham and told him what to do and there was a promise attached if Arbham had remained in his father's house and didn't leave to go to the promised land, no covenant no anything. Personally I would love to see you address Genesis 17:1-3, I think it gets to the root of our conversation. In that passage, we see that Abraham had a condition to make a contract with God and that contract did come with conditions. If Abraham had decided not to walk before God and be blameless (which I believe means not worshiping other gods) then there would never have been a Conditional covenant at all. None of what you mentioned above to me was a breach, not Lot going with him nor how he acted in Egypt. If at any point he had stopped believing in God or following God's commands then he would not have received what was promised to him. Essentially the precondition to the Conditional covenant was believing loyalty. If at any point Arbham had started willfully disobeying God there might not have even been a Covenant.

1. If he didn't follow God command to go to the holy land (if Arbham had disobeyed no promise)
2. If he didn't circumcise himself and his family (if Arbham had disobeyed No Covenant)
3. If he didn't trust and Obey God command regarding Issac (if Arbham had disobeyed no additional promise)

[Walls]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

To me, it seems the promise was conditional on Abram's obedience. If we start at the beginning God called Abraham and told him what to do and there was a promise attached if Arbham had remained in his father's house and didn't leave to go to the promised land, no covenant no anything. Personally I would love to see you address Genesis 17:1-3, I think it gets to the root of our conversation. In that passage, we see that Abraham had a condition to make a contract with God and that contract did come with conditions. If Abraham had decided not to walk before God and be blameless (which I believe means not worshiping other gods) then there would never have been a Conditional covenant at all. None of what you mentioned above to me was a breach, not Lot going with him nor how he acted in Egypt. If at any point he had stopped believing in God or following God's commands then he would not have received what was promised to him. Essentially the precondition to the Conditional covenant was believing loyalty. If at any point Arbham had started willfully disobeying God there might not have even been a Covenant.

1. If he didn't follow God command to go to the holy land (if Arbham had disobeyed no promise)
2. If he didn't circumcise himself and his family (if Arbham had disobeyed No Covenant)
3. If he didn't trust and Obey God command regarding Issac (if Arbham had disobeyed no additional promise)

OK. We both have a differing view of the matter, but I think our differences are not damaging to a holy walk with our Lord. Let's agree to disagree.