THE Covenants

[Jay Ross]

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

Abiding, I use a computer based study aid as well which allows me to examine the original text and I delve much deeper than the Strong definitions into the meanings of the words. Like English, both Hebrew and Greek have root words associated with their language however, knowing the meaning of the root word for the word under consideration does not mean that we have grasped the actual meaning of the verse being studied. Please allow this example of three verses which use the same Greek word but where one of the translated verses has a completely different meaning.

In the New King James Version the verses read: -

Mark 11:2: – and He said to them, "Go into the village opposite you; and as soon as you have entered it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has sat. Loose it and bring it.

John 11:44: – And he who had died came out bound hand and foot with grave clothes, and his face was wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, "Loose him, and let him go."

However in John 2:19 it is translated as: –

John 2:19: – Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

This change in interpretation seems logically wrong. A better understanding would be if the word was translated as "release" such that John 2;19 is interpreted into English as: -

John 2:19: – Jesus answered and said to them, "Release this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

In John 2:19, Jesus was not talking about the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD but about the Nation of Israel turning away from the function of the temple because of their iniquities and subsequently releasing their relationship and purpose with the "temple" itself and its function. Because of Israel's idolatry, God has turned his back on Israel until the decreed end of the visitation of their iniquity upon their children and their children's children have suffered for the sins of their fathers.

However, this view is not favoured by many translations or commentators.

I have demonstrated from the Hebrew original text that the understanding of Gen 2:17 is not, "surely die" but "die the {second} death." I also provided other verses where this same meaning is also apparent.

Our studies should take us beyond what is available from "free" biblical study aids. Presently I am building my own Biblical data base of the New testament based on the original Greek text because of the limitation that exist within the present computer based study bible that I use. This is to help my study by speeding up my search for similar Greek words, not similar words based on Strong's Greek root words.

One blogger I know of substitutes the Strong root words back into a verse and then claims that this is the actual Hebrew or Greek text that he is presenting. Some of his comments and commentaries are very good, but his scholarship is demonstratively lacking when he does this sort of thing.

Abiding, it is good that you call posters to account for what they write, but we will all be asked to account for what we write. It is my prayer that I am as accurate as I can be in what i write. I trust that you also are so.

[Abiding in His Word]

Abiding, I use a computer based study aid as well which allows me to examine the original text and I delve much deeper than the Strong definitions into the meanings of the words. Like English, both Hebrew and Greek have root words associated with their language however, knowing the meaning of the root word for the word under consideration does not mean that we have grasped the actual meaning of the verse being studied.

Jay, I do appreciate your studious approach to scripture to determine the best possible meaning of difficult passages.
Please allow this example of three verses which use the same Greek word but where one of the translated verses has a completely different meaning.

However, this view is not favoured by many translations or commentators.

Therein is the problem, isn't it? Even among the most scholarly experts in history, Hebrew and Greek languages, there is often disagreement as to meaning.

My approach to arriving at correct exegesis is to never...never build doctrine, principle, or even theory on a single word, phrase or verse. Those truths that are eternal and affect our lives must be evident in the whole counsel of God. When we encounter a difficult word or phrase or passage, we must look at scripture to interpret scripture if possible. If it's not possible to confirm the intended meaning, we must voice our disagreement with those who put forth an "alleged" truth without the proper hermeneutic to interpret the text correctly.

That said, there will still be areas of disagreement and that's normal and acceptable providing an individual or group is not imposing their theory on others or after being shown conflicting passages, still refuse to take them into consideration. An example of this imho can be seen in the following:

I have demonstrated from the Hebrew original text that the understanding of Gen 2:17 is not, "surely die" but "die the {second} death." I also provided other verses where this same meaning is also apparent.

You arrived at a conclusion and I have provided passages that conflict with the theory that Adam will become a candidate for the second death unless he repents. Several scholars have interpreted the same two Hebrew words in Gen. 2:17 and arrived at this interpretation:

Thou shalt surely die - מות תמות moth tamuth; Literally, a death thou shalt die; or, dying thou shalt die

In other words, dying is a continual process from birth until the end of one's life when they return to dust.

Our studies should take us beyond what is available from "free" biblical study aids. Presently I am building my own Biblical data base of the New testament based on the original Greek text because of the limitation that exist within the present computer based study bible that I use. This is to help my study by speeding up my search for similar Greek words, not similar words based on Strong's Greek root words.

And I can't voice my respect for your diligence and love of the Word of God often enough. Bless you for your studies. But surely you know that even among the most renown scholars there is differences of opinion as the number of translations reflect. Words change meaning over hundreds and thousands of years as do cultures and it's difficult to arrive at a definite meaning no matter how we try. Take into consideration that much of the OT was passed on verbally from generation to generation and you face another obstacle in translating the original. The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls did confirm much of our scriptures and I think the NASB is the best version that incorporates the findings from those.

One blogger I know of substitutes the Strong root words back into a verse and then claims that this is the actual Hebrew or Greek text that he is presenting. Some of his comments and commentaries are very good, but his scholarship is demonstratively lacking when he does this sort of thing.

I believe root words help but again, if there were a method of translating that was perfect, even the Jews wouldn't be debating at the city gates. Even they, having been educated from a young age in the Hebrew language and the OT, differ in their opinions.

Abiding, it is good that you call posters to account for what they write, but we will all be asked to account for what we write. It is my prayer that I am as accurate as I can be in what i write. I trust that you also are so.

I have no doubt that you are a true "Berean" Jay! I have great respect for your diligence and desire for truth. (but know that I will still feel free to refute if I find conflicting scripture)



We have gotten off the topic of covenants and Sonbeam has graciously not hollered at us, but in all fairness, we should get back on topic.

[Jay Ross]

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.

Hebrews 12:24 needs to be looked at a little more closely as to its structure because in my opinion the verse is badly translated.


Strong root word numbers
2532 - 1242 - 3501 - 3316 - 2424 - 2532 - 129 - 4473 - 2909 - 2980 - 3844 - 3588 - 6

Transliterated text
kaí - diatheékees - néas - Mesítee - Ieesoú - kaí - haímati - rantismoú - kreítton - laloúnti - pará - tón - Hábel

English word for word translation (KJV)
And - covenant, - of the new - mediator - to Jesus - and - to the blood - of sprinkling, - better things - that speaketh - than - that of - Abel.

Our understanding is related to whether or not "of the new" - " néas" is associated with the word "mediator" or "covenant."

If Jesus is our 'new' High Priest interceding for us on our behalf, then "néas" is associated with the word, "mediator."

However, if you hold to a "new covenant" theology, then you will associated "néas" with the word "Covenant" to strengthen your argument.

Hebrews 12:24 is the only time that NT:3501" "neos" is in any way associated with the word "Covenant." Every other occurrence where we find the translated word "new" in the New Testament associated with the word "covenant", it has been translated from the Greek word "kainos" NT:2537 where the meanins is defined in the Strong definitions as "of uncertain affinity; new (especially in freshness; while NT:3501 is properly so with respect to age: - KJV - new."

I would suggest that there was a tradition to separated the "Christian Church" from the "Jewish understanding" as to the functional "covenant" that was in play when Christ was nailed to the cross. By labelling the "covenants" as "Old", i.e. the Jewish covenant with respect to the second Mt Sinai Covenant and the attached Laws, and "New" the "Christian Church's covenant" which was far better than the Covenant that God had made with Israel at Mt Sinai the second time round, the Church fathers had successfully detached the Churches traditions from their Jewish heritage.

The following quote from an article titled the 'Law and the Covenants' published on the Hebrew Roots Web Site provides the following explanation which I believe presents the Jewish understanding quite well: -

When the scripture prophesies about a new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-33, the word used is 'renewed' (chadashah), not 'new' as in newly created or 'new', as to its age. The word "chadashah" refers to something that has undergone a reformation in character and purpose, or a simple reappearance on a different scale. In the new covenant scriptures, the Greek word is kainos, and means "new as to form or quality, of a different nature from what is contrasted as old" (Vine's Expository Dictionary). It does not mean "new in age" (neos). So it was not prophesied to be a different covenant but a new improved form of the previous covenant which had already been upgraded several times to allow for changes in the nation's responsibilities.

When Christ spoke of a "New" commandment, what he was stating was a refreshment of the previous understanding of the 'commandment.'

It is because of this miss match of translation where the meaning has, in many cases, been condensed down to just one word which does not do justice to the origin expression in the Greek Text.

How many covenants have been recorded in the Old Testament or refreshed, because of slight shifts in the cultural understanding and circumstances of the nation of Israel, can be identified? It is this restating of the Covenant that God made with the nation of Israel many times in the Old Testament that causes us our confusion today.

In the Jeremiah 31 passage referred to above, it points to the first covenant, entered into with god by the nation of Israel at Mt Sinai, which they rebelled against within the 30 days that Moses was up on the mountain with God. It does not point to the "Old" or the second Mt Sinai Covenant.
The initial Mt. Sinai covenant was to establish a nation of Priests, and this is still God's purpose for the nation of Israel, and when they repent, and God redeems them, He will re-establish this same covenant with them, but with a slightly different twist in its application.

If as Paul points out, we too are a Royal Priesthood in the same order as and will be entered into when the nation of Israel is redeemed, then we should be reflecting that obligation with God to be His Royal Priests in our actions on display in the world today.

