Despite the
rather straightforward statements made by God in Gn. 12:1—3 and in Gn 12:7, 13:14-17, 15:1-21, 17:1-18, and 22:15-19 some have called into question whether the
Abrahamic covenant is eternal,
unilateral, and unconditional. Walter Brueggemann for instance has confused the
distinction between conditionality and unconditionality by labeling this “A Misleading Distinction”. He writes “…in my
judgment, it is futile and misleading to sort out unconditional and conditional
aspects of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel.”[1] Moshe
Weinfeld turns to text critical methods to justify his assertion that the
Abrahamic Covenant was originally unconditional but then was later
reinterpreted into a conditional covenant.[2] Yohanna Katanacho attempts to deny that the
Abrahamic covenant is an unconditional grant of land to Abraham on linguistic
and grammatical grounds.[3]
Oswald Allis admits that there is no explicit condition associated with the
promises of the Abrahamic covenant yet argues that a conditional element was
implied.[4]
Whether or not
the Abrahamic covenant is conditional or not is critical to how its promises
are fulfilled. If it is a conditional covenant then the fulfillment is wholly
dependent upon whether Abraham and his decedents meet the prerequisite
conditions. On the other hand if the covenant is eternal, unilateral, and unconditional then its
fulfillment is guaranteed by the sovereign actions of God who uncontestably
rules the earth He has created. According to Pentecost the conditionality or
unconditionality of the covenant “is recognized as the crux of the whole
discussion of the problem relating to the fulfillment of the Abrahamic
covenant.”[5]
Both Walvoord[6] and
Ryrie[7] have
offered extensive argumentation in support of the unconditional nature of the
Abrahamic covenant. These are synthesized and summarized below:
(1) Since the
Abrahamic covenant is consistently called an eternal or everlasting covenant
(Gn. 17:7, 13, 19, 1 Chr. 16:17, Ps. 105:10) should God break the covenant He
would prove Himself to either be a liar or mistaken, which is wholly
inconsistent with His character.
(2) God gave
the original promises to Abraham in Gn. 12:1—3 using first person verbs without
any conditions whatsoever. God affirmed this promises in Gn. 17:1—8 using seven
first person verbs, again without condition. Even detractors such as Weinfeld
admit that the original covenant was unconditional. Allis likewise admits that
there are no explicit conditions associated with the Abrahamic covenant. It is
clear, even to detractors of the unconditionality of the covenant, that in Gn.
12:1—3 God has unconditionally and sovereignly bound Himself to this course of
action.
(3) The
unconditional nature of the covenant was repeatedly reiterated and elaborated.
In Gn. 13:14–18 the promise of land (vv. 14–15) is reiterated and explicitly
extended to Abraham’s offspring forever.
Furthermore the general promise by God to bless Abraham (Gn. 12:2) is made more
explicit in Gn. 13:16 where Abraham’s descendants are promised to be more
numerous than the “dust of the earth”. Later in Gn. 15:1–7 the land promise is
reiterated. Then God unilaterally confirms it in a ritual confirming the
inviolability of the covenant. “Since
God could “swear” (confirm the covenant) by none greater, “He swore by Himself”
(Heb. 6:13). In other words this was a unilateral covenant. So its promises are
absolutely sure.”[8] In Gn. 17:1–8 God confirms yet again that the
covenant is eternal (vv. 1–2, 7), He affirms the promise of numerous offspring
and adds that kings[9] will
come from Abraham (vv. 3—6) and that the land of Canaan is given to his
descendants for an everlasting possession. It is important to note that in this
chapter God affirms three times that the eternal,
unilateral, unconditional covenant He has made
with Abraham and his descendants is an “everlasting covenant” (vv. 7, 13, 19)
and He affirms that the land of Canaan will be their “everlasting possession”
(v. 8).
(4) The eternal, unilateral, unconditional covenant was solemnized
in a recognized way. As noted in (3) above God unilaterally swore to uphold His
covenant with Abraham using a solemn ritual in Gn. 15:9—21. He did this as an
act of grace in response to Abraham’s plea in v. 8 for a confirmation that he
and his descendants would indeed possess the land of Canaan. Matthews comments, “Since Abram does not walk
through the pieces, he is not under obligation to the Lord to realize the
promises. By the passing of the firepot through the severed pieces, the Lord’s
presence with enslaved Israel symbolically ensures the preservation and
deliverance of Abram’s descendants.”[10] Not only
would the descendants of Abraham be preserved and delivered but they would also
possess the land promised to them.
