THE Covenants

[Sonbeam]

What sins did Christ pay the penalty for and cleansed all men from with His blood?

Under which covenant were/are these sins credited to men?

What three objectives did Christ accomplish on the Cross when he said, “It is finished.”

These are extremely important questions IMO because the subject of “sin” continues to be a source of much debate, especially as to how “sin” affects the eternal security a born again believer has in Christ.

I believe an understanding of the basic covenantal framework God has set up to advance and execute His plan of salvation will not only answer the above questions, but it will also make clear many of the controversial passages in the bible such as Heb 10:28-30 and 2 Pet 2:22, among others.

There are two covenants that God has used as the controlling, crucial covenants that are directly operative in His salvation process: the Adamic Covenant (ACov), Gen 2:15-17, and the New Covenant (NC), Luke 22:20.

I use the phrase “directly operative” to mean that only these two covenants have been/are absolutely essential in determining and fulfilling the course of God’s plan of salvation.

Other biblical covenants, i.e, Abrahamic, Davidic, Sinai, etc., along with His Word through the prophets, have been used by God mainly to progressively illuminate, foreshadow, and make known to man details of His salvation plan until He gave us the full revelation in His Son Jesus Christ.

Before I continue, since some believers do not consider God’s command to Adam in the garden a “covenant,” I will explain why I believe it is next.

[mark s]

Hi Sonbeam,

If I can give it a shot, God told Adam, if you do this, I will do that. Therefore, a covenant.

God's original covenant with man led to the death of mankind. God's new covenant removes us from Adam's ancestry of death, and places us in Jesus' ancestry of life.

Adam's act of disobedience brought death, Christ's act of obedience brought life.

I'm with you on this. 2 Covenants.

I'd suggest to any and all a careful reading of Romans 5 as a prelude to this thread.

Love in Christ,
Mark

[Sonbeam]

Yay Mark! We are on the same page!

I just posted again before I saw your post, but don't know where it went.

[Sonbeam]

Here's my second try.

I use the word covenant for the interaction between God and Adam in Gen 2:16-17 because in that passage I see the basic IF ______ THEN __________ elements that show up in covenants initiated by God where He elicits a response/action from man.

We see the IF/THEN elements in Gen 2:16-17

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

IF you eat from the tree THEN you will certainly die

We see these two elements in God’s covenant with Abraham and his descendants for possession of the land of Canaan:

Gen 17:1-13 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised.. . . . My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

IF a male descendant of Abraham is not circumcised THEN he will be cut off from his people;
(He would not share in the possession of the land, for he would have broken the covenant.)

The above covenant became more restrictive as God, under the Sinai Cov, added specific laws to be kept by Abraham’s descendants in order to maintain possession of the land. Deut 4:26-27

Deut 28:1
If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth. 2 All these blessings will come on you and accompany you if you obey the LORD your God:

IF you fully obey the Lord THEN all these blessing will come on you

Deut 28:15
IF you don’t fully obey THEN all these curses will come on you.


Therefore, given that we see the same procedure or method being used by God in setting up subsequent covenants with man, I think His testing of man’s progenitor in the garden may certainly be called a covenant. So for the purpose of this discussion, I will use the term Adamic Cov.


Sonbeam

PS. I am not as fast as most of you are here in replying, but I will answer your comments ..... eventually.

[Abiding in His Word]

God told Adam, if you do this, I will do that. Therefore, a covenant.

Where are the two ifs?

IF you eat from the tree THEN you will certainly die

I see this as nothing more than a warning of the consequence of disobeying.

I see no rewards or blessings involved or promised by God in Genesis....just a warning.

[mark s]

God told Adam, if you do this, I will do that. Therefore, a covenant.

Where are the two ifs?

IF you eat from the tree THEN you will certainly die

I see this as nothing more than a warning of the consequence of disobeying.

I see no rewards or blessings involved or promised by God in Genesis....just a warning.

Hi Abiding,

Point taken!

I would add, however, that a covenant can be as simple as "I will give you this land". I've contractually bound myself in such a statement.

But I would have to agree with you that this is better characterized as God's statement of consequence. "Don't eat that . . . it will kill you."

So while I see what Sonbeam is saying in this, I'll go with a single covenant, the New Covenant, that restores life to us who had lost it due to sin.

Love in Christ,
Mark

[Abiding in His Word]

I think Paul mentions only two covenants in Gal. 4. with an allegory that two women represent the difference between the two.

Gal 4:23 But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise.
Gal 4:24 This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar.
Gal 4:25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
Gal 4:26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.

One covenant given to Moses on Mt. Sinai but Paul says we come to Mt. Zion and the mediator of a better covenant:

Heb 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem....

Heb 12:24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant,

I see only two; Old and New.

[Abiding in His Word]

Just want to add that Jeremiah also distinguished between the two covenants:

Jer 31:31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
Jer 31:32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.
Jer 31:33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Again, it specifies the difference between the laws written on stone at Sinai (OT) and the laws written on the heart.(NT)

[Sonbeam]

God told Adam, if you do this, I will do that. Therefore, a covenant.

Where are the two ifs?

IF you eat from the tree THEN you will certainly die

I see this as nothing more than a warning of the consequence of disobeying.

I see no rewards or blessings involved or promised by God in Genesis....just a warning.

Hi Abiding!

The alternative IF/THEN proposition, though not spelled out in Gen 2:16-17, is there implicitly. Thus it can be said that:

IF Adam did not eat of the forbidden tree THEN Adam would not die.

In addition, even though God did not spell it out for Adam at the time, there was also another IF/THEN alternative (a continued blessing) if he kept the command:

IF Adam did not eat of the tree THEN Adam could remain in the garden and enjoy close fellowship with God.

As a matter of fact, both alternatives were the norm for a period of time (it’s anybody’s guess as to how long) since from the time God gave Adam the command, several things happened, i.e., God put Adam in the garden to work it; Adam named all the animals; God created Eve; and subsequently Eve ate of the fruit, . . . before Adam ate of the tree.

[Sonbeam]

THE two covenants God has set up to advance His salvation plan, the Adamic Cov and the New Covenant, are similar in that they are both conditional and are both global in nature in that they have impacted every human being.

They are different in that in the first covenant (Adamic) God made a law covenant only with the progenitor of the human race, Adam. Yet all men came under judgment of death at the time Adam broke the covenant, 1 Cor 15:22, because his sinful nature would subsequently be inherited by all his offspring.

However, inn the second covenant (New Cov) God offers all men, individually, a covenant of grace, i.e., an opportunity to become a child of God simply through belief in His Son apart from observing any command or law. Rom 3:28

Each of these two covenants stands alone and does not overlap the other in its specific purpose.

So what was/is the purpose of each of these covenants?

Through the Adamic Cov imposed by God on man in the garden, the need for a Redeemer was established as man’s fallibility/sinfulness was made evident when Adam broke the covenant. Eph 1:5

Through the New Covenant, ratified by the Son of God in His blood, God is achieving His goal of bringing to Himself a people to be His very own children, children of the generation of Christ. Eph 5:25

[Abiding in His Word]

They are different in that in the first covenant (Adamic) God made a law covenant only with the progenitor of the human race, Adam. Yet all men came under judgment of death at the time Adam broke the covenant, 1 Cor 15:22, because his sinful nature would subsequently be inherited by all his offspring.

Hi Sonbeam,

I'm not a fan of implications or reading something into scripture that's not there. I see nowhere in the Genesis narrative where:

- God establishes a covenant with Adam

- Adam is called the progenitor of the human race (It's from the seed of the woman that produces "life" as Adam named Eve
the mother of all the living)

- Blessings specifically spoken by God other than access to "every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food..."

- we are told Adam and/or Eve partook of the Tree of Life

The beauty of the garden of Eden was the presence of God and their fellowship with Him. Adam toiled the ground in the garden. Eve would toil giving birth in the garden. The primary differences in life outside of the garden were adverse and more difficult given the absence of fellowship with God and the sorrow they would endure in their toil realizing what they had forfeited.

