Christian Forums

 This is a discussion/debate on Ancient Near East (ANE) Covenants and Biblical Covenants between myself and SwordMaster. I say discussion/debate as I'm expecting this to be more a friendly discussion that a formal debate.

It is intended to do this in two parts:
Firstly to discuss ANE Covenants in relation to the Old Testament Covenants.
Secondly when we have exhausted that (or ourselves  ) to move on to the New Covenant.

I'm starting with the first part of SwordMaster's OP to STRanger in New Covenant application to the NT Scriptures

Quote from: SwordMaster on Sun Dec 08, 2013 - 13:53:25
My position:
With the discovery of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) covenants and their operating principles through continued Biblical archaeology, theology has to be modified...just as any other science (the study of...) must be amended to new discovery of things previously undiscovered by man. The Reformers did not have this information at hand, because it was not discovered until hundreds of years after their deaths, and even then, this pertinent information - although being known to the scholars since their discovery - for some reason was not passed down to the grass-roots level of the Church. I have my suspicions as to why, but will refrain from divulging that until later.

The first tenet for this debate must be that this information is not Biblical - that is, it is not found within the pages of the Bible, as is the same with other pertinent discoveries which attend sound Scriptural interpretation. Because in order to fully understand the intended meaning of the Scriptures, we must understand numerous things outside of Holy Writ, the customs of the days when the Scriptures were written, the history, and other things. The discovery and application of ANE covenant principles fall into that custom and history of God's dealings with mankind - therefore it is necessary to have knowledge and understanding of ANE covenant form and principles, because the New Covenant IS a covenant fashioned after ANE covenant form...the New Covenant IS an ANE covenant, and therefore the principles of operation of ANE covenants is to be added to our Biblical Hermeneutic...or else one skews proper interpretation of the NT Scriptures.

ANE Covenant Principles:

1.  A covenant is not in force until after both parties agree to all of the elements, terms, stipulations, promises, blessings, benefits, gifts and obligations of the covenant agreement, and then inaugurate and ratify the covenant relationship. At that point all elements of the covenant are legally binding upon all parties involved.

2.  Once the covenant has been agreed upon and entered into by both parties, it cannot be altered unless both parties agree to such alteration, usually in response to some unforeseen variable at the time of the inauguration of the covenant.

3.  Entering into covenant involved establishing not only a binding legal relationship between both parties, but was also recognized as one of the most strongly held to relationships in the cultures in which they thrived.

4.  The terms, stipulations, promises, blessings, benefits, and gifts of the covenant are only applicable to those who are participants in that specific covenant.

5.  All of the elements of the covenant in question, be they terms, stipulations, promises, benefits, and gifts, or obligations, are to be interpreted solely from within the context of the covenant from which they originate.

6.  None of the obligations of the covenant are legally binding upon the participants until after the covenant has been inaugurated and then ratified.

Practically all of these same principles can be observed as standard operating procedures in modern contracts, and a covenant is indeed partly contractual in nature, but the difference between a contract and a covenant is found in that the later not only establishes a binding legal agreement, but it also establishes a binding legal RELATIONSHIP so intimate in its nature, in some cultures in which they are (and were) practiced, they constitute a relationship which precedes familial blood relationships.

My comments
I agree that new knowledge can expand our understanding of the scriptures, and I have no problem with the proposal that the covenants in the Bible follow the pattern & principles of ANE covenants. God frequently uses things or practices with which man is familiar in his dealings with us. However that doesn't mean that they have to follow that pattern and rules exactly. In God's dealings with man it is God who initiates the covenants and makes the rules. Also the Old Testament Covenants are only shadows or figures of what is to come in the New Testament.

As I understand it, ANE covenants come in two kinds, those between equals (parity treaties) and those of a Lord and his vassal(s) (suzerainty treaties).

God's covenants with mankind are of the latter kind. Moreover there is no negotiation on the terms. God proclaims the terms of the covenant. I think there is only one covenant where man has to agree the terms and that is the Sinai Covenant. In the others there no need for man's agreement, God simply proclaims the terms of the covenant (e.g. with Noah and David)


Regarding point 5 I think it depends how that is meant. I agree that, as with all else, we need to take into account the customs, language idioms etc. but also we need to take into account any previous covenants relating to either party.

Regarding point 6 I disagree with the sequence of inauguration and then ratification. I believe that this is incorrect. The sequence should be ratification and then inauguration (though perhaps it may be our understanding of the words).

I believe there are three stages to a Covenant:
1. The terms of the covenant are proclaimed, or discussed and agreed, by negotiators.
2. The covenant is ratified by both parties (if appropriate)
3. The covenant is inaugurated (commences)

One or more of these stages may be concurrent.

One thing I think is missing is the provision for renewing/repairing the covenant after one party has broken some of its provisions, but not seriously enough to nullify it and bring down all the penalties.

Also there are two other topics that I see as important:

Firstly the role of the covenant mediator

Secondly the covenant sign.


I'll stop there for the moment
 

Quote from: winsome on Fri Jan 10, 2014 - 05:51:31
This is a discussion/debate on Ancient Near East (ANE) Covenants and Biblical Covenants between myself and SwordMaster. I say discussion/debate as I'm expecting this to be more a friendly discussion that a formal debate.

It is intended to do this in two parts:
Firstly to discuss ANE Covenants in relation to the Old Testament Covenants.
Secondly when we have exhausted that (or ourselves  ) to move on to the New Covenant.

I'm starting with the first part of SwordMaster's OP to STRanger in New Covenant application to the NT Scriptures

Quote from: SwordMaster on Sun Dec 08, 2013 - 13:53:25
My position:
With the discovery of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) covenants and their operating principles through continued Biblical archaeology, theology has to be modified...just as any other science (the study of...) must be amended to new discovery of things previously undiscovered by man. The Reformers did not have this information at hand, because it was not discovered until hundreds of years after their deaths, and even then, this pertinent information - although being known to the scholars since their discovery - for some reason was not passed down to the grass-roots level of the Church. I have my suspicions as to why, but will refrain from divulging that until later.

The first tenet for this debate must be that this information is not Biblical - that is, it is not found within the pages of the Bible, as is the same with other pertinent discoveries which attend sound Scriptural interpretation. Because in order to fully understand the intended meaning of the Scriptures, we must understand numerous things outside of Holy Writ, the customs of the days when the Scriptures were written, the history, and other things. The discovery and application of ANE covenant principles fall into that custom and history of God's dealings with mankind - therefore it is necessary to have knowledge and understanding of ANE covenant form and principles, because the New Covenant IS a covenant fashioned after ANE covenant form...the New Covenant IS an ANE covenant, and therefore the principles of operation of ANE covenants is to be added to our Biblical Hermeneutic...or else one skews proper interpretation of the NT Scriptures.

ANE Covenant Principles:

1.  A covenant is not in force until after both parties agree to all of the elements, terms, stipulations, promises, blessings, benefits, gifts and obligations of the covenant agreement, and then inaugurate and ratify the covenant relationship. At that point all elements of the covenant are legally binding upon all parties involved.

2.  Once the covenant has been agreed upon and entered into by both parties, it cannot be altered unless both parties agree to such alteration, usually in response to some unforeseen variable at the time of the inauguration of the covenant.

3.  Entering into covenant involved establishing not only a binding legal relationship between both parties, but was also recognized as one of the most strongly held to relationships in the cultures in which they thrived.

4.  The terms, stipulations, promises, blessings, benefits, and gifts of the covenant are only applicable to those who are participants in that specific covenant.

5.  All of the elements of the covenant in question, be they terms, stipulations, promises, benefits, and gifts, or obligations, are to be interpreted solely from within the context of the covenant from which they originate.

6.  None of the obligations of the covenant are legally binding upon the participants until after the covenant has been inaugurated and then ratified.

Practically all of these same principles can be observed as standard operating procedures in modern contracts, and a covenant is indeed partly contractual in nature, but the difference between a contract and a covenant is found in that the later not only establishes a binding legal agreement, but it also establishes a binding legal RELATIONSHIP so intimate in its nature, in some cultures in which they are (and were) practiced, they constitute a relationship which precedes familial blood relationships.

My comments
I agree that new knowledge can expand our understanding of the scriptures, and I have no problem with the proposal that the covenants in the Bible follow the pattern & principles of ANE covenants. God frequently uses things or practices with which man is familiar in his dealings with us. However that doesn't mean that they have to follow that pattern and rules exactly. In God's dealings with man it is God who initiates the covenants and makes the rules. Also the Old Testament Covenants are only shadows or figures of what is to come in the New Testament.

As I understand it, ANE covenants come in two kinds, those between equals (parity treaties) and those of a Lord and his vassal(s) (suzerainty treaties).

God's covenants with mankind are of the latter kind. Moreover there is no negotiation on the terms. God proclaims the terms of the covenant. I think there is only one covenant where man has to agree the terms and that is the Sinai Covenant. In the others there no need for man's agreement, God simply proclaims the terms of the covenant (e.g. with Noah and David)


Regarding point 5 I think it depends how that is meant. I agree that, as with all else, we need to take into account the customs, language idioms etc. but also we need to take into account any previous covenants relating to either party.

Regarding point 6 I disagree with the sequence of inauguration and then ratification. I believe that this is incorrect. The sequence should be ratification and then inauguration (though perhaps it may be our understanding of the words).

I believe there are three stages to a Covenant:
1. The terms of the covenant are proclaimed, or discussed and agreed, by negotiators.
2. The covenant is ratified by both parties (if appropriate)
3. The covenant is inaugurated (commences)

One or more of these stages may be concurrent.

One thing I think is missing is the provision for renewing/repairing the covenant after one party has broken some of its provisions, but not seriously enough to nullify it and bring down all the penalties.

Also there are two other topics that I see as important:

Firstly the role of the covenant mediator

Secondly the covenant sign.


I'll stop there for the moment

Quote
I agree that new knowledge can expand our understanding of the scriptures, and I have no problem with the proposal that the covenants in the Bible follow the pattern & principles of ANE covenants. God frequently uses things or practices with which man is familiar in his dealings with us. However that doesn't mean that they have to follow that pattern and rules exactly. In God's dealings with man it is God who initiates the covenants and makes the rules. Also the Old Testament Covenants are only shadows or figures of what is to come in the New Testament.

This is true, which Mendenhall reports in his work [Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition; G. E. Mendenhall; The Biblical Archeologist, Vol. 17, No. 3, Sept. 1954], where in page 58 he states "that the form is not an extremely rigid one. Rather, there is considerable variation in the order of the elements as well as in the wording" and that "occasionally, one or another of the elements may be lacking." We see this played out when we come to discuss the New Covenant later.

QuoteAs I understand it, ANE covenants come in two kinds, those between equals (parity treaties) and those of a Lord and his vassal(s) (suzerainty treaties).

This would be correct, although some more detail is warranted; these two kinds of covenants are a "grouping" and each group has forms within them. For example, forms of the "parity treaties" would be economic (business) covenants and marriage covenants; while under suzerainty covenants we have those between human/human and then God/human. The Old Covenant (like the New) has a mixed form - it is both suzerainty-vassal and marriage covenant combined. We can observe this in numerous passages within the OT where God calls Israel His unfaithful wife (Ezekiel 16, among others).

QuoteGod's covenants with mankind are of the latter kind. Moreover there is no negotiation on the terms. God proclaims the terms of the covenant. I think there is only one covenant where man has to agree the terms and that is the Sinai Covenant. In the others there no need for man's agreement, God simply proclaims the terms of the covenant (e.g. with Noah and David)

Basically, we agree here.

QuoteRegarding point 5 I think it depends how that is meant. I agree that, as with all else, we need to take into account the customs, language idioms etc. but also we need to take into account any previous covenants relating to either party.

Your point is taken and I agree. The point of principle 5 can be restated in hermeneutical terms: Scripture interprets Scripture. Just as a modern day contract enunciates, an ANE covenant was to be interpreted according to the principles of the covenant. That is basically what principle 5 is saying.

QuoteRegarding point 6 I disagree with the sequence of inauguration and then ratification. I believe that this is incorrect. The sequence should be ratification and then inauguration (though perhaps it may be our understanding of the words).

Lets look at some definitions: Inaugurate means "a formal beginning" and "initiation," and "to introduce through formal ceremony."
Ratification means "to confirm," and "formal approval."
According to these definitions (and assuming that they hold true for ANE covenants of antiquity), the logic progression is first inauguration (a formal beginning/initiation into effectuation) followed by ratification (confirmation or formal approval of what is now in effect). One cannot ratify something that is not yet in effect.

QuoteI believe there are three stages to a Covenant:
1. The terms of the covenant are proclaimed, or discussed and agreed, by negotiators.
2. The covenant is ratified by both parties (if appropriate)
3. The covenant is inaugurated (commences)

One or more of these stages may be concurrent.

There are different stages depending upon what covenant form is under discussion. For example, a suzerain-vassal type covenant would follow this step pattern:
     (1)  The Suzerain has the covenant stipulations read to the vassal, who has no say-so in those stipulations - he either agreed to them, or war would be on the horizon (unless the suzerain had the vassal king killed on the spot and set up another vassal king whom he chose).
     (2)  The covenant was inaugurated by the suzerain king.
     (3)  The vassal king ratified the covenant, confirming that he would abide by the covenant stipulations.

If we are talking about a business (parity) covenant, such a covenant agreement would fall according to the following steps:
     (1)  Both covenant parties come together and hammer out the stipulations and details of the covenant.
     (2)  When both parties are satisfied with the stipulations of the covenant, each would produce an animal for the covenant sacrifice.
     (3)  The sacrifice would be cut in two halves and each participant would walk between the cut halves reciting their obligations to the covenant partner. The dead animals were symbolic for covenant stability, meaning neither covenant partner could legally break the covenant any more than a dead man could break a covenant. This ceremony inaugurated the covenant into actuation.
     (4)  After this inauguration ceremony, the covenant participants each brought another sacrificial animal that was to be slaughtered and eaten between the two participants. This "covenant meal" was the ratification of the covenant. In ANE covenant (and custom), eating with someone who was not blood relation (family) brought to two covenanters into covenant bond, the sharing of the same food brought them into a shared life of covenant.

For a third example, if we are talking about a marriage covenant, such a covenant making would fall according the following steps:
     (1)  The prospective groom writes up his marriage covenant and takes it, along with a skin of wine, cup, and dowry, to the prospective bride's house and presents the covenant first to her, and then to her father.
     (2)  If both agree to the covenant, the groom gives the bride's father the dowry. (In some tradition, the bride and the father sign the marriage covenant, but this is not always done as far as ancient witnesses go. Some did and some didn't, it was personal choice...apparently.) If the bride or her father disagreed with the marriage covenant, they would sit down and hammer out the details, and then proceed...
     (3)  The groom would pour a cup of wine and both he and his bride would drink from the cup. From that moment on, they were legally married in the eyes of Jewish law, even though they were not allowed to consummate the marriage until after the groom fulfilled certain of his marriage covenant obligations. The groom would leave his bride and go to prepare his obligations, which usually meant build a house for them to live in, plus other stipulations.
     (4)  The following day, the bride had to go perform a ceremonial mikveh cleansing. According to Jewish tradition, if the bride did not partake of this ritual mikveh, even though they were legally married, the couple could not consummate the marriage relationship.
     (5)  When the father of the groom approves of his son's completed stipulations, he gave his son permission to get his bride.
     (6)  Traditionally, the groom waited with some of his friends until sunset, and then they would approach his bride's house, blowing a horn signalling his coming. When he and his friends arrived, he would carry her away to the bridal chamber at his father's house while his friends carried away all her belongings to the same destination.
     (7)  The consummation of the marriage was the ratification of the marriage covenant, the blood of the proof of her virginity as the blood of the covenant.

So, depending upon what kind and form of covenant, the steps to covenant making varies. I hope that is not too exhaustive!
     

QuoteOne thing I think is missing is the provision for renewing/repairing the covenant after one party has broken some of its provisions, but not seriously enough to nullify it and bring down all the penalties.

I just didn't get that far in the debate with STRanger (stranger??? I never saw that before!). In answer to you, I present the following:

"Technically, covenants were not dissolved or terminated by noncompliance. The covenant continued in force even when it was "broken" and its stipulations violated. That which changed legally was the consequence of the covenant, not the continuance of the covenant...A covenant, however, was not wholly nullified or made void simply by a participant's violation of the terms. " The New Covenant of Scripture in ANE Covenant Context: A Preliminary Paper; Dr. Roy E. Beacham; delivered at the Baptist Bible Seminary, September 23, 2009, Pg 12-13

Beacham goes on to say..."Renewals were only restatements and reaffirmations of an original covenant already in force; they were not new covenants in and of themselves," the violated covenant would be "renewed" or "reaffirmed" and continue in effect. It was blatant cessation of the covenant which violated it to the point where it was broken completely. In a marriage covenant this would end in divorce; in a suzerain-vassal covenant it meant war; in a business covenant, such an act brought down legal penalties to the one who broke the covenant.

QuoteAlso there are two other topics that I see as important: Firstly the role of the covenant mediator. Secondly the covenant sign.

Good points!

Firstly, not all covenant had a mediator, and a mediator was usually only called into play when the two participants coming into covenant relationship were at heated exchange with one another (usually, but not always). Secondly, not all covenants had a sign...the Old Covenant did, as well as the New, but not all...which Mendenhall addressed in the earlier quote above. Some of the covenant elements he alludes to can be a covenant sign, covenant meal, covenant sacrifice, or token. "Some covenant ceremonies might include libations, ablutions, or other manipulations of non-bloody liquids such as water, oil, or wine...Covenants could be made without a sacrifice. Even when included, the sacrifice itself, like other covenant complements, did not constitute enactment or ratification of the covenant." Ibid, Beacham, Pg 14

Blessings!

Hi SwordMaster,

My apologies for the delay in responding.

My wife a bad fall a few days ago and injured her back. She has been in a lot of pain but is getting better now. As a result I haven't had the time or concentration to tackle this as much as I want to. Please bear with me.

Quote from: winsome on Mon Jan 13, 2014 - 04:32:42
Hi SwordMaster,

My apologies for the delay in responding.

My wife a bad fall a few days ago and injured her back. She has been in a lot of pain but is getting better now. As a result I haven't had the time or concentration to tackle this as much as I want to. Please bear with me.

No problem brother, I completely understand...I have been in that same situation with my wife in the past.

Blessings!

 

Quote from: SwordMaster on Fri Jan 10, 2014 - 21:43:01

QuoteAs I understand it, ANE covenants come in two kinds, those between equals (parity treaties) and those of a Lord and his vassal(s) (suzerainty treaties).

This would be correct, although some more detail is warranted; these two kinds of covenants are a "grouping" and each group has forms within them. For example, forms of the "parity treaties" would be economic (business) covenants and marriage covenants; while under suzerainty covenants we have those between human/human and then God/human. The Old Covenant (like the New) has a mixed form - it is both suzerainty-vassal and marriage covenant combined. We can observe this in numerous passages within the OT where God calls Israel His unfaithful wife (Ezekiel 16, among others).

I'm not sure about the OT covenant being both suzerainty-vassal and marriage covenant combined.

I think that in terms of covenant there is only suzerainty-vassal.
"A covenant with an equal creates "brothers".  Covenants with non-equals, like a great king and his vassal, create a father/ son relationship.  The vassal owes the king the loyalty and obedience a son owes a father." (Michal Elizabeth Hunt, Agape Bible Study)

Several times God refers to his relationship
'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my first-born son (Ex 4:22)
When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. (Hos 11:1)

And yet also God does indeed refer to Israel as an unfaithful wife.

But I do not think this is an expression of covenant in the legal sense but of the sort of the loving relationship that God wants with his people within that covenant.

Michal Hunt says (continuing from the above quote) "Yahweh expresses his covenant with Israel as both a great king to a vassal but more meaningfully as a husband to his wife.  When Israel strays from Yahweh to embrace other gods she is an unfaithful wife, a harlot breaking the marriage covenant."

In other words the legal covenant is that of suzerainty-vassal but God expresses the relationship he desires from this covenant in terms of both father/son (loyalty and obedience) and husband/wife (love and faithfulness).

If we look at the covenant steps that you list, we can see the steps for the suzerainty-vassal covenant in the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants but not the steps you give for the marriage covenant.

BTW Can I assume that by Old Covenant you are referring to the Mosiac/Sinai Covenant (as opposed to the Abrahamic Covenant)?

Quote from: SwordMaster on Fri Jan 10, 2014 - 21:43:01

QuoteRegarding point 6 I disagree with the sequence of inauguration and then ratification. I believe that this is incorrect. The sequence should be ratification and then inauguration (though perhaps it may be our understanding of the words).

Lets look at some definitions: Inaugurate means "a formal beginning" and "initiation," and "to introduce through formal ceremony."
Ratification means "to confirm," and "formal approval."
According to these definitions (and assuming that they hold true for ANE covenants of antiquity), the logic progression is first inauguration (a formal beginning/initiation into effectuation) followed by ratification (confirmation or formal approval of what is now in effect). One cannot ratify something that is not yet in effect.

