Thursday, June 21, 2012

Thoughts on the Abrahamic covenant


Picture source with a very interesting blog post itself.

Been a while since I did a blog post so I figured I submit this. This is from my class discussion at Regent University. The topic was our thoughts on the Abrahamic covenant. 

One highlight of the Abrahamic covenant is that it showed that while one of faith may sin, grace still abounds.  The example I refer to is the issue with Hagar and Ishmael. [1]  While Sara had a lapse of faith and Abram may have had other misplaced judgment, God not only blessed Abram, but gave grace and changed Abram’s name to Abraham and gave a greater promise. [2] Though, I somewhat smile that initially the covenant was one sided, later Abraham was told to circumcise himself and whole household, which makes me cringe whenever I read it. [3] My smile is from wondering how connected the tie between circumcision and the issues with Hagar and Ishmael were.
The similarities between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant is the extension of grace and expansion of the initial covenant. Like with the Abrahamic covenant God extends grace to a people who did nothing but are descendants of Abraham. [4] God keeps his promise to Abraham as now the Hebrews are a great nation. [5]  The differences between the two covenants are that of community separation and individual separation to be holy unto God. As I recall from my past studies, both covenants were based on a type of contract. [6] Abram’s cutting of the carcass was a type of contract used at the time. Likewise the Mosaic covenant was based on ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties with some differences. [7] Again, the overall theme is God’s grace to both a person (Abraham) and a nation (the Hebrews). For me, this shows God’s overall worthiness to keep his word. This theme is displayed from Genesis after the fall and even to Cain after slaying Able. While man progressively steps further from God, his hands of grace reach more and more out to his beloved created image. This theme that fully is seen later in Christ Jesus fulfilling the covenant by not only His life and death, but his resurrection.
---------------------------------------------------

1.  1.     (Genesis 16 n.d.)
2.   2;    (Genesis 16; 17)
3.    3/  Ibid
4.   4.    (Genesis 17: 9-10)
5.    5.   (Exodus 2:25)
6.    6.   (Bibletools.com 2012)
7.    7.   (Hill 2009)

Citations
Bibletools.com. Covenant, Symbolized by Divided Carcasses. 2012. http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/6867/Covenant-Symbolized-by-Divided-Carcasses.htm (accessed 6 21, 2012).
"Genesis 16." (NIV)
"Genesis 17." (NIV)
"Exodus 2: 25." (NIV)
Hill, Andrew E and Walton, John H. A Survey of the Old Testament,. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.









2 comments:

Chris Welch - 07000INTUNE said...

I just don't know.
Know what?
Whether the carcass thing was related to other covenantal things at the time.
Do the other inhabitants of earth indulge in covenantal stuff because it is a distortion of God's pattern with the first ever peoples.

Like the Jews not drinking milk in their coffee after a meal is a distortion of not boiling a kid animal in its mother's milk. Give a few hundred years and developing Coffee mate and bob's your uncle.

It's one of those chicken and egg questions.

I have noticed that people who study in college as you have just done, introduce these "carcass" type bits of knowledge with the assurance that because some college professors have consensually agreed it to be so, then it must be so. What's their authority? Sometimes they have some. But it's good to be objective enough to stand back and ask.

Sometimes it's good to think how God has worked in our lives and work backwards....

I mean , Abraham looked up at some stars...and God spoke to him.

perhaps the whole carcass sequence was just as Divine from start to finish.....
certainly I bet other people's doing similar practices never has a flaming pot flying in the air between the animal pieces....

not your average human practice to arrange there.

I'm busy reassessing everything.
As a good charismatic I spiritualised the whole Nephilim thing....and thought Derek Prince rather carnally minded to say that real fallen angels were having sex with human beings to produce large human beings....what became gods in our mythologies.

Turns out ALL the New Testament writers thought this and referred to the Book of Enoch more or less as a divine text. And all Jewish rabbis pretty much thought the same too....it's only our modern revisionism that can't accept anything beyond a cornflakes packet.

Interesting I have noted how many of the civilisations that have alternate views from Greco-Roman ones, have already been slaughtered or drastically reduced like native Indians to a mere few thousand well contained folk.

Someone, unlike most professors, who does know what he's on about is Bill Cooper in "After the Flood". Not many professors have spent 30 years trawling proof texts on records of genealogies. I can't think of many things more tedious. What he found,the world over, is that apart from only a few minor niggles....the genealogies from various people groups are incredibly concurrent.

Something that no Rothschild/Rockefeller induced professor would stand by...but then they haven't done the study and only believe the perpetual lies of everybody else.

Why is it that history only begins really with the Romans? Bill says there is more than we think on 1000BC - 0 AD.

iggy said...

Hi Chris! Though I answered a bit on FB I thought what the heck...

And sometime I will give you and answer, but right now I have finals. Though the idea of the carcass could have originated with God, (like which came first the Noah of Gilgamesh or Noah of the Bible?) but as far as I recall this was a "blood covenant" that signified that "If I break this covenant, then let my be as this carcass cut apart so that you can walk between it". It was a sign in that time that someone was serious about their agreement.