halconero Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 I've been reading through Genesis lately, and have been pondering on the nature of the Abrahamic covenant. It is obvious that similar blessings had been offered to Abraham's progenitors, and that the key differences introduced by God's dealings with Abraham were circumcision and the right to Canaan. We are taught that we are potential heirs to Abraham and his covenants. Putting the rights to certain lands aside, I began wondering why we called the promises given to him (namely a large and uncountable seed, as well as exaltation in heaven) the Abrahamic covenant when it was available to so many. It was upon studying the instance given in Genesis 17 where God changes Abram's name to Abraham that I gained a deeper understanding of concepts already taught to me in other places, namely the temple. Abram (meaning 'exalted father') becomes Abraham ("Father of a multitude"), and Sarai becomes Sarah ('princess' in Hebrew, 'queen' in Akkadian; some argue that Sarah is actually Sarayahu, meaning God-like Queen). This names are as much a token of their covenants as was circumcision. What does this have to do with us? Everything. In being endowed and sealed in the temple we are promised the blessings of Abraham, and to see their seed extend forevermore Furthermore, all those who receive and keep the associated covenants in the temple are promised to be crowned in royalty in God's kingdom. Every man becomes a Father of a Multitude, and every woman becomes a Princess, Queen, or even God-like Queen. The Abrahamic Covenant is named so partially because of its relationship to Israel's predecessor, but also because the faithful becomes Abrahams and Sarahs themselves should they accept Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and keep his covenants. That's my nonsensical rant for the day! 3
CV75 Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) I've been reading through Genesis lately, and have been pondering on the nature of the Abrahamic covenant. It is obvious that similar blessings had been offered to Abraham's progenitors, and that the key differences introduced by God's dealings with Abraham were circumcision and the right to Canaan. We are taught that we are potential heirs to Abraham and his covenants. Putting the rights to certain lands aside, I began wondering why we called the promises given to him (namely a large and uncountable seed, as well as exaltation in heaven) the Abrahamic covenant when it was available to so many. It was upon studying the instance given in Genesis 17 where God changes Abram's name to Abraham that I gained a deeper understanding of concepts already taught to me in other places, namely the temple. Abram (meaning 'exalted father') becomes Abraham ("Father of a multitude"), and Sarai becomes Sarah ('princess' in Hebrew, 'queen' in Akkadian; some argue that Sarah is actually Sarayahu, meaning God-like Queen). This names are as much a token of their covenants as was circumcision. What does this have to do with us? Everything. In being endowed and sealed in the temple we are promised the blessings of Abraham, and to see their seed extend forevermore Furthermore, all those who receive and keep the associated covenants in the temple are promised to be crowned in royalty in God's kingdom. Every man becomes a Father of a Multitude, and every woman becomes a Princess, Queen, or even God-like Queen. The Abrahamic Covenant is named so partially because of its relationship to Israel's predecessor, but also because the faithful becomes Abrahams and Sarahs themselves should they accept Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and keep his covenants. That's my nonsensical rant for the day! Cool! In the temple we are also as Adams ("first men") and Eves ("mothers of all living"). It is interesting to me also that the name "Adam" is derived from "earth" and "Eve" from "to live (or to breathe)" (Hebrew) -- put the two together and we have "earth to live" (as opposed to smitten with a curse) or "Earth Lives". Edited March 7, 2014 by CV75 1
Calm Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 I've been reading through Genesis lately, and have been pondering on the nature of the Abrahamic covenant. It is obvious that similar blessings had been offered to Abraham's progenitors, and that the key differences introduced by God's dealings with Abraham were circumcision and the right to Canaan. We are taught that we are potential heirs to Abraham and his covenants. Putting the rights to certain lands aside, I began wondering why we called the promises given to him (namely a large and uncountable seed, as well as exaltation in heaven) the Abrahamic covenant when it was available to so many. It was upon studying the instance given in Genesis 17 where God changes Abram's name to Abraham that I gained a deeper understanding of concepts already taught to me in other places, namely the temple. Abram (meaning 'exalted father') becomes Abraham ("Father of a multitude"), and Sarai becomes Sarah ('princess' in Hebrew, 'queen' in Akkadian; some argue that Sarah is actually Sarayahu, meaning God-like Queen). This names are as much a token of their covenants as was circumcision. What does this have to do with us? Everything. In being endowed and sealed in the temple we are promised the blessings of Abraham, and to see their seed extend forevermore Furthermore, all those who receive and keep the associated covenants in the temple are promised to be crowned in royalty in God's kingdom. Every man becomes a Father of a Multitude, and every woman becomes a Princess, Queen, or even God-like Queen. The Abrahamic Covenant is named so partially because of its relationship to Israel's predecessor, but also because the faithful becomes Abrahams and Sarahs themselves should they accept Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and keep his covenants. That's my nonsensical rant for the day!My mother's patriarchal blessing indicated she would have children numbered like the stars like Sarah of old. I like how that ties in with what you say here.