Through the Adamic Cov imposed by God on man in the garden, the need for a Redeemer was established as man’s fallibility/sinfulness was made evident when Adam broke the covenant. Eph 1:5

Again, I don't want to be disagreeable, but the word covenant is found in the NASB 295 times. The first mention is Genesis 6:18. And most times God is very specific in saying, "I will establish my covenant" or "This is the sign of my covenant" or "it will be an everlasting covenant" etc. No guesswork involved as to what is or is not a covenant established by God.

I think the first mention of a covenant using your "if ... then" qualifiers was given to Moses.

Exo 19:5 'Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine;
Exo 19:6 and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation....

That being the first "if...then" covenant and given to Moses and the "if's" clearly defined as are the "then's", we have the Mosaic Law or Old Covenant/Old Testament. That would be the very one Jeremiah and Paul both distinguish from the New Covenant/New Testament mentioned above.

ETA: I am aware that some refer to an Adamic covenant and even a marriage covenant, but I don't see those supported in scripture without stretching.

[Sonbeam]

They are different in that in the first covenant (Adamic) God made a law covenant only with the progenitor of the human race, Adam. Yet all men came under judgment of death at the time Adam broke the covenant, 1 Cor 15:22, because his sinful nature would subsequently be inherited by all his offspring.

Hi Sonbeam,

I'm not a fan of implications or reading something into scripture that's not there. I see nowhere in the Genesis narrative where:

- God establishes a covenant with Adam

No, Abiding, the word covenant is not in the Genesis narrative

Not everything is explicit or spelled out with specific terms for us in the bible, e.g., the words Trinity, rapture, etc., but we can carefully deduce certain things from what is written. This is what I’ve done by comparing and explaining the biblical methodology God has used when making other covenants with men.

Therefore, I believe my use of the word covenant, in regards to the command given to Adam by God and His expressed punishment if Adam broke, it has a solid biblical base. Hosea 6:7 says:

Hosea 6:7

7 But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me. (ASV)

However, even if you do not agree with my use of the word, I hope you will agree that what transpired in the garden between God and Adam was what impacted all of men negatively and produced the need for their Reedemer – The Sinai Covenant didn't.

Romans 5:12

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

[Sonbeam]

They are different in that in the first covenant (Adamic) God made a law covenant only with the progenitor of the human race, Adam. Yet all men came under judgment of death at the time Adam broke the covenant, 1 Cor 15:22, because his sinful nature would subsequently be inherited by all his offspring.

Hi Sonbeam,

I'm not a fan of implications or reading something into scripture that's not there. I see nowhere in the Genesis narrative where:


- Adam is called the progenitor of the human race

(It's from the seed of the woman that produces "life" as Adam named Eve the mother of all the living)

No, the word progenitor, which means a person that serves as a model pattern or predecessor, ancestor, in this case for the human race, is not in the bible.

But the scriptures do attest to the fact that Adam is the first man created by God and is our common ancestor from which every human being has descended, including Eve.

Gen 2:7 Then the LORD God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

Then God created the woman by taking a rib from the man and tweaking his chromosomes.

Gen 2:20

But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

Romans 5:14

14: Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

[Abiding in His Word]

No, the word progenitor, which means a person that serves as a model pattern or predecessor, ancestor, in this case for the human race, is not in the bible.

Agreed.

But the scriptures do attest to the fact that Adam is the first man created by God and is our common ancestor from which every human being has descended, including Eve.

Adam was the first man; Eve was the first woman; they were the first parents. I find no special honor in scripture attributed Adam or Eve in the narrative as a result of being the first parents.

Then God created the woman by taking a rib from the man and tweaking his chromosomes.

Gen 2:20

But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

Perhaps you know that the word "rib" is found 32 times in the OT always with the translation of side or chamber. You may be interested in learning the origin of that fable. Katherine Bushnell was prolific in 5 languages (I think) and studied both Greek and Hebrew and Latin. Her bio can be found here.

Romans 5:14

14: Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

You haven't mentioned what that verse means to you or the point you were making from it, but the only comparison of "type" between Adam and Jesus is each was the first to bring contrasting effects into the world. There is absolutely nothing good or positive said of Adam anywhere in scripture that I'm aware of. He is said to be disobedient, a transgressor, and that he hid iniquity in his heart. Romans 5 contrasts the evil results of Adam's sin with the life-giving free-gift of grace. It's a contrast of negative vs. positive; evil vs. good; death vs. life, etc.

Now the covenant mentioned in Hosea 6:7 is not a reference to an Adamic covenant but to his transgression. Hosea likens Adam's transgression to the transgression of Israel (Judah & Ephraim) of the Mosaic covenant which God's people promised they would obey.

Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine;
Exo 19:6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel."
Exo 19:7 So Moses came and called the elders of the people and set before them all these words that the LORD had commanded him.
Exo 19:8 All the people answered together and said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do." And Moses reported the words of the people to the LORD.

Hosea notes their transgressions of the people and even among the priests:

Hos 6:8 Gilead is a city of evildoers, tracked with blood.
Hos 6:9 As robbers lie in wait for a man, so the priests band together; they murder on the way to Shechem; they commit villainy.
Hos 6:10 In the house of Israel I have seen a horrible thing; Ephraim's whoredom is there; Israel is defiled.

So...I concede there are times we can logically, reasonably deduce something from scripture but it must have some basis for arriving at a conclusion. Without any mention anywhere of God making a covenant with Adam, I have to see it as a fabrication without basis or scriptural support.

I hope I haven't sounded harsh or unkind in my rebuttal, I do respect your studies and presentation, I just happen to disagree with a few of them.

I have permission to do so since we're in the debate forum....

[Sonbeam]

So while I see what Sonbeam is saying in this, I'll go with a single covenant, the New Covenant, that restores life to us who had lost it due to sin.

Love in Christ,
Mark

There has been in fact only one covenant through which a man may obtain salvation Mark, the New Covenant. When Adam broke the covenant (transaction between him and God for those of you that don't agree with my use of the term ), it became closed, except for the fulfillment of the punishment (death) until Christ came, since all men came under judgment of death when Adam sinned.

sonbeam

God made the provisions of the New Covenant of Grace available to men immediately after the garden. Heb 11

[Sonbeam]

But the scriptures do attest to the fact that Adam is the first man created by God and is our common ancestor from which every human being has descended, including Eve.

Adam was the first man; Eve was the first woman; they were the first parents. I find no special honor in scripture attributed Adam or Eve in the narrative as a result of being the first parents.

Agreed.

Then God created the woman by taking a rib from the man and tweaking his chromosomes.

Gen 2:20

But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

Perhaps you know that the word "rib" is found 32 times in the OT always with the translation of side or chamber. You may be interested in learning the origin of that fable. Katherine Bushnell was prolific in 5 languages (I think) and studied both Greek and Hebrew and Latin. Her bio can be found here.

Are you saying Eve was not made/taken from Adam Abiding? That this is a "fable"?

sonbeam

[Sonbeam]

Through the Adamic Cov imposed by God on man in the garden, the need for a Redeemer was established as man’s fallibility/sinfulness was made evident when Adam broke the covenant. Eph 1:5

Again, I don't want to be disagreeable, but the word covenant is found in the NASB 295 times. The first mention is Genesis 6:18. And most times God is very specific in saying, "I will establish my covenant" or "This is the sign of my covenant" or "it will be an everlasting covenant" etc. No guesswork involved as to what is or is not a covenant established by God.

I know you are not being disagreeable Abiding. You just do not believe there was a covenant made between God and Adam.

Therefore, it is hereby duly noted that you do not believe there was a covenant made in the garden. I disagree.

You will agree though that because of Adam's sin, it became necessary for God to send His Son to redeem mankind from the penalty of death and sin right?

sonbeam

[Sonbeam]

I hope I haven't sounded harsh or unkind in my rebuttal, I do respect your studies and presentation, I just happen to disagree with a few of them.

