The Covenant Context of Salvation

[Studyman]

Yes. I agree.

Next question:

Can you cite a covenant with God in the Bible that God did not initiate? Or, to put the same question in other words, is there a covenant with God that God did not, Himself, initiate? Has any human in the Bible ever initiated or instigated a covenant with God?

.

Not germane at this point. We'll get to these matters in the due course of time. For now, very simple, easily and readily answered questions are being asked. When answered they build consensus and where disparate answers are given then the exact point of disagreement is established. There is a madness to my method .


Can you cite a covenant with God in the Bible that God did not initiate? Or, to put the same question in other words, is there a covenant with God that God did not, Himself, initiate? Has any human in the Bible ever initiated or instigated a covenant with God?

.

That's a weird question. Isn't the whole purpose of "GOD" to create a standard, or a "Way of the Lord" in which His creation are to "Live by", for their own Good. As it is written, if a human father provided instruction for their children that it may be well for them, how much more then, shall God, a Superior in every way Spirit, not provide instruction for His Creation? So then, by the very act of creating a human life, God "initiates" a Covenant with them, from the moment of their birth, as HE wishes for all to be saved. But isn't it true that men are to "SEEK" His Covenant made from the foundation of this world?

Deut. 4: 23 Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, (And all men) and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee.

24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God. 25 When thou shalt beget children, and children's children, and ye shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt yourselves, and make a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, and shall do evil in the sight of the LORD thy God, to provoke him to anger: 26 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed.

27 And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the LORD shall lead you. 28 And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell. 29 But if from thence thou "shalt seek the LORD thy God", thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul. 30 When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; 31 (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.


So Yes, God creates His Covenants from the foundation of the World, and shares them with His Creation who Seeks Him, or as Paul teaches, "them who Seek Glory, Honor and Immortality" or as Jesus teaches, "Seeks the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness", or as Moses teaches, "Who Seeks God with all their heart and with all their soul".

As it is also written:

Gen. 17: 1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

2 And (if you do) I will make my covenant "between me and thee", and will multiply thee exceedingly.

 

[Red Baker]

Next question:

Can you cite a covenant with God in the Bible that God did not initiate? Or, to put the same question in other words, is there a covenant with God that God did not, Himself, initiate? Has any human in the Bible ever initiated or instigated a covenant with God?

.

The only thing that comes to my mind at the moment is this: According to Genesis 28:20-22, Jacob made a covenant (if it indeed it can be called a covenant, maybe he was just acting within the Abrahamic covenant as already one of its heirs) with God, vowing that if God would be with him and protect him on his journey, he would give a tenth of everything God provided him back to God as a tithe; essentially stating that if God blessed him, he would dedicate a portion of his blessings back to God.

 

[civic]

At the risk of contradicting myself with digression, I've been listening to Al Green all morning. Is that guy jammin' or what? His voice is like a hot knife through butter . mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......... Hard to type while dancing .

one of my favorites Iove the old school Soul, R&B.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

@Pancho Frijoles,

I do not mean to be unkind. I do mean to be direct. I am confident you think your posts have merit but they do not. Instead, they show an amazing amount of ignorance of both scripture and basic logic. On top of that, apparently my posts have somehow been found provoking because a pile of posts to defend the mistakes is a dead giveaway for something triggered. From the scriptural point of view the FACT is Jesus is the ONLY way ANYONE can be saved. If memory serves me correctly, you and I have discussed the exclusive nature of Jesus' and the NT writers' claim of exclusivity. This, of course, directly contradicts the Bahai viewpoint of revelation being progressive in nature, coming in many forms in many ways from many sources. You are never going to find consensus with that in this Christian forum in a thread populated with Christians, especially not the conservative evangelicals in assembly here. It's understandable that anyone in your position might want to present a rationale case for an alternative that might persuade us but that brings me back to my first point: Ignorance and fallacy has been posted, not exegesis and logic, and you apparently don't see it.