(5) The eternal, unilateral, unconditional covenant was given a
visible sign in the rite of circumcision (Gen. 17:9–14). After having affirmed
His commitment to His covenant with Abraham He then turned to Abraham and His
decedents in v. 9 and called them to separate themselves to Him, symbolized in
the ritual of circumcision. Although some allege that this places a condition
on the covenant there is nothing in the text supporting this. Instead enjoyment
of the covenant blessings calls for faith in the covenant making and covenant
keeping God. “The rite of circumcision is cited as proving the covenant is
conditional. All agree that the individual enjoyment of blessing under the
covenant is to a large degree dependent upon the individual’s faith and
obedience. This is quite different than stating that the fulfillment of the
covenant as a whole is conditioned upon obedience of the nation as a whole.”[11]
Furthermore,
the remainder of the testimony of scripture affirms that what is in view here
is not a condition on the covenant but rather a consecration of the people in
response to their special relationship with the Lord. Ross comments:
“Elsewhere
Scripture refers to circumcision as a symbol of separation, purity, and loyalty
to the covenant. Moses said that God would circumcise the hearts of His people
so that they might be devoted to Him (Deut. 30:6). And Paul wrote that
“circumcision of the heart” (i.e., being inwardly set apart “by the Spirit”)
evidences salvation and fellowship with God (Rom. 2:28–29; cf. Rom. 4:11). One
must turn in confidence to God and His promises, laying aside natural strength.
Unbelief is described as having an uncircumcised heart (Jer. 9:26; Ezek.
44:7–9).”[12]
(6) The Abrahamic covenant was confirmed by
the birth of Isaac and then reiterated to him. In Gn. 17:19 God promised that
despite their advanced age Sarah and Abraham would produce offspring just as He
had promised: “But God said, “No, but
Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I
will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his
descendants after him” (Genesis 17:19). The first part of this promise was
fulfilled in Gn. 21:1–2 in the birth of Isaac, “Then the Lord took note of
Sarah as He had said, and the Lord did for Sarah as He had promised. So Sarah
conceived and bore a son to Abraham in his old age, at the appointed time of
which God had spoken to him” (Genesis 21:1–2). The second part of the promise
was fulfilled in Gn. 26:2—3: “The Lord appeared to him and said, “Do not go
down to Egypt; stay in the land of which I shall tell you. “Sojourn in this
land and I will be with you and bless you, for to you and to your descendants I
will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I swore to your
father Abraham”(Genesis 26:2–3). So, the birth of Isaac to parents well past
childbearing age, and the extension of the covenant to him are both God’s
sovereign, unilateral, and unconditional actions in literally fulfilling His
covenanted obligation. Ryrie notes “No conditions are attached to this
reiteration to Isaac of the covenant, for it is based on the unconditional oath
of God to Abraham.”[13]
(7) The eternal, unilateral, unconditional covenant was likewise
confirmed to Jacob. In Gn. 28:13—15 God extends the Abrahamic covenant to Jacob
in accordance with the original promises to Abraham (Gn. 12:2, 13:15, 17:7). As
before, the covenant renewal to a new generation of Abrahamic offspring is
without the imposition of any obligation of the part of Jacob.
(8) The eternal, unilateral, unconditional covenant was confirmed
in spite of disobedience. Those who object to the unconditional character of
the covenant will often support their argument with the assertion that the
disobedience of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or their offspring voids the covenant.