I have permission to do so since we're in the debate forum....

[/quote]

Not to worry Abiding. We all learn from one another here. We know the Holy Spirit will illuminate to each of us those things that each of us say that are in fact the Truth of God's Word and will help us to weed out those things that aren't.

So rebut away.

[Abiding in His Word]

Are you saying Eve was not made/taken from Adam Abiding? That this is a "fable"?

Heavens no! Adam needed help. The fable is that God fashioned the help/aid/succour he needed from a rib.

To refute the word "rib," (since it's absurd) we need to find it's common or more appropriate meaning by it's usage throughout scripture. It's found some 32 times and always translated side or chamber which is in keeping with Adam's remark that she was "bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh." IIRC, Bushnell traces the word (and the word desire in Gen. 3:16) back to the Talmud.

Hope that clarifies where the fable comment was directed to.

[Abiding in His Word]

Not to worry Abiding. We all learn from one another here. We know the Holy Spirit will illuminate to each of us those things that each of us say that are in fact the Truth of God's Word and will help us to weed out those things that aren't.

Thank you for your gracious comments, Sonbeam. I never personally take offense if someone disagrees with me.

So rebut away.

I already rebutted.

I know Reformed and/or Calvinists (pretty sure) teach an Adamic covenant and or a Covenant Theology and maybe a "Federal Head" belief, but they are hard pressed to prove those from scripture without twisting, adding, or reading something that isn't there.

Do you attend a Reformed church?

[shorttribber]

Hopefully I will be able to enter this conversation soon sonbeem...so busy on the home front.

[shorttribber]

I think Paul mentions only two covenants in Gal. 4. with an allegory that two women represent the difference between the two.

Because Paul mentions only two at that place in scripture, that does not require the conclusion that Only two exist.

Just want to add that Jeremiah also distinguished between the two covenants:

And because there is a Distinction made between two, also does not require the conclusion that Only two exist.
Do you think that the Abrahamic Covenant is "Part" OF the Mosaic Covenant? Or is the Mosaic Covenant "Part" OF the Abrahamic Covenant?
In other words, which Covenant is "OF" the Other If there indeed be Only Two?

There are at least THREE, if we Count 1. the Abrahamic Covenant 2. The Mosaic and 3. the New Covenant.

I'm just laying aside the Yea or Nay of the Adamic at present sonbeam...to bring in the importance of the Abrahamic to this discussion.

Now then...suppose we set aside the Adamic Briefly from the Three I've mentioned, this is how we should Understand those three.

Number One (Abrahamic) is the Covenantal Origin of the Promises of God, Obtainable by faith in Him.
Number Two (Mosaic) is the Covenantal Origin of the Law of God that Reveals Sin and Death for Disobedience and Life by Obedience.
Number Three (New Covenant) is the Fulfillment of the Mosaic By Christ, AND the Abrahamic By Christ.

If there is the Comparison in Heb. regarding the Free "Woman" and the Bond "Woman", Would not the Mosaic Covenant(Law) be, of course, the "Bond Woman", and the "Free Woman"(Faith in Christ) Correspond to the Everlasting Covenant of Abraham, and Confirmed IN/BY Christ?

For we Have Come unto Mount Zion, Into the SAME Company, WITH Abraham and Unto those Faithful and just men Made Perfect......Who Have Had and Who Have, and Will Have, Faith in the Righteousness of that Promised SEED, Christ.

[Abiding in His Word]

I think Paul mentions only two covenants in Gal. 4. with an allegory that two women represent the difference between the two.

Because Paul mentions only two at that place in scripture, that does not require the conclusion that Only two exist.

Just want to add that Jeremiah also distinguished between the two covenants:

And because there is a Distinction made between two, also does not require the conclusion that Only two exist.
Do you think that the Abrahamic Covenant is "Part" OF the Mosaic Covenant? Or is the Mosaic Covenant "Part" OF the Abrahamic Covenant?
In other words, which Covenant is "OF" the Other If there indeed be Only Two?

Of course there are other covenants recorded in the OT. And all lead to the fulfillment of the seed of the woman promise in the NT.

There are at least THREE, if we Count 1. the Abrahamic Covenant 2. The Mosaic and 3. the New Covenant.

Wondering why you left out the covenant with Noah and David. Scholars differ in whether or not there were 5-6-7 depending.

Number One (Abrahamic) is the Covenantal Origin of the Promises of God, Obtainable by faith in Him.
Number Two (Mosaic) is the Covenantal Origin of the Law of God that Reveals Sin and Death for Disobedience and Life by Obedience.
Number Three (New Covenant) is the Fulfillment of the Mosaic By Christ, AND the Abrahamic By Christ.

Pressed for time right now, but God is very resourceful, creative, and progressive. He posts "signposts" along the road to His original intended (may I use the word goal?) Those signposts are reassurances that He is still in control; is still aware of the circumstances and culture; and will still have a people who are called by His Name. And He confirms them along the way as well; i.e. to Isaac and Jacob. Prophecies also provided assurances along the way; i.e. over 300 that the promise of the Savior had not been forgotten.

That's how we need to observe the ongoing covenants/assurances over the past centuries imo.

[shorttribber]

Wondering why you left out the covenant with Noah and David. Scholars differ in whether or not there were 5-6-7 depending.

They were not mentioned, only alluded to by the use of the words "at Least".
There was also no needed acknowledgement because they were previously mentioned earlier in this thread.

Having answered that, I did ask you two very specific questions that still should probably be addressed....and the answer is important in our discussion.
the questions again are these...

Do you think that the Abrahamic Covenant is "Part" OF the Mosaic Covenant? Or is the Mosaic Covenant "Part" OF the Abrahamic Covenant?In other words, which Covenant is "OF" the Other If there indeed be Only Two?
...........and............
If there is the Comparison in Heb. regarding the Free "Woman" and the Bond "Woman", Would not the Mosaic Covenant(Law) be, of course, the "Bond Woman", and the "Free Woman"(Faith in Christ) Correspond to the Everlasting Covenant of Abraham, and Confirmed IN/BY Christ?

Now, the second thing to remember regarding the Several Covenants in scripture is this. Yes, there are several, But Only Certain Ones required the Shedding of Blood...that was Token of,Typical of, or the Actual Blood of Christ.

That is the Primary Difference.

[Abiding in His Word]

They were not mentioned, only alluded to by the use of the words "at Least".

I think, unless I'm misunderstanding the focus of this "Covenants" (plural) thread, Sonbeam specified the importance of two "primary" covenants leading to the salvation of mankind. I was refuting there was an Adamic covenant and proceeded to name the two "primary" covenants as noted by Jeremiah and Paul; namely, the OT and the NT.

There was also no needed acknowledgement because they were previously mentioned earlier in this thread.

If I asked, it's because I wanted an answer from you. Hoping that wouldn't have been too much trouble as I think the covenants of Noah and David require more than just being alluded to in the words "at least."

Having answered that, I did ask you two very specific questions that still should probably be addressed....and the answer is important in our discussion.
the questions again are these...

Do you think that the Abrahamic Covenant is "Part" OF the Mosaic Covenant? Or is the Mosaic Covenant "Part" OF the Abrahamic Covenant?In other words, which Covenant is "OF" the Other If there indeed be Only Two?

Shorttribber, I know you think your questions are "very specific," but I'm at a loss as to why you would think the Abrahamic Covenant is "Part" OF the Mosaic Covenant. That makes no sense to me so you need to clarify in what respect do you think one is part of the other.

...........and............
If there is the Comparison in Heb. regarding the Free "Woman" and the Bond "Woman", Would not the Mosaic Covenant(Law) be, of course, the "Bond Woman", and the "Free Woman"(Faith in Christ) Correspond to the Everlasting Covenant of Abraham, and Confirmed IN/BY Christ?

Yes. OT vs. NT.