QuoteI believe there are three stages to a Covenant:
1. The terms of the covenant are proclaimed, or discussed and agreed, by negotiators.
2. The covenant is ratified by both parties (if appropriate)
3. The covenant is inaugurated (commences)

One or more of these stages may be concurrent.

There are different stages depending upon what covenant form is under discussion. For example, a suzerain-vassal type covenant would follow this step pattern:
     (1)  The Suzerain has the covenant stipulations read to the vassal, who has no say-so in those stipulations - he either agreed to them, or war would be on the horizon (unless the suzerain had the vassal king killed on the spot and set up another vassal king whom he chose).
     (2)  The covenant was inaugurated by the suzerain king.
     (3)  The vassal king ratified the covenant, confirming that he would abide by the covenant stipulations.

If we are talking about a business (parity) covenant, such a covenant agreement would fall according to the following steps:
     (1)  Both covenant parties come together and hammer out the stipulations and details of the covenant.
     (2)  When both parties are satisfied with the stipulations of the covenant, each would produce an animal for the covenant sacrifice.
     (3)  The sacrifice would be cut in two halves and each participant would walk between the cut halves reciting their obligations to the covenant partner. The dead animals were symbolic for covenant stability, meaning neither covenant partner could legally break the covenant any more than a dead man could break a covenant. This ceremony inaugurated the covenant into actuation.
     (4)  After this inauguration ceremony, the covenant participants each brought another sacrificial animal that was to be slaughtered and eaten between the two participants. This "covenant meal" was the ratification of the covenant. In ANE covenant (and custom), eating with someone who was not blood relation (family) brought to two covenanters into covenant bond, the sharing of the same food brought them into a shared life of covenant.

For a third example, if we are talking about a marriage covenant, such a covenant making would fall according the following steps:
     (1)  The prospective groom writes up his marriage covenant and takes it, along with a skin of wine, cup, and dowry, to the prospective bride's house and presents the covenant first to her, and then to her father.
     (2)  If both agree to the covenant, the groom gives the bride's father the dowry. (In some tradition, the bride and the father sign the marriage covenant, but this is not always done as far as ancient witnesses go. Some did and some didn't, it was personal choice...apparently.) If the bride or her father disagreed with the marriage covenant, they would sit down and hammer out the details, and then proceed...
     (3)  The groom would pour a cup of wine and both he and his bride would drink from the cup. From that moment on, they were legally married in the eyes of Jewish law, even though they were not allowed to consummate the marriage until after the groom fulfilled certain of his marriage covenant obligations. The groom would leave his bride and go to prepare his obligations, which usually meant build a house for them to live in, plus other stipulations.
     (4)  The following day, the bride had to go perform a ceremonial mikveh cleansing. According to Jewish tradition, if the bride did not partake of this ritual mikveh, even though they were legally married, the couple could not consummate the marriage relationship.
     (5)  When the father of the groom approves of his son's completed stipulations, he gave his son permission to get his bride.
     (6)  Traditionally, the groom waited with some of his friends until sunset, and then they would approach his bride's house, blowing a horn signalling his coming. When he and his friends arrived, he would carry her away to the bridal chamber at his father's house while his friends carried away all her belongings to the same destination.
     (7)  The consummation of the marriage was the ratification of the marriage covenant, the blood of the proof of her virginity as the blood of the covenant.

So, depending upon what kind and form of covenant, the steps to covenant making varies. I hope that is not too exhaustive!

I think we are using the word inaugurate for two different events. Let me take your first example:

Quote from: There are different stages depending upon what covenant form is under discussion. For example, a suzerain-vassal type covenant would follow this step pattern:
     (1)  The Suzerain has the covenant stipulations read to the vassal, who has no say-so in those stipulations - he either agreed to them, or war would be on the horizon (unless the suzerain had the vassal king killed on the spot and set up another vassal king whom he chose).
     (2)  The covenant was inaugurated by the suzerain king.
     (3)  The vassal king ratified the covenant, confirming that he would abide by the covenant stipulations.

I maintain that ratification comes before inauguration. I am using ratification to mean the point at which the terms of the covenant are legally agreed, and inauguration to mean the point at which the terms of the covenant to come into effect and the blessings flow. Between ratification and inauguration there may be actions required of one (or both) of the parties.

Let me take two examples of ratification followed by inauguration from our current time (though not actually covenants I think they explain the sequence):

Firstly the election of the President of the United States

Stage 1 is the manifesto & electioneering of the candidates. These are their terms.

Stage 2 is the election by the people of the electoral college and the election by the electoral college, culminating in the ratification by the joint Houses of Congress on the submissions of the votes in the electoral college and the President of the Senate declares who has been elected.

Stage 3 is the inauguration of the President follows a few days later. At this point he takes possession of all his powers as President (the blessings?)

In many cases an agreement will come into effect on ratification – stages 2 & 3 are concurrent.


Another example is the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Stage 1 - negotiations which culminated in it being signed in Moscow on May 26th,

Stage 2  ratified (legally agreed) by Congress on August 3rd

Stage 3 - came into effect (inaugurated) on October 3rd.

If we take the steps of the marriage covenant that you give I see
Stage 1 – Steps 1 & 2
Stage 2 (ratification) – Step 3a (drinking from the cup)

Steps 3b (preparing a place for the bride) and steps 4-6 were action to be performed before inauguration. They were part of the agreement in Stage 1

Stage 3 (inauguration) – Step 7 (consummation of the marriage).


You also say     
(1)  The Suzerain has the covenant stipulations read to the vassal, who has no say-so in those stipulations - he either agreed to them, or war would be on the horizon (unless the suzerain had the vassal king killed on the spot and set up another vassal king whom he chose).

Whilst this may be true for man-man covenants it does not apply to God-man covenants. God either simply states what he will do and requires no acceptance by man (e.g. Noah & David) or offers the Covenant to man but wants his voluntary acceptance (e.g. Abraham and Moses).

One further comment as regards the steps of the different kinds of covenant:- The splitting of the halves of animals and walking between them that you describe under business (parity) covenants was done in the Abrahamic covenant, which was not a parity covenant. I think that perhaps shows the flexibility and variations that occur.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Fri Jan 10, 2014 - 21:43:01

QuoteOne thing I think is missing is the provision for renewing/repairing the covenant after one party has broken some of its provisions, but not seriously enough to nullify it and bring down all the penalties.

I just didn't get that far in the debate with STRanger (stranger??? I never saw that before!). In answer to you, I present the following:

"Technically, covenants were not dissolved or terminated by noncompliance. The covenant continued in force even when it was "broken" and its stipulations violated. That which changed legally was the consequence of the covenant, not the continuance of the covenant...A covenant, however, was not wholly nullified or made void simply by a participant's violation of the terms. " The New Covenant of Scripture in ANE Covenant Context: A Preliminary Paper; Dr. Roy E. Beacham; delivered at the Baptist Bible Seminary, September 23, 2009, Pg 12-13

Beacham goes on to say..."Renewals were only restatements and reaffirmations of an original covenant already in force; they were not new covenants in and of themselves," the violated covenant would be "renewed" or "reaffirmed" and continue in effect. It was blatant cessation of the covenant which violated it to the point where it was broken completely. In a marriage covenant this would end in divorce; in a suzerain-vassal covenant it meant war; in a business covenant, such an act brought down legal penalties to the one who broke the covenant.

OK, I'll go with that. Possibly this may come up again when we look at the New Covenant

Quote from: SwordMaster on Fri Jan 10, 2014 - 21:43:01

QuoteAlso there are two other topics that I see as important: Firstly the role of the covenant mediator. Secondly the covenant sign.

Good points!

Firstly, not all covenant had a mediator, and a mediator was usually only called into play when the two participants coming into covenant relationship were at heated exchange with one another (usually, but not always). Secondly, not all covenants had a sign...the Old Covenant did, as well as the New, but not all...which Mendenhall addressed in the earlier quote above. Some of the covenant elements he alludes to can be a covenant sign, covenant meal, covenant sacrifice, or token. "Some covenant ceremonies might include libations, ablutions, or other manipulations of non-bloody liquids such as water, oil, or wine...Covenants could be made without a sacrifice. Even when included, the sacrifice itself, like other covenant complements, did not constitute enactment or ratification of the covenant." Ibid, Beacham, Pg 14

Blessings!

I think that depends on what is meant by covenant mediator. Some commentaries I've read ascribe a mediator to all the covenants between God and man (or just don't mention it). I think the term is used more in the sense of the person with whom God deals when making the covenant (e.g. Scott Hahn gives  – Adam. Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus).

In a similar way all the main God-man covenants had a sign though I disagree with Scott Hahn on his list. The signs were important as physical reminders of the covenant but also they pointed to a future spiritual reality.

The sign of the Abrahamic covenant was circumcision.
God  was angry and was going to kill Moses because he had not circumcised his son (Ex 4:24:26).
After the 40 years in the wilderness it seems that the current generation of Israelites had not been circumcised and God would not allow them to take the land he had promised Abraham until they were circumcised (Jos 5:2­-7).

With the Sinai Covenant the sign was the Sabbath. Again God got angry when they failed to keep his Sabbaths.(Ez 20:12-13).

I read somewhere that circumcision was a personal sign for a Jew whilst the Sabbath was a corporate sign.

One more point I have read. In a suzerainty-vassal covenant, if the vassals failed to keep the terms, the suzerain Lord would send emissaries to the vassals to warn them to keep the terms or face judgement and punishment under the terms of the covenant. Thus God sent the prophets at various times to warn Israel and call for repentance and a return to the terms of the covenant. When they failed to listen God sent judgement and punishment (e.g. the Assyrians to the northern kingdom and the Babylonians to the southern.

God bless

QuoteI'm not sure about the OT covenant being both suzerainty-vassal and marriage covenant combined.

Keep in mind that there are different forms of ANE covenants, and that when discussing covenants we have to distinguish between ANE covenants and the covenant forms of other cultures. Also keep in mind that that ANE covenants specifically generate formal relationships. According to these descriptions, and the relationship which God brings the Jews into with Himself, the Old Covenant would be classified as both suzerain-vassal and marriage covenant in nature and form.

QuoteI think that in terms of covenant there is only suzerainty-vassal.
"A covenant with an equal creates "brothers".  Covenants with non-equals, like a great king and his vassal, create a father/ son relationship.  The vassal owes the king the loyalty and obedience a son owes a father." (Michal Elizabeth Hunt, Agape Bible Study)

True, and in many ANE covenants of antiquity, the "Great King" (whether Babylonian, Assyrian, or Sumerian) was always versed as the father, and the conquered vassals addressed as sons. However, this is not a complete definition of the term for that form of covenant.

QuoteSeveral times God refers to his relationship
'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my first-born son (Ex 4:22)
When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. (Hos 11:1)

True, but this was before Israel had come into covenant relationship with God. After the Old Covenant was established, Israel is called his wife (this is not constant, but the majority).

QuoteAnd yet also God does indeed refer to Israel as an unfaithful wife. But I do not think this is an expression of covenant in the legal sense but of the sort of the loving relationship that God wants with his people within that covenant.

Well, remember that marriage is a relationship that is originated and formalized through covenant, therefore it stands to reason that any terminologies stemming from a marriage relationship is directly related to covenant, since that relationship originates through covenant. No?

QuoteMichal Hunt says (continuing from the above quote) "Yahweh expresses his covenant with Israel as both a great king to a vassal but more meaningfully as a husband to his wife.  When Israel strays from Yahweh to embrace other gods she is an unfaithful wife, a harlot breaking the marriage covenant."

In other words the legal covenant is that of suzerainty-vassal but God expresses the relationship he desires from this covenant in terms of both father/son (loyalty and obedience) and husband/wife (love and faithfulness).

I would agree with him only to a certain point. In a true strict suzerain-vassal covenant, it would only have taken a few times of Israel's unfaithfulness to the covenant for God to say that's enough and just wipe them out. There is very little grace within suzerain-vassal covenants...whereas in marriage covenants grace abounds, but even then, only to a certain degree.

QuoteIf we look at the covenant steps that you list, we can see the steps for the suzerainty-vassal covenant in the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants but not the steps you give for the marriage covenant.

True, but again, remember that the steps differ according to the type of covenant one is discussing. For example, blood covenanting in ANE nations had only one step...you cut each other and mix your blood in various means. It is still a covenant, but it has only one step...different covenant forms had differing steps and stages.

QuoteBTW Can I assume that by Old Covenant you are referring to the Mosiac/Sinai Covenant (as opposed to the Abrahamic Covenant)?

Correct, from what I know of the two, no one refers to the Abrahamic covenant as the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant is also known by the terms of the Sinaitic covenant and the Mosaic Covenant - all three refer to the same covenant. Some argue that the re-establishment of the Old Covenant just before Israel entered into Canaan was a different covenant than the Old, but few hold to this view today.

QuoteI think we are using the word inaugurate for two different events. Let me take your first example:

You are correct, we are. I am coming at it from the strict viewpoint of an ANE covenant of antiquity, which the Old and New Covenants are based upon, and you are coming at it from the viewpoint of modern day events that would not be considered even close to ANE covenants of antiquity. Although both your observations are indeed correct, they really don't have any bearing upon discussing ANE covenants from 2,000 - 6,000 years in the past. Your observations are correct coming from modern times, but they do not help in the discussion because:

1.  Neither of them are based upon ANE covenants nor their principles.
2.  Both are modern day constructs.
3.  Neither of them originate a relationship WITH the parties involved, they only originate a relationship TO each other.

All ANE covenant forms generate a personal relationship between the parties involved, some more intimate than others - but they all create personal relationships.

QuoteYou also say     
(1)  The Suzerain has the covenant stipulations read to the vassal, who has no say-so in those stipulations - he either agreed to them, or war would be on the horizon (unless the suzerain had the vassal king killed on the spot and set up another vassal king whom he chose).

Whilst this may be true for man-man covenants it does not apply to God-man covenants. God either simply states what he will do and requires no acceptance by man (e.g. Noah & David) or offers the Covenant to man but wants his voluntary acceptance (e.g. Abraham and Moses).

OK, but there seems to be some confusion here: a suzerain-vassal covenant is not a promissory covenant (Noahic/Davidic), there are no stipulations for maintaining the covenant in such covenants. The promissory covenant is entirely based upon the one making the covenant with the other party, the receiving party enjoys the promise made with no strings attached. However, the suzerain-vassal covenant is a completely different animal for all involved, except for the word "covenant" in its description. By breaking the covenant, God had every right to destroy Israel legally, but He didn't (for a number of reasons).

QuoteOne further comment as regards the steps of the different kinds of covenant:- The splitting of the halves of animals and walking between them that you describe under business (parity) covenants was done in the Abrahamic covenant, which was not a parity covenant. I think that perhaps shows the flexibility and variations that occur.

You are again correct...and if we look at it from a certain viewpoint, the covenant God made with Abraham was a "business" covenant. God was initiating His business of orchestrating things in making preparations for the coming Messiah promised to Eve back in the Garden. Who benefits from this covenant? Both God and Abraham would benefit, so in a way, we can rightly say that the Abrahamic covenant was a business deal...God working in human history in His Plan of Redemption.

QuoteI think that depends on what is meant by covenant mediator. Some commentaries I've read ascribe a mediator to all the covenants between God and man (or just don't mention it). I think the term is used more in the sense of the person with whom God deals when making the covenant (e.g. Scott Hahn gives  – Adam. Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus).

That is interesting...I have never heard Adam, Noah, Abraham, or David called a covenant mediator before. Adam, Noah (as the representative of the human race), Abraham, and David were recipients of covenants, not mediators. I do not see how a recipient of a covenant can rightly be called a mediator, because by definition a mediator stands between two individuals "mediating" the agreement.

QuoteIn a similar way all the main God-man covenants had a sign though I disagree with Scott Hahn on his list. The signs were important as physical reminders of the covenant but also they pointed to a future spiritual reality.

I agree with you here, the signs were (and are) "shadows" of the realities to come.

QuoteThe sign of the Abrahamic covenant was circumcision.
God  was angry and was going to kill Moses because he had not circumcised his son (Ex 4:24:26).
After the 40 years in the wilderness it seems that the current generation of Israelites had not been circumcised and God would not allow them to take the land he had promised Abraham until they were circumcised (Jos 5:2­-7).

A very good observation. Apparently, like you commented, the "law" given to Abraham to follow had either not been passed down through the generations, or the Israelites lost hope while in Egyptian bondage and gave up on God. There is another possibility...that perhaps, historically, the Egyptians persecuted the Israelites religion and in doing so forbade them to circumcise themselves. I have nothing on that, it is just a "what if" possibility.

QuoteWith the Sinai Covenant the sign was the Sabbath. Again God got angry when they failed to keep his Sabbaths.(Ez 20:12-13).
I read somewhere that circumcision was a personal sign for a Jew whilst the Sabbath was a corporate sign.

I have never heard that, but let's analyze it: Both were covenant signs, and the signs were for "marking" Israel as a peculiar people unto God. One who was circumcised was a physical descendant of Abraham, stemming from the Abrahamic covenant. One who kept the Sabbath kept a "memorial" of being related to God by covenant relationship (and we see this again in the New Covenant with its sign). So in a way, it seems like both signs were both...personal and corporate, although one may seem more personal than the other (circumcision).

QuoteOne more point I have read. In a suzerainty-vassal covenant, if the vassals failed to keep the terms, the suzerain Lord would send emissaries to the vassals to warn them to keep the terms or face judgement and punishment under the terms of the covenant. Thus God sent the prophets at various times to warn Israel and call for repentance and a return to the terms of the covenant. When they failed to listen God sent judgement and punishment (e.g. the Assyrians to the northern kingdom and the Babylonians to the southern.

Yes, however, under man-man suzerain-vassal covenant, it depended upon what the vassal was doing (or failing to do) that the suzerain would send his emissaries. For example, if the vassal was failing to send his yearly tribute, an emissary might be sent...but if the vassal had declared is sovereignty from the suzerain, there would be no emissary sent...he would march upon the vassal because he, in effect, was in rebellion against the one who conquered him. This usually did not happen in the lifetime of the king that was conquered, but usually in a succeeding generation (the vassal king's heirs).

Good discussion!
Blessings!

 

Quote from: SwordMaster on Thu Jan 16, 2014 - 10:59:57

QuoteI'm not sure about the OT covenant being both suzerainty-vassal and marriage covenant combined.

Keep in mind that there are different forms of ANE covenants, and that when discussing covenants we have to distinguish between ANE covenants and the covenant forms of other cultures. Also keep in mind that that ANE covenants specifically generate formal relationships. According to these descriptions, and the relationship which God brings the Jews into with Himself, the Old Covenant would be classified as both suzerain-vassal and marriage covenant in nature and form.

QuoteI think that in terms of covenant there is only suzerainty-vassal.
"A covenant with an equal creates "brothers".  Covenants with non-equals, like a great king and his vassal, create a father/ son relationship.  The vassal owes the king the loyalty and obedience a son owes a father." (Michal Elizabeth Hunt, Agape Bible Study)

True, and in many ANE covenants of antiquity, the "Great King" (whether Babylonian, Assyrian, or Sumerian) was always versed as the father, and the conquered vassals addressed as sons. However, this is not a complete definition of the term for that form of covenant.

QuoteSeveral times God refers to his relationship
'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my first-born son (Ex 4:22)
When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. (Hos 11:1)

True, but this was before Israel had come into covenant relationship with God. After the Old Covenant was established, Israel is called his wife (this is not constant, but the majority).

QuoteAnd yet also God does indeed refer to Israel as an unfaithful wife. But I do not think this is an expression of covenant in the legal sense but of the sort of the loving relationship that God wants with his people within that covenant.

Well, remember that marriage is a relationship that is originated and formalized through covenant, therefore it stands to reason that any terminologies stemming from a marriage relationship is directly related to covenant, since that relationship originates through covenant. No?

QuoteMichal Hunt says (continuing from the above quote) "Yahweh expresses his covenant with Israel as both a great king to a vassal but more meaningfully as a husband to his wife.  When Israel strays from Yahweh to embrace other gods she is an unfaithful wife, a harlot breaking the marriage covenant."

In other words the legal covenant is that of suzerainty-vassal but God expresses the relationship he desires from this covenant in terms of both father/son (loyalty and obedience) and husband/wife (love and faithfulness).

I would agree with him only to a certain point. In a true strict suzerain-vassal covenant, it would only have taken a few times of Israel's unfaithfulness to the covenant for God to say that's enough and just wipe them out. There is very little grace within suzerain-vassal covenants...whereas in marriage covenants grace abounds, but even then, only to a certain degree.

I'm still not convinced that the Old Covenant was a hybrid between suzerainty-vassal and marriage covenant. I see the legal covenant as being the suzerainty-vassal. But God is more than just a suzerain lord. He is also a loving Father and wants a loving relationship between himself and mankind. That was his whole purpose in creating us. Let me give you an example of what I mean – admittedly contrived and not covenantal.