However, it is apparent that despite sinfulness and weakness in faith
demonstrated by Abraham[14] God
nevertheless maintained the covenant. Likewise Isaac also demonstrated weakness
of faith[15] yet
God reaffirmed the covenant with him. God extended the covenant to Jacob
despite his characteristic deception and manipulation.[16] Even
after years of idolatrous apostasy and the willful rejection of God’s prophetic
words of warning by the generations of patriarchal offspring Jeremiah wrote:
“Thus says
the Lord, Who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon
and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar;
The Lord of hosts is His name: “If this fixed order departs From before Me,”
declares the Lord, “Then the offspring of Israel also will cease from being a
nation before Me forever.” Thus says the Lord, “If the heavens above can be
measured and the foundations of the earth searched out below, then I will also
cast off all the offspring of Israel for all that they have done,” declares the
Lord.” (Jeremiah 31:35–37)
Therefore
disobedience and unfaithfulness do not void the terms of the eternal, unilateral, unconditional covenant that God made
to Abraham. Instead in the economy of God the unfaithfulness of man affirms the
faithfulness of God (Rom. 3:3) and
reveals the unilateral, unconditional, sovereign commitment of God to a
particular plan of redemption. As Ryrie comments “The Lord of hosts has put
Himself on record, if language means anything at all, and has determined to fulfill
His covenant in spite of disobedience.”[17]
(9) The
Abrahamic covenant is unconditional because it is later used as the basis for
giving the Land Covenant. The Land
Covenant in Gn. 13:14—16 and Deut. 28:1—30:20[18]
establishes the conditions that must be met in order for Israel to enjoy the
land.[19]
Clearly in order for these conditions to have any relevance at all the
Abrahamic covenant needs to continue. Otherwise, God would be promising to
Israel possession of a land that He had already denied them due to
disobedience. Therefore, the existence of this Land Covenant proves that God
has no intention of abandoning His commitment to Abraham and his descendants.
(10) Temporary
fulfillment of some terms of the Abrahamic covenant is not equivalent to
completion of the covenant. Although Josh 21:45, 22:4, and 23:14 indicate that
God’s promises for the land had been fulfilled these statements were made while
the tribes that Israel were to dispossess were still in the land (23:4).
Additionally in Deut. 34:1—3 Moses was shown only a portion of the land
promised to Abraham. Therefore the statements alluding to God’s fulfillment
refer to the presence of Israel in the land described in Deut. 34:1–3 and not
to the permanent possession of the entire land promised to Abraham. Donald
Campbell comments:
Some theologians have insisted that the statement in
Joshua 21:43 means that the land promise of the Abrahamic Covenant was
fulfilled then. But this cannot be true because later the Bible gives
additional predictions about Israel possessing the land after the time of
Joshua (e.g., V 1, p 365, Amos 9:14–15).
Joshua 21:43, therefore, refers to the extent of the land as outlined in
Numbers 34 and not to the ultimate extent as it will be in the messianic
kingdom (Gen. 15:18–21). Also though Israel possessed the land at this time it
was later dispossessed, whereas the Abrahamic Covenant promised Israel that she
would possess the land forever (Gen. 17:8).[20]
Similarly, 1
Ki. 4:21 says “Now Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the River to the
land of the Philistines and to the border of Egypt; they brought tribute and
served Solomon all the days of his life”. Some understand this text to mean
that the promises of God had been fulfilled. However four observations can be
made. First Abraham and his descendants were promised permanent possession. In
contrast Solomon only enjoyed temporary possession. Second the border specified
in Gn. 15:18 is not the same as the border of Solomon’s kingdom. Third, Solomon
is said to have ruled over the land, which is not equivalent to possession of
the land. Lastly, the prophets sent by God after Solomon continued to foresee a
future fulfill of the promises God made to Abraham.
(11) Unstated,
or implied conditions cannot be alleged in order to establish the
conditionality of the Abrahamic Covenant. As noted earlier Weinfeld and Allis
appeal to what they claim to be implied conditions, which is an acknowledgement
that there are no explicit conditions associated with the eternal, unilateral, unconditional
covenant. To support their specious
conclusions they search for parallels with God’s command to Jonah to preach to
Nineveh. They say that just as there was an implied condition to God’s
declaration of destruction for Nineveh, evident in his delay when they
repented, there is an implied condition for the fulfillment of God’s promises
to Abraham. However, the two incidents
are not parallel at all. In the case of Jonah and the Ninevites what is in view
is their response to God’s warning of punishment and offer of forgiveness. In
this case God has made it clear that when he warns of judgment He will withhold
it if the nation under His judgment repents (Jer. 18:7—10). For Abraham the focus is God’s sovereign,
unilateral, eternal, everlasting covenant. After surveying Allis’ contention
that obedience is always an implied condition for blessing Walvoord concludes
that it “ is not true that obedience is always the condition of blessing. The
seed of Abraham have been disobedient in every moral category. Yet in spite of
that disobedience they have fulfilled many of the promises of the covenant. The
very principle of grace is that God blesses the unworthy.”[21]
[1] Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Fortress
Press: Minneapolis MN. 1977), 419. The grounds for his assertion are two-fold.
First, he mistakenly observes that the covenant with Abraham had a conditional
element. Second, that although the relationship between God and Israel may be
one of passionate commitment it nevertheless includes “elements of
conditionality and unconditionality that play in different ways in different
circumstances.”
