The Blood Covenant

[Gerr]

While the Bible is God's revelation that is intended for the whole human race, we often forget that it is a Middle-eastern book, written in a Middle-eastern mode of thought. We miss much of the impact of what the Bible is trying to say unless we read it with Middle-eastern glasses.

For example: In the story of the Lost Son/Waiting Father in Lk 15, the younger son asks his living father for his inheritance. To western thinking that's no big deal. It might even sound like a reasonable proposition. In fact, rather than waiting until my wife & I died, we gave our son & daughter-in-law part of his inheritance by giving them the down payment for their house. But this is totally unthinkable in Middle-eastern thought. It's like saying, "Dad, I wish you were dead so I could have my inheritance!" And to us, the waiting middle-eastern father running to meet his returning son seems very natural. The fact is, according to those who have studied Middle-eastern customs, it is totally undignified for a patriarch in his flowing robes to run, EVER! So, when I think of my Father's condescension, breaking all social conventions by running to meet His wayward son, me, when He sent His Son as a baby, who made messes & whose bottom had to be bathed & cleaned just like any baby, wow!!! Think of it, the Prince of heaven serving as a slave, and having to relieve Himself just like anybody else!

The impact & import of a blood covenant is also not grasped until we understand it in terms of what it means in Middle-eastern thought. According to H. Clay Trumbull whose book I have been reading, the rite of blood-covenanting is:

1) a "form of mutual covenanting, by which two persons enter into the closest, the most enduring, and the most sacred of compacts, as friends and brothers, or as more than brothers, through the inter-commingling of their blood, by means of its mutual tasting, or of its inter-transfusion."

2) It is a "token of the indissoluble relation." "As it is the inter-commingling of very lives, nothing can transcent it. It forms a tie or a union, which cannot be dissolved. In marriage, divorce is a possibility; not so in the covenant of blood."

3) "And the Blood Covenant is more sacred and more binding than any other compact."

4) "The life of the one covenanting is, by this covenant, devoted--currendered as it were--to the one with whom he covenants; and the rite is uniformly accompanied with a solemn and an imprecatory appeal to God as witnessing and guarding the compact."

5) "The brother [in such a covenant] must guard the [other] brother from treachery, and [must] succor him in peril. So far as may be necessary, the one must provide for the wants of the other; and the survivor has weighty obligations in behalf of the family of the one deceased."

6) "The tie of blood-covenanting is reckoned, in the East, even closer tie than that of natural descent; that a "friend" by this tie is nearer and is dearer, "sticketh closer," than a "brother" by birth."

To be continued.

Gerry

[Nicodema]

Clio should enjoy contributing to this thread. She's read the same book and is really keen on the understanding conveyed.

My copy shipped Feb. 3 so it should be here any day now ...

[Clio]

Oh yeah! Nothing to add so far.... Gerry's doing great!

Well... maybe a little something.

When you contemplate the statements Gerry has quoted from this work, and really think about what they mean, it shines clearly, even through the archaic language that a Blood Covenant with the Most High, Who knows all hearts, is the most intimate, sacred, personal, individual, enduring covenant it is possible to enter into.

Clio

[jasd]

>>…is a Middle-eastern book, written in a Middle-eastern mode of thought. We miss much of the impact of what the Bible is trying to say unless we read it with Middle-eastern glasses.<<

Perhaps observation from another’s (though current and Western) perspective might prove fitting…

Yes, the Bible’s origin is Middle-eastern; there are, however, other aspects that might bear keeping in mind, example: Western civilization (us) derived much from the Greek culture, as well (though, admittedly, not entirely Middle-eastern) as that of Rome. We are also indebted to Byzantium and even, though lesser, to some extent the Arabian world, who, by turn, were influenced largely, by Mohammedanism and by the Mongolian hordes. That said,

more significantly, we are also the direct posterity of the subject under discussion, that is, we, known as Western civilization, are for the most part, the posterity sprung from the loins of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel. What I am advancing is

that we -- America, Canada, and other environs may not be so far removed from the peoples of the Bible – in that which we’ve inherited, both the secular - and Biblical Xtianity.

