Are God's Covenants Conditional or Unconditional?
With Whom Does God Keep His Part of the Covenant?
For How Long Does He Keep the Covenant?
What Happens to Those Who Do Not Live up to the Terms of the Covenant?

Deuteronomy 7:
v8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
v9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;
v10 And repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face.
v11 Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them.
v12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers:

Without question, this covenant was made with Israel way back yonder in the old days. Was it conditional, or unconditional? Bible scholars of recent renown apparently have studied this issue, and developed a way to distinguish between the two. Dr. Pentecost offers this:

A divine covenant is (1) a sovereign disposition of God, whereby He establishes an unconditional or declarative compact with man, obligating Himself, in grace, by the untrammelled formula, "I WILL," to bring to pass of Himself definite blessings for the covenanted ones or (2) a proposal of God, wherein He promises, in a conditional or mutual compact with man, by the contingent formula, "IF YE WILL," to grant special blessings to man provided he fulfills perfectly certain conditions, and to execute definite punishment in case of his failure. (Things To Come, pp 67-68).

Such a method should make it quite easy to recognize the conditional or unconditional nature of a covenant; You don't need to apply logic or reason, you don't need to compare Scripture with Scripture, you simply follow the formula., and count the "IF's" and the "IF YE WILL's."

These same experts, guided by their 'formula," declare that the Abrahamic covenant was unconditional, because nowhere in the covenant does the formula, "IF YE WILL," appear, although the formula "I WILL" is found, expressed or understood, 7 times. Here is the covenant:

GENESIS 12:
v1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: v2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: v3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

But is this a bonafide unconditional covenant? The phrase, "expressed or understood," is the key to determining whether or not the covenant was unconditional. If the "I WILL" can be either expressed or understood, then so can the "IF YE WILL." And all we need to do is ask ourselves, "What would have happened if Abraham had not obeyed God, and had not left his father's homeland as God had commanded?"

I believe that God had His heart set on establishing His nation in Canaan land. Abraham, of course, obeyed, and departed as he was told (Gen. 12:4). If he hadn't, and if the covenant had been unconditional, then God would have been force to bring Canaan to Haran, where Abraham's father was living. Jerusalem, today, might have been somewhere in Turkey land. And why didn't Israel get their kingdom when promised?
Any comments?


Patrick

biblefacts.net

This one is an unconditional covenant!

In ancient times, the custom for making a blood covenant involved slaughtering animals and cutting them up and lining up the pieces in parallel rows. Both parties to the covenant would walk together between the rows, which made the terms of the covenant mandatory on both of the parties. This type of covenant was conditional, meaning that if one party broke the covenant then the other party was no longer obligated to keep the terms of the covenant. In the case of the Abrahamic Covenant, Abraham cut up some animals and arranged the pieces in parallel rows, but God was the only one who passed between the pieces (Genesis 15:9-21). Therefore, only God was obligated to keep the terms of the covenant, which makes this an unconditional covenant.
(Gen 12:1-7; 13:14-17; 15:1-21; 17:1:21; 22:15-18)

Covenant's are two way streets, so to speak. Any covenant has conditions. Count the "ifs" of the NT. The promises of God have always been conditional, because God is holy and righteous in His ways. If we learn of Him and receive Him, we inherit the promises. God does not respect persons.

<><

John

In respect to the New Covenant, I believe that the scriptures say that we participate in this through maintaining a constant, abiding faith in Jesus the Messiah. This is the only condition of the New Covenant. This faith normally will eventually bear the fruit of the Spirit in our lives and lead us to obediance and repentance from sin as a lifestyle.

Thank you for defining "faith" as a substance that leads to action which is a far cry from the devils version "I believe"

The "New covenant" is upon the heart in the transformed son of God. It really isnt as "new" as it is a fufillment of the demands of the old in a person that has been enabled to meet his end of the covenant because his nature has been changed.

That notion is a common, satanic deception. Simply mental ascent, or saying "I believe" is a worthless thing if it is not coupled with a genuine relationship with Jesus. Even this has been twisted around to be absent of any real repentance and discipleship. A REAL relationship with Jesus will produce repentance, love for God and our fellow man, and the character of Jesus developing in our hearts.

