First covenant?

[laronius]

Perhaps someone can shed some light on the covenant mentioned here:

Mormon 7:10 And ye will also know that ye are a remnant of the seed of Jacob; therefore ye are numbered among the people of the first covenant...

Any insight on which particular covenant this is and what might be the second covenant?

[JohnsonJones]

5 hours ago, laronius said:

Perhaps someone can shed some light on the covenant mentioned here:

Mormon 7:10 And ye will also know that ye are a remnant of the seed of Jacob; therefore ye are numbered among the people of the first covenant...

Any insight on which particular covenant this is and what might be the second covenant?

I believe that would be the Abrahamic covenant and those to Abraham's, Issac's, and Jacob's children (and thus descendants).

[laronius]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I believe that would be the Abrahamic covenant and those to Abraham's, Issac's, and Jacob's children (and thus descendants).

That had crossed my mind though I don't recall ever hearing of it referred to as the first covenant. Any thoughts on what the second covenant is?

[Fether]

24 minutes ago, laronius said:

That had crossed my mind though I don't recall ever hearing of it referred to as the first covenant. Any thoughts on what the second covenant is?

I don’t think it is intended to be a secondary name. Just an acknowledgement that this may have been the first covenant

[CV75]

10 hours ago, laronius said:

Perhaps someone can shed some light on the covenant mentioned here:

Mormon 7:10 And ye will also know that ye are a remnant of the seed of Jacob; therefore ye are numbered among the people of the first covenant...

Any insight on which particular covenant this is and what might be the second covenant?

"First" can go back to Abraham, or Noah, or Enoch, or Adam... or even the grand Council in Heaven. But given that Jacob is the reference point, and he blessed Joseph to "run over the wall", that is, to inherit the New World,  I think the first covenant may be tied to that specific matter.

[Traveler]

10 hours ago, laronius said:

Perhaps someone can shed some light on the covenant mentioned here:

Mormon 7:10 And ye will also know that ye are a remnant of the seed of Jacob; therefore ye are numbered among the people of the first covenant...

Any insight on which particular covenant this is and what might be the second covenant?

It is my opinion that many do not interpret the ancient meaning of "first" correctly.  Seldom in ancient scripture did first refer to the chronologically first but rather the most noble, enlightened and exalted.  For example; it is understood that the covenant birth rite resides with the first son; and yet whenever in scripture the birth rite was in dispute between two sons the birth rite (always?)  ended up with the younger of the two sons.  Even the case cited of Jacob being the 11th son of Isaac. 

As for the case in Moroni 7:10 -- I am of the mind that it is reference to establishing covenant with G-d and not to a particular covenant associated with a particular law and ordinance.

 

The Traveler

[JohnsonJones]

23 hours ago, laronius said:

That had crossed my mind though I don't recall ever hearing of it referred to as the first covenant. Any thoughts on what the second covenant is?

The New covenant with those who Covenant with the Lord to be his children.

1.  Abrahamic Covenant with the Children of Abraham.

2.  The New Covenant with any who choose to follow the Lord and accept his atonement.

The first is a Covenant through blood.  The second is a Covenant through spirit.  Both are children of the Lord, but through different covenants with the Lord.

One is the covenant personally to Abraham, Issac, and Jacob and extended to their children.   The Second is a personal covenant  via the Lord with each one who accepts it (the covenant to accept and follow the Lord and in turn be accepted as his).

Edited February 4, 2022 by JohnsonJones

[Just_A_Guy]

Mormon 7 is directed specifically to the descendants of the Lamanites who will read Mormon’s words.  Verse 8 admonishes them to “lay hold upon the gospel of Christ, which shall be set before you, not only in this record but also in the record which shall come unto the Gentiles from the Jews, which record shall come from the Gentiles unto you.”  The next verse indicates that Mormon’s record is intended to direct them to accept the record of the Jews as well.

