In Genesis, Abraham is chosen by God to be the father of many nations and the one through whom the covenant is established (Genesis 12:1–3; 17:1–8). However, at the same time, Genesis also introduces Melchizedek, king of Salem and "priest of God Most High" (Genesis 14:18–20), who is presented as a righteous and significant figure. Given that Melchizedek was already a priest of the true God, what does Scripture or Christian theology say about why God specifically chose Abraham—rather than Melchizedek or any other righteous men of that time—to make His covenant with? I'm looking for answers based on biblical evidence or theological reasoning, rather than speculation.

Adam made the first covenant with God. When this covenant was broken he and Eve were thrown out of the Garden of Eden as punishment for breaking this covenant and they then had to fend for themselves with their newly acquired knowledge of the world. Jesus was sacrificed in order for man to redeem himself of his actions and sins which broke a prior covenant with God. A New covenant was made between God and man as result of jesus death and mans redemption. My question is what happens to the souls of men between these covenants as each covenant with God is on new terms? God changes his terms with new covenants and because he does what happens to the souls he had previously judged on these prior terms?

Who do Catholics believe that God put in charge of Judaism in the Old Covenant? I assume they believe that there was someone in charge with continuity from the time of Moses to Christ and that they know who this was, or do they believe that it perhaps wasn't as cut and dried as in the New Covenant with the Papacy? I am a bit confused because I have heard a number of figures mentioned such as the Sanhedrin, judge (Dt. 17:9), priesthood, High Priest, etc. Two things to consider are that Moses was not a priest (not a Levitical one at any rate) and that presumably whoever Mt. 23:2 is talking about weren't priests either, although perhaps they sort of depended on the priests in some way.

I am told that the New Testament is the New Covenant. If that is so, why didn't God remove the rainbow that He made for the Jews. If the Old Covenant has gone away, how does the Church explain the continuation of rainbows? Genesis 9:13 (NIV) > I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the > covenant between me and the earth

This is a two part question. 1. In Full Preterism we localize all meaning of the "cosmos", "world", & "heaven and earth" to mean nothing more than "covenant". Apocalyptic language used in the Olivet discourse and revelation are not about the end of the world, but actually the end of the Jewish age. Therefore we are in perfection now. There are no plans to redeem the world, only to redeem a localized group of people. Judgment is the same, There is only judgment for a small localized group (Jews in 70ad). This hermeneutic is largely based on Jeremiah 4:22-26 where the world is described as lifeless, void, without form, and there being no sun, as the author describes the destruction of the first temple. This language clearly mirrors that of the creation story. So, to consistently apply the hermeneutic we must acknowledge that Genesis 1 is not about creation, but rather, the story of God stumbling upon a world, and creating covenant with Adam. Further, we need to localize the judgment of the flood. Judgments (as we know from 70ad) are not actually over the whole world, but only a small, select group of people. 2. In understanding revelation 19-21 there is a vital piece of text that states Satan will join the beast and false prophet (Revelation 20:10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown). So this has a large implication over the 1000 years. The 1000 years is likely not literal, but during the 1000 years Satan is bound, until the brief time that he is loosed. Then he finally he joins the beast and the false prophet after the 1000 years. This creates a struggle, because Satan cannot join the beast and the false prophet, until the end of the 1000 years, where he was bound, and then loosed for a short time.

The God of Israel entered into a formal covenant with His people. The Bible is, besides a doctrinal, historical, and prophetic text is also a legal one. The Blessings and Cursings of Deuteronomy 28 show the dual-sided covenant: if Israel does this, God will fulfill such and such. And in Christianity, God gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him as well as eternal life. Baptism is a formal covenant agreement. As I thought on these things, I began to wonder if any other religion has a legal covenant-based relationship with their God (based on grace and/or obedience). In end-times we see Judgment Day - a legal, court-room like situation. I suppose one can make a Deal with the Devil, but repentance is the fine print which breaks the contract with the devil and puts one back into God's graces and is thus non-binding. Is there any religion that has a similar legal and formal covenant relation written in stone i.e. sacred text with their God as Christianity has with its God? Or is the covenant with the God of Israel both in Old Testament and New Testament a unique thing in religion.

