Yes, the names of God in Scripture reveal something about Him to us. Nathan Stone observed, “Indeed we cannot say all that the mysterious word God means to us until we know more about Him."
Presumably, one could then conclude that the name given to the incarnate Son - Jesus - is because it aligns in particular with the force of the new covenant and it’s force as the covenant of Yahweh’s salvation.
Great thought! I'd have to think through this. Genesis 9 and 17 (as well as Exodus) make it very clear that a name, covenant, and sign work alongside each other. Does the NT have that same clarity?
Good article, Wyatt. Progressive Covenantalism (as in Wellum and Gentry's book Kingdom Through Covenant) would see these early huge covenants, like the Abrahamic and Mosaic, as stepping stones leading to the greatest covenant of all, the new covenant in Christ. I see it that way too; the essence of these early covenants find their fulfilment in Christ and the NC. All the promises of God find their Yes in Him (2 Cor. 1:20). As for signs, I therefore see circumcision and Sabbath fulfilled in Christ and His finished work, and the Lord's Supper being the main sign of the NC.
While well written and another fine piece, the link between covenant and/or further refinement of covenant seems clear by your explanation, I add the word "refinement" because though covenants may have quantitative differences, one to the Patriarchs is essentially to the same group as Israel, is it not? Is there a substantive difference in the sub-group of humanity that is partner of the second two covenants? Or am I straining after a gnat! Again, great article.
Abraham's covenant has to do with blessing, offpsring, and land (Gen 12, 15, 17). Israel's covenant has specific commands and stipulations for being in the land (Exod 19-24). So I'd suggest they are different.
Although I agree with you that both operate together since the Abrahamic stipulations carry on after the Law of Moses; and circumcision, e.g., continues.
Not sure what you meant here, Wyatt, about "the promise to Abraham comes after the Law of Moses." I think of Paul saying that "the law, which came 430 years afterward" (Gal. 3:17), i.e., after God's establishing of His covenant with Abraham. In other words, the promise to Abraham comes before the Law of Moses.
Oop, typing to fast in the early AM. Yes, I edited the above. I only mean that the promises continue past the Law of Moses. I typed it out in a weird way.
Yes, the names of God in Scripture reveal something about Him to us. Nathan Stone observed, “Indeed we cannot say all that the mysterious word God means to us until we know more about Him."
Agree!
Presumably, one could then conclude that the name given to the incarnate Son - Jesus - is because it aligns in particular with the force of the new covenant and it’s force as the covenant of Yahweh’s salvation.
Great thought! I'd have to think through this. Genesis 9 and 17 (as well as Exodus) make it very clear that a name, covenant, and sign work alongside each other. Does the NT have that same clarity?
Helpful as always, man!
Thanks, friend!
Good article, Wyatt. Progressive Covenantalism (as in Wellum and Gentry's book Kingdom Through Covenant) would see these early huge covenants, like the Abrahamic and Mosaic, as stepping stones leading to the greatest covenant of all, the new covenant in Christ. I see it that way too; the essence of these early covenants find their fulfilment in Christ and the NC. All the promises of God find their Yes in Him (2 Cor. 1:20). As for signs, I therefore see circumcision and Sabbath fulfilled in Christ and His finished work, and the Lord's Supper being the main sign of the NC.
While well written and another fine piece, the link between covenant and/or further refinement of covenant seems clear by your explanation, I add the word "refinement" because though covenants may have quantitative differences, one to the Patriarchs is essentially to the same group as Israel, is it not? Is there a substantive difference in the sub-group of humanity that is partner of the second two covenants? Or am I straining after a gnat! Again, great article.
Abraham's covenant has to do with blessing, offpsring, and land (Gen 12, 15, 17). Israel's covenant has specific commands and stipulations for being in the land (Exod 19-24). So I'd suggest they are different.
Although I agree with you that both operate together since the Abrahamic stipulations carry on after the Law of Moses; and circumcision, e.g., continues.
Thank you for teaching me that distinction. Makes it much better understood. ✅
Not sure what you meant here, Wyatt, about "the promise to Abraham comes after the Law of Moses." I think of Paul saying that "the law, which came 430 years afterward" (Gal. 3:17), i.e., after God's establishing of His covenant with Abraham. In other words, the promise to Abraham comes before the Law of Moses.
Oop, typing to fast in the early AM. Yes, I edited the above. I only mean that the promises continue past the Law of Moses. I typed it out in a weird way.