This love for God and our fellow man is another area where the devil has deceived masses of people. Real, Biblical love will always call us to repentance and disipleship. Biblical love will never hide the truth just because it may hurt. Biblical love will really actually love the sinners (like gays, Nazis, terrorists and child molestors to mention a few that will test whether or not you really have God's love for people) and hate the sins. Biblical love will not simply "tolerate" sinners' unrepentant lifestyles. Biblical love will tell the sinners what God has to say about their sin as well as the hope that Jesus offers unconditionally to any one who will genuinely repent and believe the gospel.

I agree with AW on this issue

The church is built on matters of salvation requirements

.... but the Lord also preserves national Israel as an ensign to the nations reflecting His hand in the destiny of humanity

AW has eloquently made this point as well

The church is one thing .... with out national identity

The dividing of Israel and the nations is an entirely different focus in scripture and this separation runs throughout the Bible across the broad spectrum of the Lord's intended purposes

If one wants to grasp a high level of understanding of the prophetic visions of the Bible prophets .... one must know and recognize this profound truth

Many have abandon this knowledge in exchange for replacement theologies that mix these two separate lines of focus rather than rightly dividing the substance

When this is done the door is open for gross misinterpretations which often times are the ways of those who come to deceive and to create falsehood for personal gain

AW says:



This unbelief is laced through the message to the seven churches..If you tolerate Jezebel..what does that mean? It means you don't believe what the scripture says about this. You are presumptuous about grace. What does it mean if you are lukewarm?.. It's one thing to read the scripture and another thing to believe them...and what about dead Sardis? Even though the message is different to the different churches it always comes down to unbelief...

People find it really difficult to believe that God is all powerful and that he can rule in the affairs of men regardless of their free will. Understanding and believing this is key to all belief. I guess l have to wonder if you can have this mind set with out help...

Some people like myself believe but we don't know all it says..but when we hear and believe we act on it.

Others know everything it says but don't really believe it. They think the human mind is capable of changing things. They need to focus on the power of God over men..

Stephen says:

Stephen l know what you mean about Israel but what do you mean about dividing nations?

Close. But not quite. The covenant is found in Gen. 12:1-3. That was conditional. Abraham obeyed. Thereafter, God merely confirmed that He would fulfill all promises of that covenant because Abraham did obey.

Patrick

I agree.

Patrick

You won't obey if you don't believe.

Why do you say that Gen 13:1-3 was a covenant? I see it as a promise (which is just a sure as a covenant since God is the one who made the promise).

God's covenant with Abraham happened in Gen 15:17-21.

17 When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. 18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, 19 the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, 20 the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21 the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.”

"Stephen l know what you mean about Israel but what do you mean about dividing nations?"

>The Lord separates national Israel "from" all other nations and has kept this distinction

>He also set the boundaries for the nation's in the ancient Middle East just after the flood

>The land of Egypt, the land of Canaan, the land of Magog and his brothers, and the land of Shinar

>He later carved the land of Israel out of the land of the Canaanites

The covenanant is always made through a woman...

Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise,
Gal 4:24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar—
Gal 4:25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—
Gal 4:26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Ephraim who led the ten northern tribes, was born of a GENTILE woman, the wife of Joseph...

Interesting that Joseph (the stick of the tribe of Ephraim) and Joshua the Ephramite are end time Christ like figures.

Because Jesus who fulfilled the time of the Jews said that it was the time of the gentiles that needed to be fulfilled do that the end would come...

The end of an age, so that the Time of Jesus may begin.

It is Joseph (Messiah Ben Joseph, a Christ like figure) who is the sacrifice in the Holy of holies, Moises compares Joseph, to a bullock, and the tunic of Joseph was diped in the blood of a kid goat.

These are the two animals whose blood is sprinkled on the mercy seat 7 times each for a total of 14 "times".
Interesting thing is that there is 14 days (times) from trumpets to Tabernacles.

Because Jesus son of David born of a Jewish woman died physically on the cross (lamb of the sheep fold), the only way Jesus fulfills Atonement is in the spiritual sacrifice because after Jesus there could be no other physical sacrifice. Passover

These are the 2 great works of redemption of Jesus, once on earth and the other in heaven (spiritual sacrifice) to redeem heaven, the invisible. Jesus redeems all creation, In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth.
"and I saw a lamb that looks as though it had been slain". Revelation 5

Only then will Jesus be revealed with the saints on earth...

