THE Covenants

[Abiding in His Word]

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.

Of course the context always needs to be examined. My point was that duplicate words reflects an emphasis of the words within the context.

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."

"Surely" defines the emphasis in the verses I posted. In English, we wouldn't make sense of die die...or much much...or great great in a verse.

Here are several more duplicates that emphasize the words in context:

Gen 17:6 And I will make thee exceeding H3966 H3966 fruitful,

Gen 22:17 indeed I will greatly H1288 bless H1288 you, and I will greatly H7235 multiply H7235 your seed

Judges 13:6 …."A man of God came to me and his appearance H4758 was like the appearance H4758 of the angel of God, very awesome...

1 Sam. 23:3 ….How much H637 H3588 more H637 H3588 then if we go to Keilah against the ranks of the Philistines?"

Now, I could do as you suggest and look up the number of times each occurs in scripture, but that is not necessary to arrive at the conclusion that the purpose of duplication of words is for emphasis. Regardless of the subject being emphasized, the principle is the same. You have simply chosen the word "death/die" evidently as support for your "second death" theory rather than a simple emphasis which I see as a stretch to say the least.

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.

It was my own "scholarly" work that enabled me to arrive at the emphasis purpose of duplicated words. I merely looked for confirmation following my own observations of a number of scriptures. I found that confirmation at several sites, but found the one I posted to be at least a credible source of confirmation and thought you might accept that as well.

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.

Sure, Jay. We can discontinue discussing this particular subject, but I must say I feel my research is sufficient for me to hold fast to the conclusion I've stated. You obviously are as firm in your understanding and research and I respect that even though I disagree.

[Sonbeam]

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.

Cmon ST!

How about the fact that man was given a LAW/Command with the stipulation of penalty of death if he broke it. And man did! And as a result ALL men, all human beings were condemned.

No other "transaction," covenant, has adversely affected All human beings as a result. AND established the need for the Redeemer, the Son of God, to be sent by God to pay for the sins of All men.

How's that for "ZERO ambiguity?"


sonbeam

[Sonbeam]

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?

Better late than never Abiding. Here's my answer to your question:

The alternative would be that God did not know beforehand that Adam would break the command He gave Him. A most unsettling thought! But not supported by scripture.

Ps 139:4

Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.

Psalm 44:20-21

If we had forgotten the name of our God Or extended our hands to a strange god, Would not God find this out? For He knows the secrets of the heart.

Job 42:2

“I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted.

Ps 33:11

But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.

[shorttribber]

No other "transaction," covenant, has adversely affected All human beings as a result. AND established the need for the Redeemer, the Son of God, to be sent by God to pay for the sins of All men.How's that for "ZERO ambiguity?"

If it had Zero Ambiguity then there would never arise any discussion regarding it. Regarding whether it was a profoundly Important Command Only....or if it was an Actual Covenant.

There are this and that ideas I've read about "Different Types" of Covenants...ie Conditional/Unconditional and yada yada yada.....

But for me, I see the Word of God Alone that gives us Complete and Absolute Clarity where God has Truly Made a Covenant and where He has Made "A Promise" or "Command, whether the "Command" has Positive or Negative Consequences attached or not.

Because the Lord has Given us such Clear and Definitive Covenants...by using such language as ....BEHOLD, BEHOLD, there is Good reason to believe that These Places in scripture are, Factually, the Only Places In Scripture where He has Made Actual Covenants.

That Is Truly Unambiguous.

[shorttribber]

No other "transaction," covenant, has adversely affected All human beings as a result

Because there exists a "Transaction", does not provide Proof of a "Covenant". After the same manner, there can Exist an "Error" where No Sin Exists.
Every Sin Is an Error, but not Every Error Is a sin.
I could come to a Wrong Conclusion to a mathematic question, but that Error is not a Sin.

After the same manner, because there is a "Transaction" does not Ensure a "Covenant".
because I pay for a package of gum at a local store, and a "Transaction" has occurred, I have in no way entered into a "Covenant" with that store.
Even if I've written a Check, and by doing so have in essence "Promised" payment, that Action Alone does "Bind ME IN Covenant WITH" that store.
Even the SURE Promises of God, are just that, SURE PROMISES. Promises Alone, Even God's Promises, do not Rise to the Place where He Say's "Behold....I Make A Covenant", and how much Greater is That Abrahamic Covenant that WAS MADE By PROMISE, whereby He Could Swear by No Greater than Himself?


