Archives for the month of: January, 2013

The Edenic covenant, named for its geographical setting, was established by God for man during the first dispensation, the dispensation of innocence. Our approach is twofold: to consider the Edenic covenant in its biblical context and to consider the timeless principles of  the covenant applicable today. A historical contract A definition and overview of the scriptural covenants between God and man will help us see the biblical context of the  Edenic covenant. A covenant is a binding arrangement between two or more parties designed to govern their actions and relationship. The term covenant is
derived from Hebrew words meaning “to eat” or “to cut,” referring to ceremonial actions surrounding the ratification of
a covenant, such as a meal or sacrifice. The Edenic covenant was unilateral with one conditional element added. It was a
command from God issued to Adam, the royal tenant of the earth. The sovereign Lord established the terms of this contract without man’s consent. The covenants of Scripture can be grouped as Primeval (Edenic, Adamic,  Noahic), Patriarchal (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Levitic, Palestinian, Davidic, Solomonic), and Prophetic (New, Eternal),  eleven covenants in all. Each covenant  has its unique terms and conditions  between God and man. One exception is  the eternal (or everlasting) covenant between God the Father and God the Son. (Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 1:18-21). The elements of the Edenic covenant are seen in
man’s responsibility and God’s provision  (Gen. 1:26-30; 2:8-17). Under the Edenic covenant, man had many responsibilities:
1. Populate the earth
2. Subdue the earth for the benefit
of human existence
Gardening 101
3. Exercise dominion over the rest
of creation
4. Sustain human life by eating
herbs and fruit
5. Tend the garden of Eden
6. Abstain from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil God provided a garden of material  blessings and spiritual fellowship for man. However, the Edenic covenant also contained a provision of judgment  for man’s disobedience. The sentence was death (v. 17). The covenant was designed to test man’s obedience.  Love and obedience are often coupled
in Scripture (Jn. 15:9-10; 1 Jn. 3:18).  God desired the expression of man’s love through voluntary obedience to  His Word. Nothing short of that could  satisfy the heart of God. Man’s disobedience caused this covenant’s provision
of judgment and death to be activated upon Adam and all his descendents (Gen. 5:5; Rom. 5:12; Heb. 9:27). In this, we see principles that we will see again in other covenants. God created man with a unique design to serve  His divine purposes. He gave man the capacity for moral responsibility. He also warned man of the consequences of disobedience. It contains a key principle for all generations: obedience  brings divine blessing; disobedience brings divine judgment. There is a parallel charge set forth to the nation of Israel (Deut. 30:15-20). From a historical perspective, the  Edenic covenant was between God and  Adam and Eve. Its context was in the  garden of Eden within the dispensation  of innocence. Its terms were  primarily related to the trees of the garden. However, in a more general sense, the  principles of the Edenic covenant have a broader application to the subsequent  dispensations of world history. William  MacDonald, speaking of the forbidden fruit, states; “In different forms, that fruit is still with us today.” [Believer’s  Bible Commentary] 

Timeless principles By way of application, consider some  lessons for today that can be gleaned from the Edenic covenant.
1. Man has been given divinelyappointed responsibility for the earth. Man was placed in dominion over and
above the rest of creation. He is the pinnacle of God’s creative handiwork. The  earth was made for man’s blessing.

2. God commanded man to “be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the  earth.” This directive has never been
rescinded. God’s command silences the frettings of finite men about over-population (Ps. 127:3-5).

3. After giving man life, God immediately gave him work to do. Idleness is never positive; hard work is held in high
regard (Prov. 24:30-34; Eph. 4:28). 

4. Privilege entails responsibility. Man was placed in a beautiful garden,  but he was commanded to cultivate it
and guard its fruitfulness. In Matthew’s gospel, the kingdom of heaven is represented by numerous agricultural similes
revealing principles of fruitfulness and guarding against adversaries. If we are to be fruitful, our lives must be cultivated and guarded.
5. The title of this garden is more accurately “the garden of the Lord” (Gen. 13:10). We are servants in His fields. The
garden of the Lord was the first place of  God’s presence on earth. It was there,  in the midst of this garden, that man
learned how to walk with God, listen to God, speak to God, serve God, worship  God, and offer sacrifices of praise to His
same. Today, we gather to Him who is  in our midst (Mt. 18:20; 2 Cor. 6:16-18)  to learn the same lessons.


6. The name Lord or Jehovah is first found within the Edenic covenant. In  Genesis 1, it is God or Elohim, but in  Genesis 2 it is Jehovah Elohim who forms  human beings for divine fellowship (Gen. 2:7). This is the heart of God: He is  seeking for a personal relationship with
man whom He designed for that unique role. And when man broke that relationship by sinning, it was God the Son who
died to restore it (Jn. 17:20-26). 


