Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But there is the connecting of the covenant of circumcision with the covenant at Sinai in this conversation. The covenant at Sinai/Horeb is distinct from the covenant of circumcision. Which covenant Jews keep today. Jews make them all part and parcell of each other. I just think we speak in like ways about that. I don't think we should.Amen to that.
In context, the analogy is of law vs. faith (Galatians 4:24) in inheriting the promise.
The analogy of Hagar and Sarah is about the inheritance (promise)--by law or by faith, the law being set aside (Hebrews 7:18; Galatians 4:29) and the inheritance only by faith (Galatians 4:30-31).
Actually, circumcision was also a matter of law (Leviticus 12:3).But there is the connecting of the covenant of circumcision with the covenant at Sinai in this conversation. The covenant at Sinai/Horeb is distinct from the covenant of circumcision. Which covenant Jews keep today. Jews make them all part and parcell of each other. I just think we speak in like ways about that. I don't think we should.
Yes, it was retained under the law. But it is a covenant prior to the law which was 400 years after.Actually, circumcision was also a matter of law (Leviticus 12:3).
The connection is the 4th generation of his seed which were slaves in Egypt. The covenant made in Genesis 15. No inheritance given Abraham in that covenant.So that connection is law keeping, which is being contrasted to faith alone in receiving the promised inheritance.
Yes, it was retained under the law. But it is a covenant prior to the law which was 400 years after.
Joh 7:22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the 12 patriarchs were all reckoned righteous apart from the law. Furthermore the circumcision was a sign and a seal of the righteousness he had while yet uncircumcised. The promises made to Abraham and the patriarchs were apart from the law at Sinai.
Ro 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
The connection is the 4th generation of his seed which were slaves in Egypt. The covenant made in Genesis 15. No inheritance given Abraham in that covenant.
Acts 7:4 Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.
5 And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.
Abraham will die....the fourth Generation of his seed are the seed here.
Gen 15:13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.
15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.
16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
He also gave it to Isaac and Jacob personally (Genesis 26:3, 28:4, Genesis 35:12).The royal covenant of Gen 17 is when God gives the land to Abraham personally....And it is established with an oath in the offering of Isaac in Genesis 22.
Yes he did. As Hebrews says, they were co-heirs of the same promise. All apart from the law of Moses.He also gave it to Isaac and Jacob personally (Genesis 26:3, 28:4, Genesis 35:12).
Once the oath is sworn, nothing can be added to it, and nothing can be taken away from it, and it is sure. Therefore, the promises made to Abraham in covenant apart from the law, does not have the law 400 years later added to it.Is there any difference between the certainty of a covenant and the certainty of an oath, both by God?
It is indeed the covenant which promises kings...Why do you call the covenant of Genesis 17 "royal"?
"The NT Scriptures (which) conclude the truth of all Scripture" states that the law was added (Galatians 3:19; Romans 5:20) to reveal sin (Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7) and to lead us to Christ (Galatians 3:24), not as any condition of the promises made to Abraham (Galatians 3:17).Yes he did. As Hebrews says, they were co-heirs of the same promise. All apart from the law of Moses.
Once the oath is sworn, nothing can be added to it, and nothing can be taken away from it, and it is sure. Therefore, the promises made to Abraham in covenant apart from the law, does not have the law 400 years later added to it.
That is a misunderstanding of Genesis 26:5, for "the NT Scriptures, which conclude the truth of all Scripture" state there was no law after the law of Eden until the Mosaic law (Romans 5:13-14).What law is established?
Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
In context, Romans 3:27 is referring to justification by faith apart from faith's works.Ro 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by
the law of faith.
Thanks.It is indeed the covenant which promises kings...
Because it is the promise of "kings" to Abraham as well as Sarah.
Ge 17:6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
Ge 17:16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her. {she … : Heb. she shall become nations }
Moses did not give a king, God was their king.
When I say “old covenant” I mean the pre-incarnation/resurrection covenant where animals die to delay judgement rather than the “new covenant” where God the Son sheds His own blood to forever wash away the guilt and make us more than merely “forgiven”, He makes US sons of God in Christ. It is not worth splitting hairs over the Adamic Covenant vs the Noahic Covenant vs the Abrahamic Covenant vs the Mosaic Covenant. None were like the New Covenant in the Blood of Christ. All were based on animals and a future promise to be realized.I am not sure of what you are saying here? When you say old covenant, do you mean the Sinai/Horeb covenant?
I think you are not taking into account the two covenants made with Abraham. Imo, Gal is clear that the royal covenant of the one seed (not the many) made in Christ cannot be added to, as it was previously established with an oath. The law was by the covenant made in Genesis 15, law added. One, of princes Genesis 15, the other of kings, Genesis 17."The NT Scriptures (which) conclude the truth of all Scripture" states that the law was added (Galatians 3:19; Romans 5:20) to reveal sin (Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7) and to lead us to Christ (Galatians 3:24), not as any condition of the promises made to Abraham (Galatians 3:17).
That is a misunderstanding of Genesis 26:5, for "the NT Scriptures, which conclude the truth of all Scripture" state there was no law after the law of Eden until the Mosaic law (Romans 5:13-14).
