Timeline for Israelite covenant: everlasting or obsolete?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 29 at 16:56 | comment | added | another theory | very helpful answer indeed | |
| Nov 22, 2021 at 6:45 | comment | added | Austin | @Robert you're one of my favorite writers here. Great response. It's annoying that English translations often create apparent theological contradictions by so consistently translating olam as some infinite time period. | |
| Aug 11, 2021 at 3:19 | comment | added | Bob Jones | @Robert 'which he confirmed to Jacob as a statute, to Israel as an everlasting covenant,' Why did he mention Jacob and Israel when they are the same guy? Jacob refers to the flesh, and Israel refers to the spirit. It was a law to the flesh. But to Israel, man יש joined to God אל by revelation ר it is an everlasting covenant. sensusplenior.net/wiki/MYHB%20-%20Teaching%20-%20Israel | |
| Feb 8, 2021 at 11:53 | comment | added | curiousdannii♦ | All the covenants may be everlasting, but it's still not inaccurate to call the Mosaic a "conditional" covenant, in that what the covenant meant for each generation would depend on their actions. Deuteronomy contained both blessings and curses. In contrast the Abrahamic covenant of Genesis 15 contains no conditional clauses - no matter how Abraham and his descendants acted God was promising to give them a certain area of land. | |
| Feb 8, 2021 at 11:27 | comment | added | Nigel J | From what you say above, I am understanding olam berith to be a single covenant (not multiple covenants, as some suggest) and it is 'age-enduring' as Young translates the word. Thus I am understanding this to be exactly the same covenant as that which is referred to in Hebrews 13:20 'the everlasting testament' (diatheke). Up-voted +1. | |
| Feb 8, 2021 at 2:14 | history | edited | Robert | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3501 characters in body
|
| Feb 8, 2021 at 0:00 | history | answered | Robert | CC BY-SA 4.0 |