Sadly, we are arguing about who has/will have the better "covenant," the Jewish remanent, or the "Christian Church?"

Are we that shallow?

[Sonbeam]

Abiding: We have gotten off the topic of covenants and Sonbeam has graciously not hollered at us, but in all fairness, we should get back on topic.

No problem Abiding. Your discussion with Jay on Adam is actually relevant to my premise on the two covenants since I believe the one covenant in the garden was/is the basic starting point for God's plan of salvation.

So I think discussing Adam’s judgment and punishment ties in with the discussion of this thread.

My thoughts on this is that Adam was created mortal, therefore he was eventually going to die physically whether he sinned or not.

And that therefore, the death God decreed Adam would die if he disobeyed His command was a spiritual death.
Spiritual death is complete alienation/separation from God’s presence.

This is described by Peter and Jude as being the “blackest darkness,” the total absence from “light” which is what the scriptures say God is. 1 John 1:5

1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.

2 Pet 2:17 These people are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them.

Jude 1:13They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

This is the death Christ endured on the cross for all men. Matt 27:45-47.

45 From noon on, darkness came over the whole land[a] until three in the afternoon. 46 And about three o’clock Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” 47 When some of the bystanders heard it, they said, “This man is calling for Elijah.”

[Abiding in His Word]

No problem Abiding. Your discussion with Jay on Adam is actually relevant to my premise on the two covenants since I believe the one covenant in the garden was/is the basic starting point for God's plan of salvation.

OK, good. Glad we didn't detour too far off topic.

I don't think anyone would disagree that the narrative of Adam and Eve is the "starting point" of God's plan of salvation. He clearly promises a redeemer from the seed of the woman. I disagree with calling it a covenant, but that's ok. The promise is definitely there.

Now, you've mentioned two covenants and identify them as the Adamic and the New. But I think that's kinda like reading a book and leaving out 2-3 chapters before reading last chapter and expecting the story to make sense. Oh, it might make sense if the book was fiction, but the Bible is a history book. We find out the whole history from chapter 1 to the last chapter and all those in between show us the continuity of the story.

So leaving out the Noahic Covenant, the Abraham Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, and Davidic Covenant is to leave out valuable, essential chapters leading to the New Covenant. All together they tell the history of God's plan of salvation from the "starting point" to the fulfillment of the promise in chapter 1.

God is very methodical, creative, wise, and longsuffering in the journey from the promise to the fulfillment. The Bible relates 4,000 yrs. of His determination to have a nation, a people called by His Name and the problems and corrections along the way. All the Covenants recorded in scripture are an integrate part of the journey/story/history that make me question leaving out those "chapters" of the book and noting only two Covenants.

I'm willing to group all the Covenants in the 4,000 yr. history and call them the Old Covenant and then mentioning the New Covenant and it's importance. However, that (to me) is like reading a book or trying to tell a story while leaving out essential chapters. So I'm not willing to jump from the garden to the cross ignoring all the Covenants that lead there.

Hope that makes sense. If the topic is "Covenant(s)" then we shouldn't ignore most of them. Right?

[Sonbeam]

I absolutely agree with everything you have said Abiding. And I am sorry I didn’t express my thoughts on this before (but you have done this better than I could ever have ) since my object in focusing on the two critical covenants that God has used to effect salvation has not been to disregard the other covenants at all, but simply to put their contributions to the whole of God’s salvation process in perspective.

What I’m trying to show by comments on other covenants, such as the ones I made on the Sinai cov a few posts back on this thread, is that we as believers can so delve into the other supporting covenants, as we can see through some posts here, that we fail to appreciate them only for their historical legacy and the additional insight they offer into God’s salvation plan and leave it at that. But instead we get into the “old covenantal weeds” and get fully stuck there.

For instance, many believers look at the Sinai cov as though its terms were still binding today with the result being an agonizing straddling of the fence (grace plus law) that keeps believers trying to live up to those Sinai cov terms and failing miserably. As I believe extravagantchristian (?) mentioned in one post.

Looking at the Sinai cov as still in force has also spawned the Jewish Roots movement with its heretical teaching that the Sinai cov law is still binding on Christian Jews and gentiles. And on and on it goes.

So yes Abiding what you have posted so eloquently "absolutely makes sense." It is actually by studying the other covenants that I've reached my convictions on what I've been writing about in this thread.

I have written my thoughts on the Sinai cov already and didn't get any comments yet. I will add my comments on the Abrahamic cov next.

[Sonbeam]

<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.

Jay,

Thank you for engaging in this discussion. I think a study of the biblical covenants is a very important topic, and I see from your posts you have also done a lot of studying on this. I have a question for you.

You say the second death became a reality for all at the time Adam sinned, then what about the "first death?" I don't think I saw any comments about what you believe on that on any of your posts. Perhaps I missed your thoughts on that.

sonbeam

[Jay Ross]

Sonbeam

Physical Death was always God's reality.

From Adam to Noah, the patriarchs, who were born before the the flood, lived for 900 plus years with the exception that Enoch live 365 years before God took him. After the flood, the length of a man's life was shorten till it did not exceed 120 years in length.

Here is the data: -

Adam 930
Seth 912
Enosh 955
Kenan 910
Mahalalel 955
Jared 962
Enoch (365 but God took him before he had died)
Methuselah 969
Lamech 777
Noah 950
Shem 600
Arachshad 438
Shelah 433
Eber 464
Peleg 239
Reu 239
Serug 230
Nahor 148
Terah 205
Abram 175
Ishmael 137
Isaac 180
Jacob 147
Joseph 110
Levi 137
Kothath 133
Armram 137
Aaron 123
Moses 120 (By this time, the length of a man's life did not generally exceed 120 years in length as God had decreed)
Joshua 110

The understanding of the consequences of the second death appear in the story of Abraham going down to Egypt and also with his first encounter with Abimelech, however it is not mentioned as such but the consequences of it were and they were afraid.

It is my view that we over think this issue and try and solve the "riddles" that we create within our own minds.

Shaloam

[Sonbeam]

Sonbeam

Physical Death was always God's reality.

I agree Jay and I said this in a previous post. Adam was created mortal and would have died a physical death eventually whether he sinned or not.

Therefore, to believe that the "death" God told Adam he would suffer if he ate of the tree was a physical death does not make any sense. Adam was going to die a physical death anyway.

sonbeam

[Sonbeam]

To restate the purpose why I started this thread:

I believe the scriptures show that there are only two covenants, the Adamic and the New Covenant, that constitute the critical/essential framework God has used to effect His salvation process for men.

Other biblical covenants, i.e, Abrahamic, Davidic, Sinai, etc., along with His Word through the prophets, have been used by God only to support and 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.

For instance, God in His relationship with Abraham shines the light on how He is now dealing with man under grace rather than law.

-- God starts by promising to Abram, a Chaldean from Ur of Babylon, that He will bless all nations (a universal blessing applying to all men) through his seed, thereby giving insight into the lineage of the One who would “crush Satan’s head.” Gen 3:15 God fulfilled this promise in His Son Jesus Christ.

-- In Gen 15:6, God displays His grace as He gives Abraham a righteous standing (by faith alone) before Him when Abraham believes the Word of God given to him at the time, i.e., the promise of an heir from his own flesh and innumerable offspring.

--Through the historic record of Abraham’s life, God lets us see the extent of His mercy and grace towards man.
For in Gen 12:10-20 and Gen 20 we see that Abraham twice lied about Sarah being his wife to save his skin; Abraham commits adultery with Sarah’s Egyptian slave Hagar with the consent/encouragement of Sarah; Abraham sends (with God’s consent) his firstborn son Ishmael and his mother Hagar away into the desert with meager supplies (some food and a skin of water) in spite of the fact that Abraham is a wealthy man and could have given her and his son lot more; after Sara dies, Abraham marries again and in addition to his wife keeps concubines.

--Yet, and rightly so, God never rebukes Abraham for his behavior. Paul in Rom 5:13 explains why:

Rom 5:13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.

--In fulfilling His Word to Abraham, God reveals His faithfulness and trustworthiness when He gives Abraham the promised heir in Isaac and when He brings Abraham’s descendants out of Egypt in the fullness of time as He had prophesied.

--In the covenant of circumcision, Gen 17:1-14, God foreshadows the circumcision of the heart that the Holy Spirit performs during the new birth in the Spirit under the New Covenant.

As to God’s promises/covenants to give Abraham innumerable offspring and the possession of the land, their benefits were to apply to Abraham’s physical descendants only. And though the promise of possession of the land starts out as an unconditional promise, it became more restrictive as God added the covenant of circumcision first and then the Sinai Cov with specific laws to be fully kept by Abraham’s descendants in order to maintain possession of the land. Deut 4:26-27

Therefore, I believe God could have given fewer or no revelations of Himself, His grace in dealing with man, the future coming of Christ, etc., that came through His relationship with Abraham, and His salvation plan would still have advanced as it did during the previous 2000 years or so since Adam. Men were saved through faith then (Heb 11) without the revelations that came much later.


sonbeam

[Abiding in His Word]

Sonbeam

Physical Death was always God's reality.

I agree Jay and I said this in a previous post. Adam was created mortal and would have died a physical death eventually whether he sinned or not.