Calm Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 ""Eve" from "to live (or to breathe)" (Hebrew"Is this related to the words used to describe the Spirit of God hovering above rather waters ( I vaguely remember it having something to do with breathing) or with Gid breathing life into Adam?
CV75 Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 ""Eve" from "to live (or to breathe)" (Hebrew"Is this related to the words used to describe the Spirit of God hovering above rather waters ( I vaguely remember it having something to do with breathing) or with Gid breathing life into Adam?I don't know -- hopefully a scholar will pipe in... The Spirit of God (or the Gods--Abraham 4:2) moved and brooded upon the face of the waters. If "spirit" is "breath" it could also be a way of saying their word (spoken word, as in "Let there be...") caused the spirit creation and unorganized matter to organize into the various heavenly spheres and life forms. Whenever I see "Gods" plural, I think of Heavenly Parents as well as The Father, Son, Holy Ghost "quorum".
mfbukowski Posted March 8, 2014 Posted March 8, 2014 In being endowed and sealed in the temple we are promised the blessings of Abraham, and to see their seed extend forevermore Furthermore, all those who receive and keep the associated covenants in the temple are promised to be crowned in royalty in God's kingdom. Every man becomes a Father of a Multitude, and every woman becomes a Princess, Queen, or even God-like Queen. The Abrahamic Covenant is named so partially because of its relationship to Israel's predecessor, but also because the faithful becomes Abrahams and Sarahs themselves should they accept Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and keep his covenants. That's my nonsensical rant for the day!Kind of. In the Endowment we are called up and annointed to receive those blessings conditioned on our righteousness.
halconero Posted March 8, 2014 Author Posted March 8, 2014 Kind of. In the Endowment we are called up and annointed to receive those blessings conditioned on our righteousness. Agreed. When I said "promised the blessings" I meant that as a conditional blessing. Just how we talk about the blessings of baptism, confirmation, etc being conditional.
Maidservant Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Cool! In the temple we are also as Adams ("first men") and Eves ("mothers of all living"). It is interesting to me also that the name "Adam" is derived from "earth" and "Eve" from "to live (or to breathe)" (Hebrew) -- put the two together and we have "earth to live" (as opposed to smitten with a curse) or "Earth Lives". Adam = our body? Eve = our spirit? 1
Bikeemikey Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Perhaps you can also give me some insight into why the marriage of Jacob is considered a marriage in the covenant even though Abrahams brother was not in the covenant, therefore his daughter would not have been in the covenant either?
CV75 Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 Adam = our body? Eve = our spirit?That's an interesting way to use the symbols. Adam and Eve's bodies came out of the dust of the earth (Moses 3:7) and became one flesh [that's the "Adam" symbol], but their spirits came out of Heaven to make those bodies living souls (Abraham 5:7- [that's the "Eve" symbol].
CV75 Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 Perhaps you can also give me some insight into why the marriage of Jacob is considered a marriage in the covenant even though Abrahams brother was not in the covenant, therefore his daughter would not have been in the covenant either?This article might be of use: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/birthright-blessings-marriage-in-the-covenant-genesis-24-29/ The covenant was both temporal and spiritual. While on the surface Rachel may have appeared to only represent the requirement of being in the covenant for the temporal inheritance, it is clear that the Lord knew her heart and how she was keeping it spiritually and would perpetuate it in her and Jacob's family.
Bikeemikey Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 This article might be of use: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/birthright-blessings-marriage-in-the-covenant-genesis-24-29/The covenant was both temporal and spiritual. While on the surface Rachel may have appeared to only represent the requirement of being in the covenant for the temporal inheritance, it is clear that the Lord knew her heart and how she was keeping it spiritually and would perpetuate it in her and Jacob's family.My question is more that she would not be fulfilling the temporal requirements of marrying in the covenant as she was not the seed of Abraham - the covenant was with Abraham not his brother (Rachel's father).
mfbukowski Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 Agreed. When I said "promised the blessings" I meant that as a conditional blessing. Just how we talk about the blessings of baptism, confirmation, etc being conditional.Actually when I said that I was not thinking of the blessings given to sisters. Different ballgame.
