To whom and why God gave the Sabbaths?

[tall73]

From there it goes to Abraham (Genesis 17:2 and Genesis 17:4)

Gen 17:4 "Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations.
Gen 17:5 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.
Gen 17:6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you.
Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.
Gen 17:8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God."
Gen 17:9 And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations.
Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.

Again the phrase my covenant with you refers to the covenant with Abraham. It is clearly different, and with different promises. However, in this case it is made with Abraham throughout his generations.

and then said to be headed to Isaac as an everlasting covenant (Genesis 17:9). There is no mention of Jacob directly in Genesis in connection with “my covenant” but the previous mentions said it would be passed down and then we have Psalm 105:8-10 which I will post here:

Psalm 105:8 He remembers His covenant forever, The word which He commanded, for a thousand generations, (9) The covenant which He made with Abraham, And His oath to Isaac, (10) And confirmed it to Jacob for a statute, To Israel as an everlasting covenant

Agreed, the covenant with Abraham was passed down to Isaac and Jacob, and their generations.

Gen 17:19 God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him.

Psa_105:10 which he confirmed to Jacob as a statute, to Israel as an everlasting covenant,

So, 1000 generations (idiomatic... that would be 40,000 years at least... so an idiom for “everlasting”) followed by “my covenant” which was made with Abraham, and then passed to Isaac, and then confirmed with Jacob and then to his offspring, as “an everlasting covenant.”

But the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their descendants is not the same as that with Noah. The agreements bear no resemblance.

And the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is not the same as that made with the children of Israel when they arrived at Sinai. There again we see new promises and new requirements.

You seem to take anything that says "my covenant" and consider them the same covenant, even though one was "my covenant" with Noah, and one was "my covenant" with Abraham and his descendants, with totally different promises.

 

[Ken Rank]

Thank you. I have read all the way through, but if it is OK with you would like to take the discussion one part at a time.

Gen 9:8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him,
Gen 9:9 "Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you,
Gen 9:10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark; it is for every beast of the earth.
Gen 9:11 I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth."
Gen 9:12 And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations:
Gen 9:13 I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.

My take is that God speaks to Noah and says "my covenant with you and your offspring after you" and then describes a covenant completely different than that with Abraham. The "my covenant" is "with you". The you in this case is Noah. Abraham's covenant was not the same as Noah's. Not destroying the world with a flood is different than all generations being blessed through your offspring. So while you take "my covenant" as a technical phrase to speak of the same covenant, I would say "my covenant with you" indicates the person he is actually talking to. Now in some cases it is again the same being referred to. But it is made clear that is the case.

The covenant is the agreement. The covenant is comprised of the promises on both sides, and stipulations. Noah's covenant is again unilateral. But the promise made to God is not the same as that made to Abraham, and they are not the same covenant.

I understand your point but there are two things at play here... well, probably more than two. The first is linguistically related. The word covenant is the best English word for the Hebrew word "b'rit." Both have the idea of an agreement but a b'rit is made in blood, whereas a covenant does not have to be, in fact, that really isn't part of the concept at all. So right off the bat we are somewhat behind the play a little because we have this word and it encapsulates the bond and agreement between God and X and the fullness of that word is not contained in the translations we have.

That aside because we really can't do much about that save to be aware of the need to look at the underlying words... we also have the idea of "my covenant." Like I said, whether it be Adam, Noach, Abraham, Isaac.... God used the term, "my covenant" rather than "a covenant." If each were unique, I think it would be, "I will make a covenant with you and your descendants." But instead, it is, "I will make my covenant with you and your descendants." Again... we have man falling away from God and needing to be brought back and restored. So we start in Genesis 3:15 and then just move on from generation to generation with SOME THINGS ADDED and additional wording contained within the b'rit.... but it all is following the same line of progression that goes from Adam through the time of Yeshua until the day we are finally restored and perfected.

Brother.... we go from Noach to his sons, to their sons, to Abraham, to his son, and then his son, and then all of his sons.... generation after generation... the same promise, the same agreement, the same end goal... all leading to the restoration of all things.

Psalm 105:8 He remembers His covenant forever, The word which He commanded, for a thousand generations, (9) The covenant which He made with Abraham, And His oath to Isaac, (10) And confirmed it to Jacob for a statute, To Israel as an everlasting covenant

From generation to generation to generation. The same covenant, building on the last generation until it takes us to Yeshua through whom all will be renewed, made new... however you prefer to see it.

That's how I see this brother, maybe I am wrong but there certainly is no harm if I am. I pray you have a great weekend and a blessed gathering on whatever day you gather.

Ken

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

From generation to generation to generation.

(if an interruption/ interjection may be permitted)

Generation to generation as in fathers teaching their children ?

I think YHWH emphasized this very much throughout HIS WORD.... right ?