Therefore, to believe that the "death" God told Adam he would suffer if he ate of the tree was a physical death does not make any sense. Adam was going to die a physical death anyway.

I disagree with these statements. We are not told that death was always God's reality in the Genesis narrative. The fact that God designed the Tree of Life and it was freely offered to them says eternal life was very likely the purpose. They would be fruitful and multiply and live safely, abundantly in the garden and fellowship with God. That purpose was (temporarily) interrupted when Adam neglected to guard the garden and Satan entered. And it was that Tree that was specifically (temporarily) guarded after the fall:

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

... He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

The specifications of God's intentions in Genesis show He carefully designed every detail from the heavens, the earth, vegetation, the animal kingdom, and the creation of male and female in His image. Everything He designed "was good." It was the habitation specifically designed for them and their descendants.

His purpose will not be deterred forever, however, as the new heavens and new earth will again include that very tree that will again afford eternal life just as originally intended.

[shorttribber]

Sonbeam

Physical Death was always God's reality.

I agree Jay and I said this in a previous post. Adam was created mortal and would have died a physical death eventually whether he sinned or not.

Therefore, to believe that the "death" God told Adam he would suffer if he ate of the tree was a physical death does not make any sense. Adam was going to die a physical death anyway.

I disagree with these statements. We are not told that death was always God's reality in the Genesis narrative. The fact that God designed the Tree of Life and it was freely offered to them says eternal life was very likely the purpose. They would be fruitful and multiply and live safely, abundantly in the garden and fellowship with God. That purpose was (temporarily) interrupted when Adam neglected to guard the garden and Satan entered. And it was that Tree that was specifically (temporarily) guarded after the fall:

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

... He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

The specifications of God's intentions in Genesis show He carefully designed every detail from the heavens, the earth, vegetation, the animal kingdom, and the creation of male and female in His image. Everything He designed "was good." It was the habitation specifically designed for them and their descendants.

His purpose will not be deterred forever, however, as the new heavens and new earth will again include that very tree that will again afford eternal life just as originally intended.

Abiding

[Jay Ross]

Abiding,

We have to separate out and differentiate between a person's physical death and the probability of them not being considered righteous and being sent to their second death, the "mowt taamuwt" of Genesis 2:17 at the appointed time in mankind's timeline.

In Genesis 3:22-24 the context of being "revived" so as to live forever is introduced if Adam happened to eat from the tree of life after he had eaten from the Tree of Knowledge which had as its penalty becoming a candidate for the second death which became the lot for all of mankind.

Genesis 3:22-24 - Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" — therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.
NKJV

If God removed Adam's access to the Tree of Life except on His terms, then access to the tree of life for mankind was also removed with Adam's removal from the Garden of Eden.

In the context of the passage above, physical death was always a reality for all of mankind, but at the appointed time, all of mankind who are judged righteous will be revived to live forever.

Now, however, it is God's Grace towards each individual, at the appointed time, as to whether or not a person is revived and lives forever or is cast into the Lake of Fire.

Our physical death removes us from this present earth to a place where we are to await for the appointed time when god's grace will be either extended towards us or not.

The ability to eat from the Tree of Life is conditional and is on God's terms for being shown Grace and saved from the Lake of fire.

Post has been edited because of a proof reading error.

[Abiding in His Word]

the probability of them not being considered righteous

if Adam happened to eat from the tree of life

becoming a candidate for the second death

If God removed Adam's access

except on His terms

as to whether or not a person is revived and lives forever or is cast into the Lake of Fire

god's grace will be either extended towards us or not

The ability to eat from the Tree of Life is conditional

and is on God's terms

Jay, the words I've put in italics are the focus of your comment. By highlighting them I hope to show that you seem to have (unintentionally?) reduced the gospel to a guessing game of sorts. Maybe; perhaps; if; might be; could be; whether or not; possibly; etc. are all words that reflect the exact opposite of the assurance, certainty and confidence found in the Bible relative to believers.

See the difference:

Joh 3:15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Eph 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 1:14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.

Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
Rom 10:10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

1Jn 5:11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.

1Jn 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

I may have misunderstood your comment, but I find this same type of uncertainty reflected in the "Sovereign Grace" teachings. They express a kind of "que sera, sera" (whatever will be, will be...the future's not ours to see) attitude since God is Sovereign over all things and all things are in His hands. I think the goal is to put your trust in Him, but I think just the opposite is the result....complacency.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Jay Ross]

Abiding, I have corrected one poorly framed sentence where I was giving the wrong impression.

My comments are concerning the difference between a person's physical death and their second death should they be judged as unrighteous.

My post did not go into the conditional requirements of how they are judged to be righteous, as that was not the intended thrust of the post. You cannot consider a phrase as being complete without including its context.

Let us consider your first phrase listed in your post: -

We have to separate out and differentiate between a person's physical death and the probability of them not being considered righteous and being sent to their second death, the "mowt taamuwt" of Genesis 2:17 at the appointed time in mankind's timeline.

This sentence was not considering a person's salvation as much as demonstrating that a person will have a physical death and then at the time appointed, at the great throne judgement, be a candidate for the second death because of their unrighteous. If the person is judged to be righteous, then they are not going to suffer the second death.

Our righteousness has always been on God's terms, not man's terms. I cannot say that I have not sinned, for we all have been born into sin through the first Adam.

John 3:16-21: - For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God.

Now, because this passage of scripture contains the words "might be," does it reflects the opposite of the assurance that we desire.

Our hearts can be very deceptive and dishonest with us. We do need to be careful lest we lose our salvation.

But that was not the thrust of my post at all. There was a physical death from the beginning in that all of mankind was programmed to die a physical death. The Second death, however, was not intended from the beginning, but because of Adam's sin in eating from the Tree of Knowledge, the second death was introduced. The rest of the bible shows us how we can redeem ourselves should we chose to repent of our sins and believe in Him Who He has sent for our salvation.

Ezekiel 33 talks about the fact that a righteous man man can die the second death if he sins and that a man condemned to die the second death can be redeemed if he repents of his sins before his physical death.

Sadly, my sense is that you have missed the point of what I had posted.

[Abiding in His Word]

Let us consider your first phrase listed in your post: -

We have to separate out and differentiate between a person's physical death and the probability of them not being considered righteous and being sent to their second death, the "mowt taamuwt" of Genesis 2:17 at the appointed time in mankind's timeline.

This sentence was not considering a person's salvation as much as demonstrating that a person will have a physical death and then at the time appointed, at the great throne judgement, be a candidate for the second death because of their unrighteous. If the person is judged to be righteous, then they are not going to suffer the second death.

And yet, Jay, in the list of about 15 or so scriptures early in this thread, the term "mowt taamuwt" in the context of the verse, clearly relates to a physical death. It seems that only in Genesis 2:17 are you translating that term as a "second death." I don't want to go back and list every one of them, but you can check them out to see whether they refer to a "second death" or a physical death.

Our righteousness has always been on God's terms, not man's terms. I cannot say that I have not sinned, for we all have been born into sin through the first Adam.

No one inherits another's sin. Each is responsible for his/her own sin. We are born, however, outside of the garden due to Adam's sin and therefore have a carnal nature in which the spiritual nature (no fellowship with God as in the garden) is absent. Those used of God in the OT were provided a special anointing for His purpose.

John 3:16-21: - For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God.

Now, because this passage of scripture contains the words "might be," does it reflects the opposite of the assurance that we desire.

It reflects the opposite of assurance for those who do not believe. See: "He who believes in Him is not condemned."

Our hearts can be very deceptive and dishonest with us. We do need to be careful lest we lose our salvation.

....for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day. 2Ti 1:12

There was a physical death from the beginning in that all of mankind was programmed to die a physical death. The Second death, however, was not intended from the beginning, but because of Adam's sin in eating from the Tree of Knowledge, the second death was introduced.

God tells Adam the penalty for his sin will be:

Cursed is the ground because of you

In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.

thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;

you will eat the plants of the field;

By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground,

For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."

The judicial sentence included expulsion from the perfect dwelling and restriction from the Tree of Life.

The rest of the bible shows us how we can redeem ourselves should we chose to repent of our sins and believe in Him Who He has sent for our salvation.

Yes...belief in Him; faith in Him; loving both Him and our neighbor.

Sadly, my sense is that you have missed the point of what I had posted.

My apologies, Jay. I do think we've belabored the point of Adam and the second death a bit and I hope I've been clear in the reasons for my disagreement. God spoke to Satan, Adam, and Eve who were standing before Him and told them the penalty resulting from their sin and expulsion from the garden. He did not mention repentance or eternal life or a second death...only the one resulting in his return to dust.

[shorttribber]

God spoke to Satan, Adam, and Eve who were standing before Him and told them the penalty resulting from their sin and expulsion from the garden. He did not mention repentance or eternal life or a second death...only the one resulting in his return to dust.

[Jay Ross]

Let us consider your first phrase listed in your post: -

We have to separate out and differentiate between a person's physical death and the probability of them not being considered righteous and being sent to their second death, the "mowt taamuwt" of Genesis 2:17 at the appointed time in mankind's timeline.

This sentence was not considering a person's salvation as much as demonstrating that a person will have a physical death and then at the time appointed, at the great throne judgement, be a candidate for the second death because of their unrighteous. If the person is judged to be righteous, then they are not going to suffer the second death.