>>But this is totally unthinkable in Middle-eastern thought. It's like saying, "Dad, I wish you were dead so I could have my inheritance!"<<

That would be reasonable, however, the deceit and theft of an inheritance (a la the Middle-eastern Jacob) occurs, regrettably, rather ordinarily in our culture. We do, somewhat, have that in common, I suppose

>>…when He sent His Son a`s a baby, who made messes & whose bottom had to be bathed & cleaned just like any baby, wow!!! Think of it, the Prince of heaven serving as a slave, and having to relieve Himself just like anybody else!<<

Before Gibson there was Yerby:

“…his agony, his pain.

He was lying there on the pavement and the cross was on top of him. … I could smell him. He stank. Of sweat. Of terror. Of blood. Of despair.

…somehow Yeshu’a had got up again and was moving off, bearing his cross. …the human spirit dominating death, a cadaver moving, walking, tottering over ground, under the crushing weight, upheld by whatever it is that defines manhood, clawed up by nerve-naked will from his guts, his testicles—or, …

It wasn’t enough. He went down again. They beat him and beat him and beat him. I could hear the blows. Dull. Sodden. Wet. Muffled by purpling flesh. Splattering the pavement with his blood.

He couldn’t get up. He couldn’t. In another moment, crucifying him was going to be an anticlimax. So they stopped it.

…

…and saw a pair of Yeshu’a bar Abbas’ brigands hanging from crosses on the brow of the hill. I tried to turn away from that, too. But I couldn’t. I stood there with my eyes stretched so wide they hurt, staring at them. They must have been there for quite some time, overnight, surely, because they’d already lost control and befouled themselves. Green stinking human dung slid slowly down the crosses between their bent legs. Their bellies were swollen tight as drums. Tongues the color and texture of three-day-old calf liver protruded from their mouths. Their penises dripped bloody urine. Their testicles were grossly swollen and had turned purple. Their hands and feet, beyond the places where the ropes bit flesh, were blue blobs. The flies explored every aperture, every hollow of their bodies.

…scream vibrating in my gut like a hard driven blade. I saw what they were doing. They were nailing him to that cross.

…

Then he opened his eyes, shook the maddening cloud of little, ferociously stinging green flies from about his head, and cried out loudly, terribly:

“My God, my God, why have you murdered me?”

(lama sabachthani “slaughtered”… Hebrew, a combination of ‘sabachtha {to sacrifice, to slaughter, to kill}’ and the pronominal suffix ‘oti’ – me. Yeshu’a was not quoting Psalms, and he died in despair)

Then Yeshu’a whispered: “I thirst—” --Yerby

How far off the mark may Yerby have been when penning the above? If he captured, at all… the scenario of the Passion, then indeed, Gd descended to the depths of hell, literally and figuratively, to redeem mankind. That

is humbling to one who can wrap his or her mind around that fact, and the beginning of an appreciation for the incomprehensible ‘mystery’ of Gd-agape. There is a certain ‘abiding’ knowing that

Gd is intimately --and very aware of our human condition.

>>The impact & import of a blood covenant is also not grasped until we understand it in terms of what it means in Middle-eastern thought.<<

Some suggest that “Blood is thicker than water” refers to a blood covenant being more binding than the birth waters of siblings.

Am looking forward to what a dialog on this subject may develop, as it suggests a deeper understanding of Writ.

[Clio]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

Some suggest that “Blood is thicker than water” refers to a blood covenant being more binding than the birth waters of siblings.

---

No suggestion about it. According to Blood Covenanting rites all over the world, ancient and modern, and according the words of the writers of the Bible, not only is it thicker than water, but in fact is a relationship closer and more intimate than that of birth/genetic siblings.

It is a single nature shared by two. It is how we enter into the nature of Jesus.

Clio

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Clio said:

It

is a single nature shared by two.

It

is how we enter into the nature of Jesus.

---

"It" being the "blood covenant?

We may share Christ's Deity through the Holy Spirit, but this does not save. What Christ did in our fallen humanity some 2000 years ago is what constitutes "the blood covenant". Anything in addition to that truth is legalism and must be totally and forever abandoned!

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

Some suggest that “Blood is thicker than water” refers to a blood covenant being more binding than the birth waters of siblings.