The minute Paul wrote there is no other person, no other name by which anyone can be saved he necessarily qualified the entirety of Christian revelation and asserted a huge problem for all other religions. Paul did that knowingly and if he wrote those words under God's inspired direction then it was God Himself qualifying the entirety of His revelation and necessarily precluding a plethora of disparate views heled by others in Paul's day (and that would include the Jewish appeal to ritual and the Law, as well as all the Gentile viewpoints existing in Paul's day). We might discuss whether or not, or how and to what degree the knowledge of Christ crucified and resurrected was revealed in other religions, but the exclusivity of Jesus is not up for debate.

Aside from that, much of what you've posted has ignored to stipulations of the op (like the covenant aspect of salvation) and is, therefore, off topic, digressive, and perhaps even indicative of your imposing an agenda on the thread rather than respecting the op.

So take a few breaths.

The covenant within which David and the Ninevites (assuming they were soteriologically saved) were saved is Christological. That fact has been evidenced and proven using verse explaining that condition. You don't get to dispute it anymore. That Old Testament persons heard the gospel and possessed at least some knowledge of that gospel has also been demonstrated. You don't get to dispute that, either. In fact, entire books about this have been written and simple survey of that matter would consume several posts. That you either do not already know that or would presume to teach any of us differently is another indication of sheer ignorance of the Bible. As someone who is Bahai and, therefore, believes the Bible a part of divine inspiration it is incumbent on you to understand its depth before presuming to tell any Christian what it says or what it means. I happen to be someone who has read all the great books and studied with teachers in those religions, but the Christians here have chosen and been led not to study other perspective and devote themselves to the study of the Bible. The fact that we have real and seemingly disparate views does not change the fact most of us have studied the Bible much more thoroughly than you. Your posts here confirm that fact. You've stalled over Paul's statement there is no other person by which anyone can be saved and how that qualifies everything written in the OT. I am not the only one here who has attempted to help you understand this and when it exceeds the point of agreeing to disagree it disrupts the thread, especially when it becomes argumentum ad nauseam.




This op, btw, is intended to bring to light the significance of the covenant relationship regarding salvation. It will prove to be a matter of controversy for some. I will not be digressing to discuss all the nonsense you've posted, and I exhort everyone else in the thread (@civic, @Dizerner, @praise_yeshua, @Red Baker, @synergy, @Studyman) not to fall prey to digression. The op's question is simple and specific, and the minute Paul cited the exclusivity of Christ he also qualified every covenant ever mentioned in the Bible. Logic dictates that if there is no other person by which anyone can be saved then every single covenant with God must somehow be related to that fact.

It does not take four pages posts to answer this op's inquiry and every occasion when I read someone answering the question asked, I endeavor move the conversation forward.

Dear JoshebB, Dear readers

1. As you all can see through my posts 32, 39, 43 and 49, I have tried to keep addressing the topic of the COVENANT. So, the accusation of having "ignored the stipulations of the op" is false.
2. The OP question is "Does salvation from sin and wrath ever occur outside of a covenant relationship with God's Son, Jesus?" and therefore, posts related of how people were saved outside a known, conscious relationship with Jesus are aligned with the OP. So, the accusation of having "ignored the stipulations of the op" is false.
3. In Post 4, JoshebB explicitly asked for examples of people who were saved outside that covenant. I provided two, which triggered further debate. Therefore my examples, regardless of being right or wrong, are directly related to the question being made by the author of the OP. So, the accusation of having "ignored the stipulations of the op" is false.
4. The way people before Jesus were saved is a complex matter that has been debated by Christian theologians and has been provided several different answers across ages. Therefore, you should expect a complex and nuanced debate.
5. Josheb's statement that "most of us have studied the Bible much more thoroughly than you" is highly questionable, at least based on these three considerations. I'll start from the most trivial to the most important:
   • THE TRIVIAL. JoshebB mentions three times Paul as the man speaking in Acts 4:12. It was not Paul, but Peter. Since Josheb keeps clinging to this verse to reinterpret 14 centuries of revelation ("Paul... wrote those words under God's inspired direction then it was God Himself qualifying the entirety of His revelation") and seems to claim to have studied the Bible much more thoroughly than me, he should be more careful when talking about a passage.
   • THE LESS TRIVIAL. The religion of a Forum Member is irrelevant to the time and quality of the study dedicated to the Bible. Even an atheist could come to the Forum and teach Christians how to understand better their religion. It is very likely that Bart Ehrman, Jack Miles, Gerd Lüdemann, among many others, know more about the Bible that any of us.
   • THE IMPORTANT. Trying to apply Acts 4:12 to people in the OT is an exegetical mistake. The name of Jesus was not given to men in the OT to be saved. There is no evidence of it. You can't quote one single verse in the OT in which a prophet asks people to believe, understand or confess any doctrine about the Messiah in order to be forgiven and transformed by God.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