And yet, Jay, in the list of about 15 or so scriptures early in this thread, the term "mowt taamuwt" in the context of the verse, clearly relates to a physical death. It seems that only in Genesis 2:17 are you translating that term as a "second death." I don't want to go back and list every one of them, but you can check them out to see whether they refer to a "second death" or a physical death.

It seems to me that you are in denial that the Second Death was a reality in the Old Testament and is only found in the book of Revelation, however, in my looking at this topic, I discovered that the Second Death was the final penalty for not being in a right relationship with God and that it is first mentioned in Genesis 2:17.

In Genesis 2:17 the two word phase: - you will die {mowt} the second death {taamuwt} is not pointing towards a physical death but clearly indicates that the lot of an unrepentant sinner is the second death. In the list of 31 verses, taamuwt is not always used in tandem with "mowt." I agree that "mowt" means "to die" but that "taamuwt" means "to die the second death."

However, because its meaning was not always understood by the "writers/scribes" of these verses, in a number of cases "taamuwt" has been wrongly used to convey the death of a person in a physical sense and not in the sense of dying the "second death." This is not the only case where the intended meaning of a Hebrew word has been lost through usage and explanation of the presented message in the Hebrew text by the Jewish Scholars.

It has also happened within the English language where the meaning of the word "Talent" has changed over time from its original meaning of "A monetary value for money" into a word that is associated with a person's ability to perform a particular function, thereby twisting the intended meaning and understanding of Jesus' parable into a parable that is not recognisable or associated with its original intended purpose for its telling.

"mowt taamuwt" is just one such phase and words where the meaning of each has been lost in its retelling. The meaning of "mowt" has now been given the meaning of "surely" and "taamuwt" as you yourself extol has the meaning of a "physical death" which is not consistent with the whole context of the Biblical message.

1 Corinthians 15:20-23: - But now Christ is risen from the dead {i.e. from being a corpse}, and has become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came {the second} death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead {i.e. those who have fallen asleep through their physical death}. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

We need to look a little closer at the meanings of words before we jump in and assume their meanings.

Our righteousness has always been on God's terms, not man's terms. I cannot say that I have not sinned, for we all have been born into sin through the first Adam.

No one inherits another's sin. Each is responsible for his/her own sin. We are born, however, outside of the garden due to Adam's sin and therefore have a carnal nature in which the spiritual nature (no fellowship with God as in the garden) is absent. Those used of God in the OT were provided a special anointing for His purpose.

Yes, I agree with you Abiding, that no one inherits another's sin, but through Adam we have become candidates for the second death and remain candidate until such time as we repent. How we receive God's grace such that we are no longer a candidate for the second death has not been the intent of my posts on the second death.

<snip>

There was a physical death from the beginning in that all of mankind was programmed to die a physical death. The Second death, however, was not intended from the beginning, but because of Adam's sin in eating from the Tree of Knowledge, the second death was introduced.

God tells Adam the penalty for his sin will be:

Cursed is the ground because of you

In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.

thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;

you will eat the plants of the field;

By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground,

For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."

The judicial sentence included expulsion from the perfect dwelling and restriction from the Tree of Life.

Again, Abiding, what you say is true, but the penalty of becoming a candidate for the second death was not removed from Adam when God added the above penalties to the penalty found in Genesis 2:17 that he would also die the second death because of his sin of eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge.

The rest of the bible shows us how we can redeem ourselves should we chose to repent of our sins and believe in Him Who He has sent for our salvation.

Yes...belief in Him; faith in Him; loving both Him and our neighbor.

Sadly, my sense is that you have missed the point of what I had posted.

My apologies, Jay. I do think we've belabored the point of Adam and the second death a bit and I hope I've been clear in the reasons for my disagreement. God spoke to Satan, Adam, and Eve who were standing before Him and told them the penalty resulting from their sin and expulsion from the garden. He did not mention repentance or eternal life or a second death...only the one resulting in his return to dust.

Abiding, I cannot force you to accept what I post, just as you cannot force your beliefs, whether right or wrong, onto another person. Each person is responsible for drawing their own conclusions as to what is "truth" and what is "not truth."

What both of us have laboringly demonstrated is our own miss understanding of what is said within the scriptures within the respective areas of our own blindness.

[shorttribber]

What both of us have laboringly demonstrated is our own miss understanding of what is said within the scriptures within the respective areas of our own blindness.

and winner is....
Miss Understanding!

[Jay Ross]

To restate the purpose why I started this thread:

I believe the scriptures show that there are only two covenants, the Adamic and the New Covenant, that constitute the critical/essential framework God has used to effect His salvation process for men.

<snip>sonbeam

If the two covenants are the Adamic and the New Covenant, then I would suggest that these are simply identifying labels that people have used to create a shorthand method of identifying which covenant they are referring to.

The renewing of the Priestly Covenant found in Jeremiah 31 is better understood to be the renewing of the Mt Sinai Priestly Covenant in the order of Melchizedek, that was made before the nation rebelled while Moses was up on the mountain with God the first time. The Mosaic covenant was entered into later where the high priesthood of Aaron's line was established with a used by date attached. The Mosaic covenant is often referred to as the Old Covenant.

So yes, the "New Testament New Covenant" is simply a renewing/refurbishment of an older covenant as you are suggesting.

Sadly, the introduced labels of "Old" and "New" very much clouds our understanding.

Shalom

[Jay Ross]

What both of us have laboringly demonstrated is our own miss understanding of what is said within the scriptures within the respective areas of our own blindness.

and winner is....
Miss Understanding!

Yes and you have now joined us in your own revealed miss understanding.

[shorttribber]

What both of us have laboringly demonstrated is our own miss understanding of what is said within the scriptures within the respective areas of our own blindness.

and winner is....
Miss Understanding!

Yes and you have now joined us in your own revealed miss understanding.

The Lord will Reveal if that is so eventually, and in every case.....in time.

[Sonbeam]

Jay

It seems to me that you are in denial that the Second Death was a reality in the Old Testament and is only found in the book of Revelation, however, in my looking at this topic, I discovered that the Second Death was the final penalty for not being in a right relationship with God and that it is first mentioned in Genesis 2:17.

In Genesis 2:17 the two word phase: - you will die {mowt} the second death {taamuwt} is not pointing towards a physical death but clearly indicates that the lot of an unrepentant sinner is the second death. In the list of 31 verses, taamuwt is not always used in tandem with "mowt." I agree that "mowt" means "to die" but that "taamuwt" means "to die the second death."

Jay,

I agree that the death Adam was to suffer when he sinned was a spiritual death. And this was the first death and Christ underwent that for all of us on the Cross.

Those who reject Christ will indeed suffer the second death, and yes, a death that is not physical, same as the first death.

If there is a second death that is not physical as you say, there must be a first death that is not physical either.

I might have missed it Jay, but I have not seen anything in your posts where you reference the first death (non physical).


(Sorry guys, but God plan of salvation is very symmetrical: 2 covenants, two judgments, two spiritual deaths, etc. :grin: )


sonbeam

[Sonbeam]

To restate the purpose why I started this thread:

I believe the scriptures show that there are only two covenants, the Adamic and the New Covenant, that constitute the critical/essential framework God has used to effect His salvation process for men.

<snip>sonbeam

If the two covenants are the Adamic and the New Covenant, then I would suggest that these are simply identifying labels that people have used to create a shorthand method of identifying which covenant they are referring to.

The renewing of the Priestly Covenant found in Jeremiah 31 is better understood to be the renewing of the Mt Sinai Priestly Covenant in the order of Melchizedek, that was made before the nation rebelled while Moses was up on the mountain with God the first time. The Mosaic covenant was entered into later where the high priesthood of Aaron's line was established with a used by date attached. The Mosaic covenant is often referred to as the Old Covenant.

So yes, the "New Testament New Covenant" is simply a renewing/refurbishment of an older covenant as you are suggesting.

No, that is not what I am suggesting Jay. The Sinai Covenant was a conditional covenant made with the Israelites only and it did not offer eternal life. Its benefits were temporal and earthly.

Sadly, the introduced labels of "Old" and "New" very much clouds our understanding.

I agree. This is why I use the Adamic name for the first covenant. First covenant and second covenants are titles that I prefer for God's basic two covenant framework.

sonbeam

[Jay Ross]

The initial covenant with the nation of Israel where the nation of Israel would become a covenantal kingdom of priests unto God in the order of Melchizedek: -

Exodus 19:1-6: – 19:1 In the third month after the children of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt, on the same day, they came to the Wilderness of Sinai. 2 For they had departed from Rephidim, had come to the Wilderness of Sinai, and camped in the wilderness. So Israel camped there before the mountain.

3 And Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: 4 'You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to Myself. 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. 6 And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel."
NKJV

The acceptance by the people of this covenant and their subsequent consecration by Moses: -

Exodus 24:1-8: - 24:1 Now He said to Moses, "Come up to the Lord, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and worship from afar. 2 And Moses alone shall come near the Lord, but they shall not come near; nor shall the people go up with him."

