Dec 18, 2017

Search

IV. B. 3. d. xiv. Unconditionality of His promise (attribution by oath)

cf. I.A.6. + I.A.7.; III.D.7 (1)

Click here (new window) to display all references, or click each individual reference below.
(Note: Each link opens a new popup window)

Reference Relevant Comments
Gen 15:9-11
Gen 26:3 given by oath
Gen 50:24
Exod 6:8
Exod 13:5,11
(Ex 24:4-8 Jer 34:18) > Gen 15:17-19
Exod 32:13
Exod 33:1
Lev 26:44-45
Num 11:12
Num 14:16,23
Num 32:11
Deut 1:8,35
Deut 6:10,18,23
Deut 7:13
Deut 8:1
Deut 9:5
Deut 10:11
Deut 11:9,21
Deut 19:8
Deut 26:3,15

Click here (new window) to display all references, or click each individual reference below.
(Note: Each link opens a new popup window)

Reference Relevant Comments
Deut 28:11
Deut 30:20
Deut 31:20,21,23
Deut 34:4
Josh 1:6
Josh 5:6
Josh 11:23
Judges 2:1
1Chron 16:15-18 (by oath)
Neh 9:15
Psa 105:8-11

Click here (new window) to display all references, or click each individual reference below.
(Note: Each link opens a new popup window)

Reference Relevant Comments
Isa 14:32 (see II.C.5.)
Isa 43:25
Isa 48:9-11 (for the sake of my name)
Isa 54:9-10
Jer 11:5
Jer 32:22
Ezek 20:6,9,28,42,44
Ezek 36:22-23
Ezek 47:14
Gal 3:17-21

Land without conditions:

Click here (new window) to display all references, or click each individual reference below.
(Note: Each link opens a new popup window)

Reference Relevant Comments
Gen 22:16-18
Gen 27:2-3
Gen 28:13-14
Gen 35:9-15
Deut 17:7-8
Lev 26:44-45
Ps 89:35-37
Ps 105:8-11
Isa 54:10
Isa 55:3
Jer 31:31-40
Jer 33:25-26
Ezek 11:14-21
Ezek 16:60-63
Ezek 36:22-24,31,32
Rom 11:28-29

Land for ever:

Click here (new window) to display all references, or click each individual reference below.
(Note: Each link opens a new popup window)

Reference Relevant Comments
Gen 13:15
Gen 17:8
Gen 48:4
Exod 32:13
Josh 14:9 (Caleb)
1 Chron 28:8
2 Chron 20:7
Ps 37:29
Isa 60:21
Jer 7:7
Eze 37:25

(1) The promise is expressed in various ways: ...giving/gave the land; swore to give or giving/gave the land by oath (42 times); covenant by oath (three times); everlasting land (11 times)

Add Comment 
Sign as Author 
Enter code 661

izwfkli — 01 April 2013, 11:45

daYtNk <a href="http://zqzjfggrcrhp.com/">zqzjfggrcrhp</a>

Diarius — 31 March 2013, 12:40

Dr. Decker,I'm glad you got a chance to renspod to my question, and I trust the Lord is sustaining you through this complicated period of life.Surely the TIME mag piece is a strong rebuke, and I do feel that too many evangelicals do base their position on divorce and remarriage more on perceived notions of human justice, rather than on God's standard of justice as revealed in his Word.A quick note in response to yours. I don't want to put undo weight on marriage being a covenant either, although I do think it is a covenant. But, even if we don't call it a covenant, we need some word to describe the nature of the marriage union. Kostenberger in his book lays out 3 broad possibilities, and sides with the nature of marriage union being primarily a covenant, over against a contract or a sacrament. I would agree with him, but perhaps nuance it and say that it is a covenant which also contains some contractual and sacramental elements (provided I get to explain that).In Matt 19 Jesus refers back to the institution of marriage by quoting Gen 1:27 and 2:24. Many have pointed to this scene in Genesis being a covenantal context even if the word is not used. However, I do think that Prov 2:17 and Mal 2:14 do provide direct textual support to the marriage union being described as a covenant as Gordon Hugenberger has shown in his Marriage as a Covenant: Biblical Law and Ethics as Developed from Malachi. [incidently, we can fairly infer that the Bible refers to at least one pre-lapsarian covenant here...but alas, a topic for another discussion]Erasmians I think are the ones that emphasize the covenantal nature of marriage as the primary OT support for their argument for divorce and remarriage. They simply point out that marriage is a covenant, and like other ANE covenants it can be made and broken, etc. They go on to assume that when divorce is permitted, so is remarriage, even if remarriage is not explicitly mentioned. In fact, Heth points to this argument as presented by Hugenberger as one of the major reasons he forsook his former Patristic view on this issue. He details this in his coming out article published in 2002 by SBJT. Kostenberger likewise relies heavily on the covenantal nature of marriage as an argument for why he believes the bible teaches both divorce AND remarriage while the original marriage partners are still alive. I've read much of Instone-Brewer's more academic work on this a couple years ago, but I can't seem to recall him emphasizing this as much as the 1st C Jewish understanding.I disagree with the Erasmians in maintaining that the Patristic view best aligns with the Scriptural teaching. Marriage is a covenant, but I think they have missed the one-flesh nature of the bond, as Wenham develops it from Scripture (this is what Jesus relies on in Matt 19 too). It seems to me that the uniform teaching of the Bible is that remarriage is not explicitly permitted apart from the death of the spouse, even if a divorce has already taken place. Hence the remarriage to another partner can accurately be described as committing adultry while both spouses are alive, precisely because they are still united in the marriage union before God until death do we part! I agree that either understanding of Jn 4 cannot be proved from the immediate context either way. Though I still think that phenomological language does fit with the overall presentation of marriage in the Bible. I can understand how an Erasmian would argue the way you did from Jn 4, but it still surprises me that you do in light of the fact that you hold to a No Divorce position. I just want to understand how you reconcile the logic of remarriage as adultry with your understanding of Jn 4.We don't have to continue this discussion on this blog post, as it is drifting from the original intent of your post. A comment you made sparked an interest to me, so I merely wanted to understand what you meant because I value your opinion so highly.Thanks for making yourself available through this blog. I appreciate your works about the Good Wednesday Service too on your other post.