mfbukowski Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 Adam = our body? Eve = our spirit?Shhh don't tell anybody
Calm Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) My question is more that she would not be fulfilling the temporal requirements of marrying in the covenant as she was not the seed of Abraham - the covenant was with Abraham not his brother (Rachel's father).I see two likelihoods... There was a covenant with Noah and his son Shem, I believe, as well as back to Adam and Eve. Abraham desired the blessings of the fathers but had to get them elsewhere in the sense that they weren't active, but that did not mean the covenant itself was not still in place and therefore other members of his family were still of the "chosen line". The covenant is named "Abrahamic" but it may simply be just another name for the new and everlasting covenant that has always existed and yet is continually renewed through Christ. Second, Rachel was the daughter of Laban and Rebekah, Isaac's wife, was his aunt. Laban was Bethuel's son who was the son of Nahor and Milcah…Nahor being the brother of Abraham and Milcah being the niece of Abraham. They were among the party who left Ur with Abraham so were likely converted to the covenant by Abraham as part of his household ('all that would go with him' becoming all those under his stewardship and therefore part of his covenant). Bethuel and Laban's response to Abraham's request for Rebekah's hand for Isaac is “The matter was decreed by the LORD; we cannot speak to you bad or good. Here is Rebekah before you; take her and go, and let her be a wife to your master’s son, as the LORD has spoken" so it would seem that even if they weren't strict in their observance, they recognized the same God. 26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.27 ¶Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.28 And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah.30 But Sarai was barren; she had no child.31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son’s son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram’s wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.In the account of Terah's family, mentioned in Gen.11:26-32, Nahor II is listed as the son of Terah, amongst two other brothers, Abram and Haran.[v.26,27] His grandfather was Nahor I, son of Serug. Nahor married the daughter of his brother Haran, Milcah, his niece.[v.29] They were all born and raised in the city of Ur.[citation needed] When Abram, had an encounter with God,[3] this brother directed his family to leave their native land and go to the land of Canaan. Terah, their father, coordinated the gathering of his family to journey west to their destination.[v.31] They followed the Euphrates River, with their herds, to the Padan-aram region. This was about halfway along the Fertile Crescent between Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean, in what is now southeastern Turkey.[4] In this region, Nahor and his family settled except for his brother Haran, who had died sometime ago back in Ur.[V.28] The city where they settled, Harran, is the place that Nahor's father eventually died.[V.32]Nahor II continued his own travels and settled in the region of Aram Naharaim where he founded the town, Nahor.[Gen.24:10] Here, he had eight sons to Milcah:[Gen.22:19-23]Uz, the firstbornBuzKemuelKesedHazoPildashJidlaphBethuel, father of Rebekah, the wife of IsaacTo his concubine, Reumah, Nahor had these sons: Tebah, Gaham, Tahash and Maacah.[Gen.22:24] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahor Edited March 10, 2014 by calmoriah 1
CV75 Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 My question is more that she would not be fulfilling the temporal requirements of marrying in the covenant as she was not the seed of Abraham - the covenant was with Abraham not his brother (Rachel's father).The two family lines had the same "fathers." Abraham sought and was successful in obtaining those blessings (Abraham 1: 1-4). Just because some of the descendants of the "fathers" (his relatives) were "less active" doesn't mean the promises (temporal and spiritual) couldn't have been claimed upon the principles of righteousness, as Abraham did. It seems that the families had sufficient righteousness to at least retain their land inheritance, and when Abraham advanced suffiiently he received both and the full blessings of the covenant were restored. In recognition of this dispensation, the ocovenant was named after him.
CV75 Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 I see two likelihoods... There was a covenant with Noah and his son Shem, I believe, as well as back to Adam and Eve. Abraham desired the blessings of the fathers but had to get them elsewhere in the sense that they weren't active, but that did not mean the covenant itself was not still in place and therefore other members of his family were still of the "chosen line". The covenant is named "Abrahamic" but it may simply be just another name for the new and everlasting covenant that has always existed and yet is continually renewed through Christ. Second, Rachel was the daughter of Laban and Rebekah, Isaac's wife, was his aunt. Laban was Bethuel's son who was the son of Nahor and Milcah…Nahor being the brother of Abraham and Milcah being the niece of Abraham. They were among the party who left Ur with Abraham so were likely converted to the covenant by Abraham as part of his household ('all that would go with him' becoming all those under his stewardship and therefore part of his covenant). Bethuel and Laban's response to Abraham's request for Rebekah's hand for Isaac is “The matter was decreed by the LORD; we cannot speak to you bad or good. Here is Rebekah before you; take her and go, and let her be a wife to your master’s son, as the LORD has spoken" so it would seem that even if they weren't strict in their observance, they recognized the same God. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NahorI think we're on the same page here!