3 So Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the judgments. And all the people answered with one voice and said,"All the words which the Lord has said we will do." 4 And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord. And he rose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars according to the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 Then he sent young men of the children of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to the Lord. 6 And Moses took half the blood and put it in basins, and half the blood he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said, "All that the Lord has said we will do, and be obedient." 8 And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, "This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you according to all these words."
NKJV

The rebellion of the people against God and the covenant that they had entered into with God: -

Exodus 32:1-14: - 32:1 Now when the people saw that Moses delayed coming down from the mountain, the people gathered together to Aaron, and said to him, "Come, make us gods that shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him."

2 And Aaron said to them, "Break off the golden earrings which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me." 3 So all the people broke off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them to Aaron. 4 And he received the gold from their hand, and he fashioned it with an engraving tool, and made a molded calf.

Then they said, "This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!"

5 So when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made a proclamation and said, "Tomorrow is a feast to the Lord." 6 Then they rose early on the next day, offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.

7 And the Lord said to Moses, "Go, get down! For your people whom you brought out of the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves. 8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them. They have made themselves a molded calf, and worshiped it and sacrificed to it, and said, 'This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!'" 9 And the Lord said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people! 10 Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation."

11 Then Moses pleaded with the Lord his God, and said: "Lord, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, 'He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth'? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and relent from this harm to Your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them,'I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.'" 14 So the Lord relented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.
NKJV

The Covenant renewed after they had rebelled, {i.e. the second Mt Sinai covenant}: -

Exodus 34:10-16, 27-28: -

The Covenant Renewed

10 And He said: "Behold, I make a covenant. Before all your people I will do marvels such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation; and all the people among whom you are shall see the work of the Lord. For it is an awesome thing that I will do with you. 11 Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite. 12 Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst. 13 But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images 14 (for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God), 15 lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they play the harlot with their gods and make sacrifice to their gods, and one of them invites you and you eat of his sacrifice, 16 and you take of his daughters for your sons, and his daughters play the harlot with their gods and make your sons play the harlot with their gods.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27 Then the Lord said to Moses, "Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." 28 So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.
NKJV

The Priestly Ministry of Aaron and his sons begin in Leviticus 9.

The Holiness code as found in Leviticus 26.

Now if we refer to Jeremiah 31:31-34 we read the following; -

Jeremiah 31:31-34, 38-40: - 31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make like new again a covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah — 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, {i.e. Exodus 19:1-24:8} though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

. . . . . . . . .

38 "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, that the city shall be built for the Lord from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. 39 The surveyor's line shall again extend straight forward over the hill Gareb; then it shall turn toward Goath. 40 And the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields as far as the Brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the Lord. It shall not be plucked up or thrown down anymore forever."
NKJV

This Jeremiah 31:31-40 covenant will be renewed with the nation of Israel in our near future, around 30 or so years from now.

Perhaps this sets out my thinking a little more clearly.

[Sonbeam]

Now if we refer to Jeremiah 31:31-34 we read the following; -

Jeremiah 31:31-34, 38-40: - 31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make like new again a covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah — 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, {i.e. Exodus 19:1-24:8} though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
NKJV

Perhaps this sets out my thinking a little more clearly.

It does Jay in that I see you believe the Sinai Cov is being "renewed" made "like new again" as the scripture you quoted above says.

But I found that the NKJV does not read "like new again " in Jer 31:31 as you quoted it, neither does any of the other versions below say that either.


Jer 31:31
31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—

New King James Version (NKJV)


Jer 31:31
31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,

Revised Standard Version (RSV)


Jer 31:31

31
“The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah (NIV)


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, (NASB)



Jer 31:31

31 “Indeed, a time is coming,” says the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.

New English Translation (NET)


sonbeam

[Sonbeam]

Sonbeam

Physical Death was always God's reality.

I agree Jay and I said this in a previous post. Adam was created mortal and would have died a physical death eventually whether he sinned or not.

Therefore, to believe that the "death" God told Adam he would suffer if he ate of the tree was a physical death does not make any sense. Adam was going to die a physical death anyway.

I disagree with these statements. We are not told that death was always God's reality in the Genesis narrative. The fact that God designed the Tree of Life and it was freely offered to them says eternal life was very likely the purpose. They would be fruitful and multiply and live safely, abundantly in the garden and fellowship with God. That purpose was (temporarily) interrupted when Adam neglected to guard the garden and Satan entered. And it was that Tree that was specifically (temporarily) guarded after the fall:

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

... He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

The specifications of God's intentions in Genesis show He carefully designed every detail from the heavens, the earth, vegetation, the animal kingdom, and the creation of male and female in His image. Everything He designed "was good." It was the habitation specifically designed for them and their descendants.

His purpose will not be deterred forever, however, as the new heavens and new earth will again include that very tree that will again afford eternal life just as originally intended.

Abiding,

Your account of God’s purpose for Adam and his offspring bring up some questions:

If as you say God’s purpose was for Adam and his descendants to live in the garden and enjoy the abundant life there continuously, why did God put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil there knowing that Adam would disobey His command and thereby thwart His purpose?

Since God did not specify a time frame or duration for the prohibition he gave Adam, would you agree that this would be a continuing prohibition that Adam and His offspring would be obligated to keep in order to continue to enjoy the garden’s ease and God’s fellowship?

This would then make remaining in the garden a conditional/works dependent existence for Adam and his offspring, wouldn’t you say?

Would you then agree with Rom 3:19-21 that Adam and his offspring would then never be able to be justified before God?

Rom 3:19
Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. NIV

Also with Satan (the serpent) roaming the garden and obviously intent on challenging God’s authority (unless God intervened) , how could Adam and his offspring “live safely and abundantly” continuously ?

With God knowing that Satan (the serpent) was in the garden, how could God’s intention had been for Adam to “guard” the garden from Satan since Satan is a spirit, and Adam, a physical flesh and blood innocent being, could not possibly have stopped Satan even if Adam had known who Satan is?

Which begs the question, why did God allow Satan to be in the garden to begin with and cause Adam to disobey God? Didn’t God know that this would truncate His purpose for Adam and his offspring to live continuously in the garden “safely, abundantly……and enjoy fellowship with God”?

According to Genesis 3:1, the serpent spoke to the woman, so Satan either took the form of a serpent or entered into a live serpent to temp Adam’s offspring. Could Adam have been able to stop Satan from doing that?

Also if God’s purpose for man’s life in the garden was as you say, how could His purpose be thwarted by Satan since God is very emphatic in verses like Isa 46:9-10 about how His purposes will be established/prevail?

Isaiah 46:9-10

9 “Remember the former things long past,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like Me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things which have not been done,
Saying, ‘[b]My purpose will be established,
And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;

[Abiding in His Word]

Your account of God’s purpose for Adam and his offspring bring up some questions:

If as you say God’s purpose was for Adam and his descendants to live in the garden and enjoy the abundant life there continuously, why did God put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil there knowing that Adam would disobey His command and thereby thwart His purpose?

Sonbeam, God's purpose was the same in Eden as it is throughout scripture. To have a people who would love Him and choose to obey Him. Over and over and over, His people made wrong choices. Without a free will and the ability to make conscious choices and decisions, we would be no different than the animals or...robots.

Since God did not specify a time frame or duration for the prohibition he gave Adam, would you agree that this would be a continuing prohibition that Adam and His offspring would be obligated to keep in order to continue to enjoy the garden’s ease and God’s fellowship?

Let me answer this way and hope it answers your question. No one EVER since the history of mankind was free to do whatever they wanted. There have been and still are boundaries for mankind to respect. If the Mosaic law was passed down orally from generation to generation for 2,000 yrs.?, I don't see it as an impossible or unreasonable endeavor.

This would then make remaining in the garden a conditional/works dependent existence for Adam and his offspring, wouldn’t you say?

No. It's actually an absence of a "work" or the choice to obey the boundary related to them same as Adam had.

Would you then agree with Rom 3:19-21 that Adam and his offspring would then never be able to be justified before God?

Rom 3:19
Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works [b]of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. NIV

Romans 3:19 is referencing the Mosaic Law which came nearly 3,000 yrs. after Adam. There would have been no need for the Mosaic Law had Adam not sinned and remained fruitful in the garden designed for them. By the time the Hebrews came out of bondage in Egypt, they had multiplied significantly... somewhere in the vicinity of 3-4 million over the 400 yrs. period. God had to "unlearn" all the idolatress, incestual, cruelties, and animal worship they had learned in Egypt and learn to trust the One, True God and how to love Him and their neighbor and treat them fairly.

The question, then, that you asked is moot since we are not told Adam is not justified before God. God gave only one law; Adam disobeyed; God issued the penalty; Adam suffered the consequences for his sin outside of the garden.

Also with Satan (the serpent) roaming the garden and obviously intent on challenging God’s authority (unless God intervened) , how could Adam and his offspring “live safely and abundantly” continuously ?

By making the right choice...to abstain from the one tree and freely partaking of all the others.

With God knowing that Satan (the serpent) was in the garden, how could God’s intention had been for Adam to “guard” the garden from Satan since Satan is a spirit, and Adam, a physical flesh and blood innocent being, could not possibly have stopped Satan even if Adam had known who Satan is?