I'm doing a study on grace and the fulfilment of the Law at present, and wonder if someone can assist: some texts definitely state that it is not humanly possible to perfectly keep the Law. Thus Paul in Romans 7:14-23, 9:31-32, Peter’s words in Acts 15:10, that the Law was a burden that the Israelites could not bear, etc. However, other texts seem to indicate that keeping the Law was possible. For instance, concerning the Law and the choice between obedience and disobedience proffered to the Israelites, Moses says (Deuteronomy 30:11), > ‘Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or > beyond your reach.’ In other words, they have no excuse for disobedience. Also, in Philippians 3:6 Paul, in giving his credentials as an impeccable Pharisee, avers that he was, ‘as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.’ There is also the argument and thrust from Romans 7 to 8 that, as heeding of the Law is not possible, the solution is through the power of the Holy Spirit (thus 8:1-4). A related query might be, then: did the OT Israelites for over 1,000 years go through the same sense of guilt, frustration, and inability to keep the Law as did Paul (cf. Romans 7), because of the absence of the indwelling Spirit? This would seem unfair, but would be in line with the Romans 7 theology of difficulty in keeping the Law. However, how would this square with Moses’ parting exhortation that the Law was ‘not difficult’ (Deut 30.11)? A thought: might Paul's (and Peter's) comments perhaps have something to do with an attempt at perfectionism, which is attested in the Talmud among first century rabbis?

In some Reformed/Calvinist circles, a theological framework called the [Federal Vision](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Vision) (FV) has led to significant internal debate over the true nature of the covenant between God and man, and, by extension, the role of faith and works in justification and salvation more generally. I'm currently reading a book by an FV opponent, David J. Engelsma, called [*Federal Vision: Heresy at the Root*](https://books.google.com/books?id=SqTGMQEACAAJ) . In chapter 6 he seems ready to address the following challenge: > Some of the proponents of the federal vision are decisional regenerationists; others hold to presupposed regeneration. How can you say that both hold to the same view of the covenant? But Engelsma's response does not shed much light on the difference between these views – he simply continues to group them together and critiques FV more generally. That's less than satisfying, so my question here is: **according to FV proponents, what are the perceived differences between decisional regeneration and presupposed regeneration views?** What impact do these differences have on the doctrine of the covenant held by different FV proponents?

**To those who believe that the Angel of the Lord who appears in several situations in the Old Testament was the pre-incarnate Christ:** I have come across many writings and opinions from some within the Evangelical Christian movement, asserting that the "angel of the lord" in the Old Testament, is pre-incarnate Jesus (a Christophany). See, for example: or Google: **"Is Jesus the Angel of the Lord?"** On two ocassions in the Bible, the Angel of the Lord appears to Hagar (Genesis 16:7-13 and Genesis 21:17-19). That is, when Hagar is pregnant and being harshly treated by Sarah and later when Hagar runs out of water after Abraham sends her and her son away as demanded by Sarah and consented to by God. **The Angel of the Lord picks the child's name and blesses him on two separate ocassions (before and after his birth). What are the theological and spiritual implications of the fact that Jesus directly and personally blessed Ishmael twice?** **I am not aware of any Biblical passage of Isaac being blessed by God as a child or having an encounter with the Angel of the Lord**

"Now the angel of the Lord came up from Gilgad to Bochim, And he said, "I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land which I have sworn to your fathers; and I said, I will never break My covenant with you." Then at Judges 2:5, "So they named that place Bochim and there they sacrificed to the Lord." Going back to Exodus 20:1-3, Then God spoke all these words, saying, Verse 2, I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Verse 3, "You shall have no other gods before Me." The covenant referred to can be found at Genesis 17:1-7. "Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; Walk befor3e Me, and be blameless, verse 2, And I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly." Verse 3, And Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying, verse 4, As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, And you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. verse 5, No longer shall your name be called Abram, But you name shall be Abraham; For I will make you the father of a multitude of nations. Verse 6, And I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come forth from you. verse 7, And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you." This covenant is further amplified at Genesis 22 where the Lord tested Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. At Genesis 22:10 Abraham stretched out his hand, and took the knife to slay his son." Verse 11, BUT the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, Here I am." Verse 12, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son from Me." At verse 15, Then the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, verse 16, and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son, verse 17, indeed I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies. Verse 18, And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice." The New Testament at Hebrews 6:13-16 clearly identifies and confirms who swore the oath. "For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, verse 14, saying, "I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply you." Notice what verse 16 states, "For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath give as confirmation is an end of every dispute. In taking oaths, men swear by God who is greater than they are. They do so in order to convince other men that they are truthful and intend to abide by their promises. So getting back to the question? Why does Judges 2:1 say the angel of the Lord would never break his covenant he swore to the fathers?

Does the Bible tell why God gave the Ten Commandments to his people Israel, as depicted in book of Exodus? Does the Bible tell us what was the reason why God gave the Ten Commandments?