Now, the second thing to remember regarding the Several Covenants in scripture is this. Yes, there are several, But Only Certain Ones required the Shedding of Blood...that was Token of,Typical of, or the Actual Blood of Christ.

That is the Primary Difference.

Well, Sonbeam seems to place two as the most important in the salvation of mankind; Adamic and the NT.

I think you are placing two as the most important in the salvation process as Abrahamic and the NT.

I mentioned the two primary covenants; OT (inclusive of Noah> Abraham> Isaac> Jacob> Moses> David>) leading to the fulfillment of the promise of the Savior from the Seed of the Woman...Jesus.

So I was basically tracing the history of the various covenants and their individual purpose in God's plan ranging from the destructions due to sin, to the building of a new nation of people in a new land, the exile and journey of God's people, to the laws that were to govern that nation, to the period of Kings, and onward to the Prophets and to the birth of Jesus.

So if Sonbeam wants to focus primarily on the two mentioned and you want to focus on the two you mentioned, perhaps my contributions don't fit the intended focus. My intention was to show that each covenant had a specific purpose and culmination. That's why I separated those occurring in the 2,000 yrs. God was dealing primarily with Israel from the fruition of the promise in the NT.

I may have inadvertently complicated an already complicated subject.

ETA, I hadn't previously read the other thread you and Mark were involved in and see now that you evidently carried that thread over to this one as suggested by Sonbeam. So I'll bow out as I think I've missed the purpose.

[Sonbeam]

Not to worry Abiding. We all learn from one another here. We know the Holy Spirit will illuminate to each of us those things that each of us say that are in fact the Truth of God's Word and will help us to weed out those things that aren't.

Thank you for your gracious comments, Sonbeam. I never personally take offense if someone disagrees with me.

So rebut away.

I already rebutted.

I know Reformed and/or Calvinists (pretty sure) teach an Adamic covenant and or a Covenant Theology and maybe a "Federal Head" belief, but they are hard pressed to prove those from scripture without twisting, adding, or reading something that isn't there.

Do you attend a Reformed church?

No I don't and never have. We are going to a Baptist church right now. I hold to a covenantal view of God's plan of salvation as I've started to outline here, but unlike the reformed view (if I understand it right) I don't see the Sinai Cov having been a grace covenant that has somehow morphed into the New Cov. ?? I might be misrepresenting their view though. Maybe others here can summarize it better.

I want to thank you for engaging in this conversation Abiding. Not many have so far (although you've taken up the slack really well ), except for Mark also and now shortribber (welcome!)

I'd like to see others express their views.

[Sonbeam]

Hopefully I will be able to enter this conversation soon sonbeem...so busy on the home front.

Great ST! I see you already have.

[Sonbeam]

God told Adam, if you do this, I will do that. Therefore, a covenant.

Where are the two ifs?

IF you eat from the tree THEN you will certainly die

I see this as nothing more than a warning of the consequence of disobeying.

I see no rewards or blessings involved or promised by God in Genesis....just a warning.

This one escaped me before Abiding, but here is what I think on this:

I think that what God told Adam would would happen to him if he disobeyed, i.e., death, was more than only a warning Abiding. It cost the Son everything on the Cross.

When God expresses consequences if His commands or decrees are not kept, He is not just giving only a “warning” or a "shot across the vow." He is vowing to execute judgment and punishment on those who disobey Him if they do not keep His laws.


Here is what God has vowed to do, that we dare not classify merely as warnings, if His covenants are not kept:

Deut 28:15-18, 64

15 However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you:
16 You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country.
17 Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed.
18 The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

64 Then the LORD will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other.

And the ultimate vow/decree expressed by Christ under the New Covenant and yet to be fulfilled by God:

John 8:24

I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”

John 3:18

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19

[Abiding in His Word]

No I don't and never have. We are going to a Baptist church right now. I hold to a covenantal view of God's plan of salvation as I've started to outline here, but unlike the reformed view (if I understand it right) I don't see the Sinai Cov having been a grace covenant that has somehow morphed into the New Cov. ??

There are Reformed Baptists who hold to Covenant theology and the contrast between the Covenant of Works in Adam and the Covenant of Grace in Christ. That's why I asked. There is so much overlapping among denominations that some hold to a variety of doctrines to accommodate members who join from churches which have closed.

Just to clarify...I didn't say the Sinai covenant "morphed" into the New, but "led" to the new. That's why Paul called it a "tutor."

[Abiding in His Word]

When God expresses consequences if His commands or decrees are not kept, He is not just giving only a “warning” or a "shot across the vow." He is vowing to execute judgment and punishment on those who disobey Him if they do not keep His laws.

Well, what judgment and/or punishment did Adam receive for his disobedience?

Here is what God has vowed to do, that we dare not classify merely as warnings, if His covenants are not kept:

Deut 28:15-18, 64

15 However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you:
16 You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country.
17 Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed.
18 The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

64 Then the LORD will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other.

As I mentioned above, the Israelites agreed to obey him.

Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine;
Exo 19:6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel."
Exo 19:7 So Moses came and called the elders of the people and set before them all these words that the LORD had commanded him.
Exo 19:8 All the people answered together and said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do." And Moses reported the words of the people to the LORD.

And the ultimate vow/decree expressed by Christ under the New Covenant and yet to be fulfilled by God:
John 8:24

I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”

John 3:18

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19

This is true for both Jews and Gentiles, Male or Female, Slave or Free.

Luke_9:56 ... for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."] And they went on to another village.
John_12:47 "If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.

Jer 31:33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
Jer 31:34 "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

[Sonbeam]

When God expresses consequences if His commands or decrees are not kept, He is not just giving only a “warning” or a "shot across the vow." He is vowing to execute judgment and punishment on those who disobey Him if they do not keep His laws.

Well, what judgment and/or punishment did Adam receive for his disobedience?

We know Who in the end stepped in and took that for all of us. Bless His Name!

[Sonbeam]

Sonbeam:
Here is what God has vowed to do, that we dare not classify merely as warnings, if His covenants are not kept:

Deut 28:15-18, 64

15 However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you:
16 You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country.
17 Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed.
18 The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

64 Then the LORD will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other.

Abiding: As I mentioned above, the Israelites agreed to obey him.

Yes, they didn't realize the impossibility of trying to keep the law perfectly.

Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine;
Exo 19:6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel."
Exo 19:7 So Moses came and called the elders of the people and set before them all these words that the LORD had commanded him.
Exo 19:8 All the people answered together and said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do." And Moses reported the words of the people to the LORD.

[Abiding in His Word]

When God expresses consequences if His commands or decrees are not kept, He is not just giving only a “warning” or a "shot across the vow." He is vowing to execute judgment and punishment on those who disobey Him if they do not keep His laws.

Well, what judgment and/or punishment did Adam receive for his disobedience?

We know Who in the end stepped in and took that for all of us. Bless His Name!

So then, Adam wasn't the recipient of God's "Executing judgement and punishment" for his disobedience was he?

[shorttribber]

Hoping that wouldn't have been too much trouble as I think the covenants of Noah and David require more than just being alluded to in the words "at least."

I did not intend that they should be spoken of in a trivial way...that was not my meaning. It was said, "at Least" only to show that there are indeed more than two or three, that's all.

ETA, I hadn't previously read the other thread you and Mark were involved in and see now that you evidently carried that thread over to this one as suggested by Sonbeam. So I'll bow out as I think I've missed the purpose.

yep, that's how it was...sonbeam just started this to help us focus on a thread regarding the Covenants in scripture in a fairly broad sense I think...because of the conversation marks and I were having.
it seems to me that you ought to continue in this thread though, I'm sure we can all learn together.

Shorttribber, I know you think your questions are "very specific," but I'm at a loss as to why you would think the Abrahamic Covenant is "Part" OF the Mosaic Covenant. That makes no sense to me so you need to clarify in what respect do you think one is part of the other.