Scripture says Adam was to "cultivate and guard" the garden. H8104 (Strongs)

A primitive root; properly to hedge about (as with thorns), that is, guard; generally to protect, attend to, etc.: - beware, be circumspect, take heed (to self)

If God told Adam to guard/protect the garden, I think it's fair to say God thought he was able to do so. Does God ask something of us that we're unable to do?

Satan was obviously visible and able to speak to Eve, so I assume it would be the same for Adam, wouldn't it?

Which begs the question, why did God allow Satan to be in the garden to begin with and cause Adam to disobey God? Didn’t God know that this would truncate His purpose for Adam and his offspring to live continuously in the garden “safely, abundantly……and enjoy fellowship with God”?

Why does God allow a Christian today to encounter temptation and choose to sin?

According to Genesis 3:1, the serpent spoke to the woman, so Satan either took the form of a serpent or entered into a live serpent to temp Adam’s offspring.

Scripture does not say Eve was tempted. She was deceived. There's a difference.

Could Adam have been able to stop Satan from doing that?

Had he protected/guarded the garden from the intruder, it would not have been an issue.

Also if God’s purpose for man’s life in the garden was as you say, how could His purpose be thwarted by Satan since God is very emphatic in verses like Isa 46:9-10 about how His purposes will be established/prevail?

Indeed...they will and did prevail in spite of man. Simple example...if I tell my daughter we are going to the grocery store at noon today, and she doesn't come home by noon, it may take me longer to get to the store, but I'll get there nevertheless. And I'll discipline her for her disobedience. Knowing that she tends to be disobedient, would I be a better parent if I chain her to the living room chair to assure she's going to be home at the appointed time? Or would I (knowing her disposition) give her the opportunity to prove she can be home at the appointed time? Parenting a child is a learning process for the child and so it is with God's children.

You might say parents "tutor" their children. That was the purpose of the Law...to tutor or teach the Israelites the right/fair/just way to live and treat God and their neighbor and make them aware of the penalties for various crimes.

[Jay Ross]

Now if we refer to Jeremiah 31:31-34 we read the following; -

Jeremiah 31:31-34, 38-40: - 31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make like new again a covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah — 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, {i.e. Exodus 19:1-24:8} though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
NKJV

Perhaps this sets out my thinking a little more clearly.

It does Jay in that I see you believe the Sinai Cov is being "renewed" made "like new again" as the scripture you quoted above says.

But I found that the NKJV does not read "like new again " in Jer 31:31 as you quoted it, neither does any of the other versions below say that either.


<snip>

Sonbeam,

To demonstrate that what I had written in that verse is closer to the intended meaning requires a lot of work on my part in creating the database of the Hebrew Words with a Hebrew Root base of 2318 and 2319 to show that it is so.

The following is an extract from a Hebrew Roots web site document which explains why it is "renew" and not just "new." The Jewish understanding is that in our near future God will renew his covenant with the nation of Israel, which we have been grafted into the stump of, to once again become a Nation of priests to bless all the people of the earth.

When the scripture prophesies about a new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-33 , the word used is 'renewed' (chadashah), not 'new' as in newly created or 'new', as to its age. The word "chadashah" refers to something that has undergone a reformation in character and purpose, or a simple reappearance on a different scale. In the new covenant scriptures, the Greek word is kainos, and means "new as to form or quality, of a different nature from what is contrasted as old" (Vine's Expository Dictionary). It does not mean "new in age" (neos). So it was not prophesied to be a different covenant but a new improved form of the previous covenant which had already been upgraded several times to allow for changes in the nation's responsibilities.

In ancient treaties, if one of the parties’ situation changed, then part of the covenant could be amended (or renewed) as required to adapt to the new situation, but everything else remained in effect exactly as before.

Source: - https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Hebrew_Ro ... pplication

[shorttribber]

Can you show a place where Paul ever described a difference between the supposed Two Sinai Covenants that you are describing jay?

I understand that you call them by different names. I have only said, "Two Sinai Covenants" because you have described Two Covenants occurring in the Same General Location and the Same General Time.

[shorttribber]

by Jay Ross on Mon Oct 05, 2015 2:08 am
The initial covenant with the nation of Israel where the nation of Israel would become a covenantal kingdom of priests unto God in the order of Melchizedek: -Exodus 19:1-6: – 19:1 In the third month after the children of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt, on the same day, they came to the Wilderness of Sinai. 2 For they had departed from Rephidim, had come to the Wilderness of Sinai, and camped in the wilderness. So Israel camped there before the mountain. 3 And Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: 4 'You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to Myself. 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. 6 And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel." NKJV

And jay, I would like to know also where in the above text you've posted has anything at all to do with, or where it is Directly Stated that Any people of God are to become "Priests After the Order of Melchizedek".

As far as I know, we are told in scripture that there is Only One Priest that forever lives "After the Order of Melchizedek"....therefore there arises no need...Ever...for any to be A Priest, or Priests, AFTER Him of the Same Order, seeing that he Ever Lives.
Heb 7:17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

[Jay Ross]

1 Peter 2:9-12: -9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.

Living Before the World

11 Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, 12 having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation.
NKJV

Revelation 1:5-6: - To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, 6 and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Revelation 5:8-10: - 8 Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song, saying:

"You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
10 And have made us kings and priests to our God;
And we shall reign on the earth."

Isaiah 61:5-7: - 5 Strangers shall stand and feed your flocks,
And the sons of the foreigner
Shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.
6 But you shall be named the priests of the Lord,
They shall call you the servants of our God.
You shall eat the riches of the Gentiles,
And in their glory you shall boast.
7 Instead of your shame you shall have double honor,
And instead of confusion they shall rejoice in their portion.
Therefore in their land they shall possess double;
Everlasting joy shall be theirs.

Isaiah 66:18-21: - 18 "For I know their works and their thoughts. It shall be that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and see My glory. 19 I will set a sign among them; and those among them who escape I will send to the nations: to Tarshish and Pul and Lud, who draw the bow, and Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands afar off who have not heard My fame nor seen My glory. And they shall declare My glory among the Gentiles. 20 Then they shall bring all your brethren for an offering to the Lord out of all nations, on horses and in chariots and in litters, on mules and on camels, to My holy mountain Jerusalem," says the Lord, "as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord. 21 And I will also take some of them for priests and Levites," says the Lord.

Deuteronomy 7:6: - 6 "For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth.

"Priests After the Order of Melchizedek": - Melchizedek was a king and a priest, and we, the Saints of God, the chosen people, will also be made kings and priests within God's Kingdom.

Now Shorttribber, if this signifies praying for you with a bag over my head so that it is done in private, then so be it.



But that is not my way and I would suggest that it is inappropriate to show such a smiley even if I am simply returning your favor because I disagree with you.

Now because the nation of Israel rebelled, God's inclination was to destroy them all except for Moses out of whom He would then create a chosen Nation, but Moses interceded on behalf of the nation and God then entered into a covenant with Moses to create a chosen people from among those of the nation of Israel. So God on the Mountain Top entered into a covenant with Moses which became the second covenant entered into at Mt. Sinai. This is known as the Mosaic Covenant and is often referred to as the Old Covenant. The first covenant at Mt. Sinai seemed to fade into the background with the nation of Israel but God did not forget this first covenant and in Jeremiah 31:31he make specific reference to it by identifying it as the Covenant which he had made with the nation of Israel before they had rebelled.

The Good news is that God has remembered his early covenants and is honoring them. The "kaneous" covenant mentioned in the New Testament, simply means, The covenant that has been renewed again and made to be fresh once more for our consumption, not God's.

[shorttribber]

"Priests After the Order of Melchizedek": - Melchizedek was a king and a priest, and we, the Saints of God, the chosen people, will also be made kings and priests within God's Kingdom.

Where in Any of the scriptures that you have provided do we read that We, or Anyone will be a "King and Priest AFTER THE ORDER of Melchizedec" Jay?

Yes the scriptures Promises that we Have Become and ARE Kings and Priests........Out of Every Tongue and Nation and People.
9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
10 ...................And hast made us unto our God kings and priests:................. and we shall reign on the earth.

Now, what is missing Jay in the texts that you have shown us, of which I have provided only one example?

What's missing in these words, "hast made us unto our God kings and priests", that you have inserted in your understanding and opinion, that do Not Appear?

of course you or anyone should be able to see that the words, "After the Order of Melchisedec" Do Not Follow " kings and priests Unto God" in ANY Single Place in scripture.

So, None of the scriptures you have provided either prove or evidence Any Such Idea that Anyone Is, or Shall Be EVER After the Order of Melchizedec.

Now, let me ask you again, the other question that you did Not Answer in your last post.

Can you show a place where Paul ever described a difference between the supposed Two Sinai Covenants that you are describing jay?

[Jay Ross]

What then is your complaint really about Shorttribber.

I have demonstrated that there are two covenants that occur at Mt. Sinai but you have stated that because they occurred so closely together, that they can be considered to be only just one and the same covenant.

It seems that it is okay for you to add lib and insert your views into understanding of the text, but when someone else does just that you become a defending white knight for your particular understanding of scripture.

I would suggest that Paul's statement regarding that Christ has become a priest after the Order of Melchizedek is also based on the first covenant that was entered into at Mt Sinai before the nation of Israel rebelled against God and his covenant with them, that he would be their only God..

The question I have of you Shorttriber, is where does Paul oppose these truths.

