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

[Trivalee]

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.

But God's Promise to Abraham concerning his "seed" (Gal 3:16) was not ratified by blood, was it? I mean, wasn't God "word" sufficient?

[Trivalee]

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

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 ....?

As I already stated in another post, what I see in Gen 12 is a "promise". Can it be interpreted as a covenant also? Yes, indeed.

1. First, God asks Abraham to leave his country (Haran) for another that would be revealed to him in due course, Gen 12:1.
2. In return for his obedience, God promised to make him a great nation, v-2.
3. Finally, in v-7 God promised that his seed will inherit the land.

I posit that a covenant must have caveat(s) to be valid. So what is the proviso in Gen 12? Look at it this way:

4. Gen 12:1-2: For Abraham to receive the land God promised him and be made a great nation was contingent on his willingness to move from his country to another that was hitherto, unknown to him. Scripture didn't say that God forced Abraham to move, therefore, had he preferred to sit tight in his familiar habitation (Haran), I don't see God fulfilling his promise! Most likely, God would have chosen someone else who would obey him instead. So Abraham's obedience was the caveat.

[Trivalee]

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.

1. The error in your supposition is the assumption that every covenant requires blood for ratification. This is not true.
2. Secondly, Abraham's obedience by leaving Haran for Shechem and Canaan was enough for God to fulfil his promise. I don't believe that potential transgressions (if any) from Abraham would have nullified God's promise.

[Walls]

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

But God's Promise to Abraham concerning his "seed" (Gal 3:16) was not ratified by blood, was it? I mean, wasn't God "word" sufficient?

God's Word IS sufficient. But if you read the opening verses of Genesis Chapter 17, you will see that it pleased the Lord to make Covenant. No one can get God to enter a Covenant. It must come from Him. Where the Covenant has its power is NOT from God's side. He always keeps His Word. It is to bind men who are Covenant-breakers.


Galatians Chapter 3, within the context of the whole Book that condemns the Law as a means to sanctification, shows how a Christian can become an heir to the Covenant of Promise WITHOUT being the fleshly seed of Abraham. The "Seed" (Singular and Capitalized) is still Seed of Abraham, as both Matthew and Luke's genealogies show. But WITHIN HIM He had the means to bring forth seed via the Holy Spirit, not sex. Galatians 3:14 says; "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." Up until our Lord Jesus, every "seed" of Abraham came via the loins. But now One came Who could generate via the Spirit. In John 12:24 it is; "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." Our Lord Jesus becomes the Vehicle for Gentiles, who are not fleshly seed of Abraham, NY FAITH (and NOT Law), to become heirs to the Promises.

And because we are now joined in Covenant for the earth (Rom.4:13), we must be circumcised. But TWO things have changed.

1. The Covenant of Promise is now open to women as well
2. The old Body is not fit for inheriting the earth.

Circumcision is enough for Canaan, but for the inheriting of the whole earth the whole flesh must be cut off (1st Cor.15:50). But God needs the Christian for His Name and for the Church. So, instead of cutting off the whole flesh in instant death, the Lord changes the "sign" of circumcision to BAPTISM (fully immersed in the death waters symbolically - Col.2:10-12)

So, while the Christian is exempt from, nay ... FORBIDDEN, the Covenant of Law, he/she is very much part of the Covenant of Promise.

P.S. The reason that we have problems with this Covenant is that deep down we think we are going to heaven. If that is true then the Covenant made with Abraham is MOOT. But if man is made for, and redeemed for THE EARTH, then it is everything.

[shepherdsword]

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

Thread closed for reaching over 1000 posts. Please continue discussion here:

http://https://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/311102-Has-the-New-Covenant-started-or-is-it-still-in-the-future-(part-two)?p=3561530#post3561530