The only thing that comes to my mind at the moment is this: According to Genesis 28:20-22, Jacob made a covenant (if it indeed it can be called a covenant, maybe he was just acting within the Abrahamic covenant as already one of its heirs) with God, vowing that if God would be with him and protect him on his journey, he would give a tenth of everything God provided him back to God as a tithe; essentially stating that if God blessed him, he would dedicate a portion of his blessings back to God.

Very good example, Red Baker.
I think millions, until this day, have attempted to do the kind of covenants or agreements with God… a covenant that goes: “If you save me, I will worship you as my God”*… an attempt in striking contrast with God’s covenants that go “If you worship me as your God, I will save you”.

We should avoid this kind of agreements, when they represent testing God. This was the second way Satan tempted Jesus in the desert. The implicit agreement was “If you, God, rescue me from the fall, I will believe you have sent me as a your son”

In daily life, God is so merciful as to let pass our feeble, dumb attempts to make this kind of agreements with Him.
The best example in the Bible may be the father whose boy kept having seizures, despite the action of the disciples. The father’s faith was so weak, that he first spoke to Jesus as testing Him (“If you can…”). Then, challenged by Jesus. He had to admit that he needed help for his incredulity.

* “Jacob made a vow, “If God remains with me and protects me in this journey that I am making and gives me bread to eat and clothes to cover me, and if I return in peace to my father’s house, the Lord will be my God.”

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

. But isn't it true that men are to "SEEK" His Covenant made from the foundation of this world?

Very interesting question, my brother.
Whether it is God who seek to establish a covenant with man, or man who seeks this, is perhaps a matter of perspective… as God is the source of man’s desire to reach out to Him. “For it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to desire and to act for his chosen purpose.” (Phil 2:13)

Talking about this search of God, Paul tells the Athenians:

“From one ancestor, he created all peoples to occupy the entire earth, and he decreed their appointed times and the boundaries of where they would live. He did all this so that people might seek God in the hope that by groping for him they might find him, even though indeed he is not far from any one of us.”

So, men are expected to seek God (and therefore his covenant and salvation) but God is the one who sets the times and places for this to happen.

 

[Studyman]

Very interesting question, my brother.
Whether it is God who seek to establish a covenant with man, or man who seeks this, is perhaps a matter of perspective… as God is the source of man’s desire to reach out to Him. “For it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to desire and to act for his chosen purpose.” (Phil 2:13)

It is an interesting question, that I am instructed to work out.

It is written, "Today, if you hear His Voice, harden not your heart". I would ask my friend, "Is it God who is at work in men, who harden their heart"? Isn't Paul speaking about men here, who heard God's Voice, and didn't harden their heart?


5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Haven't these men already been called, and are seeking God's Covenant of Salvation?

Talking about this search of God, Paul tells the Athenians:

“From one ancestor, he created all peoples to occupy the entire earth, and he decreed their appointed times and the boundaries of where they would live. He did all this so that people might seek God in the hope that by groping for him they might find him, even though indeed he is not far from any one of us.”

So, men are expected to seek God (and therefore his covenant and salvation) but God is the one who sets the times and places for this to happen.