Somebody better TIE ME DOWN!!!!!

[Sonbeam]

No other "transaction," covenant, has adversely affected All human beings as a result

Because there exists a "Transaction", does not provide Proof of a "Covenant".

ST

I used the word "transaction" deliberately and in quotes for the sake of those like yourself who do not recognize the command God gave Adam as a law and His stated punishment as a covenant.

But even if you and others want to classify what happened in the garden as a transaction, a contract, an agreement, etc., the scriptures are clear that Adam's disobedience/sin impacted all mankind like no other transaction, contract, agreement, or covenant imposed by God on man.

But I do classify God's command to Adam and the expressed punishment as a covenant. So we disagree on this.

One command or 600 plus as in the Sinai Covenant with stated consequences is the same principle used by God when He dealt with Adam in the garden. And man commits sin when he breaks even one law or command when God has expressed punishment as a consequence.

James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

After the same manner, there can Exist an "Error" where No Sin Exists.

Are you saying that Adam did not sin when he disobeyed???

[Abiding in His Word]

Are you saying that God purposely created a circumstance specifically designed to cause Adam to fail?

Better late than never Abiding. Here's my answer to your question:

The alternative would be that God did not know beforehand that Adam would break the command He gave Him. A most unsettling thought! But not supported by scripture.

Ps 139:4
Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.

Psalm 44:20-21
If we had forgotten the name of our God Or extended our hands to a strange god, Would not God find this out? For He knows the secrets of the heart.

Job 42:2
“I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted.

Ps 33:11
But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.

Hi Sonbeam,

Knowing is very different than causing. Situations arise and each person chooses how they will respond or react. That's known as free will. God's foreknowledge does not normally preclude man's free will. I say "normally" because there may be times when He intervened in the affairs of man, i.e. when He stayed the hand of Isaac from sacrificing his son and provided a ram as a sacrifice.

Just want to add that I find most of your understanding of a number of things very identifiable as Reformed/Calvinist/Covenantal theology. That includes your two-covenant understanding:

For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith speaks of God condescending to reveal Himself to humanity by means of covenant. It then divides the entire history of the Bible into just two covenants: the “covenant of works” in Adam and the “covenant of grace” in Christ. The covenant of works was God’s arrangement with Adam and Eve before their fall into sin. The covenant of grace governed the rest of the Bible. In this view, all stages of the covenant of grace were the same in substance. They differed only as God administered His one covenant of grace in Christ in various ways throughout biblical history.

Along these same lines, a number of more recent Reformed theologians have affirmed the covenantal unity of Scripture by relating particular biblical covenants to what the New Testament calls “the kingdom of God.”

Reformed Theology

As I said, there is an "overlapping" of theologies in many Baptist churches which congregations are unaware they are Reformed and/or Calvinist in origin. After a bit of researching, I understood the reason for our disagreement in the area of covenants.

If you're interested, here is more information regarding Reformed theology vs. hyper Calvinism. I believe some of the more well-known teachers in this area are John MacArthur, John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Mark Dever, Tim Keller, Al Mohler and R. C. Sproul .

[shorttribber]

Are you saying that Adam did not sin when he disobeyed???

No, of course not, he clearly sinned.

I only said that to show that because there is a transaction...that does not make it a covenant.

[Sonbeam]

A flare up of a couple of chronic physical problems have kept me from continuing to participate in this thread or even be able to check in and read the posts on this forum. . . something I have really missed doing.

Perhaps some time in the future we can take this topic up again.

Briefly Abiding,

I do not hold to the Calvinist, Reformed doctrine. I will show the very marked differences between what I believe and that "covenantal" doctrine sometime.



sonbeam

[Abiding in His Word]

I'm so sorry to hear of your painful condition, Sonbeam. Will say a prayer for you!

[Sonbeam]

Thank you Abiding! I appreciate and welcome your prayers!