(I agree father's need to teach and train their children strictly in accordance with YHWH'S INSTRUCTIONS every day)

 

[bugkiller]

I understand your point but there are two things at play here... well, probably more than two. The first is linguistically related. The word covenant is the best English word for the Hebrew word "b'rit." Both have the idea of an agreement but a b'rit is made in blood, whereas a covenant does not have to be, in fact, that really isn't part of the concept at all. So right off the bat we are somewhat behind the play a little because we have this word and it encapsulates the bond and agreement between God and X and the fullness of that word is not contained in the translations we have.

That aside because we really can't do much about that save to be aware of the need to look at the underlying words... we also have the idea of "my covenant." Like I said, whether it be Adam, Noach, Abraham, Isaac.... God used the term, "my covenant" rather than "a covenant." If each were unique, I think it would be, "I will make a covenant with you and your descendants." But instead, it is, "I will make my covenant with you and your descendants." Again... we have man falling away from God and needing to be brought back and restored. So we start in Genesis 3:15 and then just move on from generation to generation with SOME THINGS ADDED and additional wording contained within the b'rit.... but it all is following the same line of progression that goes from Adam through the time of Yeshua until the day we are finally restored and perfected.

Brother.... we go from Noach to his sons, to their sons, to Abraham, to his son, and then his son, and then all of his sons.... generation after generation... the same promise, the same agreement, the same end goal... all leading to the restoration of all things.

Psalm 105:8 He remembers His covenant forever, The word which He commanded, for a thousand generations, (9) The covenant which He made with Abraham, And His oath to Isaac, (10) And confirmed it to Jacob for a statute, To Israel as an everlasting covenant

From generation to generation to generation. The same covenant, building on the last generation until it takes us to Yeshua through whom all will be renewed, made new... however you prefer to see it.

That's how I see this brother, maybe I am wrong but there certainly is no harm if I am. I pray you have a great weekend and a blessed gathering on whatever day you gather.

Ken

How can this be possible? For Noah there were no unclean foods, while there is for Israel.

bugkiller

 

[pat34lee]

How can this be possible? For Noah there were no unclean foods, while there is for Israel.

bugkiller

No, if a meat is unclean to eat, it is not food, any more
than dirt or excrement is food. It can be eaten, possibly
even be nutritious to some degree. But it is still not food.

Say it is possible though. Why would God let Noah eat
unclean food? He knew the difference (Genesis 7:2)
Maybe it was a limited permission, so the animals could
have time to repopulate the earth. Otherwise, between
being sacrifices and food sources, not to mention prey to
other animals, some may have been killed off rather quickly.

 

[Ken Rank]

No, if a meat is unclean to eat, it is not food, any more
than dirt or excrement is food. It can be eaten, possibly
even be nutritious to some degree. But it is still not food.

Say it is possible though. Why would God let Noah eat
unclean food? He knew the difference (Genesis 7:2)
Maybe it was a limited permission, so the animals could
have time to repopulate the earth. Otherwise, between
being sacrifices and food sources, not to mention prey to
other animals, some may have been killed off rather quickly.

"Unclean food" is almost an oxymoron. There are clean and unclean animals, but none of the unclean animals are called "food," they are not even food. There is no scripture anywhere, as you know Pat, that says that anything that was previously not called food that turns it into food. Not one verse.

 

[bugkiller]

No, if a meat is unclean to eat, it is not food, any more
than dirt or excrement is food. It can be eaten, possibly
even be nutritious to some degree. But it is still not food.

Say it is possible though. Why would God let Noah eat
unclean food? He knew the difference (Genesis 7:2)
Maybe it was a limited permission, so the animals could
have time to repopulate the earth. Otherwise, between
being sacrifices and food sources, not to mention prey to
other animals, some may have been killed off rather quickly.

Noah was told if it moved he could eat it. Israel had some of these animals removed from their diet by the law.

bugkiller

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"Unclean food" is almost an oxymoron. There are clean and unclean animals, but none of the unclean animals are called "food," they are not even food.

Yes, but not all the pagan nations agreed with this - only the RIGHTEOUS ONES.
And
YHWH did not call nor choose the pagan nations.(nor give them any hope until Y'SHUA) They pretty much always did whatever they felt like - everyone doing what was 'right' IN THEIR OWN EYES.

 

[Ken Rank]

Yes, but not all the pagan nations agreed with this - only the RIGHTEOUS ONES.
And
YHWH did not call nor choose the pagan nations.(nor give them any hope until Y'SHUA) They pretty much always did whatever they felt like - everyone doing what was 'right' IN THEIR OWN EYES.

I don't disagree, but whether or not the pagan nations agreed with the God of Israel's decrees or not, the God of Israel is still the pagan's God... their Creator... even if they don't recognize that. He remains the one true God. Blessings.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don't disagree, but whether or not the pagan nations agreed with the God of Israel's decrees or not, the God of Israel is still the pagan's God... their Creator... even if they don't recognize that. He remains the one true God. Blessings.

And with whom did God make His covenant with on Mount Sinai?

 

[Bob S]

And with whom did God make His covenant with on Mount Sinai?

Only one nation, Israel and it WAS a conditional covenant. IF you will I will and they (Israel) didn't.