7. God’s test of man’s obedience
involved two trees: the tree of life
and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Both trees were found in the  midst of the garden. The fruit of the
tree of life offered immortality. The forbidden fruit of the latter tree led  to death. Note that the tree of life was
not forbidden; its fruit could be freely eaten (Gen. 2:16). Thus, we see that it  was God’s desire for man was to enjoy
immortality without ever having any exposure to that which is evil. This  is still God’s desire for His children
(Php. 4:8; 1 Cor. 15:51-54).


8. Once man fell into sin, God graciously acted quickly, denying further  access to the tree of life in order to prevent man

from becoming an immortal, immoral being (Gen. 3:22-24). Thankfully, in the fullness of time, God’s work of

redemption through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ brings us immortality and eternal morality. Thanks to the last 

Adam, we are invited to partake of the tree of life (Rev. 22:1-2).


In summary, a bird’s-eye view of Scripture focuses our attention on three trees: the tree of death from the Edenic covenant (Gen. 2:17), the tree of
healing at Calvary (1 Pet. 2:24), and 
 the  tree of life (Rev. 2:7) in eternity. The   Edenic covenant sets the stage for the 

eternal purposes of God from creation to the glories of eternity. It will be there, in that heavenly garden, that we
will know the joy of listening to His voice and walking by His side, forever in the light of His glory. 

By: Sam Thorpe

 

Joseph in Prison—The Dream of Pharaoh’s Two Officers—The Dream of Pharaoh—Joseph’s Exaltation—His Government of Egypt.