So the evidence suggests to me that, Genesis having been written by Moses years after the law was given, the language Moses used in Genesis, which strictly applied only to the Sinai covenant, was to emphasize to Israel, who was under that covenant, that their father Abraham had been obedient to God's will in his time, and that they must follow his example if they were to receive the covenant promises in their time.
In context, Romans 3:27 is referring to justification by faith apart from faith's works.
Thanks.
I did some homework. . .and what I found was that ancient royal covenants often began with
(1) self-identification of the king (Genesis 15:7: "I am the LORD"), as also at Sinai (Exodus 20:2), and
(2) a brief historical prologue (Genesis 15:7: "who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it."), as also at Sinai ("who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."
It seems the nomenclature is about the form of covenants, and the form of Genesis 15:7 was the that of a royal covenant.
I don't think discerning between the covenant made in the one seed (Christ) with Abraham, and the covenant made with the seed of many is splitting hairs. I think not distinguishing them is what is helping persuade people today to keep the law of Moses (actually it is Rabbinic traditions they keep) as in Messianic Judaism. I also think it darkens our discussion with Jews, and modern day events with Israel becoming a nation again. It is not because they keep Rabbinic traditions as law keeping. That is not hair splitting stuff IMO.When I say “old covenant” I mean the pre-incarnation/resurrection covenant where animals die to delay judgement rather than the “new covenant” where God the Son sheds His own blood to forever wash away the guilt and make us more than merely “forgiven”, He makes US sons of God in Christ. It is not worth splitting hairs over the Adamic Covenant vs the Noahic Covenant vs the Abrahamic Covenant vs the Mosaic Covenant. None were like the New Covenant in the Blood of Christ. All were based on animals and a future promise to be realized.
However, do not "the NT Scriptures (which) conclude the truth of all Scripture" state that the law was added (Galatians 3:19; Romans 5:20) to the Abrahamic covenant (Galatians 3:17)?I think you are not taking into account the two covenants made with Abraham.
Imo, Gal is clear that the royal covenant of the one seed (not the many) made in Christ cannot be added to, as it was previously established with an oath. The law was by the covenant made in Genesis 15, law added. One, of princes Genesis 15, the other of kings, Genesis 17.
Priesthoods, plural.....
Genesis 15
Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
The Levitical priesthood was without an oath.
21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec
Genesis 15 Has Abraham dieing. He died in Adam....The covenant made in Genesis 17 has him looking to a kingdom.
Therefore Abraham had his faith tried in the resurrection from the dead with Isaac. Genesis 22. His faith being made complete, God sware an oath by himself.
Heb 11:19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
As for the law of faith being from the beginning...
Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
. . .When I say “old covenant” I mean the pre-incarnation/resurrection covenant where animals die to delay judgement rather than the “new covenant” where God the Son sheds His own blood to forever wash away the guilt and make us more than merely “forgiven”, He makes US sons of God in Christ. It is not worth splitting hairs over the Adamic Covenant vs the Noahic Covenant vs the Abrahamic Covenant vs the Mosaic Covenant. None were like the New Covenant in the Blood of Christ. All were based on animals and a future promise to be realized.
Which Abrahamic covenant? No, I do not think the new covenant teaches that the Mosaic law was added to the royal covenant of kings.However, do not "the NT Scriptures (which) conclude the truth of all Scripture" state that the law was added (Galatians 3:19; Romans 5:20) to the Abrahamic covenant (Galatians 3:17)?
The sign of the Sinai covenant is the Sabbath.They were not added to the unconditional land covenant, they were added to the conditional covenant (Galatians 3:17) to be their God (Genesis 17:7), conditioned on total consecration, the sign of which was circumcision (Genesis 17:11).
When were the Gentiles under the Sinai covenant? I am sorry but your not being clear to me.The Mosiac laws were added to the conditional covenant to reveal sin (Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7) and to lead to Christ (Galatians 4:24). And now that faith in Christ has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law (Galatians 4:25) which was added to the conditional Abrahamic covenant.
That is covered in my previous post.Which Abrahamic covenant? No, I do not think the new covenant teaches that the Mosaic law was added to the royal covenant of kings.
The sign of the Sinai covenant is the Sabbath.
And I do not know what you you are basing an "unconditional" land covenant on?
Which covenant was this? I believe it is Genesis 17...
Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
When were the Gentiles under the Sinai covenant? I am sorry but your not being clear to me.
The promise of Genesis 15 Concerns the fourth Generation of his seed, yes?
Ok, this is the basis of our differences.That is covered in my previous post.
An unconditional covenant has no requirements to be fulfilled.
There seems to be some confusion about the two covenants of Abraham.
True. The promised inheritance was by faith, not by the law which could not disannul the promise by faith. (Gal 3)Amen to that.
In context, the analogy is of law vs. faith (Galatians 4:24) in inheriting the promise.
The analogy of Hagar and Sarah is about the inheritance (promise)--by law or by faith, the law being set aside (Hebrews 7:18; Galatians 4:29) and the inheritance only by faith (Galatians 4:30-31).