Well, I suppose I thought they were specific, and I do think they still are.
I asked you to choose between whether the Abrahamic Covenant was Part of the Mosaic, or was/is it the other way around?

You said........ "why you would think the Abrahamic Covenant is "Part" OF the Mosaic Covenant. That makes no sense to me ...."
I have not said that "the Abrahamic Covenant is "Part" OF the Mosaic Covenant".

That makes no sense to me so you need to clarify in what respect do you think one is part of the other.

That is what I intend to do, yes.
I will show how the Mosaic is a "Part" OF, BY and Included IN the Abrahamic...and not the other way around.

That's one of the points that Paul was expressing when he said that the Later Mosaic could not Disannul what came Before it by Promise.

...........and............If there is the Comparison in Heb. regarding the Free "Woman" and the Bond "Woman", Would not the Mosaic Covenant(Law) be, of course, the "Bond Woman", and the "Free Woman"(Faith in Christ) Correspond to the Everlasting Covenant of Abraham, and Confirmed IN/BY Christ?

Abiding answered........Yes. OT vs. NT.

Paul continually makes the comparison between the Law (Law of Moses), and the New Covenant in Christ.
He also makes the distinction between the Covenantal Promises to Abraham and the Law of Moses.
But......the Law of Moses WAS OF, By, and Included IN the Abrahamic Covenant.....The Law of Moses was ADDED TO the Abrahamic.
Gal 3
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law?............. It was added.................. because of transgressions,............................... till the seed should come.............. to whom the promise was made

Will you still say then that the there are only Two? Is not the Abrahamic, A Covenant of it's Own? Is not the Mosaic, A Covenant of it's own? And is not the New Covenant In Christ, A Covenant of it's own?

Or do you say that the Abrahamic is PART OF the Law of Moses?
Is not the Law of Moses, Even Though it is a Covenant of it's own, PART of That Abrahamic that Preceded it?

This is why we need to look at the Abrahamic Covenant in a way that so many do not.
This is why we have a vast amount of Evidence to support the Fact that it was/is Christ that Confirmed and will Further Confirm the Everlasting Abrahamic Covenant.

I will next add the scriptures to support the scripture texts to show that scripture does speak very clearly in support of what I have just said.

But it is late now....bed time

[shorttribber]

Spent much of my free time this morning searching out some of the scripture texts that I will post. will be getting ready for a swap meet this weekend. I didn't want to just list a bunch of scriptures because I think they will require a fair amount of commentary between each one probably.

Also, sonbeam, I didn't want to go straight in to the Confirmation of The Covenant supporting texts because I didn't want the instant common responses that basically read something like this....
1. The "he" (Dan 9:27)must refer back to the nearest noun...
2. The New Covenant is Not 7 years....it is Everlasting....

These questions and some like them are usually what limits any possibility I've had in the past with explaining where all the many parts of the Evidence is in scripture for what I've been interested in sharing regarding the Abrahamic Covenant.

Will I be ok in going further into detail when I come back to this thread sonbeam?

Also...need to request that there is prayer for souls at the swapmeet....
Most of y'all know that I restore historic Bibles and Christian books. When I go to these old car swap meets to display my classic auto trim repair work, I also have plenty of old Bibles and Christian books out for people to see and talk about.
The doors always swing wide open to share the gospel and the Love of Christ.
Please pray with me for many hearts to minister to ok?

Bless you all

[Sonbeam]

Here are more of my comments In keeping with my premise of God's basic two-covenant framework for His salvation plan:

And now for a discussion on the “elephant in the room,” the Sinai Covenant (SC) which I believe may be described as a “show and tell” covenant. I will explain why later.

But first let me start with this.

If we now have a new covenant, and we do, there had to be another covenant, an old one that came first.
This first covenant would have had to place all mankind under condemnation with a judgment of death in order for Christ to come and step in to take the death penalty for all men.

Since God made the SC with the nation of Israel only, and every one else in the world was left out, then the Sinai Cov could not qualify as THE first covenant or old covenant in God’s essential two-covenant plan of salvation.

As a matter of fact, God could have left the Sinai Covenant out of man’s history altogether, as He did for about 2,500 years (the time between Adam and Moses) and it would not have affected the salvation process. Men were saved by God during that period, e,g, Abel, Noah, Abraham, etc., without having the knowledge of the biblical revelations that came much later through the Sinai covenant.

However, the scriptures are very explicit in that all men came under God’s judgment and condemnation when Adam sinned (Rom 5/12) because all men would subsequently inherit Adam’s sinful nature and fulfill its potential …. “for all have sinned.” Rom 3:23

Therefore, by the time the SC came into effect several thousand years later, the Israelites, along with all men, were already under the judgment of death. This is why Jesus Christ came.

Now, I call the Sinai covenant the “show and tell covenant” because through it God has provided believers with examples and warnings that continue to be a source of guidance for us, but most of all, He has given us very tangible proof of His grace, love and faithfulness in dealing patiently with sinful humanity through a representative segment – the Israelites.

Here’s what I see God has shown through the SC:

-- Through a segment of mankind make very evident the extent of man’s sinful nature. Gal 3:19, Rom 7:13

-- The impossibility of man being able to attain righteousness with God through the law. Rom 3:28, Gal 3:11

-- Have the law be a guardian/tutor till Christ came Gal 3:24

-- To foreshadow Christ’s forthcoming ministry through the SC feasts John 1:29, 1 Cor 5:7

-- Examples/warnings for believers through the things that happened to the Israelites 1 Cor 10:11


Though we believers continue to benefit and learn from studying the historical legacy of the Sinai covenant, Christ’s official ratification of the New Covenant in His blood has rendered the SC obsolete.

Therefore, it is extremely important that as believers we disentangle/extricate from within our minds the obsolete SC from the New Cov (NC) so we may be able to walk in the freedom the New Covenant provides for those who have come under it through faith in Jesus Christ.

Blessings,


sonbeam

[Sonbeam]

When God expresses consequences if His commands or decrees are not kept, He is not just giving only a “warning” or a "shot across the vow." He is vowing to execute judgment and punishment on those who disobey Him if they do not keep His laws.

Abiding. Well, what judgment and/or punishment did Adam receive for his disobedience?

sonbeam: We know Who in the end stepped in and took that for all of us. Bless His Name!

Abiding: So then, Adam wasn't the recipient of God's "Executing judgement and punishment" for his disobedience was he?

Hi Abiding,

I am not so sure what point you are trying to make. God in His mercy provided the sacrifice. Adam was guilty. But God provided His Son (a sinless Man) to take the punishment for Adam and his offspring.

And that was God's choice as to how His justice would be satisfied.

[Abiding in His Word]

Hi Sonbeam,

When I proposed that God was warning Adam of the consequence of eating from one particular tree, you disagreed that it was a warning. You said "He is vowing to execute judgement and punishment on those who disobey Him and do not keep His laws.

I think that what God told Adam would would happen to him if he disobeyed, i.e., death, was more than only a warning Abiding. It cost the Son everything on the Cross.

When God expresses consequences if His commands or decrees are not kept, He is not just giving only a “warning” or a "shot across the vow." He is vowing to execute judgment and punishment on those who disobey Him if they do not keep His laws.

I asked what judgement and punishment did Adam receive as a result of his disobedience? You pointed to the sacrifice of Christ which doesn't entirely answer my question. Did Adam receive judgement and punishment for his disobedience and if so, what was it? Didn't God make it clear what the consequence would be? Was it death? And yet we know Adam lived 930 yrs. or so. So what was the judgement and punishment Adam had to pay for his disobedience?

[Jay Ross]

Genesis 2:17 reads in the Simplified Transliterated text as: -

Uwmee'eets hada'at Towb waaraa' lo' to'kal mimenuw kiy b­ayowm 'akaalkaa mimenuw mowt taamuwt

where "mowt taamuwt" is derived from the same root OT:4191 which is a primitive root: to die, either literally or figuratively.