A couple of men (or women) become friends at college and after graduating want to get on the property ladder. Neither can afford to buy an apartment by themselves so they agree to buy one together. They will (if they are sensible) make some legal agreement about sharing the mortgage, default arrangements, what to do if one of them wants to sell up (moving job perhaps) etc. But in their daily relationship they just want to be mates, having parties, going for a beer etc. That doesn't need any legal arrangement. It's a matter of the level of friendship they want.

I see the Covenant as the legal arrangements and God's imagery as husband and wife expressing his desire for the intimacy of ongoing relationship he wanted with Israel.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Thu Jan 16, 2014 - 10:59:57

QuoteIf we look at the covenant steps that you list, we can see the steps for the suzerainty-vassal covenant in the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants but not the steps you give for the marriage covenant.

True, but again, remember that the steps differ according to the type of covenant one is discussing. For example, blood covenanting in ANE nations had only one step...you cut each other and mix your blood in various means. It is still a covenant, but it has only one step...different covenant forms had differing steps and stages.

According to Eddie Russell in his book 12 Steps To Divine healing there are 10 steps in a Hebrew Blood Covenant. I think there may be more variation than you are allowing.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Thu Jan 16, 2014 - 10:59:57

QuoteI think we are using the word inaugurate for two different events. Let me take your first example:

You are correct, we are. I am coming at it from the strict viewpoint of an ANE covenant of antiquity, which the Old and New Covenants are based upon, and you are coming at it from the viewpoint of modern day events that would not be considered even close to ANE covenants of antiquity. Although both your observations are indeed correct, they really don't have any bearing upon discussing ANE covenants from 2,000 - 6,000 years in the past. Your observations are correct coming from modern times, but they do not help in the discussion because:

1.  Neither of them are based upon ANE covenants nor their principles.
2.  Both are modern day constructs.
3.  Neither of them originate a relationship WITH the parties involved, they only originate a relationship TO each other.

All ANE covenant forms generate a personal relationship between the parties involved, some more intimate than others - but they all create personal relationships.

Whilst I appreciate my examples were not of covenants (although one was a formal treaty I think they illustrate the point that there are stages that need to be defined. In both examples the final commencement occurred after ratification. I cannot see how it can be otherwise, other than concurrent with ratification.


You say, under a business (parity) covenant:

Quote from: (3)  The sacrifice would be cut in two halves and each participant would walk between the cut halves reciting their obligations to the covenant partner. The dead animals were symbolic for covenant stability, meaning neither covenant partner could legally break the covenant any more than a dead man could break a covenant. This ceremony inaugurated the covenant into actuation.
  (4)  After this inauguration ceremony, the covenant participants each brought another sacrificial animal that was to be slaughtered and eaten between the two participants. This "covenant meal" was the ratification of the covenant.

What do you mean by actuation? If the covenant has legal force after step 3 then what is ratification?

Could you clarify your usage of these two terms (ratification and inauguration) because I'm finding your usage confusing.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Thu Jan 16, 2014 - 10:59:57

QuoteYou also say     
(1)  The Suzerain has the covenant stipulations read to the vassal, who has no say-so in those stipulations - he either agreed to them, or war would be on the horizon (unless the suzerain had the vassal king killed on the spot and set up another vassal king whom he chose).

Whilst this may be true for man-man covenants it does not apply to God-man covenants. God either simply states what he will do and requires no acceptance by man (e.g. Noah & David) or offers the Covenant to man but wants his voluntary acceptance (e.g. Abraham and Moses).

OK, but there seems to be some confusion here: a suzerain-vassal covenant is not a promissory covenant (Noahic/Davidic), there are no stipulations for maintaining the covenant in such covenants. The promissory covenant is entirely based upon the one making the covenant with the other party, the receiving party enjoys the promise made with no strings attached. However, the suzerain-vassal covenant is a completely different animal for all involved, except for the word "covenant" in its description. By breaking the covenant, God had every right to destroy Israel legally, but He didn't (for a number of reasons).

OK

Quote from: SwordMaster on Thu Jan 16, 2014 - 10:59:57

QuoteOne further comment as regards the steps of the different kinds of covenant:- The splitting of the halves of animals and walking between them that you describe under business (parity) covenants was done in the Abrahamic covenant, which was not a parity covenant. I think that perhaps shows the flexibility and variations that occur.

You are again correct...and if we look at it from a certain viewpoint, the covenant God made with Abraham was a "business" covenant. God was initiating His business of orchestrating things in making preparations for the coming Messiah promised to Eve back in the Garden. Who benefits from this covenant? Both God and Abraham would benefit, so in a way, we can rightly say that the Abrahamic covenant was a business deal...God working in human history in His Plan of Redemption.

On that argument all God's covenants were part of his orchestrating things in preparation for the coming Messiah. I think you may be trying to shoe-horn the ANE form a little too strictly into God's covenants.  As I said in my opening comments:

Quote from: I agree that new knowledge can expand our understanding of the scriptures, and I have no problem with the proposal that the covenants in the Bible follow the pattern & principles of ANE covenants. God frequently uses things or practices with which man is familiar in his dealings with us. However that doesn't mean that they have to follow that pattern and rules exactly. In God's dealings with man it is God who initiates the covenants and makes the rules.

However I won't pursue this point further.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Thu Jan 16, 2014 - 10:59:57

QuoteI think that depends on what is meant by covenant mediator. Some commentaries I've read ascribe a mediator to all the covenants between God and man (or just don't mention it). I think the term is used more in the sense of the person with whom God deals when making the covenant (e.g. Scott Hahn gives  – Adam. Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus).

That is interesting...I have never heard Adam, Noah, Abraham, or David called a covenant mediator before. Adam, Noah (as the representative of the human race), Abraham, and David were recipients of covenants, not mediators. I do not see how a recipient of a covenant can rightly be called a mediator, because by definition a mediator stands between two individuals "mediating" the agreement.

It's not just Scott Hahn but also Dr. John Bergsma, professor of theology, during Principles of Biblical Studies at Franciscan University of Steubenville.

The Collins Concise Dictionary gives as one of its definition of mediate "to be in an intermediate position" and gives the etymology as "[C16 <L mediare to be in the middle]".

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary gives the etymology as:
"Middle English (as an adjective in the sense 'interposed'): from late Latin mediatus, mediare 'place in the middle', from Latin medius 'middle'"

The covenants are not just for the individual. With Noah for example it was with Noah and his descendants. Similarly with Moses, Abraham and David the covenant was to continue through the generations. So in that sense Noah, Abraham, Moses and David stood in the middle, in an intermediate position between God and man.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Thu Jan 16, 2014 - 10:59:57

QuoteIn a similar way all the main God-man covenants had a sign though I disagree with Scott Hahn on his list. The signs were important as physical reminders of the covenant but also they pointed to a future spiritual reality.

I agree with you here, the signs were (and are) "shadows" of the realities to come.

QuoteThe sign of the Abrahamic covenant was circumcision.
God  was angry and was going to kill Moses because he had not circumcised his son (Ex 4:24:26).
After the 40 years in the wilderness it seems that the current generation of Israelites had not been circumcised and God would not allow them to take the land he had promised Abraham until they were circumcised (Jos 5:2­-7).

A very good observation. Apparently, like you commented, the "law" given to Abraham to follow had either not been passed down through the generations, or the Israelites lost hope while in Egyptian bondage and gave up on God. There is another possibility...that perhaps, historically, the Egyptians persecuted the Israelites religion and in doing so forbade them to circumcise themselves. I have nothing on that, it is just a "what if" possibility.

QuoteWith the Sinai Covenant the sign was the Sabbath. Again God got angry when they failed to keep his Sabbaths.(Ez 20:12-13).
I read somewhere that circumcision was a personal sign for a Jew whilst the Sabbath was a corporate sign.

I have never heard that, but let's analyze it: Both were covenant signs, and the signs were for "marking" Israel as a peculiar people unto God. One who was circumcised was a physical descendant of Abraham, stemming from the Abrahamic covenant. One who kept the Sabbath kept a "memorial" of being related to God by covenant relationship (and we see this again in the New Covenant with its sign). So in a way, it seems like both signs were both...personal and corporate, although one may seem more personal than the other (circumcision).

OK

Quote from: SwordMaster on Thu Jan 16, 2014 - 10:59:57

QuoteOne more point I have read. In a suzerainty-vassal covenant, if the vassals failed to keep the terms, the suzerain Lord would send emissaries to the vassals to warn them to keep the terms or face judgement and punishment under the terms of the covenant. Thus God sent the prophets at various times to warn Israel and call for repentance and a return to the terms of the covenant. When they failed to listen God sent judgement and punishment (e.g. the Assyrians to the northern kingdom and the Babylonians to the southern.

Yes, however, under man-man suzerain-vassal covenant, it depended upon what the vassal was doing (or failing to do) that the suzerain would send his emissaries. For example, if the vassal was failing to send his yearly tribute, an emissary might be sent...but if the vassal had declared is sovereignty from the suzerain, there would be no emissary sent...he would march upon the vassal because he, in effect, was in rebellion against the one who conquered him. This usually did not happen in the lifetime of the king that was conquered, but usually in a succeeding generation (the vassal king's heirs).

Perhaps God is more forbearing than the average suzerain king! 

Jesus gave a view on this in the story of the vineyard owner and the tenants (Mt 21:33-41)

All very interesting

God bless

From Winsome...

QuoteI'm still not convinced that the Old Covenant was a hybrid between suzerainty-vassal and marriage covenant. I see the legal covenant as being the suzerainty-vassal. But God is more than just a suzerain lord. He is also a loving Father and wants a loving relationship between himself and mankind...I see the Covenant as the legal arrangements and God's imagery as husband and wife expressing his desire for the intimacy of ongoing relationship he wanted with Israel.

Very true, and He gives us various examples, or likenesses, of the kind of relationship He wants us to develop with Him, which is why the Old Covenant is not a strict suzerain-vassal type covenant. That type of covenant is not as intimate as God desires us to be with Him. The whole purpose of the creation in the first place, gleaned from cover to cover, is that God desires us to enter into an intimate, personal, love relationship with Him...Calvin's false ideology of God creating just because He wants glory is ridiculous and not supported by Scripture...but that's another story...

We will also see when we get to the New Covenant that it is not a strict suzerain-vassal covenant, but contains aspects of several different ANE covenant types.

QuoteAccording to Eddie Russell in his book 12 Steps To Divine healing there are 10 steps in a Hebrew Blood Covenant. I think there may be more variation than you are allowing.

Interesting...First thing, I have never run across anything in my research concerning the Jews having a blood covenant, so that would be interesting reading. The Assyrians, Babylonians, and Egyptians had a blood covenant, but that has been the extent of my exposure to them. Secondly, the point my comment you refereed to, was that different covenants had different steps...if such Jewish blood covenant had more than one step, they are different from other ANE covenants, but that is not disputed. The point is that different types of covenants had different amount of steps. As you say, there is quite a bit if variation between them all.

QuoteWhilst I appreciate my examples were not of covenants (although one was a formal treaty) I think they illustrate the point that there are stages that need to be defined. In both examples the final commencement occurred after ratification. I cannot see how it can be otherwise, other than concurrent with ratification.

I agree that the stages presented in your examples could stand to be defined if they were relevant to the topic at hand. However (and I am not trying to be rude, so I hope it doesn't come across as such), seeing as they are modern day agreements which are at least 2,000 years apart in history, and that they are not based upon ANE covenants, I really do not see how they have any such relevance in this topic.

QuoteWhat do you mean by actuation? If the covenant has legal force after step 3 then what is ratification? Could you clarify your usage of these two terms (ratification and inauguration) because I'm finding your usage confusing.

Sure...
Actuation - activated, in power, active.
Inaugurate means "a formal beginning" and "initiation," and "to introduce through formal ceremony." In this sense when I use the word "inaugurate," I refer to the formal rite which brings the covenant to life. But perhaps I have done damage to my view by forgetting some things, like not all covenants were ratified - such as the Old Covenant. It was inaugurated, but not ratified. (There is some dispute over Exodus 24:11..."And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank." where some scholars think the phrase "ate and drank" could mean a covenant meal ratification, but I tend to stick with the majority and think that "ate and drank" means that they beheld God, and did not die.)

Ratification means "to confirm," and "formal approval." Again, not all covenants were ratified, and not all covenants were ratified in the same manner. Some are ratified by drink, some by a meal, and others by blood (a blood covenant, marriage covenant). When I use the term "ratify" I mean a formal rite by which all partners in the covenant "seal" it and identify with that covenant. Yes, the covenant is already in effect, the ratification ritual is simply a formal recognition of the inauguration of that covenant. Now, when we begin to examine the New Covenant, we will see that the ratification takes on the same meaning only at a different time, in two different aspects.

QuoteOn that argument all God's covenants were part of his orchestrating things in preparation for the coming Messiah.

Absolutely! No argument here.

QuoteI think you may be trying to shoe-horn the ANE form a little too strictly into God's covenants.

If I am understanding your meaning correctly, my response is: "Not at all!" Mendenhall and others have fully examined ANE covenants from Assyria, Babylon, the Sumerians, and I believe also Egyptian covenants, along side Biblical covenants, and while they all have various differences between them (which Mendenhall explained - the quote in my first response I believe), they all are similar in the basic components and form. This is why they are called Ancient Near Eastern covenants...an area which covers all of the middle east, modern day Turkey, some even to North Africa. Every covenant, like every contract from different companies, are different in form in order to serve the specificity of the purpose for which they are formed in the first place.

QuoteThe covenants are not just for the individual. With Noah for example it was with Noah and his descendants. Similarly with Moses, Abraham and David the covenant was to continue through the generations. So in that sense Noah, Abraham, Moses and David stood in the middle, in an intermediate position between God and man.

I will concede on that point. Can you give me the ref's for that (Scott Hahn but also Dr. John Bergsma), I'd like to see if I can get a hold of them. Thanks!

Blessings!

 

Quote from: SwordMaster on Sun Jan 19, 2014 - 22:04:30
From Winsome...

QuoteI'm still not convinced that the Old Covenant was a hybrid between suzerainty-vassal and marriage covenant. I see the legal covenant as being the suzerainty-vassal. But God is more than just a suzerain lord. He is also a loving Father and wants a loving relationship between himself and mankind...I see the Covenant as the legal arrangements and God's imagery as husband and wife expressing his desire for the intimacy of ongoing relationship he wanted with Israel.

Very true, and He gives us various examples, or likenesses, of the kind of relationship He wants us to develop with Him, which is why the Old Covenant is not a strict suzerain-vassal type covenant. That type of covenant is not as intimate as God desires us to be with Him. The whole purpose of the creation in the first place, gleaned from cover to cover, is that God desires us to enter into an intimate, personal, love relationship with Him...Calvin's false ideology of God creating just because He wants glory is ridiculous and not supported by Scripture...but that's another story...

We will also see when we get to the New Covenant that it is not a strict suzerain-vassal covenant, but contains aspects of several different ANE covenant types.

I'm not convinced on the hybrid Covenant idea but I think it's not important enough to pursue.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Sun Jan 19, 2014 - 22:04:30

QuoteAccording to Eddie Russell in his book 12 Steps To Divine healing there are 10 steps in a Hebrew Blood Covenant. I think there may be more variation than you are allowing.

Interesting...First thing, I have never run across anything in my research concerning the Jews having a blood covenant, so that would be interesting reading. The Assyrians, Babylonians, and Egyptians had a blood covenant, but that has been the extent of my exposure to them. Secondly, the point my comment you refereed to, was that different covenants had different steps...if such Jewish blood covenant had more than one step, they are different from other ANE covenants, but that is not disputed. The point is that different types of covenants had different amount of steps. As you say, there is quite a bit if variation between them all.

I do not know what his sources are but it's possible that Eddie Russell may be extrapolating too much from other covenants. I think he is also using the term "blood covenant" for a covenant where blood is spilt, which would include the Abrahamic, Sinai, Marriage and New Covenants.
Interestingly though that two of the steps he lists (exchange of robes and exchange of belts/armour) were done in the covenant between David and Jonathan (1Sam 18:3), although it was more of a gift by Jonathan since David seems to have had neither.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Sun Jan 19, 2014 - 22:04:30

QuoteWhilst I appreciate my examples were not of covenants (although one was a formal treaty) I think they illustrate the point that there are stages that need to be defined. In both examples the final commencement occurred after ratification. I cannot see how it can be otherwise, other than concurrent with ratification.

I agree that the stages presented in your examples could stand to be defined if they were relevant to the topic at hand. However (and I am not trying to be rude, so I hope it doesn't come across as such), seeing as they are modern day agreements which are at least 2,000 years apart in history, and that they are not based upon ANE covenants, I really do not see how they have any such relevance in this topic.

It's all about what we understand by particular words. Inauguration is a relatively modern (16c) & English word that we are using to describe some type event that occurred over 2,000 years ago in other cultures and languages. To an extent it doesn't matter what words we use (initiation, inauguration, actuation, ratification etc.) as long as we can agree on what we mean by them and retain that meaning consistently. So I'm agreeable to use inauguration for whatever you define it as - see the next comment 

Quote from: SwordMaster on Sun Jan 19, 2014 - 22:04:30

QuoteWhat do you mean by actuation? If the covenant has legal force after step 3 then what is ratification? Could you clarify your usage of these two terms (ratification and inauguration) because I'm finding your usage confusing.

Sure...
Actuation - activated, in power, active.
Inaugurate means "a formal beginning" and "initiation," and "to introduce through formal ceremony." In this sense when I use the word "inaugurate," I refer to the formal rite which brings the covenant to life. But perhaps I have done damage to my view by forgetting some things, like not all covenants were ratified - such as the Old Covenant. It was inaugurated, but not ratified. (There is some dispute over Exodus 24:11..."And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank." where some scholars think the phrase "ate and drank" could mean a covenant meal ratification, but I tend to stick with the majority and think that "ate and drank" means that they beheld God, and did not die.)

Ratification means "to confirm," and "formal approval." Again, not all covenants were ratified, and not all covenants were ratified in the same manner. Some are ratified by drink, some by a meal, and others by blood (a blood covenant, marriage covenant). When I use the term "ratify" I mean a formal rite by which all partners in the covenant "seal" it and identify with that covenant. Yes, the covenant is already in effect, the ratification ritual is simply a formal recognition of the inauguration of that covenant. Now, when we begin to examine the New Covenant, we will see that the ratification takes on the same meaning only at a different time, in two different aspects.

I think this is where I am getting unclear. Perhaps I have a wrong model of covenant in my head.

Lets go slowly thought the steps of a covenant to agree on them. You may think we have but bear with me. I'm going to try and keep this as general as possible (i.e. covering all types of covenant/ treaties), and without using any of the terms I'm querying.

1. The proposal. This hasn't been mentioned but one party must start the ball rolling by proposing a Covenant, whether it's God simply proclaiming one or a man proposing to a girl (or one parent to another).

2. Agreement by the second party to having a covenant.

3. Establishing the terms of the covenant, whether by God proclaiming them or by the parties involved negotiating them.

4. Formal agreement by those with authority to do so to the terms of the covenant, which may not be the negotiators.

5. Pre-conditions. There may be some actions that one party (or both) have to complete before the covenant comes completely into force before the blessings and curses/penalties come into force. I'm thinking here of the obligations of the bride and groom after the cup of wine you mention and the consummation. Jacob had to work for Laban for 7 years for each of Leah and Rachel

(Incidentally I've tried to find more about the customs of ancient Jewish weddings and I have not found any reference to this cup drinking. Moreover it seems the consummation took place in a "chuppah" room at the bride's house.)

6. Acceptance that the pre-conditions have been completed by the other party, for example after Jacob completed the 7 years of labour he went to Laban to claim his bride and Laban invited everyone to a feast, thus ackonwleding Jacob had completed the pre-conditions.

7. Full implementation of the covenant when the blessings and curses/penalties come into force, in the case of Jacob he consummated the marriage.

I accept that these steps my be incomplete or wrong. But if we can come to an agreement on them we can then put labels (ratify, inaugurate etc.) on them.

I've only given an example for a few of these steps but I think I could give examples for all of them. I just didn't want to make this too long.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Sun Jan 19, 2014 - 22:04:30

QuoteI think you may be trying to shoe-horn the ANE form a little too strictly into God's covenants.

If I am understanding your meaning correctly, my response is: "Not at all!" Mendenhall and others have fully examined ANE covenants from Assyria, Babylon, the Sumerians, and I believe also Egyptian covenants, along side Biblical covenants, and while they all have various differences between them (which Mendenhall explained - the quote in my first response I believe), they all are similar in the basic components and form. This is why they are called Ancient Near Eastern covenants...an area which covers all of the middle east, modern day Turkey, some even to North Africa. Every covenant, like every contract from different companies, are different in form in order to serve the specificity of the purpose for which they are formed in the first place.

Ok, I accept that.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Sun Jan 19, 2014 - 22:04:30

QuoteThe covenants are not just for the individual. With Noah for example it was with Noah and his descendants. Similarly with Moses, Abraham and David the covenant was to continue through the generations. So in that sense Noah, Abraham, Moses and David stood in the middle, in an intermediate position between God and man.