(GEN. XL.; XLI.; XLVII. 13–26.)
ELEVEN years had passed since Joseph was sold into Egypt, and yet the Divine promise, conveyed in his dreams, seemed farther than ever from fulfilment. The greater part of this weary time had probably been spent in prison, without other prospect than that of such indulgence as his services to “the keeper of the prison” might insure, when an event occurred which, for a brief season, promised a change in Joseph’s condition. Some kind of “offence”—real or imaginary—had, as is so often the case in the East, led to the sudden disgrace and imprisonment of two of Pharaoh’s chief officers. The charge of “the chief of the butlers”—or chief of the cupbearers—and of “the chief of the bakers” naturally devolved upon “the captain of the guard,”—a successor, as we imagine, of Potiphar, since he appointed Joseph to the responsible post of their personal attendant. They had not been long in prison when, by the direct leading of Divine Providence, both dreamed in the same night a dream, calculated deeply to impress them. By the same direct guidance of Providence, Joseph was led to notice in the morning their anxiety, and to inquire into its cause. We regard it as directly from God, that he could give them at once and unhesitatingly the true meaning of their dreams.
We are specially struck in this respect with the manner in which Joseph himself viewed it. When he found them in distress for want of such “interpreter” as they might have consulted if free, he pointed them straight to God: “Do not interpretations belong to God?” thus encouraging them to tell, and at the same time preparing himself for reading their dreams, by casting all in faith upon God. In short, whether or not he were eventually enabled to understand their dreams, he would at least not appear like the Egyptian magicians—he would not claim power or wisdom; he would own God, and look up to Him.
We say it the more confidently, that Joseph’s interpretation came to him directly from God, that it seems so easy and so rational. For, it is in the supernatural direction of things natural that we ought most to recognise the direct interposition of the Lord. The dreams were quite natural, and the interpretation was quite natural—yet both were directly of God. What more natural than for the chief butler and the chief baker, three nights before Pharaoh’s birthday, on which, as they knew, he always “made a feast unto all his servants,” to dream that they were each again at his post? And what more natural than that on such an occasion Pharaoh should consider, whether for good or for evil, the case of his absent imprisoned officers? Or, lastly, what more natural than that the chief butler’s consciousness of innocence should suggest in his dreams that he once more waited upon his royal master; while the guilty conscience of the chief baker saw only birds of prey eating out of the basket from which he had hitherto supplied his master’s table?
Here, then, it may be said, we have all the elements of Joseph’s interpretation to hand, just as we shall see they were equally obvious in the dreams which afterwards troubled Pharaoh. Yet as then none of the magicians and wise men of Egypt could read what, when once stated, seems so plainly written, so here all seems involved in perplexity till God gives light.
As already stated, the two dreams were substantially the same. In each case the number three, whether of clusters in the vine from which the chief butler pressed the rich juice into Pharaoh’s cup, or of baskets in which the chief baker carried the king’s bakemeat, pointed to the three days intervening before Pharaoh’s birthday. In each case also their dreams transported them back to their original position before any charge had been brought against them, the difference lying in this: that, in the one dream, Pharaoh accepted the functions of his officer; while, in the other, birds which hover about carcases ate out of the basket. It is also quite natural that, if the chief butler had a good conscience towards his master, he should have been quite ready at the first to tell his dream; while the chief baker, conscious of guilt, only related his when encouraged by the apparently favourable interpretation of his colleague’s. Perhaps we ought also to notice, in evidence of the truthfulness of the narrative, how thoroughly Egyptian in all minute details is the imagery of these dreams. From the monuments the growth and use of the vine in Egypt, which had been denied by former opponents of the Bible, have been abundantly proved. From the same source we also learn that bakery and confectionery were carried to great perfection in Egypt, so that we can understand such an office as a royal chief baker. Even the bearing of the baskets furnishes a characteristic trait; as in Egypt men carried loads on their heads, and women on their shoulders.
The event proved the correctness of Joseph’s interpretation. On Pharaoh’s birthday-feast, three days after their dreams, the chief butler was restored to his office, but the chief baker was executed. When interpreting his dream, Joseph had requested that, on the chief butler’s restoration, he, who had himself suffered from a wrongful charge, should think on him, who, at first “stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews,” had so long been unjustly kept in apparently hopeless confinement. This wording of Joseph’s petition seems to indicate that, at most, he only hoped to obtain liberty; and that probably he intended to return to his father’s house. So ignorant was he as yet of God’s further designs with him! But what was a poor Hebrew slave in prison to a proud Egyptian court official? It is only like human nature that, in the day of his prosperity, “the chief butler did not remember Joseph, but forget him!”
Two other years now passed in prison—probably more dreary and, humanly speaking, more hopeless than those which had preceded. At length deliverance came, suddenly and unexpectedly. This time it was Pharaoh who dreamed successively two dreams. In the first, seven fat kine were feeding among the rich “marsh-grass” on the banks “of the Nile.” But presently up came from “the river” seven lean kine, which devoured the well-favoured, without, however, fattening by them. The second dream showed one stalk of corn with seven ears, “full and good,” when up sprang beside it another stalk, also with seven ears, but “blasted with the east wind;” “and the thin ears devoured the seven good ears.” So vivid had been the dream that it seemed to Pharaoh like reality—“and Pharaoh awoke, and, behold, it was a dream.” Only a dream! and yet the impression of its reality still haunted him, so that he sent for “the magicians of Egypt, and all the wise men thereof” to interpret his dreams. But these sages were unable to suggest any explanation satisfactory to the mind of Pharaoh; for we can scarcely believe that they did not attempt some interpretation. In this perplexity, his memory quickened by Oriental terror at his master’s disappointment, the chief of the cup-bearers suddenly remembered his own and the chief baker’s dreams just two years before, and Joseph’s interpretation of them. The event becomes all the more striking and also natural if we may take the date literally as “at the end of two full years,” or on the third anniversary of that birthday of Pharaoh.