[shorttribber]

What then is your complaint really about Shorttribber.

I've not made any complaint.

I have demonstrated that there are two covenants that occur at Mt. Sinai

I don't believe you have, and later I will show how you haven't.

It seems that it is okay for you to add lib and insert your views into understanding of the text, but when someone else does just that you become a defending white knight for your particular understanding of scripture.

You could share an example, if you have one then.

I would suggest that Paul's statement regarding that Christ has become a priest after the Order of Melchizedek is also based on the first covenant that was entered into at Mt Sinai before the nation of Israel rebelled against God and his covenant with them, that he would be their only God..

I realize that is what you have suggested. But you have offered nothing to prove that, other than your assumptions.

The question I have of you Shorttriber, is where does Paul oppose these truths.

Paul opposes them (Your Supposed "Truths", that are Actually Errors) in many Places....I will explain as we continue.
Right now, I must get ready for work.

[Jay Ross]

What then is your complaint really about Shorttribber.

I've not made any complaint.

I have demonstrated that there are two covenants that occur at Mt. Sinai

I don't believe you have, and later I will show how you haven't.

It seems that it is okay for you to add lib and insert your views into understanding of the text, but when someone else does just that you become a defending white knight for your particular understanding of scripture.

You could share an example, if you have one then.

I would suggest that Paul's statement regarding that Christ has become a priest after the Order of Melchizedek is also based on the first covenant that was entered into at Mt Sinai before the nation of Israel rebelled against God and his covenant with them, that he would be their only God..

I realize that is what you have suggested. But you have offered nothing to prove that, other than your assumptions.

The question I have of you Shorttriber, is where does Paul oppose these truths.

Paul opposes them (Your Supposed "Truths", that are Actually Errors) in many Places....I will explain as we continue.
Right now, I must get ready for work.

So in other words you have provided a promise of what you will provide to prove your point but do not have the time to go into the meat of the discussion that you are attempting to create. What is the point of you posting then if you are not going to provide something worthy to get ones teeth into. You seems to be providing a lot of hot air to me about nothing.

[shorttribber]

So in other words you have provided a promise of what you will provide to prove your point but do not have the time to go into the meat of the discussion that you are attempting to create. What is the point of you posting then if you are not going to provide something worthy to get ones teeth into. You seems to be providing a lot of hot air to me about nothing.

Jay,
I have said that my time is short, but I do still desire to enter these discussions. Hopefully I will be able to list several points as I'm able too ok?
But I do believe that I have made several points already that you should also spend some time Answering.

[Jay Ross]

So in other words you have provided a promise of what you will provide to prove your point but do not have the time to go into the meat of the discussion that you are attempting to create. What is the point of you posting then if you are not going to provide something worthy to get ones teeth into. You seems to be providing a lot of hot air to me about nothing.

Jay,
I have said that my time is short, but I do still desire to enter these discussions. Hopefully I will be able to list several points as I'm able too ok?
But I do believe that I have made several points already that you should also spend some time Answering.

Is your beef about the meaning of the English word "Order" ("táxin"), i.e. in the order of ...?

If that is the case, then the issue is a private one that you need to resolve.

My take is that Christ is a Priest "in the likeness/order of" and the example that Paul uses Melchizedek as his example as to the style or type of priesthood that he is referring to which functioned differently to the "Old" Covenant priesthood where the priesthood was limited to the Tribe of Levi.

[mark s]

I'm starting to see some adversarial language here . . . let's keep it friendly, OK?

[Sonbeam]

Jay,

What covenant are the Jews under right now? As per the NT scriptures.

sonbeam

[Jay Ross]

Jay,

What covenant are the Jews under right now? As per the NT scriptures.

sonbeam

I would suggest the Mosaic Covenant, the second one entered into on Mt Sinai by God with Moses. It had a sunset clause in it concerning the function of the Levi priesthood. The nation of Israel still have the visitation of their iniquities upon them which God decreed would last for two ages. The sign posts for when they will be redeemed is given by Paul in Romans 11:25-27 when the fullness of the time of the heathen Gentiles is complete and the Judgement of the kings of the earth and their armies occurs.

[shorttribber]

This portion of our discussion on The Covenants will focus on only one part primarily.

For the sake of time, I'm only going to emphasize one part from the notes I've been making. That part is, Recognition of Covenants Made by God. That, I hope to accomplish by emphasizing the Difference between Promises or Sure Words Uttered by God, and Covenants Entered INTO With God.

First, we can all observe what, earlier in this thread, was questionably a Covenant or Not...ie what has been described as "The Adamic Covenant".

There has been much well rounded and helpful debate/discussion for and against such.

What has been discussed as a Key Identifier of what can be considered "A Covenant" or not primarily boiled down to the following. Whether or not we can find, in scripture, a Definitive Reward Promised or Penalty Promised in Obedience or Disobedience to God's Command/Commands.

These Identifiers have been described as Enough Evidence of "A Covenant" MADE WITH God.

I do not believe there is enough evidence to prove the Existence of "Covenant" WITH God based on That Alone, or even if we add to That particular identifier, Other Things. Things such as a Clear and Distinct Mention of Significant and Extraordinarily Important Promises, such as becoming "Kings and Priests" unto God.

How then are we to Determine Where "A Covenant" is Actually Made or Not made?
Simple. God's Word Tells us very Clearly and Very Surely where we find them.

Gen 9:9.................................. BEHOLD I Establish My Covenant....
& vs15 .........................................The Lord MADE A Covenant.....
17:2-21....................................... BEHOLD, My Covenant.......

Ex. 34:10............................ BEHOLD, I Make A Covenant Before All........
& vs 27 ............................Of These Words, I HAVE MADE A Covenant.......

Duet 5:2&3.......................The Lord our God MADE A Covenant WITH US..........

And there are so many references to these Specific and Sure Covenants in the OT that there are far too many examples to list.

We should all be able to Identify the most Common Theme among these examples though right?

BEHOLD, BEHOLD, BEHOLD! He wanted and still wants us All to Recognize WHEN "A Covenant" Was Actually and Truly MADE OR Confirmed.

BEHOLD! I Make A Covenant!...it's Very Clear....there is ZERO Ambiguity Involved IF We Do Not Seek Other Identifiers to Determine IF A Covenant Exists or Not.

Now let me add a bit more...

Jer. 31
31 .....................................................BEHOLD,............................................. the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Did Everybody catch that?

..........................................................BEHOLD..........................................................

Yep there is that Identifier Again!

Then in Math.
Then in Mark
Then in Luke
........................ And he said unto them, ............THIS IS............. my blood of the new testament, which is shed.......................................................... FOR MANY........

...................................................................THIS IS...............................................................
...................................................................BEHOLD!............................................................
...........................................................They are Easy to Identify....................................







More later as time permits

[Sonbeam]

Jay,

What covenant are the Jews under right now? As per the NT scriptures.

sonbeam

I would suggest the Mosaic Covenant, the second one entered into on Mt Sinai by God with Moses. It had a sunset clause in it concerning the function of the Levi priesthood. The nation of Israel still have the visitation of their iniquities upon them which God decreed would last for two ages. The sign posts for when they will be redeemed is given by Paul in Romans 11:25-27 when the fullness of the time of the heathen Gentiles is complete and the Judgement of the kings of the earth and their armies occurs.

Well the Jews believe the Sinai Cov is still in effect, but Paul in his epistles and the book of Hebrews especially says otherwise Jay.

What is this "sunset clause" you are talking about?

[Sonbeam]

Thank you for answering my questions Abiding. I believe discussions like these help us to define what we truly believe and perhaps modify those beliefs if necessary to adhere to God’s Word.

Your account of God’s purpose for Adam and his offspring bring up some questions:

If as you say God’s purpose was for Adam and his descendants to live in the garden and enjoy the abundant life there continuously, why did God put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil there knowing that Adam would disobey His command and thereby thwart His purpose?

Sonbeam, God's purpose was the same in Eden as it is throughout scripture. To have a people who would love Him and choose to obey Him. Over and over and over, His people made wrong choices. Without a free will and the ability to make conscious choices and decisions, we would be no different than the animals or...robots.

I disagree. God’s purpose was to bring to Himself spiritual children (not natural/Adamic) who would worship Him in Spirit and in truth. God placed Adam under law/obedience in Eden knowing that man could not keep the law perfectly (evidenced by Adam breaking it as well evidenced later by the Israelites thorough breaking of the Sinai Cov), thereby creating the need for a Redeemer. A Redeemer Who would be the head of a new generation, a spiritual one that would be born through faith in His Son. These are the people God has always wanted to bring to Himself as John 4:23-24 affirms.


John 1:14

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 4:23-24

Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

John 18:36

Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”[/u]



One thing for all of us to remember is that the writings of the Old Testament are interpreted by what Jesus Christ said and later His apostles wrote as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Interpreting the OT writings as a closed cannon as though the Son of God Jesus Christ hadn’t come and revealed God’s Truth . . . . is what Judaism is doing.