I will concede on that point. Can you give me the ref's for that (Scott Hahn but also Dr. John Bergsma), I'd like to see if I can get a hold of them. Thanks!

Scott Hahn – A Father Who Keeps His Promises

Dr. John Bergma – http://www.catecheticsonline.com/apologetics_mount.php

As they both work at Steubenville University it is possible one got the idea from the other. However I have just found this (see the first few paragraphs):
https://viaemmaus.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/i-will-give-you-as-a-covenant-isaiah-426-498-the-suffering-servant-as-covenant-mediator/

Winsome...

QuoteI think this is where I am getting unclear. Perhaps I have a wrong model of covenant in my head.

Lets go slowly thought the steps of a covenant to agree on them. You may think we have but bear with me. I'm going to try and keep this as general as possible (i.e. covering all types of covenant/ treaties), and without using any of the terms I'm querying.

1. The proposal. This hasn't been mentioned but one party must start the ball rolling by proposing a Covenant, whether it's God simply proclaiming one or a man proposing to a girl (or one parent to another).

Agreed...I wouldn't necessarily call it a step, but if we get technical then I guess it would be.

Quote2. Agreement by the second party to having a covenant.

Again, same as above. I would agree.

Quote3. Establishing the terms of the covenant, whether by God proclaiming them or by the parties involved negotiating them.

Definitely.

Quote4. Formal agreement by those with authority to do so to the terms of the covenant, which may not be the negotiators.

At this point of "agreement," are you also advocating a ritual which activates the stipulations of the covenant? In my understanding of covenanting, "formal agreement" is demonstrated by some kind of ritual-based action which actuates the covenant, whether it has been ratified as yet or not.

Quote5. Pre-conditions. There may be some actions that one party (or both) have to complete before the covenant comes completely into force before the blessings and curses/penalties come into force. I'm thinking here of the obligations of the bride and groom after the cup of wine you mention and the consummation. Jacob had to work for Laban for 7 years for each of Leah and Rachel

I can see "pre-conditions," however, I don't think Jacob working for Rachel qualifies. The work for Rachel that Jacob did was actually part of the verbal covenant that he had with Laban. An important note here in this example, Labal messed Jacob over by not keeping his agreed-to covenant stipulations, but there was nothing that Jacob could do (and Laban knew it) because Jacob (not being a smart guy) did not force Laban to write the covenant agreement out on paper, he only agreed to a "verbal" covenant that was not enforceable at all...but I suspect that Jacob did not understand this.

Quote(Incidentally I've tried to find more about the customs of ancient Jewish weddings and I have not found any reference to this cup drinking. Moreover it seems the consummation took place in a "chuppah" room at the bride's house.)

I used several sources in my paper when it came to this subject, but i don't have them available to me at this moment, I did find one web site that speaks of modern wedding ceremonies, and when it comes to the cup (they actually say two cups) they acknowledge that the cup is a historical piece of the Jewish wedding. I will try to find more if you would like...
http://www.aish.com/jl/l/m/48969841.html

Quote6. Acceptance that the pre-conditions have been completed by the other party, for example after Jacob completed the 7 years of labour he went to Laban to claim his bride and Laban invited everyone to a feast, thus ackonwleding Jacob had completed the pre-conditions.

I can think of no articles on covenanting where this "step" would be normal or even mentioned...of course, that does not mean that it does not exist. 

Quote7. Full implementation of the covenant when the blessings and curses/penalties come into force, in the case of Jacob he consummated the marriage.

According to your outline, #4 would be the "inauguration" of the covenant, and this step (#7) would qualify as the "ratification" of the covenant.

QuoteI accept that these steps my be incomplete or wrong. But if we can come to an agreement on them we can then put labels (ratify, inaugurate etc.) on them.

Ooops...I guess I kinda already did, didn't I??? But I think we agree for the most part, except for the few line items I mentioned...

QuoteI've only given an example for a few of these steps but I think I could give examples for all of them. I just didn't want to make this too long.

That's good...its working...we are making progress!

Blessings!

Quote from: SwordMaster on Wed Jan 22, 2014 - 18:43:19
Winsome...

QuoteI think this is where I am getting unclear. Perhaps I have a wrong model of covenant in my head.

Lets go slowly thought the steps of a covenant to agree on them. You may think we have but bear with me. I'm going to try and keep this as general as possible (i.e. covering all types of covenant/ treaties), and without using any of the terms I'm querying.

1. The proposal. This hasn't been mentioned but one party must start the ball rolling by proposing a Covenant, whether it's God simply proclaiming one or a man proposing to a girl (or one parent to another).

Agreed...I wouldn't necessarily call it a step, but if we get technical then I guess it would be.

Sure. I just wanted to try & cover everything.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Wed Jan 22, 2014 - 18:43:19

Quote2. Agreement by the second party to having a covenant.

Again, same as above. I would agree.

Again – I just wanted to cover everything

Quote from: SwordMaster on Wed Jan 22, 2014 - 18:43:19

Quote3. Establishing the terms of the covenant, whether by God proclaiming them or by the parties involved negotiating them.

Definitely.

Good

Quote from: SwordMaster on Wed Jan 22, 2014 - 18:43:19

Quote4. Formal agreement by those with authority to do so to the terms of the covenant, which may not be the negotiators.

At this point of "agreement," are you also advocating a ritual which activates the stipulations of the covenant? In my understanding of covenanting, "formal agreement" is demonstrated by some kind of ritual-based action which actuates the covenant, whether it has been ratified as yet or not.

I wasn't particularly proposing how these stages are marked, just that they are stages. I can see though that this is an important stage that may well be marked by some ritual,

Quote from: SwordMaster on Wed Jan 22, 2014 - 18:43:19

Quote5. Pre-conditions. There may be some actions that one party (or both) have to complete before the covenant comes completely into force before the blessings and curses/penalties come into force. I'm thinking here of the obligations of the bride and groom after the cup of wine you mention and the consummation. Jacob had to work for Laban for 7 years for each of Leah and Rachel

I can see "pre-conditions," however, I don't think Jacob working for Rachel qualifies. The work for Rachel that Jacob did was actually part of the verbal covenant that he had with Laban. An important note here in this example, Labal messed Jacob over by not keeping his agreed-to covenant stipulations, but there was nothing that Jacob could do (and Laban knew it) because Jacob (not being a smart guy) did not force Laban to write the covenant agreement out on paper, he only agreed to a "verbal" covenant that was not enforceable at all...but I suspect that Jacob did not understand this.

In that society did Rachel have any say in the matter? Although the marriage covenant was between Jacob & Rachel did not Jacob have to negotiate with Laban? Was not the marriage contract was agreed between the prospective bridegroom and the bride's father.

Take for example the marriage between Tobias and Sarah in the book of Tobit. Tobias asks his companion Azariah to ask the father, Raguel, for Sarah's hand in marriage. Raguel overhears and agrees. Sarah had no say in the matter. And then it says:
"Then Raguel called his daughter Sarah, and she came to him. He took her by the hand and gave her to Tobias with the words: "Take her according to the law. According to the decree written in the Book of Moses she is your wife. Take her and bring her back safely to your father. And may the God of heaven grant both of you peace and prosperity."  He then called her mother and told her to bring a scroll, so that he might draw up a marriage contract stating that he gave Sarah to Tobias as his wife according to the decree of the Mosaic law. Her mother brought the scroll, and he drew up the contract, to which they affixed their seals." (Tob 12:12-13)

Quote from: SwordMaster on Wed Jan 22, 2014 - 18:43:19

Quote(Incidentally I've tried to find more about the customs of ancient Jewish weddings and I have not found any reference to this cup drinking. Moreover it seems the consummation took place in a "chuppah" room at the bride's house.)

I used several sources in my paper when it came to this subject, but i don't have them available to me at this moment, I did find one web site that speaks of modern wedding ceremonies, and when it comes to the cup (they actually say two cups) they acknowledge that the cup is a historical piece of the Jewish wedding. I will try to find more if you would like...
http://www.aish.com/jl/l/m/48969841.html

It depends whether you see this as important. It probably doesn't matter.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Wed Jan 22, 2014 - 18:43:19

Quote6. Acceptance that the pre-conditions have been completed by the other party, for example after Jacob completed the 7 years of labour he went to Laban to claim his bride and Laban invited everyone to a feast, thus ackonwleding Jacob had completed the pre-conditions.

I can think of no articles on covenanting where this "step" would be normal or even mentioned...of course, that does not mean that it does not exist. 

We can leave that then.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Wed Jan 22, 2014 - 18:43:19

Quote7. Full implementation of the covenant when the blessings and curses/penalties come into force, in the case of Jacob he consummated the marriage.

According to your outline, #4 would be the "inauguration" of the covenant, and this step (#7) would qualify as the "ratification" of the covenant.

QuoteI accept that these steps my be incomplete or wrong. But if we can come to an agreement on them we can then put labels (ratify, inaugurate etc.) on them.

Ooops...I guess I kinda already did, didn't I??? But I think we agree for the most part, except for the few line items I mentioned...

QuoteI've only given an example for a few of these steps but I think I could give examples for all of them. I just didn't want to make this too long.

That's good...its working...we are making progress!

Blessings!

OK, that clarifies the usage of inauguration and ratification.

Just be sure we are on the same wavelength where would you apply those terms to the Abrahamic and Sinai Covenants?

Winsome said...

QuoteIn that society did Rachel have any say in the matter? Although the marriage covenant was between Jacob & Rachel did not Jacob have to negotiate with Laban? Was not the marriage contract was agreed between the prospective bridegroom and the bride's father.

This is only my opinion, but we don't have enough information about that time period and marriage covenants, I think, to really say. We can guess based upon what we do know, but I don't think we can definitely say yes or no.

QuoteOK, that clarifies the usage of inauguration and ratification.

Just be sure we are on the same wavelength where would you apply those terms to the Abrahamic and Sinai Covenants?

Sure, and this is where different covenant forms come into play...for not all (as Mendenhall and others have shown) follow exact steps or protocol.

First, I have a question...to which "Abrahamic covenant" do you refer? The one between God and Abraham in Gen. 15 (the land grant), or the second one in Gen. 17-18, where God promises him:
1.  to be the father of many nations.
2.  to be his God.
3.  to be the God of the Israelites.

Just in case, i will answer both...

1. The land grant - this covenant was primarily promissory in nature, Abram did not have to do anything, because God gave him the covenant in response to Abram's faith. It was a Divine gift. This covenant, being such, was "inaugurated" in verse 17 when the smoking firepot and flaming torch (obvious symbols of the presence of God) "passed between" the halved heifer, goat, and ram...just as in a covenant between men. Abraham did not have to pass between the animals because he was strictly the recipient of the covenant, he had no obligations to fulfill and therefore did not need to pass between them and promise to keep his end of the covenant particulars. Since it was promissory in nature, no ratification was necessary.

2.  In Genesis 17:1-2 God appeared to Abraham and told him, "I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly."

This covenant had an obligation put upon Abraham, that he walk before God and be blameless (something Reformed people tend to overlook), God told him (and repeats it) that he had to walk in obedience to Him in order that he might make His covenant with him.

In verse 5 God changes Abram's name to Abraham (I know you already know this, please bear with me...), in verse 7 God tells him, "I WILL establish my covenant with you..." indicating that this is NOT the same covenant from chapter 15 like so many people assume. In verses 9-10 God gives circumcision as "My covenant" with Abraham and his descendants, and then in verse 11 God says, "AND it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you," indicating that circumcision was not only God's covenant to Abraham (the embodiment of that covenant) but that it was also going to be the sign of the covenant.

Abraham was 85-86 years old when God made the first covenant to him, and 13 years later God makes this second covenant to him, so (along with the other evidence) these are two different covenants, even though the second one includes the promissory elements of the first (land grant).

With this second covenant, there is no obvious inauguratory rite in view within the text...but then again, there also is no "commandments" ever given in the Abrahamic texts, all we are told is that, "Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." (Genesis 26:5). I would argue, however, that God left it up to Abraham to receive the covenant or not, and by accepting the covenant and having himself circumcised - that Abraham "inaugurated" the covenant in his own blood.

We are told that God gave Abraham commandments, statutes, and laws to keep, but we are not told when in Scripture that this event (or events) took place. We are told in the next chapter that God told Abraham (after giving him this second covenant) that, "he [Abraham] may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has promised him."

This second Abrahamic covenant had obligations upon Abraham - to walk in obedience to God (for the sake of other arguments...it was NOT simply faith alone, it was faith and obedience, just as it is today). This obedience was a form of ratification of the covenant - in my opinion.

Blessings!

Quote from: SwordMaster on Wed Jan 29, 2014 - 01:45:42

Winsome said...

QuoteOK, that clarifies the usage of inauguration and ratification.

Just be sure we are on the same wavelength where would you apply those terms to the Abrahamic and Sinai Covenants?

Sure, and this is where different covenant forms come into play...for not all (as Mendenhall and others have shown) follow exact steps or protocol.

First, I have a question...to which "Abrahamic covenant" do you refer? The one between God and Abraham in Gen. 15 (the land grant), or the second one in Gen. 17-18, where God promises him:
1.  to be the father of many nations.
2.  to be his God.
3.  to be the God of the Israelites.

Just in case, i will answer both...

1. The land grant - this covenant was primarily promissory in nature, Abram did not have to do anything, because God gave him the covenant in response to Abram's faith. It was a Divine gift. This covenant, being such, was "inaugurated" in verse 17 when the smoking firepot and flaming torch (obvious symbols of the presence of God) "passed between" the halved heifer, goat, and ram...just as in a covenant between men. Abraham did not have to pass between the animals because he was strictly the recipient of the covenant, he had no obligations to fulfill and therefore did not need to pass between them and promise to keep his end of the covenant particulars. Since it was promissory in nature, no ratification was necessary.

2.  In Genesis 17:1-2 God appeared to Abraham and told him, "I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly."

This covenant had an obligation put upon Abraham, that he walk before God and be blameless (something Reformed people tend to overlook), God told him (and repeats it) that he had to walk in obedience to Him in order that he might make His covenant with him.

In verse 5 God changes Abram's name to Abraham (I know you already know this, please bear with me...), in verse 7 God tells him, "I WILL establish my covenant with you..." indicating that this is NOT the same covenant from chapter 15 like so many people assume. In verses 9-10 God gives circumcision as "My covenant" with Abraham and his descendants, and then in verse 11 God says, "AND it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you," indicating that circumcision was not only God's covenant to Abraham (the embodiment of that covenant) but that it was also going to be the sign of the covenant.

Abraham was 85-86 years old when God made the first covenant to him, and 13 years later God makes this second covenant to him, so (along with the other evidence) these are two different covenants, even though the second one includes the promissory elements of the first (land grant).

With this second covenant, there is no obvious inauguratory rite in view within the text...but then again, there also is no "commandments" ever given in the Abrahamic texts, all we are told is that, "Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." (Genesis 26:5). I would argue, however, that God left it up to Abraham to receive the covenant or not, and by accepting the covenant and having himself circumcised - that Abraham "inaugurated" the covenant in his own blood.

We are told that God gave Abraham commandments, statutes, and laws to keep, but we are not told when in Scripture that this event (or events) took place. We are told in the next chapter that God told Abraham (after giving him this second covenant) that, "he [Abraham] may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has promised him."

This second Abrahamic covenant had obligations upon Abraham - to walk in obedience to God (for the sake of other arguments...it was NOT simply faith alone, it was faith and obedience, just as it is today). This obedience was a form of ratification of the covenant - in my opinion.

Blessings!

Splitting God's dealing with Abraham into two covenants is an interesting concept. God certainly made promises to Abraham in Gen 12:2-3.
I've been reading up what Scott Hahn says and he suggests there were three promises, fulfilled by three subsequent covenants.

1. I will make of you a great nation – fulfilled in the Sinai Covenant with Moses
2. I will bless you, and make your name great – fulfilled in the covenant with David (a "name" means a dynasty)
3. I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves – fulfilled in the New Covenant.

Hahn doesn't seem to consider these promises as a covenant, at this time, because he says that the first promise was upgraded to covenant status in Gen 15 when God walked through the pieces of animals.

The second promise was upgraded to covenant status in Gen 17 when God renamed Abram as Abraham and promised him a son through Sarah. He calls this the covenant of circumcision.

The third promise of worldwide blessing was raised to covenant status in Gen 22:16-18 when God swears by himself (covenantal language) that all the nations of the earth shall find a blessing through Abraham's descendants – though actually Paul argues that it is Abraham's descendant (singular = Christ) in Gal 3:16
"Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his descendant. It does not say, "And to descendants," as referring to many, but as referring to one, "And to your descendant," who is Christ."

What Hahn seems to be saying is that the covenant with Abraham was made in three stages, although I accept it could be argued there were three separate covenants stemming from the original promises in Gen 12. Apart from the third stage (or third covenant) this seems to harmonise with what you say above. The third stage/covenant is an unconditional (promissary) covenant made by God.

Incidentally Hahn considers the land grant and nationhood go together as there cannot be a nation without land so that the promise of nationhood in Gen 12:2 is effectively the same promise of land in Gen 15:16-21

I'm finding this very interesting. There is a lot more to this that I realised. I read what Scott Hahn said some while ago but it's making more sense now.

God bless

We appear to be in agreement on these points, is there any other point regarding ANE covenants regarding the OT that you wanted to discuss, or are we ready to tackle the New Covenant?

Blessings!

Quote from: SwordMaster on Thu Jan 30, 2014 - 15:33:54
We appear to be in agreement on these points, is there any other point regarding ANE covenants regarding the OT that you wanted to discuss, or are we ready to tackle the New Covenant?

Blessings!

Could you just give me your view on the points of inauguration & ratification of the Covenant at Sinai and then we can move on.

Thanks

Quote from: winsome on Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 04:13:40

Quote from: SwordMaster on Thu Jan 30, 2014 - 15:33:54
We appear to be in agreement on these points, is there any other point regarding ANE covenants regarding the OT that you wanted to discuss, or are we ready to tackle the New Covenant?

Blessings!

Could you just give me your view on the points of inauguration & ratification of the Covenant at Sinai and then we can move on.

Thanks

Sorry, forgot! I will just hit the high-lights and then we can discuss anything you see a problem with...

Exodus 19:8...Israel agrees to the Covenant Law, which is peculiar because they hadn't even heard it yet...

Exodus 20:1-17...God lays down the 10 Commandments, which was the law of the Covenant, the stipulations the Israelites had to abide by in order to remain abiding in the covenant.

Exodus 21:1-23:19...God lays out some community rules, or laws for community and society. These rules/laws are not part of the Covenant Law, if broken they did not cause one to cease abiding in the covenant, but they did bring upon the violator punishments.

Exodus 23:20-33...blessings for obedience.

Exodus 24:3...people agree to community rules.
Exodus 24:4-8...the covenant is inaugurated in the following steps...
   (v. 5) there is sacrifices made, but there is no indication that they inaugurated the covenant, especially since God's part had not yet been actuated (the blood sprinkled on the alter). Remember that some covenants did not make sacrifices in inaugurating them, and even when sacrifices were part of covenanting elements, it never inaugurated the covenant, it only fulfilled other rituals involved (Beacham; The New Covenant of Scripture in ANE Covenant Context: A Preliminary Paper; delivered at the Baptist Bible Seminary, September 23, 2009;////// Lawlor; An Examination of Covenant Rites Toward Developing an increased awareness of the Eucharist; University of Ottawa Doctorial Dissertation; 1969).
   (v. 6) blood is applied to the altar, which is symbolic of God.
   (v. 7) the people reaffirm that they will abide by both the covenant law and the community rules/laws.
   (v. 8) blood is applied to the people.

there is no clearly identified ratification ritual for the Sinaitic Covenant. Some (including Lawlor) have suggested that the Passover was the beginning of the Sinaitic covenant making in this case, and therefore stands as the covenant ratification meal. But I think that such a stance falls upon shaky ground, both Scripturally and according to what we know about ANE covenanting.

The sign of the Sinaitic Covenant was Sabbath-keeping.

Blessings!

Hi SwordMaster,

Just a few comments.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 17:00:20

Exodus 19:8...Israel agrees to the Covenant Law, which is peculiar because they hadn't even heard it yet...

Going back to my list of steps I see this as steps 1 & 2 – God proposing to have a covenant and the Israelites accepting the proposal. This is trivial but I just mention it.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 17:00:20

Exodus 20:1-17...God lays down the 10 Commandments, which was the law of the Covenant, the stipulations the Israelites had to abide by in order to remain abiding in the covenant.

Exodus 21:1-23:19...God lays out some community rules, or laws for community and society. These rules/laws are not part of the Covenant Law, if broken they did not cause one to cease abiding in the covenant, but they did bring upon the violator punishments.

Exodus 23:20-33...blessings for obedience.