Scott Lloyd Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 I see two likelihoods... There was a covenant with Noah and his son Shem, I believe, as well as back to Adam and Eve. Abraham desired the blessings of the fathers but had to get them elsewhere in the sense that they weren't active, but that did not mean the covenant itself was not still in place and therefore other members of his family were still of the "chosen line". The covenant is named "Abrahamic" but it may simply be just another name for the new and everlasting covenant that has always existed and yet is continually renewed through Christ. No maybe about it; that is decidedly the answer. The Abrahamic covenant did not begin with Abraham any more than the Melchizedek Priesthood began with Melchizedek.
Bikeemikey Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 No maybe about it; that is decidedly the answer. The Abrahamic covenant did not begin with Abraham any more than the Melchizedek Priesthood began with Melchizedek.I agree with that. Presumably it starts with Adam.If it does starts with Adam then why the emphasis on Abraham? Is it really necessary when every person in the world is descended from the covenant through Adam?
Scott Lloyd Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) I agree with that. Presumably it starts with Adam.If it does starts with Adam then why the emphasis on Abraham? Is it really necessary when every person in the world is descended from the covenant through Adam?The emphasis is on Abraham because the scriptural record is so prominent and explicit about the covenant promises that were given to him and his posterity. And yes, it is necessary that the covenantal lineage extend through Abraham, though in this latter-day dispensation, anyone who is not of that lineage can be adopted by accepting the covenants. Edited March 11, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Bikeemikey Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 The emphasis is on Abraham because the scriptural record is so prominent and explicit about the covenant promises that were given to him and his posterity. And yes, it is necessary that the cevenantal lineage extend through Abraham, though in this latter-day dispensation, anyone who is not of that lineage can be adopted by accepting the covenants.We're you meaning Covenantal lineage? So it is necessary in our time that the lineage come through Abraham? Though in Abrahams time the covenant came in virtue of faithfulness, nothing more? To be adopted by accepting the covenant simply means that we have embraced the covenant and if we are faithful we reap it's promises. We have made our own covenant.This is one part of the gospel that still feels awfully like the Sadducees at the time of Christ. Constantly pointing to a historical covenant by the third party rather than their own need for their own covenant.
Ahab Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 I agree with that. Presumably it starts with Adam.If it does starts with Adam then why the emphasis on Abraham? Is it really necessary when every person in the world is descended from the covenant through Adam?The priesthood and associated blessings never began with anyone, generally speaking, and yet we can trace the promises back to certain people who received them.I'm still tracing my family history but right now it seems there have been many, many generations since I have had a father who has received the priesthood and associated blessings, but I know Abraham is in my line somewhere, along with Noah and Adam.
Bikeemikey Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 The priesthood and associated blessings never began with anyone, generally speaking, and yet we can trace the promises back to certain people who received them.I'm still tracing my family history but right now it seems there have been many, many generations since I have had a father who has received the priesthood and associated blessings, but I know Abraham is in my line somewhere, along with Noah and Adam.We can learn about specific individuals in history who have shared their Experieneces with these covenant blessings. Does that mean subsequent blessings have come through them also?
CV75 Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 So it is necessary in our time that the lineage come through Abraham? Though in Abrahams time the covenant came in virtue of faithfulness, nothing more?To be adopted by accepting the covenant simply means that we have embraced the covenant and if we are faithful we reap it's promises. We have made our own covenant.This is one part of the gospel that still feels awfully like the Sadducees at the time of Christ. Constantly pointing to a historical covenant by the third party rather than their own need for their own covenant. No--that is just what we call it since his was the dispensation where this covenant was restored according to the testament of our scriptures. They record that line of continuity (Abraham-isaac-Jacob... Moses... etc.). It is clear through Melchizedek and Jethro for example that here were other patriarchal lines where this covenant was preserved. But because the restoration uses the Old and New Testament and Book of Mormon records and not those of "other sheep" (to borrow a phrase), we use that term. It is easy to focus on the biological lineage and not the spiritual lineage, but the scriptures support both. Abraham 2:11 is a good example of bridging both concepts. Ideally the covenant is passed from father to son in righeousness (for example, our "BIC"), and just as ideally "strangers" are adopted into the covenant (for example, missionary work). Now there is also the foreordained role of Israel, but these souls are both BIC and converts as well. And even the gentiles are given foreordained promises along a different route, with an eye toward joining up with Israel.
CV75 Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 We can learn about specific individuals in history who have shared their Experieneces with these covenant blessings. Does that mean subsequent blessings have come through them also?I think that is the difficulty: we simply happen not to have a canon that documents a line as clearly as Abraham's. But I believe there were other lines, as allued to in D&C 84:6+ For example, the names listed before Abraham undoubtedly gave the covenant to more than one person who passed it on to his descendants, and they did likewise.
Recommended Posts