The meaning has become lost because it has been translated as reading "surely die" whereas other occurances of "mowt" is translated as "die" but not "surely." If we look at the express, "mowt taamuwt" based on its primary root, then it would translate into something like "die ???die/death."

If we then consider Ezekiel 33:14-15 which in the Simplified Transliterated text reads as

Uwb'aam­riy laaraashaa' Mowt taamuwt Wa­shaab meechaTaa'tow w­'aasaah mishpaaT uwtsdaaqaah
ch­bol yaashiyb raashaa' g­zeelaah y­shaleem b­chuqowt hachayiym haalak l­biltiy '­sowt 'aawel chaayow yich­yeh lo' yaamuwt

and which is translated as:-

Ezekiel 33:14-15: - Again, when I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' if he turns from his sin and does what is lawful and right, if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has stolen, and walks in the statutes of life without committing iniquity, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
NKJV

shows us that the expression is a reference to a destiny that await a "sinful" person and that it is possible for that "sinful" person to repent and be considered to have become righteous such that he will no longer die the "second death" in the lake of fire at the time of the great judgement at the end of the Millennium Age.

Perhaps we should consider the context of this scriptural passage as to what is being said.

Ezekiel 33:12-20: -

The Fairness of God's Judgment

"Therefore you, O son of man, say to the children of your people: 'The righteousness of the righteous man shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression; as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall because of it in the day that he turns from his wickedness; nor shall the righteous be able to live because of his righteousness in the day that he sins.' When I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, but he trusts in his own righteousness and commits iniquity, none of his righteous works shall be remembered; but because of the iniquity that he has committed, he shall die. Again, when I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' if he turns from his sin and does what is lawful and right, if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has stolen, and walks in the statutes of life without committing iniquity, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of his sins which he has committed shall be remembered against him; he has done what is lawful and right; he shall surely live.

"Yet the children of your people say, 'The way of the Lord is not fair.' But it is their way which is not fair! When the righteous turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die because of it. But when the wicked turns from his wickedness and does what is lawful and right, he shall live because of it. Yet you say,'The way of the Lord is not fair.' O house of Israel, I will judge every one of you according to his own ways."
NKJV

Now, with regards to the covenants, we have a "kaneen"(/made like new with respect to appearance) covenant as Christ is the brand new mediator of the original covenant tweeted a little to reflect the changes that have now occurred. Both the so called "Old and new" covenants have the same requirements which as discussed in Ezekiel 33 has nothing to do per se with the "Law" but has everything to do with a "right relationship" with God.

So often we get caught up on the Law and miss the heart of God for "His people" and their salvation.

[Abiding in His Word]

Genesis 2:17 reads in the Simplified Transliterated

Jay, you're not going to convince me that whatever your referencing is "Simplified." That's waaay above my pay scale, so would you be good enough to simplify your comment?

So often we get caught up on the Law and miss the heart of God for "His people" and their salvation.

I don't think anyone is getting "caught up" on the Law, but neither do I think it should be discounted or it's importance in scriptural history under-emphasized.

[Jay Ross]

Genesis 2:17 reads in the Simplified Transliterated

Jay, you're not going to convince me that whatever your referencing is "Simplified." That's waaay above my pay scale, so would you be good enough to simplify your comment?

<snip>

I chose to use the simplified Transliterated text in preference to the "English" text because it allowed me to move away from the "technical" interpretations which are so wrong and skews our understanding.

"mowt, taamuwt" is simply a reference to the Second Death spoken about in Revelation 20. The discussion that was being had in previous posts where reference was being made to what type of death that Adam suffered when he eat of the fruit of "Good and Evil" is such an example of an "english only" approach to understanding what is meant in the original text.

Adam became a candidate for the "second" death at the time of the Great Throne Judgement referred to in Revelation 20, however, if he repented of his sins, then God would have forgiven him for his transgression.

But it is really simple when you have understanding. Many people do not understand how a car "works" but they do love to drive them.

[Abiding in His Word]

But it is really simple when you have understanding. Many people do not understand how a car "works" but they do love to drive them.

Well...I'll try to understand what you've posted. (no guarantees tho)

And one has to have a lot of knowledge about how to drive that car. I read that there are over 32 million adults in the US who are illiterate. We must be able to reach them with simplicity I think. But that's another topic....

[mark s]

Genesis 2:17 reads in the Simplified Transliterated text as: -

Uwmee'eets hada'at Towb waaraa' lo' to'kal mimenuw kiy b­ayowm 'akaalkaa mimenuw mowt taamuwt

where "mowt taamuwt" is derived from the same root OT:4191 which is a primitive root: to die, either literally or figuratively.

The meaning has become lost because it has been translated as reading "surely die" whereas other occurances of "mowt" is translated as "die" but not "surely." If we look at the express, "mowt taamuwt" based on its primary root, then it would translate into something like "die ???die/death."

If we then consider Ezekiel 33:14-15 which in the Simplified Transliterated text reads as

Uwb'aam­riy laaraashaa' Mowt taamuwt Wa­shaab meechaTaa'tow w­'aasaah mishpaaT uwtsdaaqaah
ch­bol yaashiyb raashaa' g­zeelaah y­shaleem b­chuqowt hachayiym haalak l­biltiy '­sowt 'aawel chaayow yich­yeh lo' yaamuwt

and which is translated as:-

Ezekiel 33:14-15: - Again, when I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' if he turns from his sin and does what is lawful and right, if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has stolen, and walks in the statutes of life without committing iniquity, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
NKJV

shows us that the expression is a reference to a destiny that await a "sinful" person and that it is possible for that "sinful" person to repent and be considered to have become righteous such that he will no longer die the "second death" in the lake of fire at the time of the great judgement at the end of the Millennium Age.

Hi Jay,

Thank you for the detail on this point. I'd never understood why you understood Adam's death to be the second death, I do now. That's very interesting!

Do other appearances of mowt taamuwt show the same meaning?

Love in Christ,
Mark

[Abiding in His Word]

"mowt, taamuwt" is simply a reference to the Second Death spoken about in Revelation 20. The discussion that was being had in previous posts where reference was being made to what type of death that Adam suffered when he eat of the fruit of "Good and Evil" is such an example of an "english only" approach to understanding what is meant in the original text.

Adam became a candidate for the "second" death at the time of the Great Throne Judgement referred to in Revelation 20, whoever, if he repented of his sins, then God would forgive him for his transgression.

OK, now I must disagree. Here's why. When God warned Adam that the consequences of eating from that tree was death, He clarified the meaning of that death in Gen. 3:

Gen 3:19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."

That is a literal, physical death...he returns to dust.

Further clarification is found here:

....and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--

God made no mention of repentance to Adam. Further, God clearly lists the adverse consequences and conditions he will face after their expulsion from the garden and again makes no mention of necessary repentance.

The consequences of Adam's sin was imposed upon leaving the garden: physical death, sorrowful toil, soil that produces thistles and tares; sweat of his brow.

Even throughout the Mosaic Law, consequences and restitution are clearly defined regardless of repentance as the High Priest offered sacrifice for all sins of all the people both intentional and/or unintentional.

[Jay Ross]

<snip>

Hi Jay,

Thank you for the detail on this point. I'd never understood why you understood Adam's death to be the second death, I do now. That's very interesting!

Do other appearances of mowt taamuwt show the same meaning?

Love in Christ,
Mark

First off, I have no opinion as to whether or not Adam will die the second death. That is God's call to make, not mine and is still a distant future event.

My point is that the consequences of Genesis 2:17 is that the second death became the reality for all of mankind when Adam ate from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The context in which the second death is scripturally framed is that all except those alive at the time of the final Judgement will be will be resurrected to face the final judgement, many to everlasting life because of their righteousness and the others to shame and everlasting contempt in the lake of fire which we know from Revelation 20 is the second death.

I have put a list together of the occurrences of "taamuwt" in the Old Testament, however, I would counsel you to consider the possible understanding of the authors of the respective verses when they wrote them and the context in which they were then using the word/phrase. You can consider for yourself how you wish to view the scriptures provided below.