Exodus 24:3...people agree to community rules.
Exodus 24:4-8...the covenant is inaugurated in the following steps...
   (v. 5) there is sacrifices made, but there is no indication that they inaugurated the covenant, especially since God's part had not yet been actuated (the blood sprinkled on the alter). Remember that some covenants did not make sacrifices in inaugurating them, and even when sacrifices were part of covenanting elements, it never inaugurated the covenant, it only fulfilled other rituals involved (Beacham; The New Covenant of Scripture in ANE Covenant Context: A Preliminary Paper; delivered at the Baptist Bible Seminary, September 23, 2009;////// Lawlor; An Examination of Covenant Rites Toward Developing an increased awareness of the Eucharist; University of Ottawa Doctorial Dissertation; 1969).
   (v. 6) blood is applied to the altar, which is symbolic of God.
   (v. 7) the people reaffirm that they will abide by both the covenant law and the community rules/laws.
   (v. 8) blood is applied to the people.

I have not come across this splitting of the Laws into covenant Law and community rules. I can see the point you are making though, as long as we preserve the principle that for the Jews the Law was indivisible in practice.

A second point is why do you split 24:3 from 24:4-8? Why do you say that 24:3 is only agreement the community rules.
24:3 Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said, "All the words which the LORD has spoken we will do."

Does not the all include the Ten Commandments?

I think the whole of 24:4-8 is the process of inauguration. Heb 9:18-29 treats the sacrifice and sprinkling of the blood as one procedure.

On a side note: the Bible I tend to use (RSV-CE) uses the term ratified in Heb 9:16 whereas others use inaugurated or dedicated. In the NRSV this is changed to inaugurated.
The Amplified Bible says "inaugurated and ratified and put into force"
The NIV settles for "put into force"

Quote from: SwordMaster on Fri Jan 31, 2014 - 17:00:20

there is no clearly identified ratification ritual for the Sinaitic Covenant. Some (including Lawlor) have suggested that the Passover was the beginning of the Sinaitic covenant making in this case, and therefore stands as the covenant ratification meal. But I think that such a stance falls upon shaky ground, both Scripturally and according to what we know about ANE covenanting.

The sign of the Sinaitic Covenant was Sabbath-keeping.

Blessings!

Agreed

QuoteQuote from: SwordMaster on Yesterday at 04:00:20 PM

Exodus 20:1-17...God lays down the 10 Commandments, which was the law of the Covenant, the stipulations the Israelites had to abide by in order to remain abiding in the covenant.

Exodus 21:1-23:19...God lays out some community rules, or laws for community and society. These rules/laws are not part of the Covenant Law, if broken they did not cause one to cease abiding in the covenant, but they did bring upon the violator punishments.

Exodus 23:20-33...blessings for obedience.

Exodus 24:3...people agree to community rules.
Exodus 24:4-8...the covenant is inaugurated in the following steps...
   (v. 5) there is sacrifices made, but there is no indication that they inaugurated the covenant, especially since God's part had not yet been actuated (the blood sprinkled on the alter). Remember that some covenants did not make sacrifices in inaugurating them, and even when sacrifices were part of covenanting elements, it never inaugurated the covenant, it only fulfilled other rituals involved (Beacham; The New Covenant of Scripture in ANE Covenant Context: A Preliminary Paper; delivered at the Baptist Bible Seminary, September 23, 2009;////// Lawlor; An Examination of Covenant Rites Toward Developing an increased awareness of the Eucharist; University of Ottawa Doctorial Dissertation; 1969).
   (v. 6) blood is applied to the altar, which is symbolic of God.
   (v. 7) the people reaffirm that they will abide by both the covenant law and the community rules/laws.
   (v. 8) blood is applied to the people.

QuoteI have not come across this splitting of the Laws into covenant Law and community rules. I can see the point you are making though, as long as we preserve the principle that for the Jews the Law was indivisible in practice.

Yes, the Ten Commandments are identified as "Covenant Law" which stands apart from societal laws.
1.  Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament; R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke; Moody Press, Chicago, 1980, pg. 757
2.   The Ten Words; Lewis Patton; The Biblical World, Vol.22, No. 1, (July 1903), pg. 22
3.  Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East; George E. Mendenhall, The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. XVII, No. 2 (May 1954) pg. 29
It is the same that we could compare to today with modern contracts - the "covenant law" is the obligations of remaining in the covenant agreement, just as the stipulations of the contractee keeps him within the contractual agreement with the contractor.

QuoteA second point is why do you split 24:3 from 24:4-8? Why do you say that 24:3 is only agreement the community rules.

Remember that the chapters and verses in the Bible were not originally part of it, but were added thousands of years later. Chapters 21-23 and 24:3 all took place on one day, the verse 4 says..."And Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD. He rose early in the morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel." Moses wrote down all of chapters 21-23 into a book, went to bed, and got up the next day and read all of the community rules to the people. It was to these community rules which they agreed to abide by. I suppose, in playing it safe, because verse 3 states that Moses "told the people all the words of the LORD and all the rules," that we can say that Moses rehearsed the Decalogue to the people as well as the community rules...as you pointed out...

QuoteDoes not the all include the Ten Commandments?

You are probably right...for some reason I did not notice that earlier!

QuoteI think the whole of 24:4-8 is the process of inauguration. Heb 9:18-29 treats the sacrifice and sprinkling of the blood as one procedure.

On a side note: the Bible I tend to use (RSV-CE) uses the term ratified in Heb 9:16 whereas others use inaugurated or dedicated. In the NRSV this is changed to inaugurated.
The Amplified Bible says "inaugurated and ratified and put into force"
The NIV settles for "put into force"

Are you sure that's Hebrews 9:16? I have 14 different versions (ASV, BBE, BRENTON, DARBY, EMTV, ESV, GNT, KJV, LITV, MKJV, MURDOCK, NASV (1977), RV, and WEBSTER) and none of them say anything about "ratified" "inaugurated" "dedicated" or "put into force."

Blessings!

Quote from: SwordMaster on Sat Feb 01, 2014 - 19:36:13

QuoteI have not come across this splitting of the Laws into covenant Law and community rules. I can see the point you are making though, as long as we preserve the principle that for the Jews the Law was indivisible in practice.

Yes, the Ten Commandments are identified as "Covenant Law" which stands apart from societal laws.
1.  Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament; R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke; Moody Press, Chicago, 1980, pg. 757
2.   The Ten Words; Lewis Patton; The Biblical World, Vol.22, No. 1, (July 1903), pg. 22
3.  Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East; George E. Mendenhall, The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. XVII, No. 2 (May 1954) pg. 29
It is the same that we could compare to today with modern contracts - the "covenant law" is the obligations of remaining in the covenant agreement, just as the stipulations of the contractee keeps him within the contractual agreement with the contractor.

I don't have access to those documents but it does concern me somewhat that this is getting a bit over legalistic. There are other moral laws that are not in the Ten Commandments that cannot be considered mere societal laws, for example fornication and sodomy.

However I do accept that the Ten Commandments do stand separately in time to the other commandments that God gave them. I think Deuteronomy shows this better. After the giving of the Ten Commandments - Deut 5:1-21- vs 22 says:
"These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them upon two tables of stone, and gave them to me."

Quote from: SwordMaster on Sat Feb 01, 2014 - 19:36:13

QuoteA second point is why do you split 24:3 from 24:4-8? Why do you say that 24:3 is only agreement the community rules.

Remember that the chapters and verses in the Bible were not originally part of it, but were added thousands of years later. Chapters 21-23 and 24:3 all took place on one day, the verse 4 says..."And Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD. He rose early in the morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel." Moses wrote down all of chapters 21-23 into a book, went to bed, and got up the next day and read all of the community rules to the people. It was to these community rules which they agreed to abide by. I suppose, in playing it safe, because verse 3 states that Moses "told the people all the words of the LORD and all the rules," that we can say that Moses rehearsed the Decalogue to the people as well as the community rules...as you pointed out...

OK

Quote from: SwordMaster on Sat Feb 01, 2014 - 19:36:13

QuoteDoes not the all include the Ten Commandments?

You are probably right...for some reason I did not notice that earlier!

OK

Quote from: SwordMaster on Sat Feb 01, 2014 - 19:36:13

QuoteI think the whole of 24:4-8 is the process of inauguration. Heb 9:18-29 treats the sacrifice and sprinkling of the blood as one procedure.

On a side note: the Bible I tend to use (RSV-CE) uses the term ratified in Heb 9:16 whereas others use inaugurated or dedicated. In the NRSV this is changed to inaugurated.
The Amplified Bible says "inaugurated and ratified and put into force"
The NIV settles for "put into force"

Are you sure that's Hebrews 9:16? I have 14 different versions (ASV, BBE, BRENTON, DARBY, EMTV, ESV, GNT, KJV, LITV, MKJV, MURDOCK, NASV (1977), RV, and WEBSTER) and none of them say anything about "ratified" "inaugurated" "dedicated" or "put into force."

Blessings!

Whoops"! You are right. It was Heb 9:18. My apologies for that mistake. It always annoys me when other people are careless and give a wrong reference so I have no excuse.

I'm ready to move on the New Covenant if you are. I suspect this is going to be more complex.

Will you start?

Quote from: winsome on Sun Feb 02, 2014 - 05:37:40

Quote from: SwordMaster on Sat Feb 01, 2014 - 19:36:13

QuoteI have not come across this splitting of the Laws into covenant Law and community rules. I can see the point you are making though, as long as we preserve the principle that for the Jews the Law was indivisible in practice.

Yes, the Ten Commandments are identified as "Covenant Law" which stands apart from societal laws.
1.  Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament; R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke; Moody Press, Chicago, 1980, pg. 757
2.   The Ten Words; Lewis Patton; The Biblical World, Vol.22, No. 1, (July 1903), pg. 22
3.  Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East; George E. Mendenhall, The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. XVII, No. 2 (May 1954) pg. 29
It is the same that we could compare to today with modern contracts - the "covenant law" is the obligations of remaining in the covenant agreement, just as the stipulations of the contractee keeps him within the contractual agreement with the contractor.

I don't have access to those documents but it does concern me somewhat that this is getting a bit over legalistic.

Law is seldom legalistic...people get legalistic. As an ex-law enforcement employee, I saw legalistic all the time...for example, a young cop still cutting his teeth on the PC book went down three residential blocks and put a parking ticket on every car parked against traffic. That is being legalistic - what laws matter? Murder, yes, we would not let someone get away with that...but parking???

Again - the law is the law, I don't think demarcating between law "species" is being legalistic, it is just categorizing the species of law. Perhaps these will help...

Exodus 34:27-28
27   And the LORD said to Moses, "Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."
28   So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

Deuteronomy 4:12-13
12   Then the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice.
13   And He declared to you His covenant, which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.

Deuteronomy 5:22
"These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and He added no more. And He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me.

In all of the above, God gives the 10 Commandments as the covenant, but we know that they are not all that the covenant assumes because there is also the promises and blessings and curses which are part of the covenant. There is a distinction made between the Decalogue and the other rules and regulations that God gave, and that difference is demonstrated in ANE covenanting as the Covenant Law. A man may break the civil/religious law of having intercourse with his wife during her period, and that would be breaking that law, but that law has nothing to do with remaining in the covenant relationship because it is not Covenant Law - the obligations given for one to keep if he desires to remain in covenant relationship with God.

There are other moral laws that are not in the Ten Commandments that cannot be considered mere societal laws, for example fornication and sodomy.

I believe the command to not commit adultery basically means not engaging in sexual intercourse, of which both fornication and sodomy (although a gross aberration of it) fall under that category.

However I do accept that the Ten Commandments do stand separately in time to the other commandments that God gave them. I think Deuteronomy shows this better. After the giving of the Ten Commandments - Deut 5:1-21- vs 22 says:
"These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them upon two tables of stone, and gave them to me."

Yes, and ANE covenant research demonstrates that almost all covenants (with the exception of blood and promissory covenants) carried with them covenant law - or obligations that one or both parties had to keep in order to remain in that covenant. I think the confusion here is that God also gave Israel the statutes, rules, regulations, and laws almost immediately after giving the Decalogue. But when we analyze them carefully, they are different in origin and purpose, therefore making them separate in nature.


I'm ready to move on the New Covenant if you are. I suspect this is going to be more complex.

Will you start?

Sure...I will wait until you have the chance to read my responses (in blue) and see if there is any further clarification needed for either of us. Then I will post my stand on the New Covenant as it pertains to the discussion.

Blessings!

Quote from: SwordMaster on Sun Feb 02, 2014 - 16:11:30

Quote from: winsome on Sun Feb 02, 2014 - 05:37:40

Quote from: SwordMaster on Sat Feb 01, 2014 - 19:36:13

QuoteI have not come across this splitting of the Laws into covenant Law and community rules. I can see the point you are making though, as long as we preserve the principle that for the Jews the Law was indivisible in practice.

Yes, the Ten Commandments are identified as "Covenant Law" which stands apart from societal laws.
1.  Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament; R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke; Moody Press, Chicago, 1980, pg. 757
2.   The Ten Words; Lewis Patton; The Biblical World, Vol.22, No. 1, (July 1903), pg. 22
3.  Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East; George E. Mendenhall, The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. XVII, No. 2 (May 1954) pg. 29
It is the same that we could compare to today with modern contracts - the "covenant law" is the obligations of remaining in the covenant agreement, just as the stipulations of the contractee keeps him within the contractual agreement with the contractor.

I don't have access to those documents but it does concern me somewhat that this is getting a bit over legalistic.

Law is seldom legalistic...people get legalistic. As an ex-law enforcement employee, I saw legalistic all the time...for example, a young cop still cutting his teeth on the PC book went down three residential blocks and put a parking ticket on every car parked against traffic. That is being legalistic - what laws matter? Murder, yes, we would not let someone get away with that...but parking???

Again - the law is the law, I don't think demarcating between law "species" is being legalistic, it is just categorizing the species of law. Perhaps these will help...

Exodus 34:27-28
27   And the LORD said to Moses, "Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."
28   So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

Deuteronomy 4:12-13
12   Then the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice.
13   And He declared to you His covenant, which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.

Deuteronomy 5:22
"These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and He added no more. And He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me.

In all of the above, God gives the 10 Commandments as the covenant, but we know that they are not all that the covenant assumes because there is also the promises and blessings and curses which are part of the covenant. There is a distinction made between the Decalogue and the other rules and regulations that God gave, and that difference is demonstrated in ANE covenanting as the Covenant Law. A man may break the civil/religious law of having intercourse with his wife during her period, and that would be breaking that law, but that law has nothing to do with remaining in the covenant relationship because it is not Covenant Law - the obligations given for one to keep if he desires to remain in covenant relationship with God.

Perhaps legalistic is not the right word. The thing that concerns me is that this doesn't seem to allow room for grace and God's fatherly love. We have a God of mercy and compassion. But perhaps that more applicable to the New Covenant which introduces Grace. 

Quote from: SwordMaster on Sun Feb 02, 2014 - 16:11:30

Quote from: winsome on Sun Feb 02, 2014 - 05:37:40
There are other moral laws that are not in the Ten Commandments that cannot be considered mere societal laws, for example fornication and sodomy.

I believe the command to not commit adultery basically means not engaging in sexual intercourse, of which both fornication and sodomy (although a gross aberration of it) fall under that category.

Sure it's possible to consider other moral laws with one or other of the Ten Commandments for convenience when discussing them but they are given separately and I think they stand separately as law. 

When the man in Mk 10:17-22  asked what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus said:
You know the commandments: 'Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honour your father and mother.'"
"Do not defraud" is not in the Ten Commandments. You could argue that is covered by "Do not steal" but Jesus gives that as well so presumably he does not consider defrauding is covered by "Do not steal". This actually comes from Lev 19: 11-13
"You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; and you shall not lie to one another. And you shall not swear falsely by my name, profaning the name of your God: I am the LORD. You shall not defraud your neighbour; you shall not steal; and you shall not keep for yourself the wages of a labourer until morning. (NRSV).

Consider also what God says to Moses in Lev 20 (for example):
"If a person turns to mediums and wizards, playing the harlot after them, I will set my face against that person, and will cut him off from among his people." (vs6)
Now that is serious. That's not just a societal code. It rather sounds like being ejected from the covenant.

I think adultery was very specifically mentioned because it is a betrayal of the marriage covenant and at the core of a societies' structure whereas other sexual sins, however deviant, are not.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Sun Feb 02, 2014 - 16:11:30

Quote from: winsome on Sun Feb 02, 2014 - 05:37:40

However I do accept that the Ten Commandments do stand separately in time to the other commandments that God gave them. I think Deuteronomy shows this better. After the giving of the Ten Commandments - Deut 5:1-21- vs 22 says:
"These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them upon two tables of stone, and gave them to me."

Yes, and ANE covenant research demonstrates that almost all covenants (with the exception of blood and promissory covenants) carried with them covenant law - or obligations that one or both parties had to keep in order to remain in that covenant. I think the confusion here is that God also gave Israel the statutes, rules, regulations, and laws almost immediately after giving the Decalogue. But when we analyze them carefully, they are different in origin and purpose, therefore making them separate in nature.

OK.

Winsome said...

QuotePerhaps legalistic is not the right word. The thing that concerns me is that this doesn't seem to allow room for grace and God's fatherly love. We have a God of mercy and compassion. But perhaps that more applicable to the New Covenant which introduces Grace.

Agreed, it doesn't sound like it on the outside, but when we take into consideration the other aspects of God's dealing with Israel after making the covenant with them, we see that His love and grace is present...ie. in the setting up of the Tabernacle (Tent of Meeting) and the laws for atonement.

Those who state (and there are plenty of them in Reformed Theology) that the Old Covenant was law and no grace, don't know what they are talking about. The very instituting of the Levicital Priesthood, the Tabernacle, the utensils for "processing" of the rules and laws for atonement for sin, is God's grace in action. My simplified definition of grace is this: God's love in action toward mankind. In this, the institution for atonement, we see God's grace and love in action.

QuoteSure it's possible to consider other moral laws with one or other of the Ten Commandments for convenience when discussing them but they are given separately and I think they stand separately as law. 

When the man in Mk 10:17-22  asked what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus said:
You know the commandments: 'Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honour your father and mother.'"
"Do not defraud" is not in the Ten Commandments. You could argue that is covered by "Do not steal" but Jesus gives that as well so presumably he does not consider defrauding is covered by "Do not steal". This actually comes from Lev 19: 11-13
"You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; and you shall not lie to one another. And you shall not swear falsely by my name, profaning the name of your God: I am the LORD. You shall not defraud your neighbour; you shall not steal; and you shall not keep for yourself the wages of a labourer until morning. (NRSV).

Consider also what God says to Moses in Lev 20 (for example):
"If a person turns to mediums and wizards, playing the harlot after them, I will set my face against that person, and will cut him off from among his people." (vs6)
Now that is serious. That's not just a societal code. It rather sounds like being ejected from the covenant.

I think adultery was very specifically mentioned because it is a betrayal of the marriage covenant and at the core of a societies' structure whereas other sexual sins, however deviant, are not.

Agreed.

While I prepare my statement on the New Covenant, might I suggest a re-reading of Leviticus chapters 4, 5 & 16...only because there are aspects of the atonement under the New Covenant which are based upon that in the Old Covenant. The atonement in the OC was specifically designed (which can be observed in the Tabernacle and the utensils, coverings, tent pegs, etc.) which speak of certain characteristics/aspects of Christ's ministry to come under the NC. Just a suggestion!

Blessings!

Quote from: SwordMaster on Tue Feb 04, 2014 - 14:45:28
Winsome said...

QuotePerhaps legalistic is not the right word. The thing that concerns me is that this doesn't seem to allow room for grace and God's fatherly love. We have a God of mercy and compassion. But perhaps that more applicable to the New Covenant which introduces Grace.

Agreed, it doesn't sound like it on the outside, but when we take into consideration the other aspects of God's dealing with Israel after making the covenant with them, we see that His love and grace is present...ie. in the setting up of the Tabernacle (Tent of Meeting) and the laws for atonement.

Those who state (and there are plenty of them in Reformed Theology) that the Old Covenant was law and no grace, don't know what they are talking about. The very instituting of the Levicital Priesthood, the Tabernacle, the utensils for "processing" of the rules and laws for atonement for sin, is God's grace in action. My simplified definition of grace is this: God's love in action toward mankind. In this, the institution for atonement, we see God's grace and love in action.

QuoteSure it's possible to consider other moral laws with one or other of the Ten Commandments for convenience when discussing them but they are given separately and I think they stand separately as law. 

When the man in Mk 10:17-22  asked what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus said:
You know the commandments: 'Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honour your father and mother.'"
"Do not defraud" is not in the Ten Commandments. You could argue that is covered by "Do not steal" but Jesus gives that as well so presumably he does not consider defrauding is covered by "Do not steal". This actually comes from Lev 19: 11-13
"You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; and you shall not lie to one another. And you shall not swear falsely by my name, profaning the name of your God: I am the LORD. You shall not defraud your neighbour; you shall not steal; and you shall not keep for yourself the wages of a labourer until morning. (NRSV).