[2] Weinfeld, Moshe. The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the
Israelites (University of California Press, 1993), 250. He argues that
while conditionality is not apparent in the Abrahamic Covenant but rather is
attested in the JE editorial layers of Deuteronomy. This is because after the
fall of Samaria editors revised the prevailing notion, which was that the land
had been given to Israel forever.
[3] Yohanna Katanacho, The Land of Christ: A Palestinian Cry (Eugene OR. Pickwick
Publications, 2013), 79. He argues that “The imperative force at the beginning
of the second set followed by a waw consecutive and an imperfect requires a
conditional interpretation of verses 2—3.” However the common understanding of
this construction is that it indicates purpose or consequence. Therefore
Abraham is not commanded to be a blessing as a condition for receiving the
promises but rather is being told that the consequence of the blessing is that
he will be a blessing.
[4] Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (Eugene OR. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001),
32—36. He offers five reasons for arguing that the Abrahamic Covenant is
conditional which I summarize: 1) A condition may be implied rather than
explicitly stated; 2) the condition of obedience to God by Abraham is
presupposed in the covenant; 3) the rite of circumcision was symbolic of the
obedience required; 4) the condition of being in the land also shows the
implied conditionality of the covenant; 5) if the covenant is truly
unconditional then it should include the restoration of Esau to Canaan as well;
6) certainty of fulfillment is not due to its unconditionality but rather on Christ’s fulfillment of the covenant.
[5] J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids MI.:
Zondervan, 1958), 75.
[6] Walvoord, John F. “The Abrahamic Covenant
And Premillennialism.” Bibliotheca Sacra
109 (1952). 38–44.
[7] Ryrie, Charles C. The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Dubuque, IA: ECS Ministries,
2005), 46—52.
[8] Allen P. Ross, “Genesis,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An
Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 1
(Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 56.
[9] The promise of “kings” (מְלָכִ֖ים) in Gn. 17:6 also affirms that the
promise of nationhood in Gn. 12:2 included the creation of another
geo-political entity not just a group of people.
[10] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26 vol. 1B The New American Commentary (Nashville:
Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 173.
[11] John F. Walvoord, “The Abrahamic Covenant
And Premillennialism,” Bibliotheca Sacra
109 (1952): 42.
[12] Allen P. Ross, “Genesis,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An
Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 1
(Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 58.
[13] Ryrie, Charles C. The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Dubuque, IA: ECS Ministries, 2005), 50.
[14] For example, after receiving the covenant
promises Abraham abandoned the land for Egypt when famine came and lied to
Pharaoh concerning his relationship with Sarah (Gn. 12:10–20). An act of
treachery he repeated in Gn. 20. Similarly, in order to “assist” the Lord in
fulfilling His promises he sinned with Hagar (Gn. 16:1–3)
[15] Like Abraham in Gn. 12, and 20 Isaac also
abandoned the Promised Land when famine came and lied to Abimelech the king of
the Philistines regarding the relationship between himself and Rebekah in Gn.
26.
[17] Ryrie, Charles C. The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Dubuque, IA: ECS Ministries,
2005), 51.
[18] This section has often referred to as “The
Palestinian Covenant” however this terminology is both inaccurate and has been
subverted. It is inaccurate in that Palestine is not a geographic or political
entity that is reflected in the Bible. Instead Palestine is a term originating
in approximately 135 AD when the Roman Emperor Hadrian attempted to eradicate
Judea. After the fall of the Ottoman empire at the end of WWI the name
Palestine was used with reference to the area incorporating the region from the
Jordan to the Mediterranean sea from Galilee south to the Negev which fell under
the British mandate. It has been subverted in that Palestine as a political
entity and people did not come into existence until 1964 with the Palestine
National Charter, which explicitly declares Israel to be an illegal nation
(Article 17), with no right to a homeland (Article 18), and an agent of fascism
(Article 19). The term Palestine therefore has been subverted to refer to pseudo-state
and pseudo-nationality with an anti-Israel agenda.
[19] Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. “The Promised Land:
A Biblical-Historical View.” Bibliotheca
Sacra 138 (1981). 307
[20] Donald K. Campbell, “Joshua,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An
Exposition of the Scriptures ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 1
(Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 364–365.
[21] John
F. Walvoord, “The Abrahamic Covenant And Premillennialism,” Bibliotheca Sacra 109 (1952): 40.
Comments
Post a Comment