Jesus prayed (Jn 17:21) that “they may be one in us as you are in me and I am in you.” (Easier to comprehend if *in* means *in union with*.) This is the original sense of at-one-ment. “We also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.” (Ro 5:11; KJV uses atonement) Here’s what happened: Adam and Eve’s sins (and mine) separated me from God and put me on a different path. So God put Adam and Eve (and all their descendants) out of Paradise to learn how to choose between good and evil. At first, we were at-one with God. And then not. Our sins have put us on a path different from God’s. “Give ear and come to me; listen, that you may live. I will make an everlasting covenant with you,” (Isa 55:3a,b). "This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.” (Jer 31:33) It's a given that atonement cannot be accomplished by my efforts alone; otherwise, Jesus would not have had to undergo His passion and death. But if atonement brings God and me together, isn’t it I, not God, who must change? What must be done to bring about atonement? A beautiful metaphor in Hebrews identifies Jesus as High Priest of His own death, recalling the holy Temple offerings to God. But the death of Jesus was not a suicide, and was *not demanded* by God. Our God is not like the pagan gods which delighted in human sacrifice; this is proved by the binding of Isaac. The death of Jesus was caused by *corrupt human powers of the time*. This is what God did: Jeremiah prophesied (31:31) that Yahweh would write a new covenant on His people’s hearts and forgive their iniquity and never call their sin to mind. God said to Isaiah,“Give ear and come to me; listen, that you may live. I will make an everlasting covenant with you.” (55:3) This new covenant would be our atonement - if only we listened to our hearts and let it happen. But we have free will; perhaps more exactly, we have *free choice*. God always lets us choose to *desire* this or that. Atonement is not done *to me* or *for me* without my involvement, but rather, is the result of the covenant relationship that I am offered. But distractions always pop up. But something can begin within us, which then allows us to make a choice: the death of Jesus could elicit compassion from even the hardest heart. It’s part of being human. If I don’t resist it, I would be drawn to feel compassion, not only for Jesus, but also for God the Father, who is suffering the torture and murder of His beloved Son. This compassion that suffers with Jesus could be a response to the covenant God offers. Paul went further: if we are … *baptized into his death* (Ro 6:3 NIV), *united with Him in a death like His … [then we will be] certainly also united with Him in a resurrection like His* (v5). This surely implies more than just sprinkling with water and words; it must mean being immersed into His agony, by a natural compassion that leads to a mystical union with Him. *Immersed into His death.* My compassion, love, turns toward my Father in Heaven as well as toward His Son Who died to get my attention… *to forgive me*. As I become immersed into the passion of Jesus, I realize that I am not the innocent, compassionate bystander, but at the heart of the matter, *I’m* guilty of the death of Jesus. His death tears me apart while His Holy Spirit wants to cry out in my heart, “Abba, Father.” After being brought before the throne of God, I hope to hear again, “Father, forgive him - he’s a friend of mine.” ***What other verses (or wisdom) from the Bible might support the idea of a continuing covenant, with my active involvement, rather than a one-time event, without my active participation, with regard to the atoning death of Jesus?***

I understand that term ‘the law’ is often meant by Luther to just mean the ‘covenant of works’ as opposed to ‘the promise’ or ‘covenant of grace’. This covenant of works was naturally most illuminated by the moral commandments of the Mosaic legislation. Therefore Luther and some of those after him (John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, etc) refer to ‘the law’ not always as a reference to the ‘Mosaic Law’, but the ‘law of nature’ or ‘conscience’. The question is not about that. I accept that the law of conscience and condemnation of original sin was always applicable to all mankind and still is. However, aside from the different uses of the terms. Strictly speaking, not with respect to the law of nature, or covenant of works, but specifically with respect to the Mosaic Legislation and encapsulated by the ten commandments, was this law of Moses ever an expectation by God on Gentiles, according to Luther? I asked specifically with reference to the ten commandments as the first commandment starts with ‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.’, obviously not gentiles. And the commandment to ‘obey the Sabbath’, merges the moral commands with ceremonial and appears never to have been followed by any Gentile group as far as I know. The question is important because Gentiles who may have had faith by hearing about the Promised Messiah before Christ, yet not following the Mosaic Law, going to the temple and obeying the Sabbath, etc. may have been saved by their faith apart from the works of the Mosaic Law. In addition, the example of the Ninevites, having possibly believed in God, though a Gentile nation not following Moses, may have had several justified sinners by faith in their midst? What do the reformers, specifically Luther, say specifically about the Mosaic Legislation on mount Horeb, with respect to Gentile nations?