Consider also what God says to Moses in Lev 20 (for example):
"If a person turns to mediums and wizards, playing the harlot after them, I will set my face against that person, and will cut him off from among his people." (vs6)
Now that is serious. That's not just a societal code. It rather sounds like being ejected from the covenant.

I think adultery was very specifically mentioned because it is a betrayal of the marriage covenant and at the core of a societies' structure whereas other sexual sins, however deviant, are not.

Agreed.

While I prepare my statement on the New Covenant, might I suggest a re-reading of Leviticus chapters 4, 5 & 16...only because there are aspects of the atonement under the New Covenant which are based upon that in the Old Covenant. The atonement in the OC was specifically designed (which can be observed in the Tabernacle and the utensils, coverings, tent pegs, etc.) which speak of certain characteristics/aspects of Christ's ministry to come under the NC. Just a suggestion!

Blessings!

Thanks, I'll read them up.

Winsome, I tried to post this the other day but the forum was having some issues...just in case for future reference, this is The Master's Seminary listing of open access journals. Some of them are secular, but you can tell which ones just by the titles  .


https://www.tms.edu/LibraryFreeJournals.aspx


Most of the papers I cite and research are from this list. I use to have access to other journals, but money doesn't grow on trees.....

Happy hunting!

OK, here we are in the second round regarding the New Covenant, and I will post my opening statement:

The New Covenant, like all of the covenants which God has ever entered into with man, is an ANE covenant, subject to ANE covenant principles of operation (which we discussed and agreed upon in the first round, counting definition discussions to the ultimate conclusion regarding certain words - inauguration and ratification being the most prominent).

Based upon these principles, which the church has not done since the Third Century when the knowledge and understanding of ANE covenants was lost to the church through various historical occurrences, leading to many inaccurate teachings of Reformed Theology, we need to understand and apply these covenant principles to our hermeneutic and exegeses of the NT Scriptures, because when we do so, we come away from Scriptural study with a more accurate understanding and a more accurate theology. Case in point:

Acts 18:24-26
24   Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. 25   He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26   He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

We see played out in the above passage the same dilemma within the Western church today...

1.  Apollos was an educated Jew from Alexandria, which states a lot concerning him.

2.  He was "competent in the Scriptures" the Spirit tells us - he knew what he was talking about.

3.  He had been "instructed in the way of the Lord," the things concerning Jesus.

4.  He "taught accurately the things concerning Jesus," meaning that He was the Messiah, and so forth.

5.  Then we run into this curious little phrase that, for the outset, really doesn't mean very much to us; the Spirit tells us that Apollos "knew [experienced] only the baptism of John." John's baptism was a baptism of repentance (Mark 1:4 - Luke 3:3 - Acts 13:24 * 19:4), it was not baptism "into Christ" (Romans 6:3 - Galatians 3:27); therefore, Apollos was not "in Christ" according to the Scriptures until after he received baptism, God's ordained rite of entrance into the New Covenant. This is not recognized within Reformed Theology, because the Reformers (being ignorant of ANE covenants and the dictates of the Scriptures) taught that baptism was a "work" and no work was required in order to enter into Christ, they erringly taught that faith alone took one into Christ the instant that a man believes in Him (which is not corroborated by any Scripture). [Side-notes are in blue] 

6.  Not being "in Christ" affected a couple of things in Apollos, one of the being his ministry - since the indwelling Spirit is a covenant gift, according only to those in the covenant relationship with God, he did not have the Spirit, which Priscilla and Aquila could tell. Therefore...

7.  They pulled Apollos aside and "explained to him the WAY OF GOD MORE ACCURATELY."

8.  The "way of God" is NOT the same thing as "the things concerning Jesus," for the Spirit can not say that he was both accurate and inaccurate on the same thing at the same time. The way of God is how God has put together everything in the New Covenant in completing His Plan of Redemption, while the things of Jesus are just that, those things pertaining to Christ, His ministry, so forth.

9.  Apollos was missing the same thing that most in the Western church is missing today - covenant understanding and application. Apollos knew covenant, he was a Jew living in a covenantal society and culture, but what I suspect is that living in Alexandria, Egypt, he didn't receive the information regarding how to enter into the New Covenant. I am sure that he understood that there was a ritualistic entrance into the covenant, as all covenants had regarding salvation, he just hadn't heard the specifics. However, based upon what happened in the next chapter with Paul and the believers there, as soon as they understood they needed to receive baptism into the covenant, Apollos received baptism from Priscilla and Aquila, and went on to be a mighty preacher of the Gospel.

Abiding in the covenant (meeting the New Covenant obligations - the covenant law of the New Covenant) causes one to receive all of the promises, blessings, gifts, and benefits of the New Covenant (including, but not limited to, the indwelling Spirit, the gifts of the Spirit, walking in the authority of Christ, etc.). Because the Western church does not understand these things because of erroneous Reformed Theology, most "Christians" today do not walk in the power of the Spirit, they do not have the gifts of the Spirit in order to exercise, and they do not have the authority of Christ in their lives in order to deal with certain spiritual issues (for examples).

This has a detrimental affect upon the church today (for the most part), because without the indwelling Spirit, precious few do not have the capability to understand the Scriptures properly, because they are Spiritually discerned. This is why we can place five different people in a room with a passage written on a chalk board, and get five different interpretations of that one passage. God wrote the Scriptures, and he did not write them with five different possible meanings, but only one - and the only persons to be able to come to that intended meaning of the Scriptures, are those who are currently abiding in the covenant.

The covenant law (obligations) of the New Covenant are:

1. Believe in Christ (don't really think I need to provide any passages for that one).
2. Love your neighbor as yourself (the golden rule) (I John 3:23-24).
3. Receive Communion at least once a year (John 6:53, 56 - I Corinthians 10:16).

This understanding affects the way we interpret the NT Scriptures. For example, eternal life is a gift and promise of the New Covenant, which is Christ (the Living New Covenant - Isaiah 42:6, 49:8), therefore all of the passages dealing with eternal life, or any other gift or promise of the covenant, must meet covenant principles, especially #4, then these promises and gifts apply ONLY to those abiding within the covenant. What this means, is that if Paul believes in Christ, but is not abiding in the covenant because he is not meeting his covenant obligation of loving on people when he sees the opportunity and has the means to do so, but just walks on by and does nothing, then he does not have eternal life, regardless of what he thinks or believes.

This is the present issue with the Western church today. People believe, because of false Reformed teaching, that they do not need to love on others when they are in need, no matter what that need is, and they have the means to fill that need, so they do not. When they do not, but pass people by time and time again, whom they are commanded to love on, then they do not abide in the covenant. Therefore they do not have eternal life, even though they believe in Christ; they do not have the indwelling Spirit of God, they do not have the gifts of the Spirit...etc.

That is probably way more winded than I originally anticipated, so if you want to break it down, please be my guest. Pick one issue above and we can discuss it before moving to another.

Blessings!

Quote from: SwordMaster on Wed Feb 05, 2014 - 14:50:11
Winsome, I tried to post this the other day but the forum was having some issues...just in case for future reference, this is The Master's Seminary listing of open access journals. Some of them are secular, but you can tell which ones just by the titles  .


https://www.tms.edu/LibraryFreeJournals.aspx


Most of the papers I cite and research are from this list. I use to have access to other journals, but money doesn't grow on trees.....

Happy hunting!

Hi SwordMaster,

That looks a valuable resource.

In my research I had come across some of the Covenant essays in the Journal part of the site, but at a very low level in the site so I had not realised there was so  much there.

Thanks for the link.

I've had a quick scan of your opening statement on the New Covenant. It's going to take me a while to go through that but there is no hurry.

However I do have a question that I would like to get clarified because it is one that has caused (me at least) some confusion in the past.

The question is, who are the two parties to the New Covenant?  Could we get that out of the way before I respond to the points you raise.

Winsome...

QuoteI've had a quick scan of your opening statement on the New Covenant. It's going to take me a while to go through that but there is no hurry.

However I do have a question that I would like to get clarified because it is one that has caused (me at least) some confusion in the past.

The question is, who are the two parties to the New Covenant?  Could we get that out of the way before I respond to the points you raise.

I'm tired so hopefully I won't miss any points...

1. The New Covenant has covenant law (the Law of Christ, also called the Royal Law, the Perfect Law, the Law of the Spirit, and the Law of God in the NT); because it has covenant law (obligations for both partners), the New Covenant is bi-lateral, meaning there are two parties. Christ plays two roles in the NC...He is, at the same time, the Living embodiment of the NC, and He is the mediator between God and man (I can provide the passages if you wish, but I am pretty sure you know them already).


2.  The New Covenant is made between God and "whosoever will" specifically in Israel, meaning that in the OT we see that is is made with national Israel, but in the NT we see that one is not a Jew by nationality any longer, but one by circumcision of the Spirit (Romans 2:28-29), which means that any "Gentile" who abides in Christ is now one of God's chosen people.

The New Covenant participants is God and "whosoever will," with Christ as the mediator, inaugurater, ratifier, new high priest, and living covenant.

The short answer, is the participants are God and "whosoever will."


There is among the inaccurate teachings of Reformed Theology, because of Covenant Theology which springs from RT, that the New Covenant is between God and Christ for our benefit, but like most Reformed teachings, they have no Scriptural validation for their stand, especially since Covenant Theology consists almost half of man-made, so-called "theological covenants" (the covenant of grace, the covenant of works, the covenant of redemption, etc.), none of which are Scripturally based either. RT does this in order to give the New Covenant the appearance of being unilateral or unconditional. But as Scripture and ANE covenanting demonstrates, the New Covenant is law based, and therefore is a conditional covenant (one must abide in the covenant ("in Christ") in order to legally possess what the covenant offers).

Blessings!

Hi SwordMaster,

I have several issues with your last two posts and it's going to take me time to get my thoughts in order. In the meantime here are a few comments on the things I can agree on, or have only a minor comment.

Before I do that – I assume you realise I am a Catholic and therefore I'm coming at this from a Catholic perspective and not that of Reformed theology.  I would agree there is a lot wrong with Reformed theology in many areas.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Wed Feb 05, 2014 - 20:22:07

OK, here we are in the second round regarding the New Covenant, and I will post my opening statement:

The New Covenant, like all of the covenants which God has ever entered into with man, is an ANE covenant, subject to ANE covenant principles of operation (which we discussed and agreed upon in the first round, counting definition discussions to the ultimate conclusion regarding certain words - inauguration and ratification being the most prominent).

Based upon these principles, which the church has not done since the Third Century when the knowledge and understanding of ANE covenants was lost to the church through various historical occurrences, leading to many inaccurate teachings of Reformed Theology, we need to understand and apply these covenant principles to our hermeneutic and exegeses of the NT Scriptures, because when we do so, we come away from Scriptural study with a more accurate understanding and a more accurate theology. Case in point:

Acts 18:24-26
24   Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. 25   He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26   He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

We see played out in the above passage the same dilemma within the Western church today...

1.  Apollos was an educated Jew from Alexandria, which states a lot concerning him.

2.  He was "competent in the Scriptures" the Spirit tells us - he knew what he was talking about.

3.  He had been "instructed in the way of the Lord," the things concerning Jesus.

4.  He "taught accurately the things concerning Jesus," meaning that He was the Messiah, and so forth.

5.  Then we run into this curious little phrase that, for the outset, really doesn't mean very much to us; the Spirit tells us that Apollos "knew [experienced] only the baptism of John." John's baptism was a baptism of repentance (Mark 1:4 - Luke 3:3 - Acts 13:24 * 19:4), it was not baptism "into Christ" (Romans 6:3 - Galatians 3:27); therefore, Apollos was not "in Christ" according to the Scriptures until after he received baptism, God's ordained rite of entrance into the New Covenant. This is not recognized within Reformed Theology, because the Reformers (being ignorant of ANE covenants and the dictates of the Scriptures) taught that baptism was a "work" and no work was required in order to enter into Christ, they erringly taught that faith alone took one into Christ the instant that a man believes in Him (which is not corroborated by any Scripture). [Side-notes are in blue] 

6.  Not being "in Christ" affected a couple of things in Apollos, one of the being his ministry - since the indwelling Spirit is a covenant gift, according only to those in the covenant relationship with God, he did not have the Spirit, which Priscilla and Aquila could tell. Therefore...

7.  They pulled Apollos aside and "explained to him the WAY OF GOD MORE ACCURATELY."

8.  The "way of God" is NOT the same thing as "the things concerning Jesus," for the Spirit can not say that he was both accurate and inaccurate on the same thing at the same time. The way of God is how God has put together everything in the New Covenant in completing His Plan of Redemption, while the things of Jesus are just that, those things pertaining to Christ, His ministry, so forth.

9.  Apollos was missing the same thing that most in the Western church is missing today - covenant understanding and application. Apollos knew covenant, he was a Jew living in a covenantal society and culture, but what I suspect is that living in Alexandria, Egypt, he didn't receive the information regarding how to enter into the New Covenant. I am sure that he understood that there was a ritualistic entrance into the covenant, as all covenants had regarding salvation, he just hadn't heard the specifics. However, based upon what happened in the next chapter with Paul and the believers there, as soon as they understood they needed to receive baptism into the covenant, Apollos received baptism from Priscilla and Aquila, and went on to be a mighty preacher of the Gospel.

I have no issue with the above.  That was an interesting comment about Apollos. I have not heard that explained like that before. Interestingly, after the comment on Apollos, Acts moves on to the 12 men at Ephesus. Again Paul recognises something wrong and discovered they had only been baptised with John's baptism.

 

Quote from: SwordMaster on Wed Feb 05, 2014 - 20:22:07

Abiding in the covenant (meeting the New Covenant obligations - the covenant law of the New Covenant) causes one to receive all of the promises, blessings, gifts, and benefits of the New Covenant (including, but not limited to, the indwelling Spirit, the gifts of the Spirit, walking in the authority of Christ, etc.). Because the Western church does not understand these things because of erroneous Reformed Theology, most "Christians" today do not walk in the power of the Spirit, they do not have the gifts of the Spirit in order to exercise, and they do not have the authority of Christ in their lives in order to deal with certain spiritual issues (for examples).

I agree that we need to enter the New Covenant via baptism (I'm assuming this means baptism with water).

I would say that upon entering and abiding in the covenant we become eligible to receive the promises etc. of the covenant but we do not get them all automatically we enter the covenant, which seems (to me) to be implied in your statement.

For example we get the indwelling of the Holy Spirit when we are baptised, but the (charismatic) gifts of the Spirit are given by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:6)

Quote from: SwordMaster on Wed Feb 05, 2014 - 20:22:07

This has a detrimental affect upon the church today (for the most part), because without the indwelling Spirit, precious few do not have the capability to understand the Scriptures properly, because they are Spiritually discerned. This is why we can place five different people in a room with a passage written on a chalk board, and get five different interpretations of that one passage. God wrote the Scriptures, and he did not write them with five different possible meanings, but only one - and the only persons to be able to come to that intended meaning of the Scriptures, are those who are currently abiding in the covenant.

I appreciate the point you are making but I think your example is weak because IMO it's the wrong way to go about interpreting scripture. But that is my Catholic perspective.


BTW, as from Friday (14th) I will be away for a week and I think I won't have the opportunity to respond while I am away.

Hi SwordMaster,

I will now pick up your last post and the parts of the previous one that I have not responded to.

I have four points to raise. Here is the first one. If you would like to consider the other three before responding please let me know and I will post them.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Fri Feb 07, 2014 - 00:27:46

2.  The New Covenant is made between God and "whosoever will" specifically in Israel, meaning that in the OT we see that is is made with national Israel, but in the NT we see that one is not a Jew by nationality any longer, but one by circumcision of the Spirit (Romans 2:28-29), which means that any "Gentile" who abides in Christ is now one of God's chosen people.

The New Covenant participants is God and "whosoever will," with Christ as the mediator, inaugurater, ratifier, new high priest, and living covenant.

The short answer, is the participants are God and "whosoever will."

Can you supply some evidence for that claim. All earlier Covenants were made between God and man with a man as a mediator of the covenant. But where man was required keep covenant law (e.g Sinai) man failed to keep the terms of the covenant and the covenant itself became nullified.

The Sinai covenant failed almost as soon as it started with the incidence with the golden calf. The Israelites came under judgement. God was prepared to abandon them and start again with Moses (Ex 32:10). The history of Israel is a history of breaking the covenant.

But the New covenant cannot fail because Jesus is one party to it as man and can never fail. As God he is the other party. That is why he is the living covenant and why we must be "In Christ" to be in the covenant.

Catholica put it this way in another thread:

QuoteIn assuming that human nature God bound himself to humanity IN the person of Jesus.  That is why Jesus the person, in his person, is the One Mediator between God and man: because Jesus himself is a fusion of both the human and the divine.  Within his person: his blood! the new covenant exists, whereas before a covenant was between two parties, God and man, Jesus is perfectly both within himself and so is the Mediator of the Covenant between God and all men.

In his prophecy Jeremiah says:
"Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. "(Jer 31:31-32)

Two things to note here:
1. The new covenant will be "not like" the Sinai Covenant.
2. The Israelites broke the covenant. If the covenant is with "whosoever" it will be broken again and again.

Winsome ...

QuoteI agree that we need to enter the New Covenant via baptism (I'm assuming this means baptism with water).

I would say that upon entering and abiding in the covenant we become eligible to receive the promises etc. of the covenant but we do not get them all automatically we enter the covenant, which seems (to me) to be implied in your statement.

For example we get the indwelling of the Holy Spirit when we are baptised, but the (charismatic) gifts of the Spirit are given by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:6)

Correct, I mean water baptism.

Well, remember that there are Promises, Blessings, Benefits, and Gifts of the New Covenant. A promise would be like the indwelling of the Spirit, where God specifically states in the OT prophecies that He WILL put His Spirit within them - this is a promise that does take place immediately upon entering the covenant. However, you are correct about the baptism in the Spirit...it is more a gift or blessing (Paul calls it a "second blessing" in II Cor. 1:15, depending upon which version you use). Some are automatic and some are not. As another example...

2 Corinthians 9:10-11
10   He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness.
11   You will be enriched in every way to be generous in every way, which through us will produce thanksgiving to God.

This is a gift of the covenant, but God does not just drop $10,000 in our bank accounts after we enter into the covenant with Him. We still have some responsibilities in order to receive these things, just as Abraham did.

Quote from: SwordMaster on February 05, 2014, 07:22:07 PM

This has a detrimental affect upon the church today (for the most part), because without the indwelling Spirit, precious few do not have the capability to understand the Scriptures properly, because they are Spiritually discerned. This is why we can place five different people in a room with a passage written on a chalk board, and get five different interpretations of that one passage. God wrote the Scriptures, and he did not write them with five different possible meanings, but only one - and the only persons to be able to come to that intended meaning of the Scriptures, are those who are currently abiding in the covenant.

QuoteI appreciate the point you are making but I think your example is weak because IMO it's the wrong way to go about interpreting scripture. But that is my Catholic perspective.

Actually, it is not weak, that is what the Scriptures plainly state...

1 Corinthians 2:14
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

First, I guess you may have a point depending upon how one interprets "the natural person." I interpret it to mean one who has not received regeneration and the indwelling of the Spirit. Such a person is not in the covenant, because regeneration and the indwelling Spirit of God are immediate things that take place upon entering the covenant.

Second, the phrase "spiritually discerned" (πνευματικως ανακρίνεται) means "discerned or taught by the Spirit, with the help of the Spirit [of God]." Therefore, one cannot understand the intended meaning of many Scriptural texts unless the Spirit reveals it to them...and if they do not have the indwelling Spirit of God, then one cannot understand that intended meaning.

Please let me know what you see as weak? In what way is the Spirit giving a man His intended meaning of a passage the "wrong way to go about interpreting Scripture?"


Quote from: SwordMaster on February 06, 2014, 11:27:46 PM

2.  The New Covenant is made between God and "whosoever will" specifically in Israel, meaning that in the OT we see that is is made with national Israel, but in the NT we see that one is not a Jew by nationality any longer, but one by circumcision of the Spirit (Romans 2:28-29), which means that any "Gentile" who abides in Christ is now one of God's chosen people.

The New Covenant participants is God and "whosoever will," with Christ as the mediator, inaugurater, ratifier, new high priest, and living covenant.

The short answer, is the participants are God and "whosoever will."

QuoteCan you supply some evidence for that claim. All earlier Covenants were made between God and man with a man as a mediator of the covenant. But where man was required keep covenant law (e.g Sinai) man failed to keep the terms of the covenant and the covenant itself became nullified.

Sure...the first one is the same passage you used below...

Jeremiah 31:31-34
31   "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
32   not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.
33   For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34   And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

God clearly states that He is making this covenant with His chosen people, He does not state that He is making it with the Messiah. Also, not all covenants that God made were mediated, that is not valid. Neither the Adamic, Noahic, or Davidic covenants were mediated through anyone, God gave the covenant and that was the end of it. And you said yourself in quoting the Scripture, God said "not like the covenant that I made with their fathers," which incorporates SEVERAL differences, the first of which that the New Covenant is embodied within the Messiah Himself. Then you said...