Before proceeding, we notice some of the particulars which give the narrative its vivid colouring, and at the same time wonderfully illustrate its historical truthfulness. And, first of all, we again mark the distinctly Egyptian character of all The “river” is “the Nile,” the sacred stream of Egypt, on which its fertility depended—and Pharaoh stands on its banks. Then the term which we have rendered “marsh-grass,” or “reed grass,” is certainly an Egyptian word for which there is no Hebrew equivalent, because that to which it applied was peculiar to the banks of the Nile. Next, the whole complexion of the dreams is Egyptian, as we shall presently show. Moreover, it is remarkable how closely recent independent inquiries have confirmed the scriptural expressions about “the magicians” and “the wise men” of Egypt. It has been always known that there was a special priestly caste in Egypt, to whom not only the religion but the science of the country was entrusted. But of late we have learned a great deal more than this. We know not only that magic formed part and parcel of the religion of Egypt, but we have actually restored to us their ancient magical Ritual itself! We know their incantations and their amulets, with a special reference to the dead; their belief in lucky and unlucky days and events, and even in the so-called “evil eye.” But what is most to our present purpose, we know that the care of the magical books was entrusted to two classes of learned men, whose titles exactly correspond to what, for want of better designation, is rendered as “magicians,” or perhaps “scribes,” and “wise men!” It was before this assemblage, then, of the wisest and most learned, the most experienced in “magic,” and the most venerable in the priesthood, that Pharaoh vainly related his dreams. Most wise truly in this world, yet most foolish; most learned, yet most ignorant! What a contrast between the hoary lore of Egypt and the poor Hebrew slave fetched from prison: they professedly claiming, besides their real knowledge, supernatural powers; he avowedly, and at the outset, disclaiming all power on his part, and appealing to God! A grander scene than this Scripture itself does not sketch; and what an illustration of what was true then, true in the days of our Lord, true in those of St. Paul, and to the end of this dispensation: “Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?”
And yet when we hear the interpretation through the lips of Joseph, how simple, nay, how obvious does it appear, quite commanding Pharaoh’s implicit conviction. Clearly, the two dreams are one—the first bearing on the pastoral, the other on the agricultural life of Egypt. The dreams are about the flocks and the crops. In both cases there is first seven-fold fatness, and then seven-fold leanness, such as to swallow up the previous fatness, and yet to leave no trace of it. The second dream illustrates the first; and yet the first bears already its own interpretation. For the kine were in Egypt reverenced as symbol of Isis, the goddess of earth as the nourisher; and in the hieroglyphics the cow is taken to mean earth, agriculture, and nourishment. And then these kine were feeding by the banks of that Nile, on whose inundations it solely depended whether the year was to be one of fruitfulness or of famine. Equally Egyptian is the description of the stalk with many ears, which is just one of the kinds of wheat still grown in Egypt. But, we repeat it, obvious as all this now seems to us, the wise men of Egypt stood speechless before their monarch! And what a testimony, we again say, for God, when Joseph is “brought hastily out of the dungeon!” To the challenge of Pharaoh: “I have heard of thee, to wit: Thou hearest a dream to interpret it”—that is, thou only requirest to hear, in order to interpret a dream,—he answers, simply, emphatically, but believingly: “Ah, not I” (“not to me,” “it does not belong to me”), “God will answer the peace of Pharaoh;” i.e., what is for the peace of the king. Nor can we omit to notice one more illustration of the accuracy of the whole narrative, when we read that, in preparation for his appearance before Pharaoh, Joseph “shaved himself.” This we know from the monuments was peculiarly Egyptian under such circumstances; whereas among the Hebrews, for example, shaving was regarded as a mark of disgrace.
The interpretation, so modestly yet so decidedly given by Joseph, that the dreams pointed to seven years of unprecedented fruitfulness followed by an equal number of famine, so grievous that the previous plenty should not be known, approved itself immediately to the mind of Pharaoh and “of all his servants.” With this interpretation Joseph had coupled most sagacious advice, for the source of which, in so trying a moment, we must look far higher than the ingenuity of man. He counseled the king to exact in the years of plenty a tax of one-fifth of the produce of the land, and to have it stored under royal supervision against the seven years of famine. Viewed as an impost, this was certainly not heavy, considering that they were years of unexampled plenty; viewed as a fiscal measure, it was most beneficial as compared with what we may suppose to have been previously a mere arbitrary system of taxation, which in reality was tyrannical exaction; while at the same time it would preserve the people from absolute destruction. Lastly, regarded in the light of a higher arrangement, it is very remarkable that this proportion of giving, on the part of Pharaoh’s subjects, afterwards became the basis of that demanded from Israel by Jehovah, their heavenly King. We can scarcely wonder that Pharaoh should have at once appointed such a councillor to superintend the arrangements he had proposed. In point of fact he naturalised him, made him his grand vizier, and publicly proclaimed him “ruler over all the land.” Once more every trait in the description is purely Egyptian. Pharaoh gives him his signet, which “was of so much importance with the ancient Egyptian kings, that their names were always enclosed in an oval which represented an elongated signet.”7 He arrays him “in vestures of byssus,” the noble and also the priestly dress; he puts