I agree 100% that it is God who chooses when to call a man. Abraham was over 70 years old when he heard God's Voice. And it seems, according to Scripture, he didn't harden his heart. God also called the city of Ninevah, the Capital City of the Assyrian Empire, an enemy of Israel. And we know that at least "10 persons" in that city didn't harden their hearts.

But God also called Sodom, Yes? They also heard His Voice, Yes? But in that city, everyone hardened their heart. None of the men in that city sought a Covenant with God.

There are some religious philosophies of this world religious system, who teach that God "withheld" from the men of Sodom, the capacity to hear His Voice, and not harden their hearts, based on nothing they did. And they also preach that God allowed the men of Nineveh, to hear Him, and harden not their hearts, based on nothing they did.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe this was the message of Paul to the Philippians.

It's always good to hear from you Poncho.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

The covenant within which David and the Ninevites (assuming they were soteriologically saved) were saved is Christological. That fact has been evidenced and proven using verse explaining that condition. You don't get to dispute it anymore. That Old Testament persons heard the gospel and possessed at least some knowledge of that gospel has also been demonstrated. You don't get to dispute that, either.

Whether the covenant by which David and the Ninevites is Christological requires further clarification.
For example, The Catholic Church holds that persons in the Old Testament were saved because

1. They believed in God promises (whatever the promises were at that time and circumstance) and
2. Christ preached to them in Hades.

You can read more about that here: https://www.thecatholictelegraph.com/before-christ/94181

This Catholic view has biblical support, is consistent with the concept of a wise and loving God, and is very different from the view expressed in your post, that “Old Testament persons heard the gospel and possessed at least some knowledge of that gospel”. It should be more than obvious that

• The illiterate mass of Israelites had a limited notion of the Messiah to come (in the best of scenarios) particularly before the Davidian dinasty and perhaps more importantly, before the exile.
• Those notions, when present, had nothing to do with how God forgave their individual sins on a daily basis. Prophets speaking about the future Messiah never urged Israel to seek repentance on the basis of the belief in the future atonement by a Messiah.

If the repeated calls to repentance we find across the Tanakh, and the repeated please for salvation are devoid of any appeal to a future blood atonement, it is absurd to think that for 1400 years God just “forgot” or deliberately “withheld” a knowledge of a sine qua non requirement for salvation.

 

[civic]

Whether the covenant by which David and the Ninevites is Christological requires further clarification.
For example, The Catholic Church holds that persons in the Old Testament were saved because

1. They believed in God promises (whatever the promises were at that time and circumstance) and
2. Christ preached to them in Hades.

You can read more about that here: https://www.thecatholictelegraph.com/before-christ/94181

This Catholic view has biblical support, is consistent with the concept of a wise and loving God, and is very different from the view expressed in your post, that “Old Testament persons heard the gospel and possessed at least some knowledge of that gospel”. It should be more than obvious that

• The illiterate mass of Israelites had a limited notion of the Messiah to come (in the best of scenarios) particularly before the Davidian dinasty and perhaps more importantly, before the exile.
• Those notions, when present, had nothing to do with how God forgave their individual sins on a daily basis. Prophets speaking about the future Messiah never urged Israel to seek repentance on the basis of the belief in the future atonement by a Messiah.

If the repeated calls to repentance we find across the Tanakh, and the repeated please for salvation are devoid of any appeal to a future blood atonement, it is absurd to think that for 1400 years God just “forgot” or deliberately “withheld” a knowledge of a sine qua non requirement for salvation.

Everything in the OT is Christological- its all about Him and it al points to Him including any and all covenants. He is the centerpiece of the Old and New Testaments. This included the necessity of the blood in both covenants which you reject for redemption.

 

[synergy]

1. Christ preached to them in Hades.

I agree. So what did Christ preach to them about? Was it about what "Gabriel" said to Muhammad? Was it approval for Baha'u'llah's attempt to usurp Christ? Or was it about the Cross?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Everything in the OT is Christological- its all about Him and it al points to Him including any and all covenants. He is the centerpiece of the Old and New Testaments.