[shorttribber]

One thing for all of us to remember is that the writings of the Old Testament are interpreted by what Jesus Christ said and later His apostles wrote as inspired by the Holy Spirit. Interpreting the OT writings as a closed cannon as though the Son of God Jesus Christ hadn’t come and revealed God’s Truth . . . . is what Judaism is doing

[Sonbeam]

Abiding,

I apologize for not addressing your comments to my questions in a timely manner, perhaps this post and the previous one will give you answers to the rest of your comments. But I will try to comment on some of the others too. (smile)

Since God did not specify a time frame or duration for the prohibition he gave Adam, would you agree that this would be a continuing prohibition that Adam and His offspring would be obligated to keep in order to continue to enjoy the garden’s ease and God’s fellowship?

Let me answer this way and hope it answers your question. No one EVER since the history of mankind was free to do whatever they wanted. There have been and still are boundaries for mankind to respect. If the Mosaic law was passed down orally from generation to generation for 2,000 yrs.?, I don't see it as an impossible or unreasonable endeavor.

.

I was hoping that you would agree with the fact that as long as God’s command not to eat of the tree was in force, Adam would be under law/obedience in order to remain in the garden or otherwise come under judgment of death.... as indeed it happened when he broke the law.



Rom 5:15

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.

Rom 5:8-10

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10 For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!



Once Adam left the garden, man was not under law. God afforded man the benefits of grace under the New Covenant, even though the New Cov was not officially ratified until Christ did so on the Cross with His blood.


Romans 5:13, 14

To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 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.

Rom 4:13

13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14 For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, 15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

[Abiding in His Word]

Sonbeam, God's purpose was the same in Eden as it is throughout scripture. To have a people who would love Him and choose to obey Him. Over and over and over, His people made wrong choices. Without a free will and the ability to make conscious choices and decisions, we would be no different than the animals or...robots.

I disagree. God’s purpose was to bring to Himself spiritual children (not natural/Adamic) who would worship Him in Spirit and in truth.

Sonbeam, are you saying that Adam, Eve, and their descendants would not have worshiped Him in Spirit and truth had they not sinned and continued dwelling in Eden?

God placed Adam under law/obedience in Eden knowing that man could not keep the law perfectly (evidenced by Adam breaking it as well evidenced later by the Israelites thorough breaking of the Sinai Cov), thereby creating the need for a Redeemer.

Are you saying that God purposely created a circumstance specifically designed to cause Adam to fail? And then punished him for it? So does God purposely create circumstances today that are specifically designed to cause one to (say) commit adultery just so he knows he needs a redeemer? If so, we can blame God for our sins. That's called "entrapment" in today's language. Scripture says differently:

Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. James 1:13-14

God is the source of all that is good and pure:

James 1:17 Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.

And the source of all that is sinful is the heart of mankind:

Matt 15:19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.

A Redeemer Who would be the head of a new generation, a spiritual one that would be born through faith in His Son. These are the people God has always wanted to bring to Himself as John 4:23-24 affirms.

Absolutely agree. A generation, a spiritual one is comprised of human beings, is it not? And a multitude of human beings is called "a people" or a "city" or a "nation." He started to make a people, a nation in Genesis and completes it in the NT with Jews and Gentiles human beings born of the spirit.

But we can't ignore the "building" of the nation; i.e. the beginning of the biblical narrative.

Exodus 7:16 ...."Let My people go, that they may serve Me in the wilderness.

Deu 9:14 'Let Me alone, that I may destroy them and blot out their name from under heaven; and I will make of you a nation mightier and greater than they.

Num 14:12 "I will smite them with pestilence and dispossess them, and I will make you into a nation greater and mightier than they."

Jer 11:2-4 "Hear the words of this covenant, and speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and say to them, 'Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, "Cursed is the man who does not heed the words of this covenant which I commanded your forefathers in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, 'Listen to My voice, and do according to all which I command you; so you shall be My people, and I will be your God,'

One thing for all of us to remember is that the writings of the Old Testament are interpreted by what Jesus Christ said and later His apostles wrote as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

To correctly interpret and understand the Bible, we need to include the historical and the contextual. The history of our nation, for example doesn't start at the year 2015. And the history of the Bible doesn't start in the Millenium. We were discussing, I thought, the story of Genesis which is the "beginning" of Biblical history and must be understood in that light just as the beginning of our nation must be understood within the context of previous years, possibly even back to British rule. Or at least back to 1776.

Interpreting the OT writings as a closed cannon as though the Son of God Jesus Christ hadn’t come and revealed God’s Truth . . . . is what Judaism is doing.

Of course. Jews are very knowledgeable in the history of Judaism but many have yet to see Jesus in the 300 prophecies in the OT referencing Him. Many are coming to know Him and those Jews (Messianic) now include the New Testament in their teachings.

I think we're approaching the topic of covenants in a very different way. I, for example, don't think covenants can be discussed without discussing, or at least understanding, how they came into being over the history of God's people. God's people started with His forming a nation who would be called by His name in the OT and ends in the NT with both Jews and Gentiles being followers of Christ. That continuity makes sense rather than starting with the NT and working backwards. Of course Jesus and Paul reference the OT many times because they are dealing with Jews who are familiar with those scriptures but are failing to see them in the light Jesus wants them to.

[Abiding in His Word]

Abiding,

I apologize for not addressing your comments to my questions in a timely manner, perhaps this post and the previous one will give you answers to the rest of your comments. But I will try to comment on some of the others too. (smile)

Not a problem at all, Sonbeam. We do have lives that extend beyond this board.

I was hoping that you would agree with the fact that as long as God’s command not to eat of the tree was in force, Adam would be under law/obedience in order to remain in the garden or otherwise come under judgment of death.... as indeed it happened when he broke the law.

Once Adam left the garden, man was not under law. God afforded man the benefits of grace under the New Covenant, even though the New Cov was not officially ratified until Christ did so on the Cross with His blood.

Rom 4:13

13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14 For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, 15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

These three quotes seem contradictory to me. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying in the first one, that Adam was under a law in the garden. But scripture says there was no law until the Mosaic Law. "...Rom 5:13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Then in the second quote, you are saying he was not under the law when he left the garden.

In the third quote, you have quoted a verse referencing Abraham and arrived at the conclusion that that according to Romans 4:13 there was no transgression by Abraham since where there is no law, there is no transgression. That's true but there was still sin which brought death.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam....

In it's context, Paul is convincing the Roman Jews that they are not saved by the Mosaic Law. He argues that Abraham was saved by faith. Abraham was born some 1900 yrs. after Adam and 430 yrs. before Moses. (don't quote me on the exact dates) but the point Paul was making if that no one was saved by the Mosaic Law, but by faith just as Abraham was and we are.

I noticed you never refer to the law as the Mosaic Law but seem to use the (small l) law interchangeably with the (capital L) Law of Moses. That's why, I think, you've been able to refer to Adam as being "under the law" when scripture doesn't say he was.

[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, however, if he repented of his sins, then God would have forgiven him for his transgression.

OK, I'd like to revisit this for just a moment. As I was reading through Genesis, I kept noticing the word "surely" as in Genesis 2:17 which Jay went to great lengths to explain as most likely meaning the "second death." But that Hebrew word H4191 was different from the other "surely's" I was seeing. For example:

Gen 18:10 He said, "I will surely (H7725) return to you at this time next year; and behold, Sarah your wife will have a son."

Gen 18:18 since Abraham will surely (H1961) become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed?

Gen 37:33 Then he examined it and said, "It is my son's tunic. A wild beast has devoured him; Joseph has surely (H2963) been torn to pieces!"

Gen 50:25 Then Joseph made the sons of Israel swear, saying, "God will surely (H6485) take care of you, and you shall carry my bones up from here.

We could find more of these "surely" words or others in the OT that are duplicates within a verse, but the purpose imo seems to be obvious...and that is to emphasize the point made within the context.

When I googled the duplication of Hebrew words, I found a number of sites that confirmed that two Hebrew words following one another indicate emphasis.

At the Ancient Hebrew site, I found this:

Emphasis is often placed on a Hebrew verb by writing it twice.

So I have to conclude that the words "surely die" in Genesis 2:17 does not refer to a second death but a strong emphasis on the warning to Adam not to eat from the tree.

[Jay Ross]

Abiding, your explanation should be applicable in every case then but it is not and as such, this methodology of interpretation needs to be looked at within the context of each case.

In the case of Gen 2:17, "mowt" is found used many time elsewhere in the Old Testament and it is translated as "die" not "surely."

There is also the case as found in Hosea 6:2 where the simplified transliterated text reads

Hosea 6:2: - "Y­chayeenuw miyomaayim bayowm Hash­liyshiy y­qimeenuw w­nich­yeh l­paanaayw"

where "miyomaayim bayowm" is understood and interpreted as meaning "After two days" as translated in the NKJV as: -

Hosea 6:2
After two days He will revive us;
On the third day He will raise us up,
That we may live in His sight.
NKJV

But if we apply this logic, it should have been translated as "After many days" but the contextual concept being presented is that After the time period of "two days of the Lord," where he is walking contrary to the nation of Israel , that He will redeem the Nation of Israel, and on the third day he will lift them up once more to live in sight and relationship with Him.

Abiding, I would humbly suggest that a little more digging into the actual meaning of the words is needed and a reading of another person's misguided "scholarly" work does not strengthen your humble opinion as to what is presented within the English translations.

Could I be allowed to suggest that you need to do more "hands on" research into the meaning of the original Hebrew texts before either of us continue this discussion further as we are each arguing from an uneven foundation.