What happens to broken covenants? I found out by reading the writings of Paul. That broken covenant is history.

 

[Ken Rank]

And with whom did God make His covenant with on Mount Sinai?

The descendants of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, just as all the promises stated would happen.

 

[Ken Rank]

Only one nation, Israel and it WAS a conditional covenant. IF you will I will and they (Israel) didn't.

What happens to broken covenants? I found out by reading the writings of Paul. That broken covenant is history.

You might read Deuteronomy 30:1-6 and all of Hosea 1... the church doesn't. In these places (and many more I can supply) we find that God did indeed promise to punish Israel, scatter them into the nations, call them, "not my people." But those same calls for punishment are also laden with promises to bring them back. In the Deuteronomy verses, God says that if you return (repent) and obey His voice that He would turn the captivity into freedom, gather them back from where He scattered them, and circumcise their hearts. In Hosea He says that, "in the place where I said you are not my people, there I will call you Sons of the Living God." This is what the church doesn't understand and why we have replacement theology.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

we have replacement theology.

Pardon me? You don't mean "we" as in ecclesia, do you ? Rather "we" as in society has a segment outside of us teaching 'replacement theology' , right ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

And with whom did God make His covenant with on Mount Sinai?

The descendants of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, just as all the promises stated would happen.

My first thought [answer] was with a smile was "MOSES" .....
Perspective wise, could it also be said that YHWH made a covenant with MOSES on Mount Sinai ?

Also Perspective wise again, how often did YHWH HIMSELF (or Y'SHUA HIMSELF) write anything (not thru an emissary) ? Any idea on this ?
(how often thru all the history of the world)

 

[Ken Rank]

Pardon me? You don't mean "we" as in ecclesia, do you ? Rather "we" as in society has a segment outside of us teaching 'replacement theology' , right ?

I mean the common teaching today is that the church replaced Israel. I reject that notion based on scores of Scripture and instead view us as part of Israel. This would allow much to remain harmonious in Scripture, namely, that the covenant (Jer. 31/Heb 8) is made only with Judah and Israel... and that the New Jerusalem has 12 gates, one for each tribe. There is no additional entity that gets it own gate or has a separate covenant through which they make it in. Well, not found in Scripture anyway.

The word ekklesia (church, called out ones) is used in the LXX to describe ISRAEL at Sinai. In English, it would say that the church was at, and arguably was even started, at Sinai.

 

[Ken Rank]

My first thought [answer] was with a smile was "MOSES" .....
Perspective wise, could it also be said that YHWH made a covenant with MOSES on Mount Sinai ?

Also Perspective wise again, how often did YHWH HIMSELF (or Y'SHUA HIMSELF) write anything (not thru an emissary) ? Any idea on this ?
(how often thru all the history of the world)

No, because the first thing Moses did was bring the outline down to the elders of Israel who had to agree or not. Moses was simply a conduit and a picture of messiah.

 

[pat34lee]

And with whom did God make His covenant with on Mount Sinai?

Israel and a mixed multitude. The multitude represented believers of all nations.

 

[Bob S]

You might read Deuteronomy 30:1-6 and all of Hosea 1... the church doesn't. In these places (and many more I can supply) we find that God did indeed promise to punish Israel, scatter them into the nations, call them, "not my people." But those same calls for punishment are also laden with promises to bring them back. In the Deuteronomy verses, God says that if you return (repent) and obey His voice that He would turn the captivity into freedom, gather them back from where He scattered them, and circumcise their hearts. In Hosea He says that, "in the place where I said you are not my people, there I will call you Sons of the Living God." This is what the church doesn't understand and why we have replacement theology.

Yes, we read of the accounts of God restoring Israel. He did that for them yet they still had rebellion and refused to keep the covenant. Finally, Jesus came and once an for all settled their non compliance to the covenant by fulfilling it and ushering in the new covenant ratified by Jesus own blood. It is those who will not recognize that Jesus has instituted the new covenant and are try to cling to ritual laws given only to Israel in the old covenant who do not understand.

Those ritual laws that you are trying to observe were for a specific nation. They have nothing to do with Christianity. Why you keep trying to push them on others is a mystery. Well, not quite a mystery when we consider that whoever started the movement had to be different than the established churches in order to sell their new group. Just take a look at all the groups that have started over the years. Each one has a special selling point and if those exposed to those groups do not think for themselves the surely will be suckered in by joining. I happen to know what I am writing about because I was once one of those suckers.

 

[Bob S]

Israel and a mixed multitude. The multitude represented believers of all nations.

Scripture please. Even if your statement would be true, the "mixed multitude" had to become circumcised and agree with the covenant given only to Israel Deut 5: Hear, Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. 2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 It was not with our ancestors that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today.

Notice in the scripture that the covenant was with Israel. Others may have come out of Egypt with the Israelites, but the covenant was with Israel. To tell us that there were represented there believers from all nations has to be proved by scripture or you are misrepresenting the Bible. Were Eskimos, Aborigines, Chinese and etc. represented?