Messianic texts are only PART of the Old Testament.
However, I see no problem in your statement, civic, as long as you recognize that people didn't have to know, understand or confess that "all pointed to Him". That's my contention here.

This included the necessity of the blood in both covenants which you reject for redemption.

Covenants were symbolically signed by blood. (Well, not all of them: the covenant with Noah and mankind was symbolically signed by a rainbow). But blood was not a necessity for people to be forgiven. Otherwise we would be taking about a Pagan cult.
In the first Covenant, God commanded, through Moses, obedience to his commandments. In the second Covenant, God commanded, through Jesus, to love each other.

If blood was a necessity to be saved:

1. King David would have definitely mentioned that in Psalm 51. He did the opposite: He declared that God was not interested in bloody sacrifices, but in a contrite, broken heart. "For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; You do not delight in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, A broken and a contrite heart—These, O God, You will not despise."
2. God would not have said : Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: “Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat meat. For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be My people. And walk in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you.’ (Jeremiah 7:21-23)
3. Prophets would have urged Israel to build hundreds of tabernacles all over in the Israel (and then in Babylon, during the exile, and then in every single corner where Jews were living in the Mediterranean basin and beyond), so that people could offer bloody sacrifices and get forgiven from their daily sins without having to wait (and prepare, and take the risk) of the long trip to Jerusalem´s temple.
4. Prophet Isaiah would have been forgiven of his sins through a blood sacrifice, and not through the use of live coals touching his lips.
5. We would find constant calls to make blood sacrifices (or to believe in a future sacrifice of the Messiah) in the numerous calls to repentance that you find throughout the Tanakh.

 

[JoshebB]

Can a covenant with God in the Bible that God did not initiate be cited? Or, to put the same question in other words, is there a covenant with God that God did not, Himself, initiate? Has any human in the Bible ever initiated or instigated a covenant with God?

Yes.

1Sa 1:11 And she vowed a vow, and said, O LORD of hosts, if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget thine handmaid, but wilt give unto thine handmaid a man child, then I will give him unto the LORD all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head.

LOL! I'm gonna give you credit for the attempt, but 1) that's not a covenant of salvation and 2) Hannah made that vow inside the already existing covenant God had initiated with Abraham (and Isaac, and Jacob). In other words, her vow is an intra-covenant vow, a vow made by someone already a participant in an existing covenant initiated by God.

So, give the answer another try (or concede there are no examples of people initiating salvific or Christological covenants with God).

 

[JoshebB]

God's gift of salvation is conditionally offered to all. The conditions are vividly stipulated in the New Covenant for all to see. What we have here is what can be metaphorically called as a "level playing field" for all mankind. Thus, God's choosing is completely transparent and just. God chooses the one who accepts and believes God's initiated offer of salvation.

There are multiple forms/types of callings. You need to be specific on which calling you wish to discuss. Is it your vocational calling that God has preordained for you? Is it a gospel calling to believe in Christ? Your God-given conscience oftentimes calls out to you. Which calling are you talking about?

What does the op specify?

 

[JoshebB]

So Yes, God creates His Covenants from the foundation of the World, and shares them with His Creation who Seeks Him, or as Paul teaches..........

The question asked was.....


Can you cite a covenant with God in the Bible that God did not initiate? Or, to put the same question in other words, is there a covenant with God that God did not, Himself, initiate? Has any human in the Bible ever initiated or instigated a covenant with God?


If God creates His covenants from the foundation of the world, then there are no (salvific or Christological) covenants He did not initiate, and the answer to the question asked is "No, I cannot cite a covenant with God that God did not initiate."

 

[JoshebB]

The only thing that comes to my mind at the moment is this: According to Genesis 28:20-22, Jacob made a covenant (if it indeed it can be called a covenant, maybe he was just acting within the Abrahamic covenant as already one of its heirs) with God, vowing that if God would be with him and protect him on his journey, he would give a tenth of everything God provided him back to God as a tithe; essentially stating that if God blessed him, he would dedicate a portion of his blessings back to God.