Now that is what I believe I see in scripture. Sorry it was so long, but I am having a difficult time following you because of this.Ok, this is the basis of our differences.
On what basis is it unconditional? The way I am looking at things is this. Once God swears an oath, it is a done deal. He will not repent of it. Up until that point, all that was said to Abraham was conditional. All that was spoken before the oath was conditional to faith, or the perfecting of his faith.
James 1:2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; {temptations: or, trials }
3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
Jas 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
1Pe 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
This being said ...
This is a condition ..be thou perfect (in faith)
Ge 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,
4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. {many … : Heb. multitude of nations }
The perfecting of Abrahams faith...Offering up Isaac.
Ge 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am
Once Abraham did this in faith...
Gen. 22:16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; {shore: Heb. lip }
18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
why? Because up to this point the only covenant made with Abraham, concerned the fourth Generation of his seed, and his seed of the first generation to the third would be dead including himself. All this seed inherits in the next world the next life.
Joseph knew he would be dead....and were
Ex 1:6 And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation.
Ge 50:25 And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence.
Ex 13:19 And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him: for he had straitly sworn the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you; and ye shall carry up my bones away hence with you.
Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
Now that is what I believe I see in scripture. Sorry it was so long, but I am having a difficult time following you because of this.
Keeping in mind that Galatians is a contrast between "faith only" and "the law," and is addressed to believing Gentile Christians who were not "naturally born" under "the law."True. The promised inheritance was by faith, not by the law which could not disannul the promise by faith. (Gal 3)
And so Gal 4 makes a separation between seeking the inheritance by the law or by faith.
But Gal 4 also makes separation between the inheritance by the flesh and by the Spirit.
Those under the law were not redeemed and were cast out because of unbelief, not because of natural birth under the law.To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
But is it?And so, it is a combination of the two: seeking the inheritance by natural birth through the law, and by Spiritual birth through the faith.
Would not the spiritual substance of Galatians 4 actually be: reliance by the Christian on his works, instead of only on his faith, does not justify?And so the Spiritual substance of Gal 4 is that them seeking Abraham's inheritance by the flesh in obedience to the law with circumcision on the 8th day, are now spiritually joined to Ishmael of Hagar, who was also natural born of Abraham and outwardly circumcised in his own household.
But is that not a distinction between Christians only; i.e., those Christians relying on the law and those Christians relying on faith, and not a distinction between believing Christians and unbelieving Jews?Them seeking the inheritance by faith through the Spirit are all now children of Abraham and sons of God by the Spirit,
as was Ishmael:
Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
At the cross all the natural born seed were cast out, as was Hagar and Ishmael, and remain so if they abide in unbelief.
Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
All Christians are now children of Abraham, sons of God, and brethren of Christ who is the promised seed.
All unbelieving natural born children are children of the bondwoman Hagar and brethren to Ishmael.
All unbelieving outwardly circumcised children of Israel after the flesh are now counted as that of Hagar, no more of Sarah.
Israel after the flesh has no more promise and inheritance of Abraham than does any uncircumcised natural born children of the flesh on earth:
That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
The promise God purposed for the natural children of Israel, to be His peculiar treasure above all people on earth in Ex 19 was nullified by their unbelief and drawing back from Himself at the mount in Ex 20.
That promise is now fulfilled in His Christians: counted for the seed which is Christ, and so are now christs born into the world by the Spirit through faith, and His peculiar treasure above all people of the earth by grace through faith.
Them still seeking that promise of Ex 19 through the flesh and the law are decieved and shall never be so, except they repent and believe Jesus.
Thank you, it was long but I felt ineeded you all to understand where I was coming from, to better dialogue.Now that is what I believe I see in scripture. Sorry it was so long, but I am having a difficult time following you because of this.
You have given a good Scriptural proof how that God's covenant with Abraham, the Law, and now in Christ has always been conditioned on faith and the perfecting of that faith: the perfecting of the saints with holiness in the fear of the Lord.
The difficulty is in trying to understand how 'believers' would throw out such Scripture in order to trust in the lie of OSAS: unconditionally secured salvation, which is the filthy offspring of Calvin's predetermined souls, some for salvation and some for wrath.
They literally believe they have no choice in the matter, whether to believe or not, and so have no responsibility for their salvation through obedience to the faith.
The great peculiarity of it all is that they believe God has predestined them personally to believe, and so will believe in Him for their salvation, and yet God did not also predestine them personally to obey Him, and so must not obey Him for eternal salvation.
They have no choice in believing, they just believe, because it was predestined personally for them to believe, and yet they don't also have no choice in obeying, so that they also just obey, because it was also predestined for them to obey.
The believe in being predestined to belief without choice, and yet refuse being predestined to obey with choice: A truly pernicious hypocrisy of strong delusion.
The only unconditional covenant God ever made on earth was that with the sign of the rainbow, to no more flood the earth. The reason it was 'unconditional', is because it is solely based on God's oath to Himself: it is not dependent on anything any creature believes or does.
Everything God ever made with man was always conditional from the beginning: Thou shalt and thou shalt not...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?