Genesis 2:17: – but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die{mowt} the second death {taamuwt}."

Genesis 20:7: – Now then restore the man's wife; for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you, and you shall live. But if you do not restore her, know that you shall die {mowt} the second death {taamuwt--}, you, and all that are yours."

Exodus 7:18: – And the fish that is in the river shall die {taamuwt}, and the river shall stink; and the Egyptians shall loathe to drink of the water of the river.

Exodus 10:28: – And Pharaoh said unto him, Get thee from me, take heed to thyself, see my face no more; for in that day thou seest my face thou shalt die {taamuwt}

1 Samuel 14:44: – And Saul answered, God do so and more also: for thou shalt die {mowt} die {taamuwt}, Jonathan.

1 Samuel 20:2: – And he said unto him, God forbid; thou shalt not die {taamuwt}: behold, my father will do nothing either great or small, but that he will shew it me: and why should my father hide this thing from me? it is not so.

1 Samuel 22:16: – And the king said, Thou shalt die {Mowt} die {taamuwt}, Ahimelech, thou, and all thy father's house.

2 Samuel 12:13: – And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die {taamuwt}.

2 Samuel 19:23: – Therefore the king said unto Shimei, Thou shalt not die {taamuwt}. And the king sware unto him.

1 Kings 2:37: – For it shall be, that on the day thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt die {mowt} die {taamuwt}: thy blood shall be upon thine own head.

1 Kings 2:42: – And the king sent and called for Shimei, and said unto him, Did I not make thee to swear by the Lord, and protested unto thee, saying, Know for a certain, on the day thou goest out, and walkest abroad any wither, that thou shalt die {mowt} die {taamuwt}? and thou saidst unto me, The word that I have heard is good.

2 Kings 1:4: – Now therefore thus saith the Lord, Thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die {mowt} die {taamuwt}. And Elijah departed.

2 Kings 1:6: – And they said unto him, There came a man up to meet us, and said unto us, Go, turn again unto the king that sent you, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Is it not because there is not a God in Israel, that thou sendest to inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron? therefore thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die {mowt} die {taamuwt}.

2 Kings 1:1: – And he said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch as thou hast sent messengers to inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron, is it not because there is no God in Israel to inquire of his word? therefore thou shalt not come down off that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die {mowt} die {taamuwt}.

Ecclesiastes 7:17: – Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die {taamuwt} before thy time?

Isaiah 22:18: – He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die {taamuwt}, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house.

Isaiah 66:24: – And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die {taamuwt}, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

Jeremiah 11:21 Therefore thus saith the Lord of the men of Anathoth, that seek thy life, saying, Prophesy not in the name of the Lord, that thou die {taamuwt} not by our hand:

Jeremiah 20:6: – And thou, Pashur, and all that dwell in thine house shall go into captivity: and thou shalt come to Babylon, and there thou shalt die {taamuwt}, and shalt be buried there, thou, and all thy friends, to whom thou hast prophesied lies

Jeremiah 26:8: – Now it came to pass, when Jeremiah had made an end of speaking all that the Lord had commanded him to speak unto all the people, that the priests and the prophets and all the people took him, saying, Thou shalt die {Mowt} die {taamuwt}.

Jeremiah 34:4: – Yet hear the word of the Lord, O Zedekiah king of Judah; Thus saith the Lord of thee, Thou shalt not die {taamuwt} by the sword:

Jeremiah 34:5: – But thou shalt die {taamuwt} in peace: and with the burnings of thy fathers, the former kings which were before thee, so shall they burn odours for thee; and they will lament thee, saying, Ah lord! for I have pronounced the word, saith the Lord.

Jeremiah 38:2: – Then said Zedekiah unto Jeremiah, Let no man know of these words, and thou shalt not die {taamuwt}.

Ezekiel 3:18: – When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt die {Mowt} die {taamuwt}; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die {yaamuwt} in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

Ezekiel 18:4: – Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die {taamuwt}.

Ezekiel 18:20: – The soul that sinneth, it shall die {taamuwt}. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Ezekiel 18:26: – When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth {uwmeet} in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die {taamuwt}.

Ezekiel 28:10: – Thou shalt die {taamuwt} the deaths of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord God.

Ezekiel 33:8: – When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt die {Mowt} die {taamuwt}; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die {yaamuwt} in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

Ezekiel 33:14: – Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt die {Mowt} die {taamuwt}; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right;

Amos 7:17: – Therefore thus saith the Lord; Thy wife shall be an harlot in the city, and thy sons and thy daughters shall fall by the sword, and thy land shall be divided by line; and thou shalt die {taamuwt} in a polluted land: and Israel shall surely go into captivity forth of his land.

Shalom

Jay Ross

[Jay Ross]

<snp>

OK, now I must disagree. Here's why. When God warned Adam that the consequences of eating from that tree was death, He clarified the meaning of that death in Gen. 3:

Gen 3:19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."

That is a literal, physical death...he returns to dust.

Further clarification is found here:

....and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--

God made no mention of repentance to Adam. Further, God clearly lists the adverse consequences and conditions he will face after their expulsion from the garden and again makes no mention of necessary repentance.

The consequences of Adam's sin was imposed upon leaving the garden: physical death, sorrowful toil, soil that produces thistles and tares; sweat of his brow.

Even throughout the Mosaic Law, consequences and restitution are clearly defined regardless of repentance as the High Priest offered sacrifice for all sins of all the people both intentional and/or unintentional.

Abiding, you are attempting to make a case from the silence of the scriptures. We are not told before Genesis 3:19 whether or not physical death was to be a part of life from the very beginning. For me, the words: –

Genesis 3:19b: –
until you return to the ground, {n}
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust, and to dust you will return." {o}

Notes on Gen 3:19

n. sn Until you return to the ground. The theme of humankind's mortality is critical here in view of the temptation to be like God. Man will labor painfully to provide food, obviously not enjoying the bounty that creation promised. In place of the abundance of the orchard's fruit trees, thorns and thistles will grow. Man will have to work the soil so that it will produce the grain to make bread. This will continue until he returns to the soil from which he was taken (recalling the creation in 2:7 with the wordplay on Adam and ground). In spite of the dreams of immortality and divinity, man is but dust (2:7), and will return to dust. So much for his pride.

o sn In general, the themes of the curse oracles are important in the NT teaching that Jesus became the cursed one hanging on the tree. In his suffering and death, all the motifs are drawn together: the tree, the sweat, the thorns, and the dust of death (see Ps 22:15). Jesus experienced it all, to have victory over it through the resurrection.

suggests to me that since in Genesis 2:7 man was formed out of the dust of the ground that he will return to the ground from which he was formed when his spirit leaves his body, i.e. our physical death, and that our spiritual death occurs if and when we are cast into the lake of Fire.

If our iniquity immediately caused us to die a physical death, then logic would insist that that physical death should occur immediately that the iniquity takes place, but even back in Genesis, God's grace prevailed and those who would repent of their iniquities God forgave them of their sin(s).

If this is not true then, all of the message of the gospel is misrepresenting the truth of the matter.

Shalom

Jay

[Abiding in His Word]

Notes on Gen 3:19

Jay, may I ask which commentary you have provided those notes from? I ask for several reasons.

1) I question the author's description of humankind's sin as "temptation to be like God." I find no scripture that records Adam or Eve as being tempted to be like God. Those were Satan's words. Scripture clearly defines Adam's sin as disobedience and Eve's as deception. Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate

Those were the same qualities God Himself designed for the trees: Gen 2:9 Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food...

The fact that she wanted wisdom/insight/understanding is not a negative. Wisdom is mentioned 203 times in the Bible and is the very virtue that pleased God when Solomon requested it.

Again, no mention of temptation...disobedience by Adam and Eve was deceived by Satan.

2) I'm not understanding the author's expression " wordplay on Adam and ground."