---

Interesting you should post that. I was thinking that very same thing yesterday, having intuited it from what I was reading in Gerry's first post. I was not aware that anyone else had ever suggested it before; it simply "came" to me.

[Clio]

Robert,

I've told you before. If you do not have the basic foundation to understand the topic, it is impossible to dialogue with you regarding it.

You do not have the same paradigm or anything else because you refuse to learn, and prayerfully consider what you learn.

The Blood Covenant is a mercy covenant. It is a covenant that could never have been entered into with the Most High, unless He chose to make it so. It pre-exists the sending of the Holy Spirit. It came into existence in the form we know it the moment Abba slew the animals and clothed Adam and Eve in their skins.

Edited to Add: What Jesus did on the Cross was to ratify forever, the blood covenant which had to be renewed by proxy blood for the preceding 5000 years. Once the blood of the Lamb of Abba, slain from the foundation of the world, was shed, then proxy blood was no longer required. A believer's faith and through that faith, repentence and obedience, are all that are required. Proxy blood through animal sacrifice is no longer necessary.

If you want to debate legalism take it somewhere else. There is no legalism in this thread.

[Gerr]

Quote:

---

>>The impact & import of a blood covenant is also not grasped until we understand it in terms of what it means in Middle-eastern thought.<<

Some suggest that “Blood is thicker than water” refers to a blood covenant being more binding than the birth waters of siblings.

---

[:"blue"]Close, but actually, what their proverb says is: Blood is thicker than milk, meaning that covenant made in blood is closer than the relationship stemming from having sucked milk from the same breast.

When we keep this meaning in mind, Prov 18:24, "But there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother," becomes very meaningful. [/]

Gerry

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Clio said:

If you do not have the basic foundation to understand the topic, it is impossible to dialogue with you regarding it.

---

And you can't explain it because it's too completed, right? In my mind I see warning flags.....

Quote:

---

A believer's faith and through that faith, repentence

and obedience

, are all

that are required

.

---

Just like I said...LEGALISM!!!! This is false gospel.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Clio said:

What Jesus did on the Cross was to ratify forever, the blood covenant which had to be renewed by proxy blood for the preceding 5000 years. Once the blood of the Lamb of Abba, slain from the foundation of the world, was shed, then proxy blood was no longer required.

---

Now watch what she's doing folks....First she limits "the cross" and what it did....Then she builds up "works":

Quote:

---

A believer's faith and through that faith, repentance and obedience, are all that are required. Proxy blood through animal sacrifice is no longer necessary.

---

This is just another attempt to combine human works to God's complete redemption "in Christ Jesus." It's just another gospel wrapped in sheep's clothing. Beware!

Rob

[Robert]

I like what Paul says,

"When I came to you, brethren, I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified." 1 Corinthians 2:1,2

The cross is everything! It's where you and I were " reconciled to God by the death of his Son" [Romans 5:10]

The Old Covenant requires 3 things:

1] A life free from indwelling sin such as Adam's life before the fall. This is what EGW calls "Holy Flesh" and what the Bible calls "glorification".

2] A perfect life of obedience to both the letter and the spirit of God's law.

3] The 2nd, eternal death to those who fail to fulfill # 2.

All these requirements have been fulfilled in Christ's birth, life, death and resurrection. Hence "in Him" we have legally and ethically answered the demands of His holy law. "In Him" we are complete! That's the true "blood covenant"!

[Gerr]

Blood Covenant, cont'd.

7) "...among the peoples of the ancient world, that blood represents life; that the giving of blood represents the giving of life; that the receiving of blood represents the receiving of life; that the inter-commingling of blood represents the inter-commingling of natures; and that a divine-human inter-union through blood is the basis of a divine-human inter-communion in the sharing of the flesh of the sacrificial offering as sacred food."

With these ancient meanings in mind, let us now go back a look at the stories and see if we could glean fresh insights in to them.

Take Gen 3:21, where the LORD God made tunics of skin to clothe A & E. Why skin? There had never been death before, why slay animals just to clothe them? Could He not have clothed them with plant material? From the meanings we have just gleaned from antiquity, my guess is that God used blood by proxy as a pledge to A & E of His enduring love & care even though they have deliberately disobeyed Him. It may also be a seal of the proto-gospel promise made in Gen 3:15.