Let's take a look at the text and see.

Genesis 28:1-22
So Isaac called Jacob and blessed him and charged him, and said to him, "You shall not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan. "Arise, go to Paddan-aram, to the house of Bethuel your mother's father; and from there take to yourself a wife from the daughters of Laban your mother's brother. "May God Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you, that you may become a company of peoples. "May He also give you the blessing of Abraham, to you and to your descendants with you, that you may possess the land of your sojournings, which God gave to Abraham." Then Isaac sent Jacob away, and he went to Paddan-aram to Laban, son of Bethuel the Aramean, the brother of Rebekah, the mother of Jacob and Esau. Now Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob and sent him away to Paddan-aram to take to himself a wife from there, and that when he blessed him he charged him, saying, "You shall not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan," and that Jacob had obeyed his father and his mother and had gone to Paddan-aram. So Esau saw that the daughters of Canaan displeased his father Isaac; and Esau went to Ishmael, and married, besides the wives that he had, Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael, Abraham's son, the sister of Nebaioth. Then Jacob departed from Beersheba and went toward Haran. He came to a certain place and spent the night there, because the sun had set; and he took one of the stones of the place and put it under his head, and lay down in that place. He had a dream, and behold, a ladder was set on the earth with its top reaching to heaven; and behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. And behold, the LORD stood above it and said, "I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie, I will give it to you and to your descendants. "Your descendants will also be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south; and in you and in your descendants shall all the families of the earth be blessed. "Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you." Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, "Surely the LORD is in this place, and I did not know it." He was afraid and said, "How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven." So Jacob rose early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put under his head and set it up as a pillar and poured oil on its top. He called the name of that place Bethel; however, previously the name of the city had been Luz. Then Jacob made a vow, saying, "If God will be with me and will keep me on this journey that I take, and will give me food to eat and garments to wear, and I return to my father's house in safety, then the LORD will be my God. "This stone, which I have set up as a pillar, will be God's house, and of all that You give me I will surely give a tenth to You."


You're the second poster to suggest a vow is somehow comparable to or equivalent with a covenant. It is my position the two are not identical and, therefore, the example does not meet the specified criteria of the inquiry AND your observation that the vow existed within the already existing covenant with Abraham means it is not something initiated by Jacob because God had already initiated the covenant in which the vow was made. Since this particular example pertains to Jacob, I will also appeal to Romans 9's observation God's mercy for Jacob had absolutely nothing to do with any attribute of Jacob and had been decided before the man was born. The vow, therefore, occurs subsequent to, causally subsequent to the God-initiated covenant. On top of that, let's look at what Jacob specifically stated. Jacob said, "If God will be with me....." indicating what is linguistically a conditional statement BUT because of Genesis 15 and Romans 9 we know something Jacob may not have known: God was definitely with Jacob. Because of Genesis 28:25 we know God had decided Jacob was favored, selected, shown mercy, and had a destiny decided before he was born. Jacob predicates the LORD being his God on something he doesn't yet know exists but, logically speaking, he's being foolish because of the LORD is God then He is Jacob's Gd whether Jacob wants Him to be, or not. Consider what Daniel said to Balshazzar.....

Daniel 5:17-23
Then Daniel answered and said before the king, "Keep your gifts for yourself or give your rewards to someone else; however, I will read the inscription to the king and make the interpretation known to him. O king, the Most High God granted sovereignty, grandeur, glory and majesty to Nebuchadnezzar your father. Because of the grandeur which He bestowed on him, all the peoples, nations and men of every language feared and trembled before him; whomever he wished he killed and whomever he wished he spared alive; and whomever he wished he elevated and whomever he wished he humbled. But when his heart was lifted up and his spirit became so proud that he behaved arrogantly, he was deposed from his royal throne and his glory was taken away from him. He was also driven away from mankind, and his heart was made like that of beasts, and his dwelling place was with the wild donkeys. He was given grass to eat like cattle, and his body was drenched with the dew of heaven until he recognized that the Most High God is ruler over the realm of mankind and that He sets over it whomever He wishes. Yet you, his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, even though you knew all this, but you have exalted yourself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of His house before you, and you and your nobles, your wives and your concubines have been drinking wine from them; and you have praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood and stone, which do not see, hear or understand. But the God in whose hand are your life-breath and all your ways, you have not glorified.