Quoteman failed to keep the terms of the covenant and the covenant itself became nullified

Contrary to popular teaching through covenant theology, the Mosaic Covenant was not nullified by the failure of the Israelites to keep it, and that is one of the reasons why God's grace provided the atonement through the institution of the Tabernacle and the Aaronic priesthood. There is a difference between breaking the covenant and nullifying it...they broke it every day, just like we do, yet that is where grace steps in. However, nullifying the covenant in one's life is accomplished not by breaking the covenant, but by walking away from it, deciding that one does not want to even try to walk in obedience to God, because one decides he no longer wants God as his god.

Isaiah 42:1-6
1   Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations.
2   He will not cry aloud or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street;
3   a bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice.
4   He will not grow faint or be discouraged till he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his law.
5   Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it:
6   "I am the LORD; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations,

If the covenant was between God the Father and God the Son, with those who are saved abiding in Christ, then there would be no need for covenant law, yet God specifically states that "the coastlands wait for his law." If the New Covenant is indeed from Father to Son, then it would not have covenant law - yet it clearly does.

Isaiah 55:1-3
1   "Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.
2   Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy? Listen diligently to me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in rich food.
3   Incline your ear, and come to me; hear, that your soul may live; and I will make with you an everlasting covenant, my steadfast, sure love for David.

Here God clearly says "everyone who thirsts," and that "I will make with you an everlasting covenant." Time and time again, it is not only prophesied in the OT that God will make His covenant to men, but also in the NT Scriptures...

Revelation 22:17
And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

The idea that God made the New Covenant with God the Son is COMPLETELY foreign to the Scriptures. It originated out of Covenant Theology, which is a branch of Reformed Theology. I am surprised that this is a Catholic teaching. There are more...Isaiah 61:8; Jeremiah 32:37-41; Ezekiel 16:58-63; Ezekiel 34:22-27; Ezekiel 37:20-28. In all of these, God specifically states that He will make His covenant "with" or "to" men, not the Messiah.

QuoteThe Sinai covenant failed almost as soon as it started with the incidence with the golden calf. The Israelites came under judgement. God was prepared to abandon them and start again with Moses (Ex 32:10). The history of Israel is a history of breaking the covenant. But the New covenant cannot fail because Jesus is one party to it as man and can never fail. As God he is the other party. That is why he is the living covenant and why we must be "In Christ" to be in the covenant.

Catholica put it this way in another thread:
Quote
In assuming that human nature God bound himself to humanity IN the person of Jesus.  That is why Jesus the person, in his person, is the One Mediator between God and man: because Jesus himself is a fusion of both the human and the divine.  Within his person: his blood! the new covenant exists, whereas before a covenant was between two parties, God and man, Jesus is perfectly both within himself and so is the Mediator of the Covenant between God and all men.

Your point of Ex. 32:10 is correct, Israel's history was a showcase of sin cycles, as paradigmed in the Book of Judges...and it also is a showcase of our walk with the Lord too. The argument of the New Covenant "failing" is a misnomer...no covenant fails. One or both partners may decide to quit, but that is not a failure of the covenant. The covenant is first and foremost a legal document, a legal instrument which remains in operation until BOTH parties call it quits, and God will never call it quits on His part, therefore the New Covenant will never end until its purpose is fulfilled, just as with the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant will not be fulfilled until the beginning of the new heavens and the new earth.

Christ bound Himself to humanity because it was the ONLY way to provide for the eternal atonement for a free forgiveness and cleansing from sin...

Hebrews 10:5, 12, 4
Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.....For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

God had to become human in order to provide for Himself a bloodline free from sin, in order that this new blood, human blood, could provide that eternal atonement required for a man to enter into this everlasting covenant with God, for the purpose of God for that covenant - intimate personal relationship. One other observation...Jesus cannot "mediate" Himself. He is the Living New Covenant, if He is the Covenant, then He cannot "stand between" Himself and Himself. The New Covenant was made between God and men, and the mediator was Christ, the Living Covenant.

QuoteIn his prophecy Jeremiah says:
"Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. "(Jer 31:31-32)

Two things to note here:
1. The new covenant will be "not like" the Sinai Covenant.
2. The Israelites broke the covenant. If the covenant is with "whosoever" it will be broken again and again.

First - agreed, and the things that make the New Covenant "not like" the Old Covenant are many, not just format.
Second - also in agreement...we break the covenant today over and over again, and we will every time we sin. However, the misunderstanding is that in covenanting, the covenant does not cease to be active just because one partner slips up and fails in some way - especially in God's covenant because it is instituted because of, and within, God's grace. If it were not, then it would have been a covenant like unto the Adamic covenant, for no grace was part of it. It had one law and one consequence for disobedience, and no grace - otherwise the entire human race could not be held accountable to Adam's sin because it could have been forgiven. Yet no providence was made for Adam's failure - because that was part of God's plan (but that's another subject altogether).

Also, the New Covenant is spoken of by God as an "everlasting" covenant...it will not be nullified, but will remain active - regardless of how many times we fail - until it has been totally fulfilled, which again won't take place until the new heavens and the new earth. Breaking the covenant law (slipping up on doing what we know we are to do) does not nullify the covenant...

"Technically, covenants were not dissolved or terminated by noncompliance. The covenant continued in force even when it was "broken" and its stipulations violated. That which changed legally was the consequence of the covenant, not the continuance of the covenant...A covenant, however, was not wholly nullified or made void simply by a participant's violation of the terms. The relationship established by the covenant, along with its obligations, was usually defined as perpetual, inter-generational, everlasting."

The New Covenant of Scripture in ANE Covenant Context: A Preliminary Paper; Dr. Roy E. Beacham; delivered at the Baptist Bible Seminary, September 23, 2009, Pg 12, 13

Blessings!

 

Quote from: SwordMaster on Sun Feb 09, 2014 - 15:14:32

Quote from: SwordMaster on February 05, 2014, 07:22:07 PM

This has a detrimental affect upon the church today (for the most part), because without the indwelling Spirit, precious few do not have the capability to understand the Scriptures properly, because they are Spiritually discerned. This is why we can place five different people in a room with a passage written on a chalk board, and get five different interpretations of that one passage. God wrote the Scriptures, and he did not write them with five different possible meanings, but only one - and the only persons to be able to come to that intended meaning of the Scriptures, are those who are currently abiding in the covenant.

QuoteI appreciate the point you are making but I think your example is weak because IMO it's the wrong way to go about interpreting scripture. But that is my Catholic perspective.

Actually, it is not weak, that is what the Scriptures plainly state...

1 Corinthians 2:14
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

First, I guess you may have a point depending upon how one interprets "the natural person." I interpret it to mean one who has not received regeneration and the indwelling of the Spirit. Such a person is not in the covenant, because regeneration and the indwelling Spirit of God are immediate things that take place upon entering the covenant.

Second, the phrase "spiritually discerned" (πνευματικως ανακρίνεται) means "discerned or taught by the Spirit, with the help of the Spirit [of God]." Therefore, one cannot understand the intended meaning of many Scriptural texts unless the Spirit reveals it to them...and if they do not have the indwelling Spirit of God, then one cannot understand that intended meaning.

Please let me know what you see as weak? In what way is the Spirit giving a man His intended meaning of a passage the "wrong way to go about interpreting Scripture?"

There is a myth among some Protestants that if they have the Spirit indwelling in them they can infallibly interpret scripture. This is usually based on a faulty interpretation of Jn 14:26, 16:13 & 1Jn 2:20-27. Scripture itself warns about private interpretation (2Pet 1:20).

Moreover to really understand scripture we need to understand the purpose of the writer, the intended audience etc. This very topic is about understanding scripture using knowledge from outside scripture (ANE covenants)

I think that if you get 5 people in a room who are in the covenant, the Spirit is indwelling in them, you are still likely to get 5 different interpretations of scripture. However that is probably another topic.

---------------------------------------

Posts have a way of fragmenting until they get unmanageable. So to keep sane I'm going to try and respond to the rest of your post in a series of points rather than trying to answer each section in turn.  I'll leave the covenant participants to the end. First a few other points

1. Yes, I agree nullify was incorrect. 


2. You say "Also, not all covenants that God made were mediated, that is not valid. Neither the Adamic, Noahic, or Davidic covenants were mediated through anyone"

Please look back at replies #6 & #7 where you conceded the point I made about mediators.

3, Regarding Rev 22:17. "Whosever will" can come to Jesus and come into the covenant by coming into the body of Christ (by baptism). "Whosoever will" can come into the covenant but that does not mean that the covenant was made between God and "whosoever will".

4. Regarding covenant law. I have a lot to say about law and grace in my responses to your other posts that I have not replied to so far, but I was keeping that for later.

Covenant participants

You say "If the covenant was between God the Father and God the Son, with those who are saved abiding in Christ, then there would be no need for covenant law, yet God specifically states that "the coastlands wait for his law." If the New Covenant is indeed from Father to Son, then it would not have covenant law - yet it clearly does."

See point 4 above.

Prior to Catholica's comment (in another thread) it was my understanding that the covenant was between the Father and Son. As far as I am aware this is not official Catholic teaching as the Church does not seem to have made any pronouncement on the matter. Actually it says little about covenant as such. Catholica's comments seems to make sense but I am veering back to the Father-Son .

You say "The idea that God made the New Covenant with God the Son is COMPLETELY foreign to the Scriptures. It originated out of Covenant Theology, which is a branch of Reformed Theology.

Actually I believe that there is scriptural support for this – though not for the rest of the Reformed Theology ideas of covenant of grace etc.

1. Paul compares Jesus to Adam. Adam was the representative of all mankind and failed. Jesus is the new Adam, the representative of all mankind, and did not fail. If the Adamic covenant was between God and first Adam, why should the New Covenant not be between God and the last Adam.

2. Regarding Jeremiah 31:31-34, 

I contend that Jesus identified with Israel as a whole and is thus "the house of Israel and the house of Judah".

In Ex 4:22-23 God tells Moses to say to Pharoah "Thus says the Lord, Israel is my first-born son, and I say to you, "Let my son go that he may serve me"; if you refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay your first-born son." Israel is God's son.

Hos 11:1 picks this up "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son."

This is picked up by Matthew who recalls this as a prophecy of Jesus' flight into Egypt "This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt have I called my son." (Mt 2:15) so Jesus stands for the whole of Israel.

At the time of Jeremiah the old Israel had been split into Judah & Israel, so "the house of Israel and the house of Judah" refers to the whole of the old Israel.

Jesus as Israel creates a new Israel with the twelve apostles, symbolising the twelve tribes.

3. The kingdom
The kingdom is a major theme running through the synoptic gospels.

"He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David." (Lk 1:32).

"From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.'"(Mt 4:17)

In Luke's gospel Jesus says "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood" (Lk 22:20). Covenant is diatheke – Strong 1242                       

A few verses later (29&30) he says to the apostles:
"I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom"

The words translated assign and assigned are diatithemai and dietheto both Strong 1303. Now Strong says 1242 (diatheke- covenant) comes from 1303.

Thayer gives as his second definition of 1303
2) to make a covenant, enter into a covenant, with one

We could therefore say that an alternative translation is "I covenant to you, as my Father covenanted to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom".

The implications of this are that the Father covenanted the kingdom to Jesus who in turn covenanted it to his Church to administer. To enter the covenant, and the kingdom, we have to enter his Church – his body.

Note also that Jesus promises the apostles in Lk 22:30 "that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom" The kingdom exists now, though imperfectly. The apostles or their successors do eat and drink (the Eucharist) at the Lord's table (altar). All very covenantal.



One final point I would like to make is that there is a danger of taking the ANE covenant forms too far in considering God's covenants with man.

I said in the OP

QuoteI agree that new knowledge can expand our understanding of the scriptures, and I have no problem with the proposal that the covenants in the Bible follow the pattern & principles of ANE covenants. God frequently uses things or practices with which man is familiar in his dealings with us. However that doesn't mean that they haveto follow that pattern and rules exactly. In God's dealings with man it is God who initiates the covenants and makes the rules. Also the Old Testament Covenants are only shadows or figures of what is to come in the New Testament.

God's covenants are not actually ANE covenants.

God is not actually an ANE lord.

But God takes what man is familiar with and builds on it some thing that is familiar yet also new.

Let me draw a parallel with baptism.
The origins of baptism are the ritual purification of full body washing known in Hebrew as tevilah in a mikvah (ritual bath). Mikvah means a gathering of water and so a river is a mikvah. Since rivers were not commonly available it was any suitable pool of water, but not a free standing bath in the modern sense. The origins of this purification ritual go back to the book off Leviticus. They seem to be a reminder of our uncleanness and the need for purification. So the tevilar/mikvar also became a symbol of repentance, of expressing faith that cleansing was available and of asking for it. Hence John the Baptist baptised in the Jordan as a baptism of repentance.

Jesus took this Jewish ritual and made it a new covenant one (Mt 28:19 and Mk 16:16) but making the effects more powerful because it is Jesus who is the prime baptiser. Whilst we can look back to the Jewish (old covenant) practices we should not feel bound by them in terms of how baptism is performed. Christ's baptism is based on something familiar yet also it is new.

Hey, Winsome...just wanted you to know that I saw your last post, but it is more than I can deal with at this moment, so I will have to come back to it when I have more time. I will try to get to answer it tomorrow (2/12/2014), but I will be out of town for part of the day (snow permitting).

Winsome said...

QuoteThere is a myth among some Protestants that if they have the Spirit indwelling in them they can infallibly interpret scripture. This is usually based on a faulty interpretation of Jn 14:26, 16:13 & 1Jn 2:20-27. Scripture itself warns about private interpretation (2Pet 1:20).

John 14:26 - true, especially since Jesus was only talking to the Apostles.
John 16:13 - I disagree here; although Jesus was just speaking to the Apostles, that whole section of speach (from ch. 13-17 includes many things that pertain to us today. I do see your point, though...Jesus said that the Spirit will "guide" us into all truth - the problem here is that many do not seek the Spirit's guidance even when they are saved, they only seek what their bias' demand, and in such an attitude the Spirit cannot show them the intended meaning of certain passages because their bias blocks that understanding.
I John 2:20-27 - I don't have the time for an analysis of this passage, but for the most part I agree. The Spirit's teaching and guidance to us can only take place within hearts that are truly seeking His truth, but when bias blocks that pathway, no manner of even the Spirit's promptings can teach one what he does not want to be taught.

QuoteMoreover to really understand scripture we need to understand the purpose of the writer, the intended audience etc. This very topic is about understanding scripture using knowledge from outside scripture (ANE covenants)

Correct!!! You are addressing hermeneutic study of the Scriptures, and i agree with you 100% Biblical Hermeneutics will not always give us the intended meaning of a passage in question, but together with the Spirit's guidance we can get there. My point has always been that hermeneutics can validate, or nullify, (when properly utilizing a COMPLETE hermeneutic - which sadly many do not use [because if they did, using a complete hermeneutic would destroy their biased stand on the issue]) our idea of what we believe the Spirit is telling us.

QuoteI think that if you get 5 people in a room who are in the covenant, the Spirit is indwelling in them, you are still likely to get 5 different interpretations of scripture. However that is probably another topic.

Yes, you could be correct...again, because of the attitude one brings to the table with them. The Spirit is willing, but our attitudes and bias' sometimes keep Him from doing His work in us.

QuotePrior to Catholica's comment (in another thread) it was my understanding that the covenant was between the Father and Son. As far as I am aware this is not official Catholic teaching as the Church does not seem to have made any pronouncement on the matter. Actually it says little about covenant as such. Catholica's comments seems to make sense but I am veering back to the Father-Son .

You say "The idea that God made the New Covenant with God the Son is COMPLETELY foreign to the Scriptures. It originated out of Covenant Theology, which is a branch of Reformed Theology.

Actually I believe that there is scriptural support for this – though not for the rest of the Reformed Theology ideas of covenant of grace etc.

1. Paul compares Jesus to Adam. Adam was the representative of all mankind and failed. Jesus is the new Adam, the representative of all mankind, and did not fail. If the Adamic covenant was between God and first Adam, why should the New Covenant not be between God and the last Adam.

First, what is your Scripture for supporting this idea?

Second, you are asking a "what if?" question to which there is no support (unless your passage which you did not give yet is it). If there is no support for a "what if?" question, then it should not be asked in the first place.

Quote2. Regarding Jeremiah 31:31-34, 

I contend that Jesus identified with Israel as a whole and is thus "the house of Israel and the house of Judah".

In Ex 4:22-23 God tells Moses to say to Pharoah "Thus says the Lord, Israel is my first-born son, and I say to you, "Let my son go that he may serve me"; if you refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay your first-born son." Israel is God's son.

Hos 11:1 picks this up "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son."

This is picked up by Matthew who recalls this as a prophecy of Jesus' flight into Egypt "This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt have I called my son." (Mt 2:15) so Jesus stands for the whole of Israel.

You are equating that Jesus is the second participant in the New Covenant with God based upon the reasoning that "therefore Jesus stands for the whole of Israel"? It is true that God called Israel "my child" and it is also true that Matthew equates Hos. 11:1 with Christ coming out of Egypt, but in this text God does not equate Jesus with Israel. "And out of Egypt I called my son" may well stand alone in this text as Messianic, while the first half of the text does not.

I believe I understand where you are coming from, it is the same way in which we reconcile the imagery of the Trinity even though there is no direct teaching upon it. However, I do not think that this is enough support in order to state that Christ stands for/as Israel in the New Covenant. Clearly, in all the passages which directly state who the participants of the covenant will be, God says "you" or "them" addressing people as individuals.

Honestly, and I don't mean to be insulting or anything, but it seems kind of flimsy if that is the only Scriptural support you have. This would be more akin to peripheral evidence than any direct evidence, especially in the face of numerous texts in which God clearly states that He is making the covenant with individual people, not people as a whole as He did in the Sinaitic Covenant.

QuoteAt the time of Jeremiah the old Israel had been split into Judah & Israel, so "the house of Israel and the house of Judah" refers to the whole of the old Israel.

Jesus as Israel creates a new Israel with the twelve apostles, symbolising the twelve tribes.

The problem with this is that as mediator, Christ could not take sides, and what you are advocating is that Christ stood for Israel. A mediator stands between two individuals, making the total number of individuals involved in making a covenant with a mediator, three people - two participants and the mediator.

Further, Jesus is not Israel in the making of the New Covenant, for it is in Him that the two (Jews and Gentiles) are brought together as one.

Further, all of the promises, gifts, blessings, and benefits of the New Covenant...if Christ was the second party, would be to Him, not to us. We are not Christ, nor can we ever attain to "Christ-hood" so the promises would not pertain to us. No where are we told that the New Covenant is between God and Jesus, much less with us as the recipients of the promises somehow, since the covenant would not be made with us.

I also see problems with this on other grounds as far as covenants are concerned:

1.  Christ is the sacrifice for atonement, therefore how can He be the covenant partner?
2.  He is the mediator of the New Covenant, therefore how can He be the covenant partner...how can He mediate for Himself if He is the covenant partner. Basically, if Christ is the covenant partner, then there would be no need for a mediator, and the passages in Hebrews which states He is the covenant mediator would be out of place.
3.  The goal of the New Covenant is reconciliation with those participants in the covenant, for the atonement in Christ applies only to covenant participants...Christ had no reason to be reconciled to the Father. If Christ is the covenant partner, by what means does the atonement apply to us? If Christ is the covenant partner, then we should see in the NT Scriptures some kind of teaching on how reconciliation and the atonement applies to us as non-participants.
4.  If the covenant is with Christ, then it is with Christ - not us. By what means would all of the benefits of the covenant between God and Christ be applied to us?

Let me put it another way...the evolutionists makes the claim that a fish evolved from a single celled organism, yet gives little evidence for this. His philosophy tells him that this is how it happens, because there is no other way - it all happened naturalistically. He gives not pathways for how the veins formed, how blood formed, how bones formed, nor for the nervous system or muscular system...he just states that they happened. If they just happened, then we should at least be able to guess how it happened, yet in the last 60 years no one can, none have even tried.

My point here is that if Christ and God are the covenant participants in the New Covenant, and not God and man with Christ as mediator, then where is the evidence? The Trinity is no where explicitly taught on, yet there are numerous passages of Scripture that we can point to, although second-hand or peripheral, so as to build a strong statement of faith for the Trinity. If Christ is the second party to the New Covenant, being as important as it is for our eternal lives, then we should have numerous passages giving us such knowledge, because that one point changes numerous teachings regarding the atonement, reconciliation, and even eternal life.

Hopefully that wasn't too long!

Quote3. The kingdom
The kingdom is a major theme running through the synoptic gospels.

"He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David." (Lk 1:32).

"From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.'"(Mt 4:17)

Agreed...

QuoteIn Luke's gospel Jesus says "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood" (Lk 22:20). Covenant is diatheke – Strong 1242                       

A few verses later (29&30) he says to the apostles:
"I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom"

The words translated assign and assigned are diatithemai and dietheto both Strong 1303. Now Strong says 1242 (diatheke- covenant) comes from 1303.