To be cont'd.

Gerry

[Gerr]

Blood Covenant, cont'd.

Now let's look at Cain & Abel. Why was Abel's sacrifice from the flock accepted & Cain's offering of fruit rejected? I believe Trumbull was correct in his application of the ancient meaning that the blood shed in Abel's sacrifice was a proxy sacrifice of himself to God, or a proxy sacrifice for himself to God. Remember #7, that "the giving of blood represents the giving of life; that the receiving of blood represents the receiving of life,...and that a divine-human inter-union" was symbolized in that sacrifice. Cain showed some respect in bringing an offering, but did not show either submission to God or accepting the life that comes from God. His sacrifice represents a way to God based on human devising.

To be cont'd.

Gerry

[archierieus]

Robert, upon reflecting upon your posts, I perceive another form of legalism. I perceive that, for you, salvation is juridical. And, it is forensic. While you do not deny the principle that the gospel of Jesus Christ changes a person, still, 'salvation' for you, seems to be wrapped up in the legal aspects of Christ's death on the cross. It is a theory, it is not personal, it is distant from the believer, it does not reach the inner sanctum of the heart, to purify 'the springs of life,' nor does it need to, according to what you present. Thus, it is a comfortable gospel, not calling for self-sacrifice, for dying to self. Such a theory of salvation is every bit as legalistic as that practiced by the Jews in Jesus' day. Simply a different spin on the same old stuff.

Dave

[Gerr]

Blood Covenant, cont'd.

Now let's look at Gen 15 where God makes a covenant with Abraham. God promised him an heir even though his wife was way past child-bearing age. "And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness." Gen 15:6. Righteousness/salvation by faith is not a NT notion. Righteousness/salvation by faith has always been the way back to God ever since A & E fell. So the notion that God would make a covenant of works at Sinai with the descendants of Abraham who received a covenant of grace is totally ridiculous and totally without foundation!

When the English translation says, "On the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram..." Gen 15:18 NKJ, the force of the statement did not sink in to me until I discovered that what is meant by "made a covenant" was actually to "cut a covenant". It meant to cut off a body part, and head, and hand, or whatever. In this case, a 3 yo heifer, a 3 yo female goat, & 3 yo ram, were cut in half.

The Genesis account makes no specific mention of what Abraham did with the blood, but there is no doubt in my mind that on the basis of what we learned so far about what the blood covenant rite means that it was used in that ceremony.

Here is what the Reformation Study Bible Commentary says about the "smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces". "As other ancient Near Eastern texts and Jer. 34:18 indicate, by passing between the torn animals (signifying the punishment due those who break the covenant) God invokes a self-maledictory oath or curse upon Himself should He fail to keep His covenant. Because He can swear by no higher authority, God swears by Himself to keep the covenantal terms. See 22:16,17; Heb 6:13 note." p. 35.

Think of it! God swears a curse on Himself if He does not keep His covenant promise!!! Paul says that "by two immutable things,[i.e. He promised & swore by Himself] in which it is impossible for God to lie, we mioght have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us." Heb 6:18.

The flip side of this covenant in which the animals are cut in two is that a deliberate breaking of this covenant on the part of Abraham was to invoke a curse on himself also. So on the basis of this understanding of the principle of cutting a blood covenant, it is utterly ridiculous & without foundation to think that one could deliberately continue to break the covenant and still claim the blessing of the One who extends the covenant. A compact made in a covenant of blood transcends all other relationships; it is unthinkable for anyone to enter into such an agreement and then proceeds to do things that makes your blood-friend/brother unhappy.

To be cont'd.

Gerry

[Clio]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

Quote:

---

Clio said:

If you do not have the basic foundation to understand the topic, it is impossible to dialogue with you regarding it.

---

And you can't explain it because it's too completed, right? In my mind I see warning flags.....

Quote:

---

A believer's faith and through that faith, repentence

and obedience

, are all

that are required

.

---

Just like I said...LEGALISM!!!! This is false gospel.