Given that we sometimes hear that “Old Testament” and “New Testament” can alternatively be rendered as “Old Covenant” and “New Covenant”— I think that in V 10, “first covenant” may refer to “first testament” or “first record”—ie, the Bible.

In other words, I submit that Mormon wants the descendants of the Lamanites to recognize themselves as the heirs to the people and covenants spoken of in the Bible.  I don’t know that Mormon was necessarily trying to specify whether that would be the Adamic or the Noachian or the Abrahamic or the Mosaic or some other covenant—the point is that whatever divine covenants remain in force as to scattered Israel, they apply to the Lamanites as well as to the Israelites.

Edited February 5, 2022 by Just_A_Guy

[Anddenex]

On 2/2/2022 at 10:52 PM, laronius said:

Perhaps someone can shed some light on the covenant mentioned here:

Mormon 7:10 And ye will also know that ye are a remnant of the seed of Jacob; therefore ye are numbered among the people of the first covenant...

Any insight on which particular covenant this is and what might be the second covenant?

I'm inline with the thought that this means the Abrahamic covenant. It refers to Jacob's seed, relating then to a covenant that is associated with Jacob. We know Abraham received the covenant, and then Isaac sought to receive the same from the Lord, and then Jacob did also. I find it also interesting that in scripture I don't hear the same terminology with these three individuals (although it could be used) as with others, "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." We don't hear, "The God of Adam, Seth, etc..."

However, scriptures tend to have more meaning than just one at times, and thus this could mean even the covenant of our first estate. I don't think it is as it specifically refers to the seed of Jacob.

The second covenant could easily mean the promises given to the children of Israel. They were Manasseh's children, thus giving them the covenant/promises within being son's of Joseph and that particular branch.

Edited February 6, 2022 by Anddenex

[romans8]

On 2/4/2022 at 9:01 AM, JohnsonJones said:

The New covenant with those who Covenant with the Lord to be his children.

1.  Abrahamic Covenant with the Children of Abraham.

2.  The New Covenant with any who choose to follow the Lord and accept his atonement.

From reading Galatians chapter 4, I would say law (applied to the Israelites) versus grace (applied to first
the Israelites and then to all peoples).

"For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But as then
he that was born after the flesh [Ishmael] persecuted him that was born after the Spirit [Isaac], even so it is
now ... So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.".

I am of not from any of the literal tribes of Israel but I would consider myself a child of the free.

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, romans8 said:

From reading Galatians chapter 4, I would say law (applied to the Israelites) versus grace (applied to first
the Israelites and then to all peoples).

"For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But as then
he that was born after the flesh [Ishmael] persecuted him that was born after the Spirit [Isaac], even so it is
now ... So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.".

I am of not from any of the literal tribes of Israel but I would consider myself a child of the free.

Ancient Judaism had a very strong tradition of divine grace and mercy and awareness of the impossibility of keeping the whole law; as has been borne out by the Dead Sea Scrolls and analyses by non-LDS scholars including N.T. Wright, James VanderKam, Peter Flint, E.P. Sanders, John J. Collins, and Daniel C. Harlow.

Pauline grace (charis), properly understood as the “protective” part of a “protection/loyalty” covenant between Greco-Roman commoner and patron, has always been part of God’s plan for His children; it differs but little from the suzerain/vassal-type covenant that Genesis records as being made between the ancient patriarchs and Jehovah Himself.

The reduction of Paul’s epistles to a “law is stupid” or “law is for lesser beings than I” paradigm, as many are wont to do, is certainly backed by a weighty juggernaut of Protestant tradition.  But it is frankly based on sloppy exegesis, is becoming increasingly historically untenable, and ultimately serves only two purposes:

1) Following Luther’s lead in justifying his personal animus towards both Jews and Catholics; and 

2) Advancing an anything-goes approach to ethics and morality (🎵No right, no wrong, no rules for me—I’m freeeeee!!! 🎵)

Edited February 13, 2022 by Just_A_Guy