the chain, or “the collar of gold”9 “about his neck,” which was always the mode of investiture of high Egyptian officials; he makes him ride “in the second chariot which he had,” and he has it proclaimed before him: “Avrech,” that is, “fall down,” “bend the knee,” or “do obeisance.” To complete all, on his naturalisation Joseph’s name is changed to Zaphnath-paaneah, which most probably means “the supporter of life,” or else “the food of the living,” although others have rendered it “the saviour of the world,” and the Rabbis, but without sufficient reason, “the revealer of secrets.” Finally, in order to give him a position among the highest nobles of the land, Pharaoh “gave him to wife Asenath” (probably “she who is of Neith,” the Egyptian goddess of wisdom), “the daughter of Poti-pherah (“dedicated to the sun”), priest of On,” that is, the chief priest of the ancient ecclesiastical, literary, and probably also political capital of the land,12 “the City of the Sun.” This is the more noteworthy, as the chief of the priesthood was generally chosen from among the nearest relatives of Pharaoh. Yet in all this story there is really nothing extraordinary. As Egypt depends for its produce entirely on the waters of the Nile, the country has at all times been exposed to terrible famines; and one which lasted for exactly seven years is recorded in A.D. 1064–1071, the horrors of which show us the wisdom of Joseph’s precautionary measures. Again, so far as the sudden elevation of Joseph is concerned, Eastern history contains many such instances, and indeed, a Greek historian tells us of an Egyptian king who made the son of a mason his own son-in-law, because he judged him the cleverest man in the land. What is remarkable is the marvellous Divine appointment in all this, and the equally marvellous Divine choice of means to bring it about.
Joseph was exactly thirty years old on his elevation, [5 highlights] the same age, we note, on which our blessed Lord entered on His ministry as “the Saviour of the world,” “the Supporter of life,” and “the Revealer of secrets.” The history of Joseph’s administration may be traced in a few sentences. During the seven years of plenty, “he gathered corn as the sand of the sea, very much, until he left numbering,” a notice which remarkably agrees with “the representations of the monuments, which show that the contents of the granaries were accurately noted by scribes when they were filled.” Then, during the years of famine, he first sold corn to the people for money. When all their money was exhausted, they proposed of their own accord to part with their cattle to Pharaoh, and lastly with their land. In the latter case exception was made in favour of the priestly caste, who derived their support directly from Pharaoh. Thus Pharaoh became absolute possessor of all the money, all the cattle, and all the land of Egypt, and that at the people’s own request. This advantage would be the greater, if there had been any tendency to dissatisfaction against the reigning house as an alien race. Nor did Joseph abuse the power thus acquired. On the contrary, by a spontaneous act of royal generosity he restored the land to the people on condition of their henceforth paying one-fifth of the produce in lieu of all other taxation. Besides the considerations already stated in favour of such a measure, it must be borne in mind that in Egypt, where all produce depends on the waters of the Nile, a system of canals and irrigation, necessarily kept up at the expense of the State, would be a public necessity. But the statement of Scripture, which excepts from this measure of public taxation “the land of the priests only, which became not Pharaoh’s,” remarkably tallies with the account of secular historians.
Two things here stand out in the history of Joseph. The [8 highlights] same gracious Hand of the Lord, which, during his humiliation, had kept him from sin, disbelief, and despair, now preserved him in his exaltation from pride, and from lapsing into heathenism, to which his close connection with the chief priest of Egypt might easily have led him. More [6 highlights] than that, he considered himself “a stranger and a pilgrim” [6 highlights] in Egypt. His heart was in his father’s home, with his father’s God, and on his father’s promises. [5 highlights] Of both these facts there is abundant evidence. His Egyptian wife bore him two sons “before the years of famine came.” He gave to both of them Hebrew, not Egyptian names. By the first, Manasseh, or “he that maketh forget,” he wished to own the goodness of God, who had made him forget his past sorrow and toil. By the second, Ephraim, or “double fruitfulness,” he distinctly recognized that, although Egypt was the land in which God had caused him “to be fruitful,” it was still, and must ever be, not the land of his joy but that of his “affliction!” If it be asked why, in his prosperity, Joseph had not informed his father of his life and success, we answer, that in such a history safety lay in quiet waiting upon God. If Joseph had learned the great lesson of his life, it was this, that all in the past had been of God. Nor would He now interfere with further guidance on His part. The Lord would show the way, and lead to the end. But as for him, he believed, and therefore made no haste. Thus would God be glorified, and thus also would Joseph be kept in perfect peace, because he trusted in Him.
Edersheim, A. (1997). Bible History: Old Testament (Ge 40–47:26).

By: Alfred Edersheim, Old Testament History

 

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s

“…and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17).

How much should you pay in taxes to “Caesar”? That question has been debated for millennia. Now, for a limited time at least, certain IRA owners have the opportunity to honor God, rather than “Caesar,” with their resources.

In the wee hours of January 1, 2013, Congress avoided the looming fiscal cliff with a broad tax “relief” law. The law reactivated the popular IRA Charitable Rollover for 2012 and 2013, allowing IRA owners age 70˝ or older to make gifts up to $100,000 to qualified charities like ICR and avoid paying tax on the distribution. And because the law was passed retroactively for 2012, IRA owners can make a donation to ICR by January 31, 2013, and still apply it as a deduction for 2012.

What an excellent opportunity to support ICR’s work and avoid paying taxes you might otherwise be required to take on income. IRA gifts are easy to make—click here to learn how. Or contact us atstewardship@icr.org for assistance.

And please be sure to forward this information to your friends. “Caesar” should only get what God has authorized for him to take—the rest belongs to God.

The Unpardonable Sin

by Eugene Briones