---

Robert,

Gerry is doing a fine job, explaining what he is learning in prayerful study on this topic. It is not necessary for me to add to it. You are welcome to participate, but please, be respectful, and do not label as falsehood something you have no foundation for understanding.

I have urged you to study this for yourself. We have hashed this through in another thread. Please don't poison this one.

Abba, I ask for Your protection in this discussion. I bind a hedge of protection about it, sealed with True Jesus blood. I ask that the prince of the powers of the air have no authority in this place. Please allow only what You desire to see discussed here to be placed here. I ask this in the Name of True Jesus, in my authority as Your blood-covenanted daughter.

Let all who read here, and post here, be led by You alone. Thank You.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

Quote:

---

Clio said:

What Jesus did on the Cross was to ratify forever, the blood covenant which had to be renewed by proxy blood for the preceding 5000 years. Once the blood of the Lamb of Abba, slain from the foundation of the world, was shed, then proxy blood was no longer required.

---

Now watch what she's doing folks....First she limits "the cross" and what it did....

---

No she didn't. She simply said the Cross was the REAL blood in the Blood covenant for which the animal sacrifices had stood for "by proxy", that is, as a symbol, all those years. She didn't limit the Cross at ALL! She was simply drawing a contrast between the time animal sacrifices were required and a time after the cross when they are no longer required because we have the "real deal".

Quote:

---

Then she builds up "works":

Quote:

---

A believer's faith and through that faith, repentance and obedience, are all that are required. Proxy blood through animal sacrifice is no longer necessary.

---

This is just another attempt to combine human works to God's complete redemption "in Christ Jesus." It's just another gospel wrapped in sheep's clothing. Beware!

---

And when was repentance and obedience ever NOT needed to walk with God????

Obedience is an ATTITUDE ... it cannot, by definition, be legalism!!!

OK that's all I'm going to say about that nonsense. I don't want to contribute to derailing this thread. I want to learn something here.

[Morning Glory]

Gerry,

Thank you for sharing what you are studying, it is greatly appreciated. Clio peaked my interest, and now you are really going into detail. I have not had a chance to pick up the book yet, so really am enjoying this thread.

I had always wondered about the passage talking about the cutting up of those animals and the smoking ovens, etc, and not having a clue as to what it was trying to say. It all sounded too gruesome to comprehend......so I just "left it alone." Now I am beginning to understand just a little. Thanks for posting this.

I am keenly sobered to think about the covenent that I entered into upon baptism, not understanding the blood covenant at all. I am grateful to be made aware of the significance of this covenant stuff.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Nicodema said:

And when was repentance and obedience ever NOT needed to walk with God????Obedience is an ATTITUDE ... it cannot, by definition, be legalism!!!

---

Here...let me help you:

Quote:

---

repentence

and obedience

, are all that

are required

---

.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

Robert, upon reflecting upon your posts, I perceive another form of legalism. I perceive that, for you, salvation is juridical. And, it is forensic.

---

Gal 4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, [why?] 5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons....

By assuming "all men" - by assuming our corporate life, Christ answered all the demands of God's holy law LEGALLY!

On the other hand legalism is attempt at adding to Christ's perfect redemption.

Quote:

---

While you do not deny the principle that the gospel of Jesus Christ

changes a person

, still, 'salvation' for you, seems to be wrapped up in the legal aspects of Christ's death on the cross.

---

Ultimately Christ's doing and dying is our only ticket to heaven!

Quote:

---

It is a theory, it is not personal, it is distant from the believer, it does not reach the inner sanctum of the heart, to purify 'the springs of life,' nor does it need to, according to what you present. Thus, it is a comfortable gospel, not calling for self-sacrifice, for dying to self.

---

Are you living Christ's life of self-sacrifice? A quick comparison between his life and yours will yield the answer, "NO!" Until you live His selfless life I suggest you not judge or you will be judged!

Quote:

---

Such a theory of salvation is every bit as legalistic as that practiced by the Jews in Jesus' day. Simply a different spin on the same old stuff.

---

You're confused!

For the time I’ll cease from posting….I’ll be reading with interest – hoping against hope that I am wrong about my conclusions.

Rob

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

Quote:

---

Nicodema said:

Obedience is an ATTITUDE ... it cannot, by definition, be legalism!!!