Thayer gives as his second definition of 1303
2) to make a covenant, enter into a covenant, with one

We could therefore say that an alternative translation is "I covenant to you, as my Father covenanted to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom".

Agreed...

QuoteThe implications of this are that the Father covenanted the kingdom to Jesus who in turn covenanted it to his Church to administer.

Here we have a difference of opinion. Jesus states that He covenanted to us "a kingdom" just as God covenanted to Him a kingdom...these are not the same kingdoms. Although I will also agree that this is probably appears to be splitting hairs, I have learned that every word that God put in His Word is there for a reason. There is the "Kingdom of God" which is here now, the "Kingdom of Heaven" which is to come, and the "Kingdom of Christ" which we really have not been told very much about. One thing is true, however, that Jesus does give to us a kingdom, but the wording of Luke 22:29 does not state that Christ gives us the kingdom which God gave to Him.

QuoteTo enter the covenant, and the kingdom, we have to enter his Church – his body.

Actually, to be more precise, we enter into the Kingdom by entering into the covenant. The kingdom is a covenant kingdom, we enter the covenant (and the kingdom) through water baptism.

QuoteNote also that Jesus promises the apostles in Lk 22:30 "that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom" The kingdom exists now, though imperfectly. The apostles or their successors do eat and drink (the Eucharist) at the Lord's table (altar). All very covenantal.

Actually, the whole verse says...

Luke 22:30
that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

What Christ is telling them is eschatological...they cannot eat and drink at his table until they do so after death, in God's kingdom (the kingdom of heaven) where they will be "judging the twelve tribes of Israel." The eating and drinking will be fulfilled in the eschaton, we cannot fulfill it today. The partaking of the Lord's supper today is the participation in His blood and body, it is not the same as partaking of His table in eternity future.

QuoteGod's covenants are not actually ANE covenants. God is not actually an ANE lord. But God takes what man is familiar with and builds on it some thing that is familiar yet also new.

Agreed...it is not ACTUALLY an ANE covenant. God's covenants, however, ARE based upon ANE covenants, and the principles by which they operated by.

QuoteLet me draw a parallel with baptism.
The origins of baptism are the ritual purification of full body washing known in Hebrew as tevilah in a mikvah (ritual bath). Mikvah means a gathering of water and so a river is a mikvah. Since rivers were not commonly available it was any suitable pool of water, but not a free standing bath in the modern sense. The origins of this purification ritual go back to the book off Leviticus. They seem to be a reminder of our uncleanness and the need for purification. So the tevilar/mikvar also became a symbol of repentance, of expressing faith that cleansing was available and of asking for it. Hence John the Baptist baptised in the Jordan as a baptism of repentance.

Jesus took this Jewish ritual and made it a new covenant one (Mt 28:19 and Mk 16:16) but making the effects more powerful because it is Jesus who is the prime baptiser. Whilst we can look back to the Jewish (old covenant) practices we should not feel bound by them in terms of how baptism is performed. Christ's baptism is based on something familiar yet also it is new.

Agreed. I hope that you have not the idea that I hold legalistically to ANE covenant form, because I have stated that the New Covenant does not follow that form strictly, there are numerous things different concerning ANE covenants and the New Covenant. All of them are well defined and codified if we understand covenant terminology (which a lot of folks do not...but just like any legal terminology, it is different from regular common terminologies).

Blessings!

 

Hi SwordMaster,

I would like to have given this a little more time but I've run out as I go off tomorrow morning. I will reply to the point you raise in your last post and also I will reply to previous posts that I have not yet covered.

I haven't thought through all the points you raise in detail so my answers may be a bit ragged, but they are the best I can do in the time I have.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 21:29:31
Winsome said...

QuoteThere is a myth among some Protestants that if they have the Spirit indwelling in them they can infallibly interpret scripture. This is usually based on a faulty interpretation of Jn 14:26, 16:13 & 1Jn 2:20-27. Scripture itself warns about private interpretation (2Pet 1:20).

John 14:26 - true, especially since Jesus was only talking to the Apostles.
John 16:13 - I disagree here; although Jesus was just speaking to the Apostles, that whole section of speach (from ch. 13-17 includes many things that pertain to us today. I do see your point, though...Jesus said that the Spirit will "guide" us into all truth - the problem here is that many do not seek the Spirit's guidance even when they are saved, they only seek what their bias' demand, and in such an attitude the Spirit cannot show them the intended meaning of certain passages because their bias blocks that understanding.
I John 2:20-27 - I don't have the time for an analysis of this passage, but for the most part I agree. The Spirit's teaching and guidance to us can only take place within hearts that are truly seeking His truth, but when bias blocks that pathway, no manner of even the Spirit's promptings can teach one what he does not want to be taught.

QuoteMoreover to really understand scripture we need to understand the purpose of the writer, the intended audience etc. This very topic is about understanding scripture using knowledge from outside scripture (ANE covenants)

Correct!!! You are addressing hermeneutic study of the Scriptures, and i agree with you 100% Biblical Hermeneutics will not always give us the intended meaning of a passage in question, but together with the Spirit's guidance we can get there. My point has always been that hermeneutics can validate, or nullify, (when properly utilizing a COMPLETE hermeneutic - which sadly many do not use [because if they did, using a complete hermeneutic would destroy their biased stand on the issue]) our idea of what we believe the Spirit is telling us.

QuoteI think that if you get 5 people in a room who are in the covenant, the Spirit is indwelling in them, you are still likely to get 5 different interpretations of scripture. However that is probably another topic.

Yes, you could be correct...again, because of the attitude one brings to the table with them. The Spirit is willing, but our attitudes and bias' sometimes keep Him from doing His work in us.

I think it is more than that but - as I said - it's probably another topic – and this one is big enough already.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 21:29:31

QuotePrior to Catholica's comment (in another thread) it was my understanding that the covenant was between the Father and Son. As far as I am aware this is not official Catholic teaching as the Church does not seem to have made any pronouncement on the matter. Actually it says little about covenant as such. Catholica's comments seems to make sense but I am veering back to the Father-Son .

You say "The idea that God made the New Covenant with God the Son is COMPLETELY foreign to the Scriptures. It originated out of Covenant Theology, which is a branch of Reformed Theology.

Actually I believe that there is scriptural support for this – though not for the rest of the Reformed Theology ideas of covenant of grace etc.

1. Paul compares Jesus to Adam. Adam was the representative of all mankind and failed. Jesus is the new Adam, the representative of all mankind, and did not fail. If the Adamic covenant was between God and first Adam, why should the New Covenant not be between God and the last Adam.

First, what is your Scripture for supporting this idea?

Second, you are asking a "what if?" question to which there is no support (unless your passage which you did not give yet is it). If there is no support for a "what if?" question, then it should not be asked in the first place. 

Paul calls Adam a type of the one who is to come (Rom 5:14).
In 1Cor 15:22 & 45-49 Paul; makes several comparisons between Adam and Christ.
In 1Cor 15:21 he says: "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead." To me that says Adam was a representative of mankind and tested as such – and he failed. Jesus, the anti-type of Adam represented mankind and did not fail.

It's about recapitulation. Recapitulation in scripture is about renewing and reversing what went wrong in previous times.

"For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth". (Eph 1:9-10 - RSV)

Instead of "unite" other translations say "gather together" (KJV), "bring....together" (NIV), "sum up" (ASV).

In Christ what went wrong is put right and some biblical themes of the fall are reversed and made new.

Adam was the original head of humanity. When Adam fell humanity fell with him. To restore what was originally intended mankind needed a new head with a new body. Jesus becomes the new head and the church the new body. This is known as recapitulation.

It's not a "what if" – it's a "why not" question

Quote from: SwordMaster on Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 21:29:31

Quote2. Regarding Jeremiah 31:31-34, 

I contend that Jesus identified with Israel as a whole and is thus "the house of Israel and the house of Judah".

In Ex 4:22-23 God tells Moses to say to Pharoah "Thus says the Lord, Israel is my first-born son, and I say to you, "Let my son go that he may serve me"; if you refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay your first-born son." Israel is God's son.

Hos 11:1 picks this up "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son."

This is picked up by Matthew who recalls this as a prophecy of Jesus' flight into Egypt "This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt have I called my son." (Mt 2:15) so Jesus stands for the whole of Israel.

You are equating that Jesus is the second participant in the New Covenant with God based upon the reasoning that "therefore Jesus stands for the whole of Israel"? It is true that God called Israel "my child" and it is also true that Matthew equates Hos. 11:1 with Christ coming out of Egypt, but in this text God does not equate Jesus with Israel. "And out of Egypt I called my son" may well stand alone in this text as Messianic, while the first half of the text does not.

I believe I understand where you are coming from, it is the same way in which we reconcile the imagery of the Trinity even though there is no direct teaching upon it. However, I do not think that this is enough support in order to state that Christ stands for/as Israel in the New Covenant. Clearly, in all the passages which directly state who the participants of the covenant will be, God says "you" or "them" addressing people as individuals.

Honestly, and I don't mean to be insulting or anything, but it seems kind of flimsy if that is the only Scriptural support you have. This would be more akin to peripheral evidence than any direct evidence, especially in the face of numerous texts in which God clearly states that He is making the covenant with individual people, not people as a whole as He did in the Sinaitic Covenant.

I don't think it is flimsy. God's promises come to fruition in Jesus. There are other times when a person stands who a whole group – Jacob for example.

Moreover in previous covenants with Noah and Abraham the covenants were made with specific people – and their descendants.

With Sinai it was made with a specific group of people and their descendants (implied in Ex 20:6).

IN all of those three God says "to you".

But in the New Covenant Jesus does not address anyone. He states that the New Covenant exists ""This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." (Lk 22:20) and then a few verse later (as I explained earlier) he then addresses the apostles, covenanting a kingdom to them.

Another interesting point. Heb 9:15 refers to a covenant, but then moves into a will or testament in vs 16-17. My NAB has this footnote for vs 16-17:
"A will...death of a testator: the same Greek word diatheke, meaning "covenant" in vs 15 and vs 18 here is used with the meaning will. The new covenant, unlike the old, is at the same tima a will that requires the death of the testator. Jesus as eternal Son is the one who establishes the new covenant together with his Father, author of both covenants; at the same time he is the testator whose death puts his will into effect."

Quote from: SwordMaster on Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 21:29:31

QuoteAt the time of Jeremiah the old Israel had been split into Judah & Israel, so "the house of Israel and the house of Judah" refers to the whole of the old Israel.

Jesus as Israel creates a new Israel with the twelve apostles, symbolising the twelve tribes.

The problem with this is that as mediator, Christ could not take sides, and what you are advocating is that Christ stood for Israel. A mediator stands between two individuals, making the total number of individuals involved in making a covenant with a mediator, three people - two participants and the mediator.


Further, Jesus is not Israel in the making of the New Covenant, for it is in Him that the two (Jews and Gentiles) are brought together as one.

As the personification of Israel he fulfils the prophecy of Jeremiah.

Both Jews and Greeks can come into the covenant – be "in Christ". Therefore we are all brought together "in Christ"

Quote from: SwordMaster on Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 21:29:31

I also see problems with this on other grounds as far as covenants are concerned:

1.  Christ is the sacrifice for atonement, therefore how can He be the covenant partner?

How can Christ be both priest and victim? But he is.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 21:29:31

2.  He is the mediator of the New Covenant, therefore how can He be the covenant partner...how can He mediate for Himself if He is the covenant partner. Basically, if Christ is the covenant partner, then there would be no need for a mediator, and the passages in Hebrews which states He is the covenant mediator would be out of place.

To mediate is both an intransitive and a transitive verb. A definition of mediate in the transitive sense is: to serve as a medium for causing (a result) or transferring (objects , information, etc.). As mediator Christ is the one who is the meritorious cause of our justification and reconciliation with the Father.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 21:29:31
3.  The goal of the New Covenant is reconciliation with those participants in the covenant, for the atonement in Christ applies only to covenant participants...Christ had no reason to be reconciled to the Father. If Christ is the covenant partner, by what means does the atonement apply to us? If Christ is the covenant partner, then we should see in the NT Scriptures some kind of teaching on how reconciliation and the atonement applies to us as non-participants.

We come into the covenant at baptism.

In the earlier covenants the participants come into the covenant by birth. So too with this covenant, but whereas the others were a natural birth with the New Covenant it is spiritual birth – "born again, with a spiritual circumcision".

Quote from: SwordMaster on Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 21:29:31
4.  If the covenant is with Christ, then it is with Christ - not us. By what means would all of the benefits of the covenant between God and Christ be applied to us?

"He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him" (Col 1:18-22)

We come into the covenant when we become part of his body, the Church, through baptism.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 21:29:31

Let me put it another way...the evolutionists makes the claim that a fish evolved from a single celled organism, yet gives little evidence for this. His philosophy tells him that this is how it happens, because there is no other way - it all happened naturalistically. He gives not pathways for how the veins formed, how blood formed, how bones formed, nor for the nervous system or muscular system...he just states that they happened. If they just happened, then we should at least be able to guess how it happened, yet in the last 60 years no one can, none have even tried.

My point here is that if Christ and God are the covenant participants in the New Covenant, and not God and man with Christ as mediator, then where is the evidence? The Trinity is no where explicitly taught on, yet there are numerous passages of Scripture that we can point to, although second-hand or peripheral, so as to build a strong statement of faith for the Trinity. If Christ is the second party to the New Covenant, being as important as it is for our eternal lives, then we should have numerous passages giving us such knowledge, because that one point changes numerous teachings regarding the atonement, reconciliation, and even eternal life.

Hopefully that wasn't too long!

The way I see it is that Christ can reconcile man to God because he is man (& God of course). It's the recapitulation that I referred to above. As the representative of all mankind, by his selfless sacrifice he enables God (the Father) to move from Law to Grace. As such the atonement is available to all, though there are conditions for it to be applied to us.



I want to post my comments about Grace and Law after this. I think they made explain my position better.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 21:29:31

QuoteThe implications of this are that the Father covenanted the kingdom to Jesus who in turn covenanted it to his Church to administer.

Here we have a difference of opinion. Jesus states that He covenanted to us "a kingdom" just as God covenanted to Him a kingdom...these are not the same kingdoms. Although I will also agree that this is probably appears to be splitting hairs, I have learned that every word that God put in His Word is there for a reason. There is the "Kingdom of God" which is here now, the "Kingdom of Heaven" which is to come, and the "Kingdom of Christ" which we really have not been told very much about. One thing is true, however, that Jesus does give to us a kingdom, but the wording of Luke 22:29 does not state that Christ gives us the kingdom which God gave to Him.

I believe there is only on King and there is only one Kingdom. Jesus reigns now from heaven and part of his kingdom is on earth. When we die, if we are in his kingdom we remain in his kingdom, but in heaven. We don't translate into a different kingdom.

Jesus says in Mark "the kingdom of God is at hand" (Mk1:15), whereas in Matthew he says the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Mt 4;17). Jesus is not referring to different kingdoms. It's just that Matthew, as a Jew, prefers not to use the name of God so he uses heaven instead.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 21:29:31

QuoteTo enter the covenant, and the kingdom, we have to enter his Church – his body.

Actually, to be more precise, we enter into the Kingdom by entering into the covenant. The kingdom is a covenant kingdom, we enter the covenant (and the kingdom) through water baptism.

Agreed, and that also bring us into his body, the Church.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Wed Feb 12, 2014 - 21:29:31

QuoteNote also that Jesus promises the apostles in Lk 22:30 "that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom" The kingdom exists now, though imperfectly. The apostles or their successors do eat and drink (the Eucharist) at the Lord's table (altar). All very covenantal.

Actually, the whole verse says...

Luke 22:30
that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

What Christ is telling them is eschatological...they cannot eat and drink at his table until they do so after death, in God's kingdom (the kingdom of heaven) where they will be "judging the twelve tribes of Israel." The eating and drinking will be fulfilled in the eschaton, we cannot fulfill it today. The partaking of the Lord's supper today is the participation in His blood and body, it is not the same as partaking of His table in eternity future.

There is an "and". That doesn't necessarily mean the two will happen simultaneously. I believe were are in the kingdom now, and we can eat and drink at the table of the Lord just as Jesus promised the apostles.

Just after Paul writes about participating in the body and blood of Christ he says: "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons." (1Cor 10:21). Paul was writing about now, not heaven. This is eating and drinking now at the table of the Lord.

The signs of the four main covenants with man – Noah, Abraham, Sinai, New – all point to some, ultimately future, spiritual reality. Sure the final banquet will be the wedding banquet of the Lamb but we are anticipating that now in the Eucharist.

Now I want to back top earlier points that I missed responding to.

Quote from: SwordMaster on Fri Feb 07, 2014 - 00:27:46

1. The New Covenant has covenant law (the Law of Christ, also called the Royal Law, the Perfect Law, the Law of the Spirit, and the Law of God in the NT); because it has covenant law (obligations for both partners), the New Covenant is bi-lateral, meaning there are two parties. Christ plays two roles in the NC...He is, at the same time, the Living embodiment of the NC, and He is the mediator between God and man (I can provide the passages if you wish, but I am pretty sure you know them already).

Quote from: SwordMaster on Fri Feb 07, 2014 - 00:27:46

There is among the inaccurate teachings of Reformed Theology, because of Covenant Theology which springs from RT, that the New Covenant is between God and Christ for our benefit, but like most Reformed teachings, they have no Scriptural validation for their stand, especially since Covenant Theology consists almost half of man-made, so-called "theological covenants" (the covenant of grace, the covenant of works, the covenant of redemption, etc.), none of which are Scripturally based either. RT does this in order to give the New Covenant the appearance of being unilateral or unconditional. But as Scripture and ANE covenanting demonstrates, the New Covenant is law based, and therefore is a conditional covenant (one must abide in the covenant ("in Christ") in order to legally possess what the covenant offers).

I have highlighted the points in the above which may be summarised as: The New Covenant is Law based, with obligations on both God and man

Now we have arrived at my concerns, which I noted earlier, because the New Covenant is not merely new in the sense of another one but has differences in kind. The whole point of Christ's atonement is that mankind can live under Grace not Law.

"And from his fullness have we all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." (Jn 1:16-17)

"For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.." (Rom 6:14)

At the very beginning Adam (and Eve) sinned and brought judgement and condemnation on themselves and all their descendants. They lost the supernatural grace (sanctifying grace) necessary for eternal life.
"Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom 5:12)

There is no way that man can ever gain eternal life under a system of law because man can never perfectly keep the law. The only way we can obtain eternal life is through the gracious gift of God.

That is why we cannot gain eternal life under the New Covenant if it is a covenant of law.  We can never legally obtain eternal life if we have to keep covenant laws.

That is why I think your statement "one must abide in the covenant ("in Christ") in order to legally possess what the covenant offers" (my emboldening) is incorrect.

Eternal life can only be received as a gift from God. But God has a problem in that we are all legally under judgement and condemnation. God's justice and holiness means that he cannot just ignore that.

God's answer to this was the atoning sacrifice of Christ. This allows God to apply mercy; to relate to us as a loving and merciful Father who will forgive his wayward sons and daughters (up to a point) and not as a Just Judge who condemns us.

Entering into the New Covenant puts us in a grace based system not a law based one.

"The old covenant is conditional; because it is founded on the observance of the law, and is thus essentially bound to man's conduct, it can be and has been broken. Because its basic content is the law, it relies on the formula: "if you do this...." This "if" connects the mutable human will with the essence of the covenant itself, thus making it a provisional covenant. In contrast, the covenant sealed at the Last Supper appears as fundamentally new in the sense of a prophetic promise. It is not a conditional contract, but a gift of friendship, irrevocably conferred. Law is replaced by grace."
(Cardinal Joseph Ratziger, later Pope Benedict XVI, The new covenant: A theology of covenant in the New Testament, translated by Maria Shrady).

If we look at the parable of the Prodigal Son we can see this. The younger son dishonoured his father first by demanding his inheritance before his father was dead, and then by squandering it all on women and debauched living. When he returns home to his father he is not treated under law but under grace. The father is ready to forgive and treat him as a son. It is the older brother that wants to put him under judgement and condemnation.

As the quote above from Cardinal Ratzinger says: "It is not a conditional contract, but a gift of friendship, irrevocably conferred."

I'm not denying that the New Covenant contains commandments; that obligations are placed upon us. But these are requirements of grace not law. They are obligations on us before God will act under grace, but our actions do not obligate God.

One problem I see with Protestantism is that it tends to see our relationship with God in legal terms. Examples of this are the concepts of imputed righteousness and penal substitution. (Actually I think this is a problem with our western mindset, but Protestantism is particularly affected by it)

If we are in the new covenant we are in a familial relationship with God. We are part of his family, his household (Eph 2:19). God relates to us as Father not magistrate. He requires faithfulness, obedience and love. There are household rules and obligations for living in the family, not law. Infractions are dealt with in house, with mercy and love. Recourse to law is an extreme act when total rupture occurs (see Deut 21:18-21), when we put ourselves outside the household.


I think the problem here is our different understanding of grace. I will say more under the next point

(contd.)