Jacob could think he could choose who would or would not be his God, but if his thinking did not reconcile with reality then he was delusional. God rules the kingdom of humanity, and He appoints who He wants. It is in His hand the life breath of every individual, including Genesis 28's Jacob.

So, I genuinely applaud the effort but given the fact Jacob's word exists only in the context of an already existing covenant and our knowledge he was a covenant member of the Christological covenant God initiated with his grandfather, the Gen. 28 example does not meet the specified criteria. Give it another try (or if there are no such citations available then acknowledge that).


Can you cite a covenant with God in the Bible that God did not initiate? Or, to put the same question in other words, is there a covenant with God that God did not, Himself, initiate? Has any human in the Bible ever initiated or instigated a covenant with God?


.

 

[JoshebB]

Whether the covenant by which David and the Ninevites is Christological requires further clarification.
For example, The Catholic Church holds that persons in the Old Testament were saved because

1. They believed in God promises (whatever the promises were at that time and circumstance) and
2. Christ preached to them in Hades.

You can read more about that here: https://www.thecatholictelegraph.com/before-christ/94181

This Catholic view has biblical support, is consistent with the concept of a wise and loving God, and is very different from the view expressed in your post, that “Old Testament persons heard the gospel and possessed at least some knowledge of that gospel”. It should be more than obvious that

• The illiterate mass of Israelites had a limited notion of the Messiah to come (in the best of scenarios) particularly before the Davidian dinasty and perhaps more importantly, before the exile.
• Those notions, when present, had nothing to do with how God forgave their individual sins on a daily basis. Prophets speaking about the future Messiah never urged Israel to seek repentance on the basis of the belief in the future atonement by a Messiah.

If the repeated calls to repentance we find across the Tanakh, and the repeated please for salvation are devoid of any appeal to a future blood atonement, it is absurd to think that for 1400 years God just “forgot” or deliberately “withheld” a knowledge of a sine qua non requirement for salvation.

The website you chose to use explicitly states,

"In the Old Testament, God made a covenant with Abraham, promising to be the God of his descendants and to bless all nations through them. This promise was fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ, the “Lord of Life” and the savior of Jews and Gentiles."​

and...

"Even for those who lived centuries before Jesus, their salvation is from Him."​

In other words, all salvation from sin and wrath is found only in the person and work of Jesus Christ. If the Ninevites were saved from sin, then their salvation is from Jesus. They do NOT qualify as a group saved apart from a covenant relationship in Jesus. You are wasting everyone's time and contradicting your own posts!

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

LOL! I'm gonna give you credit for the attempt, but 1) that's not a covenant of salvation and 2) Hannah made that vow inside the already existing covenant God had initiated with Abraham (and Isaac, and Jacob). In other words, her vow is an intra-covenant vow, a vow made by someone already a participant in an existing covenant initiated by God.

So, give the answer another try (or concede there are no examples of people initiating salvific or Christological covenants with God).

I do agree with your point 2... that Hannah made that vow inside the already existing covenant between God and Abraham.
In regard to point 1, though, I have a comment:

Salvation, in the OT (and particularly before the exile) was not understood necessarily the salvation of our soul from the slavery of sin. And certainly, not as salvation from a punishment in the afterlife.

Salvation meant deliverance from any bad things that could happen on this earth: hunger, draughts, diseases, poverty, war, and also loss of social reputation (which was a very hard kind of punishment). For Hannah as for most women of her time, being childless was a source of big sorrow and big risks, difficult to understand for our modern minds. So, for her it was a salvific issue, just as for Jacob, in the passage @Red Baker has shared with us.

