Words

The Abrahamic covenant

All three systematic theologies place great emphasis on this covenant. This is the great promise made to Abraham by God concerning the land, seed, and blessing and guaranteed it as God alone walked between the sacrificed animals parts (Gen. 12:1-3; Gen. 15). The blessings to Abraham were given not because of any good works, and they were received through faith –on this point all three systems are in agreement.[1] Similarly, all systems agree that, in at least one sense, this promise, similarly to the Adamic and Noahic covenants, is unconditional and guaranteed by the faithfulness of God. The evidence of God himself passing between the divided pieces weighs heavily on each system.[2] From the covenant perspective, Robertson states that “God sovereignly confirms the promise of the covenant to Abraham.”[3] Chafer, from the dispensational point of view, notes that the covenant “is certain because it depends upon God’s sovereign power and will rather than man’s,” and Ryrie states that the covenant “was not conditioned on anything Abraham would or would not do; its fulfillment in all its parts depends only on God’s doing.”[4] Blaising and Bock, as progressive dispensationalists, note that the covenant has the form of a grant covenant of that timeframe; therefore, it is unconditional, a guarantee of the gift to the master’s servants and heirs.[5] John MacArthur, likewise, finds that the “covenant is unconditional in the sense of its ultimate fulfillment of a kingdom and salvation for Israel….”[6]

While all three systems note the unconditional nature of this covenant, they, each in their own way, note conditions or obligations as it is realized in the life of Israel. On this matter, however, there is no unity. The difficulty is that on the one hand, God gives a unilateral, unconditional promise to Abraham, but on the other hand, Israel’s history shows that they did not always realize the blessings of this promise. The systematic theologies explain this apparent difficulty in differing ways.

In covenant theology there is debate. Robertson notes that Abraham did have obligations to fulfill, pointing to God’s command to Abraham to leave the land and the administering of circumcision.[7] However, in disagreement, Michael Horton states that circumcision was a sign and seal of the inheritance. [8] Despite this debate he goes on to state that the covenant later yields to the Mosaic covenant’s conditional arrangement, so that the promises may not be realized (the eviction from the land) even though the Abrahamic covenant is not revoked.[9] The dispensational theologian, while placing considerable emphasis on the unconditional nature of this covenant, nonetheless does find conditions for its realization.[10] Chafer notes that while the covenant is unconditional, the enjoyment of provisions is dependent upon their obedience, and Ryrie states that “[t]he promised land was theirs and the blessing was theirs as long as they remained in the land.” [11] Further, the progressive dispensational theologian notes that the covenant is “conditional in terms of its immediate fulfillment.”[12] Blaising and Bock, who noted the covenant’s grant form, go on to show that a grant does not exclude obligations. “Disobedience or disloyalty are punishable offenses. The punishment may take away the enjoyment of the grant temporarily… or permanently…. Yet the unconditional nature of the grant covenant guarantees the legal possession of the gift even during this period of such punishment.”[13] Furthermore, they comment that on one hand the commandments given to Abraham by God does not mean that God’s blessings are fully dependent upon his and his descendents blessing, yet on the other hand, obedience functions as a condition for the historical experience of divine blessing.[14] Thus we see that all systems note ways in which this covenant is unconditional and yet its realization has obligations or conditions.

The difference amongst the systems is highlighted in the way they understand the purpose and fulfillment of this covenant. The covenant theologian sees this as a more formal establishment of the covenant of grace.[15] Its reference to temporal blessings served to “symbolize and typify heavenly things,” thus it also contained spiritual blessings that were realized “only in those who followed in the footsteps of Abraham.”[16] The promise, then, as a part of the covenant of grace is received through the line of Abraham’s natural and spiritual descendants; therefore, Berkhof can state that this “establishment with Abraham marked the beginning of the institutional Church….”[17] The physical blessings to the nation of Israel served to symbolize the spiritual blessings made to spiritual Israel, namely, those who had always followed in Abraham’s footsteps of faith. Horton believes that the Abrahamic covenant does not present a replacement theology as he states that “the Abrahamic is realized in the heavenly eschatological kingdom” and elsewhere that in the new covenant “the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant will finally be realized.”[18] As we will see in the new covenant, however, that realization is debated. The covenant theologian places emphasis on continuity in God’s plan of redemption. This covenant is another step towards that plan’s realization. God chose this people to “preserve the knowledge of the true religion” and reveal that the Redeemer would be of Abraham’s seed.[19] There is, then, continuity amongst the covenants even with the new covenant.