Just the opposite, Adam. Gen 12:1-3 was a conditional covenant; Abraham needed to leave his father's home. In Genesis 15, God made a covenant with Abraham that to his seed He had given the land, etcetera. Nothing was required from Abraham. This was an unconditional covenant on Abraham's part. This elaborates upon the promise of the original covenant, that of Gen. 12.

The term "seed" is quite significant here, because later it will b recognized that the promise was not to Abraham's "offspring," as such, which would indicate many of Abraham's actual offspring, but to "thy seed," as of one, which was Christ, and through Him many others (Gentiles), which are not Abraham's actual offspring. "Offspring" is not the best translation.

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

So, believe it or not, the promise ostensibly, was to the Jews, but in actuality, because God is omniscient, the land was promised to Gentile believers, not to Jews. When the Jews rejected and crucified Christ, all those promises became null and void. Jews lost any and all "divine right" to the land. They even lost the right to be called "Jews," having been concluded in unbelief, and made just like the Gentiles (Romans 11:32). I believe the following verse may refer to that:

Matthew 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

The real Jews, those first century Israelites who had faith in Jesus Christ, were raptured at the close of their nation around AD70. (this is something Preterists and Futurists are unable to see from Scriptures, apparently. Preterists think everybody was raptured, Futurists think nobody was raptured.) And all of the tribes of the Old Testament were raised, and taken into heaven. Whether spiritually, or physically is immaterial (no pun intended).

Patrick

Do you have a modern map or link with those boundries?

This is a new one! Being neither a futurist nor a pred-i-torist.

"This is a new one! Being neither a futurist nor a pred-i-torist"

>A new twist of preterism only

>Partial preterism has a number of versions

Miki,

"Do you have a modern map or link with those boundaries?'

>There are no composite graphical maps of the early ancient post-flood settlements in existence other than what one might draw from available informational references

>What one can know are the biblical accounts of these settlements and further development of the locations, archaeological findings, and recorded history of the area

>The Lord IDs them in Genesis 10 and Ezekiel 38

>The picture is something like this when all are taken into account in clockwise fashion:

>The land of Egypt, the land of Canaan, the greater land of Magog [descendants of Japheth] and his brothers Mesheck, Tubal, Gomer, Togarmah, the northern branches of Cush [Nimrod, the grandson of Ham] and Put, and the land of Persia to the east], and the land of Shinar [southern Babylonia ... Iraq]

>The Babylonians of the land of Shinar later divided and Asshur [descendant of Shem] migrated north to build Nineveh on the upper Tigris River

>This original land of Magog became the core of the greater Assyrian Empire which covered most of the Middle East

>These form a crescent from southwest to southeast

>Abraham [descendant of Shem] relocated from UR in southern Babylonia to the land of Canaan where Israel was later implanted

Stephen, are your guns loaded?
Religious wars have been fought by people of one belief system against people of another belief system for centuries, both arrogantly and presumptuously claiming
biblical endorsement.

Damn the truth! Pass the ammunition!

Patrick
BibleFacts.Net

Dump the preterism!

O.K. Consider preterism dumped.

Now, teach me your ways.

What is the "Palestinian Covenant?"

Patrick

Did he go directly from Ur to Canaan?

Patrick

This would have been impossible given the the geographical terrain of the Middle East unless he chartered a plane

So, what route did he take?

Patrick

You know what route he took

Did you ever think for one moment, the Lord might have led Him?

Gen 12:1 Now the LORD had said to Abram: "Get out of your country, From your family And from your father's house, To a land that I will show you.

When the Lord commands me to intercede at certain areas The Lord litterally leds me where I am to go.

No surprise that God who doesn't change did the same in times past...

The Lord did lead Abraham .... all the way

Anyone who has a basic understanding of the scriptures knows this fact

I think I know. First God prompted Abram's father to pack up his family, including Abram, leave Ur, and head for Canaan.

But he ended up Haran, somewhere in Turkey land.

Actually, according to the Bible, Haran is the first place where God spoke to Abram, commanding him to leave, and head for an unknown country that He would show him.

But, of course, I suspect that your story is different.

Patrick