3) "In spite of the dreams of immortality and divinity..." is this referencing Genesis 2-3? Because again, I see no mention of either Adam or Eve desiring immortality and/or divinity so I find it a strange comment. In fact, we're not even told they ate from the Tree of Life.

4) "themes of the curse oracles...." Genesis records only two curses; the ground and Satan yet the author of the commentary skillfully (but erroneously) relates them as curses that Jesus bore (on behalf of Adam?) Adam was not cursed.

God's grace prevailed and those who would repent of their iniquities God forgave them of their sin(s).

Throughout the entire OT, including Genesis, there is no command of repentance I'm aware of ... Not from Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, David (for multiple wives), Solomon (for 700 wives and 300 concubines), etc.. but faith in God was.

Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness."

Their righteousness was counted by faith; Noah, Rahab, Ruth, Abraham, Sarah, Mary, Joseph, etc. Once the Mosaic Law and the priesthood were established, the sacrifices offered were for the sins of the people. That's how they received redemption. But Jesus became our High Priest and offered the perfect sacrifice in the new covenant that was prophesied throughout the old.

If this is not true then, all of the message of the gospel is misrepresenting the truth of the matter.

The gospel is the "good news" that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him would be saved.

Luk_7:50 And He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

Act_16:31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

Act 2:21 And it shall be that everyone who shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

[Jay Ross]

Notes on Gen 3:19

Jay, may I ask which commentary you have provided those notes from? . . .

Net Bible

. . . I ask for several reasons.

1) I question the author's description of humankind's sin as "temptation to be like God." I find no scripture that records Adam or Eve as being tempted to be like God. Those were Satan's words. Scripture clearly defines Adam's sin as disobedience and Eve's as deception. Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate

Those were the same qualities God Himself designed for the trees: Gen 2:9 Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and [i]good for food; the tree of [/i]

The fact that she wanted wisdom/insight/understanding is not a negative. Wisdom is mentioned 203 times in the Bible and is the very virtue that pleased God when Solomon requested it.

Again, no mention of temptation...disobedience by Adam and Eve was deceived by Satan.

2) I'm not understanding the author's expression " wordplay on Adam and ground."

3) "In spite of the dreams of immortality and divinity..." is this referencing Genesis 2-3? Because again, I see no mention of either Adam or Eve desiring immortality and/or divinity so I find it a strange comment. In fact, we're not even told they ate from the Tree of Life.

4) "themes of the curse oracles...." Genesis records only two curses; the ground and Satan yet the author of the commentary skillfully (but erroneously) relates them as curses that Jesus bore (on behalf of Adam?) Adam was not cursed.

God's grace prevailed and those who would repent of their iniquities God forgave them of their sin(s).

Throughout the entire OT, including Genesis, there is no command of repentance I'm aware of ... Not from Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, David (for multiple wives), Solomon (for 700 wives and 300 concubines), etc.. but faith in God was.

Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness."

Their righteousness was counted by faith; Noah, Rahab, Ruth, Abraham, Sarah, Mary, Joseph, etc. Once the Mosaic Law and the priesthood were established, the sacrifices offered were for the sins of the people. That's how they received redemption. But Jesus became our High Priest and offered the perfect sacrifice in the new covenant that was prophesied throughout the old.

If this is not true then, all of the message of the gospel is misrepresenting the truth of the matter.

The gospel is the "good news" that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him would be saved.

Luk_7:50 And He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

Act_16:31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

Act 2:21 And it shall be that everyone who shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Abiding, please consider the following scripture, NKJV: -

Romans 5:12-17: -Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death {the second death} through sin, and thus death {the second death} spread to all men, because all sinned — (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man's offense death {the second death} reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
NKJV

Perhaps your disagreement has been conditioned by the poorly translated English version, i.e. KJV etc. and the subsequent traditions of man than anything else.

With regards to the 'written" commands: - did not God walk and talk with man right up and until the time of Abraham? Since this was the case, then could the requirements of God been communicated verbally, face to face, such that there was no need for a "written instruction"/law as to what was required during the first two ages of mankind?

As regards to a "new" covenant? Is the covenant that Christ is the brand new mediator of, also brand new, i.e. "Neo," or has Christ made the "Original Covenant" like new again, i.e. "Kaineén," because, as He said, He did not come to change any part of it but to fulfil it?

Our Theological understandings and traditions flavour what we understand to be God's truth.

[Abiding in His Word]

Abiding, please consider the following scripture, NKJV: -

Romans 5:12-17: -Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death {the second death} through sin, and thus death {the second death} spread to all men, because all sinned — (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man's offense death {the second death} reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
NKJV

I have considered the contrasts evident between Adam and Christ in Romans 5.

Perhaps your disagreement has been conditioned by the poorly translated English version, i.e. KJV etc. and the subsequent traditions of man than anything else.

In my studies, I most often compare a variety of translations. Using E-Sword, I currently have 12 versions to compare along with 8 commentaries and 11 dictionaries.

I can honestly say I am not influenced in the least by traditions of man and, in fact, spend the majority of my study time refuting them like the ones that maintain Eve "tempted" Adam; Adam's "Federal Headship"; hierarchy in the Godhead; the need for church membership contracts, etc.

With regards to the 'written" commands: - did not God walk and talk with man right up and until the time of Abraham? Since this was the case, then could the requirements of God been communicated verbally, face to face, such that there was no need for a "written instruction"/law as to what was required during the first two ages of mankind?

As regards to a "new" covenant? Is the covenant that Christ is the brand new mediator of, also brand new, i.e. "Neo," or has Christ made the "Original Covenant" like new again, i.e. "Kaineén," because, as He said, He did not come to change any part of it but to fulfil it?

Scripture is quite clear that God counts righteousness by faith in Him.

Our Theological understandings and traditions flavour what we understand to be God's truth.

That may be true of some believers and I understand that not all have the inclination to study for themselves...hence the need for teachers. But my "understandings and traditions" are flavoured by scripture alone with the help of those tools mentioned above.

My conclusion (and I'm stickin' to it) is:

Rom 3:25 ....whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed

Rom 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

The efficacy of the sacrifice of the cross extends to sins past, present and future.

[Sonbeam]

Hi Sonbeam,

When I proposed that God was warning Adam of the consequence of eating from one particular tree, you disagreed that it was a warning. You said "He is vowing to execute judgement and punishment on those who disobey Him and do not keep His laws.

I think that what God told Adam would would happen to him if he disobeyed, i.e., death, was more than only a warning Abiding. It cost the Son everything on the Cross.

When God expresses consequences if His commands or decrees are not kept, He is not just giving only a “warning” or a "shot across the vow." He is vowing to execute judgment and punishment on those who disobey Him if they do not keep His laws.

I asked what judgement and punishment did Adam receive as a result of his disobedience? You pointed to the sacrifice of Christ which doesn't entirely answer my question. Did Adam receive judgement and punishment for his disobedience and if so, what was it?

The judgment Adam received was immediate—death (spiritual)—but not an experiential one until God announced it through Christ ( John 12:31 ) and Christ experienced the result of that judgment (death) t on the Cross in Adam’s and all his offspring’ place.

"Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out."

Didn't God make it clear what the consequence would be? Was it death?

Well, God did say, "17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” Gen 2:17.

But God’s prohibition of eating from the tree with the “knowledge of good and evil” would in itself preclude God from giving Adam an explanation of what good or evil (disobeying God and spiritual death) meant. That would defeat the purpose of His prohibition IMO.

And yet we know Adam lived 930 yrs. or so. So what was the judgement and punishment Adam had to pay for his disobedience?

From our perspective, Adam did not experience the prescribed punishment (spiritual death) for his disobedience, but from God’s perspective and will, Adam and his offspring did experience it in Christ, something God had in mind before the foundation of the world. And His thoughts are so much higher (understatement ) than ours.

Romans 6:6-8
6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.

2 Cor 5:14
For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.

2 cor 5:15
And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.

sonbeam