I was reading an article online about the riches the templars stole from the temple of Solomon, the templars were **suposedly** looking for the **Ark of Covenant** which is written in scripture that when taken to the **battlefield** could **wipe out entire armies**. But then they never found the ark of covenant because it was lost alongside the tablets given to Moses after the Babylonians invaded the promised land. Had the tempars succeeded in finding it, do you think if they could have taken it to the battlefield, it would have wiped out entire armies? You can read about the templar digging up riches from the temple from this site

I found this interesting partial quote from today’s Morning & Evening devotional by Charles Spurgeon. It’s about the “Covenant of Grace”: >Jesus is the representative head of His people. In Adam every heir of flesh and blood has a personal interest, because he is the covenant head and representative of the race when considered under the law of works; so under the law of grace, every redeemed soul is one with the Lord from heaven, since He is the Second Adam, the Sponsor and Substitute of the elect in the new covenant of love. Then I found this interesting snippet which, speaking of the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ, the Mediator, suggests that from eternity the covenant settlements of grace were decreed, ratified, and made sure forever. My curiosity has been piqued. Is the expression “covenant of grace” about the Abrahamic covenant established by God? Or is it about the “New Covenant” introduced by Jesus? Is this “an everlasting covenant”? I invite answers from Protestants on this topic, mainly because Spurgeon was a Baptist minister. I would appreciate a short overview (links to articles would suffice) of all the covenants established by God and whether any of them are everlasting. Edit: As suggested, this question is about Covenant Theology

Pertaining to Genesis 12:3 "I will curse those who curse you" is God referring only to unbelievers in Jesus? Is God referring to any human regardless of religious belief when He says: I will bless those who bless you (Genesis 12:3).

I know this question is quite odd - but I would like to know of possible explanations for why the old and new covenants are so centered around food? The last supper, the bread of the presence, the manna and quail, etc. it seems like it bears a lot of significance and I want to know if there have been any reasons offered as why.

Genesis 16:10, "Moreover, the angel of the Lord said to her, "I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they shall be too many to count." Vs11, "The angel of the Lord said to her further, Behold, you are with child, and you shall bear a son; and you shall call him Ishmael, because the Lord has given heed to your affliction." At vs13, "Then she called the name of the Lord who spoke to her, "Thou are a God who sees", for she said, "Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?" Genesis 17:1-2, "Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and send to him, I am God Almighty; Walk before Me, and be blameless. Vs2, And I will establish MY covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly." Vs3, "And Abraham fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying," Verses 4-7 God reiterates His everlasting covenant with Abram, who is now called "Abraham." So again, here's my question? Is the angel of the Lord who multiplied Hagar's descendants the same being who appeared as God Almighty at Genesis 17:1-2 who multiplied Abraham's descendants? Please provide Biblical evidence for you position.

On the cusp of the flood and God's covenant with Noah, "who found favor with the Lord," Genesis 6:6 [New American Bible] states __[T]he Lord regretted making human beings on the earth, and his heart was grieved.__ And in verse 7, God says, __"I regret that I made them".__ This seems to go against the idea that God doesn't make mistakes. Engaging in a mass slaughter doesn't necessarily seem, for lack of a better expression, out of character, e.g., the Amorites. And making a covenant with a single man, Noah, seems quite reasonable. __But why regret the creation of man (and animals)?__ God certainly knew of the wickedness of man. It just seems an odd sentiment at an odd time.. Edit: With the possibility that "regret" is not the correct translation, I went to the Hebrew which suggests *second thoughts* might be an alternative explanation, but not sorrow. [Chabad.org] *6.ווַיִּנָּ֣חֶם יְהֹוָ֔ה And the Lord regretted* (Further explained:) For example: (Num. 23:19): “Nor the son of man that He should change His mind (וְיִתְנֶחָם)”; (Deut. 32:36): “And concerning His servants He will change His mind (יִתְנֶחָם)”; (Exod. 32:14): “And the Lord changed His intent concerning the evil (וַיִּנָּחֶם)”; (I Sam. 15:11): “I regret (נִחַמְתִּי) that I made [Saul] king.” These are all an expression of having second thoughts

Matthew 5:17-18 says: >17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. It seems to me that the LDS tradition includes so much new revelation (ex: God as a created being). How is this necessary if Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law? Is this new revelation fulfilling something? **Additional Note** If it’s unclear what I’m asking, look at it this way: The law of the Old Testament, especially when it comes to sacrifice, is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. On the other hand, in the LDS faith, the new revelation given to Joseph Smith doesn’t seem to fulfill anything. In fact, it seems like a total upheaval of Christian Orthodoxy. What’s the reason behind this difference?