God's promises contained in his first covenants were salvific in material terms, as these were the terms that ancient people could understand and value: in their minds, material misfortunes were the result of violating a covenant with God, while material prosperity and security were the result of being in peace with God.

So, in the covenant made through Noah, God promises to preserve earth from destruction through a flood.
In the covenant made through Moses, God promises material prosperity and security to Israel.
It is just in the New Covenant, framed first in the book of Jeremiah, that God stresses spiritual prosperity.

In each case, though, covenants were salvific from the perspective of men with whom such covenant was made.

 

[praise_yeshua]

LOL! I'm gonna give you credit for the attempt, but 1) that's not a covenant of salvation and 2) Hannah made that vow inside the already existing covenant God had initiated with Abraham (and Isaac, and Jacob). In other words, her vow is an intra-covenant vow, a vow made by someone already a participant in an existing covenant initiated by God.

So, give the answer another try (or concede there are no examples of people initiating salvific or Christological covenants with God).

Don't move the "goalpost".... YOU asked THIS question.

"Can a covenant with God in the Bible that God did not initiate be cited? Or, to put the same question in other words, is there a covenant with God that God did not, Himself, initiate? Has any human in the Bible ever initiated or instigated a covenant with God?"

I answered you. What I said was true.

Now to this "new goal" you have.......

Vows are part of covenants. God vows. Man vows. You're failing to recognize this. Faith is a vow to God that comes from mankind. It is trust in what God has said He is willing to do.

Now. You try again. This time, don't "move the goalpost".

Hannah made an unsolicited vow to God.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I do agree with your point 2... that Hannah made that vow inside the already existing covenant between God and Abraham.
In regard to point 1, though, I have a comment:

Salvation, in the OT (and particularly before the exile) was not understood necessarily the salvation of our soul from the slavery of sin. And certainly, not as salvation from a punishment in the afterlife.

Salvation meant deliverance from any bad things that could happen on this earth: hunger, draughts, diseases, poverty, war, and also loss of social reputation (which was a very hard kind of punishment). For Hannah as for most women of her time, being childless was a source of big sorrow and big risks, difficult to understand for our modern minds. So, for her it was a salvific issue, just as for Jacob, in the passage @Red Baker has shared with us.

God's promises contained in his first covenants were salvific in material terms, as these were the terms that ancient people could understand and value: in their minds, material misfortunes were the result of violating a covenant with God, while material prosperity and security were the result of being in peace with God.

So, in the covenant made through Noah, God promises to preserve earth from destruction through a flood.
In the covenant made through Moses, God promises material prosperity and security to Israel.
It is just in the New Covenant, framed first in the book of Jeremiah, that God stresses spiritual prosperity.

In each case, though, covenants were salvific from the perspective of men with whom such covenant was made.

Now, we are getting somewhere......

Contrary to his position, (Which I already know) he is insisting that Hannah is part of covenant given to another. He is being disingenuous in his assumption and methodology. You are too.

So WHY is Hannah part of an existing covenant? That covenant wasn't given to her.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

The website you chose to use explicitly states,

"In the Old Testament, God made a covenant with Abraham, promising to be the God of his descendants and to bless all nations through them. This promise was fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ, the “Lord of Life” and the savior of Jews and Gentiles."​

and...

"Even for those who lived centuries before Jesus, their salvation is from Him."​

In other words, all salvation from sin and wrath is found only in the person and work of Jesus Christ. If the Ninevites were saved from sin, then their salvation is from Jesus. They do NOT qualify as a group saved apart from a covenant relationship in Jesus.

The article you read is precisely to explain how those people were saved without having a relationship with GOD dependant on what they knew, understood or confessed about the future Messiah.

The Ninevites are a good example of people saved without the need of knowing, understanding or confessing a future sacrifice of Jesus, and therefore, without having a “covenant relationship in Jesus”
That was precisely the point of Jesus when presenting the Ninevites as an example.
“On the day of judgment the inhabitants of Nineveh will rise up with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here.”

Now, if you believe that Jesus saved them despite they were unaware of it, I can only say Amen, my brother. Let’s proceed.