---

Here...let me help you:

repentence and obedience, are all that <font size=3>are required</font>

---

Are you suggesting that our attitude toward God be one of rebellion instead of obedience? Here let ME help YOU: I said, [:"red"]Obedience is an ATTITUDE.[/]

And kindly do not "shout" at me in your posts. I am not deaf.

Quote:

---

For the time I’ll cease from posting….

---

Good. It would be appreciated, seeing that you are not interested in joining in the discussion or exploration of the topic of the Blood Covenant. I certainly hope you intend to follow through on that, and that you will resist the temptation to get "just one more word in" because I have responded to you.

I am very glad to hear you do not intend to hijack this thread further. Some of us here are interested in learning about the Blood Covenant and discussing it, and it would be such a tremendous blessing to, for once, be able to have a discussion without it being hijacked and derailed to someone else's pet agenda or focus.

Thanks again.

Nico

[Gerr]

Blood Covenant cont'd.

Now let's see the depth of commitment made in this blood covenant. I mentioned above that this covenant transcends all other commitments.

Take the story of Abraham in Gen 22. Recall that God promised him a son who was to be his heir when all human hope was gone because of Sarah's age. Abraham believed God, & this belief was reckoned to him as righteousness. Our modern usage of the word 'belief' or 'faith' often carries the concept of something possible, hopefully true, but not certain. Not so Abraham's belief/faith. At the heart of the Hebrew word 'aman' is certainty, to be sure, to be certain about something. And the person who thus believe, is described in the Niphal conjugation of 'aman' as someone who is established, faithful, dependable. This certainty is the thrust of Heb 11.

Now, how certain was Abraham, and how faithful/dependable is he because of this belief/faith? According to Trumbull, an "Oriental father prizes an only son's life far more than he prizes his own...For an Oriental to die without a son, is a terrible thought. His life is a failure. His future is blank."

Now in Gen. 22, God asks him to sacrifice this only son, his heir, his future, his own flesh & blood. While we may imagine turmoil & hesitation & mental anguish on his part, Genesis gives no such picture. His commitment to the blood covenant goes even deeper than his love for his son, his hopes for a future. He obeys the command at once. And this is where I likie Nico's definition of obedience being an attitude comes in. The attitude of obedience is substituted for the act itself when God holds the knife raised to slay the heir.

To be cont'd.

Gerry

[Gerr]

Blood Covenant cont'd.

Another example as to the depth of the commitment made in a blood covenant transcending even natural descent relationship is the friendship between David & Jonathan. In the past, when I read that "Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself," I had thought that they simply made a solemn pledge between themselves. But when we understand that to "make a covenant" means to "cut" a covenant, then we begin to understand that this was no ordinary pledge of friendship.

Jeremiah gives a picture of what happens in a blood covenant rite in Jer 34:18. A calf was cut in half and the parties passed between the halves. I have every reason to believe this is what took place between David & Jonathan.

That this blood-friendship transcended the father-son relationship seems to be born out be the fact that whenever a harmful plot was determined by Saul against David, Jonathan freely divulged it to David. And he was also willing to part with his right as heir to the crown. David for his part also pledge everlasting kindness to the family and descendants of Jonathan.

That violators of the blood covenant is also clear from Jer 34. The rulers & the rich in Judah had pledged by blood covenant to free all their Jewish slaves but renedged on the promised & thereby broke the covenant. God took this as a personal affront as profaning His name. As punishment for this treachery, He told them they would be relegated to the "sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine."

Again, let me state categorically, that to claim the blessings of God's covenant while continueing to flout & break its terms, is foolish & totally without foundation.

Gerry

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Nicodema said:

Obedience is an

ATTITUDE

... it cannot, by definition, be legalism!!!

---

I agree:

"Even so consider [ATTITUDE] yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus." [Romans 6:11]

"For [:"red"]I delight[/] in the law of God [ATTITUDE], in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members." [Romans 7:22,23]

"If ye love me, keep (i.e., cherish [ATTITUDE]) my commandments." [John 14:13]

"And I delight [ATTITUDE] myself in Thy commandments." [Psalm 119:47]