The dispensational theologian places the greatest emphasis of all three systems on the unconditionality of the covenant and the non-spiritual nature of its promised blessings, thereby separating the future of Israel and the Church.[20] Bock, a progressive dispensationalist, notes that all dispensationalists differ from other systems in this way: they find in this covenant “the basis for the irrevocable role the nation [of Israel] has in God’s plan.”[21] The covenant was instituted with Abraham, but its fulfillment was not inaugurated with him, Isaac, or Jacob since none came into possession of any land.[22] Individual fulfillment of the blessings of the promise was only of a partial fashion.[23] The fulfillment of the land promise is particularly problematic. While W. J. Dumbrell notes that the narrative of Genesis 15 seems to “suggest that this promise was not to be exhausted in the fortunes of political Israel,” the dispensationalist maintains that this promise is to be fulfilled in an earthly millennial kingdom.[24] “Much of the covenant has been fulfilled and fulfilled literally; therefore, what remains to be fulfilled will also be fulfilled literally.”[25] Thus, the Church in no way fulfills the promises of this covenant and therefore, Israel as a nation must actuate its fulfillment. The dispensationalist, in this way, stresses the development of God’s plan as distinct in things pertaining to Israel and the Church.

The progressive dispensational theologian finds that although there are two tracks of concern in this promise (ethnic Israel, the other nations), nonetheless “they are ultimately linked together to form one fundamental promise as God moves to redeem a fallen humanity.”[26] The blessings are given to one nation and from that nation they flow to all the others.[27] The future of Israel is secured because of the necessary fulfillment of the land promise specified in the covenant. Robert Saucy states that “[t]here is no evidence that the promise of the land has been either completely fulfilled historically or reinterpreted to mean a symbol of heaven or the blessing of spiritual life in general.”[28] Yet, they attempt to maintain continuity by stating that “the new covenant itself is an extension of the realization of promises made to Abram and David.”[29] Throughout the progress of revelation we see the repetition of this covenant and it is foundational to God’s purpose to bless.[30] Thus, they argue for continuity in the plan of God even while maintaining a future for national, ethnic Israel.[31]

---

 

[1] Berkhof 1941, 295; Blaising and Bock 1993, 132.

 

[2] Robertson 1980, 145; Horton, Michael. God Of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2006, 41-42. Johnson, Elliott E. “Covenants in Traditional Dispensationalism.” In Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism, by Herbert W. Bateman IV, edited by Herbert W. Bateman IV, 121-168. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1999, on page 125 he references the Genesis 15; Bock, Darrell L. “Covenants in Progressive Dispensationalism.” In Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism, by Herbert W. Bateman IV, edited by Herbert W. Bateman IV, 169 - 223. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1999, 173.

 

[3] Robertson 1980, 128.

 

[4] Chafer 1976, 144; Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology. Colorado Springs, CO: Victor Books, 1986, 455.

 

[5] Blaising and Bock 1993, 131

 

[6] MacArthur 2004, note on Gen. 12:1-3.

 

[7] Robertson 1980, 146.

 

[8] Horton 2006, 42.

 

[9] Ibid., 50.

 

[10] Fuller 1980, 134 notes that this heavy emphasis on unconditionality.

 

[11] Chafer 1976, 143; Ryrie 1965, 61.

 

[12] MacArthur 2004, note on Gen. 12:1-3.

 

[13] Blaising and Bock 1993, 132-133.

 

[14] Ibid., 133-134

 

[15] Berkhof 1941, 295.

 

[16] Ibid., 296.

 

[17] Ibid., 295-296.

 

[18] Horton 2006, 72-73, 53.

 

[19] Hodge 1999, 374.

 

[20] Fuller 1980, 136.

 

[21] Bock 1999, 172-173.

 

[22] Johnson 1999, 127.

 

[23] Ibid., 136.

 

[24] Dumbrell, W. J. Covenant & Creation: An Old Testament Covenantal Theology. Exeter, Devon, Great Britain: The Paternoster Press, 1984, 53; Ryrie 1986, 453.

 

[25] Ryrie 1986, 457.

 

[26] Bock 1999, 177.

 

[27] Blaising and Bock 1993, 130.

 

[28] Saucy 1993, 56-57.

 

[29] Bock 1999, 189.

 

[30] Blaising and Bock 1993, 140; Saucy 1993, 40.

 

[31] Ibid., 173.