Is the Abrahamic Covenant Conditional?
Are the promises that God made to Abraham unconditional in nature and bound to be fulfilled? The three promises that we find being the personal promises where God promises to bless Abraham, the second being national promises concerning Israel where God promised to make a great nation of Abraham's physical descendants (Gen. 12:2) and the third being universal promises which would directly affect all the peoples of the world (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; 28:14).
Are covenants unconditional? Does this really matter? I contend that it does matter because it directly affects the way we look at the future of the nation of Israel and whether or not there is a literal future for Israel and its land and that the prophecies concerning its land and future program should be interpreted literally and NOT allegorically.
Also, if we read Galatians 3:15 literally....then how could we ever say that a covenant is conditional?
Labels: Abrahamic Covenant, covenants; Hermeneutics, dispensationalism
posted by Mike Hess at 11:10 AM
13 Comments:
So Mike, a few questions:
Since you want to bring Gal. 3:15 into the discussion ... when was the Abrahamic Covenant ratified?
And was the Mosaic Covenant unconditional as well? Be careful here!
And is the New Covenant unconditional? Be careful here, too!
Just because election isn't conditional doesn't mean the Covenants aren't!!!! ;-)
Oh, and one more:
Is salvation conditional? or unconditional?
Not election, mind you ... salvation.
Ken,
Please stay on track with the question at hand. Is this a conditional or unconditional covenant? Be careful here!
After that, we will then deal with the other questions that you have posed. But for now, let's focus on the question.
Mike
Mike,
Yes, most certainly the Abrahamic Covenant is conditional.
Here is Gen 12:1: "Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee."
Seems very conditional there.
And can you remind me, does a covenant involve one or two individuals?
Now you can answer my questions.
There are four of them ... so don't run and hide!
The Abrahamic Covenant was ratified in Genesis 15. If you read verse 17, you'll see that God took both sides of the burden of keeping the covenant. Abraham didn't walk through the blood of the divided animals as would norally have been done to seal a covenant between two men; instead God went through twice--the furnace and the lamp.
So in that sense it's not an unconditional covenant, it's just conditioned on God's faithfulness, not man's. The symbolism of the double trip through the sacrfice is that God was promising to shed Divine Blood to keep the covenant if Abraham broke the deal. God guarantees the conditions on both sides will be met, and that's a pretty lasting deal. The covenant can only be broken if God fails to keep the conditions. I'm thinking no.
Kenneth,
Since you believe that the Abrahamic Covenant is conditional you then believe it is possible for God to NOT keep His word??? So the total faithfulness of God and His commitment to His people is now in jeopardy?
Question: If this covenant depended on anything other than the faithfulness of God then how could the covenant accomplish its intended purpose? The focus of this covenant has everything to do with God, His sovereignty, and His faithfulness!
Also, how do you jump through the loophole of the fact that even after Israel's terrible history of apostasy that the covenant was still considered in effect (Lk. 1:67-75). Why did Peter consider the covenant an unconditional covenant (Acts 3:12-15; 25-26).
So, this begs the question now....is election now conditional? Is God's absolute sovereignty and plan now conditional?
You also may want to check out Hebrews 6:13-18...seems pretty unconditional there.
Robert - Amen. You worded that nicely!
Mike
Mike,
Why won't you deal with my questions?
Why do you just keep asking more of me?
Ken,
Why won't you stick with the question posed in the original post? Have you changed your position on God's sovereignty and faithfulness?
If you would like, I can do another post on your questions. But for now, could we please stick with Abrahamic Covenant? After all, that was the subject of the original post...wasn't it?
Grace and peace,
Mike
Mike,
I quote from your post:
"Are covenants unconditional?"
Since you brought covenantS into the discussion, please answer the questions.
Also, would you not agree that God required obedience from Abraham in Genesis 12? Abraham was required to leave his country and kindred ... and although he was a bit slow in doing so, wasn't obedience required on his part?
Mike said:
"Also, if we read Galatians 3:15 literally....then how could we ever say that a covenant is conditional?"
Galatians 3:15 - "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto."
Mike, I don't see how Gal. 3:15 teaches that covenants are unconditional. When it says "no man disannuls" do you take that to mean "no man can break the covenant requirements"? The Israelites broke the covenant requirements, but they could not disannul the covenant or make it void. It was binding to them.
Perhaps I just don't understand where you are going with this...enlighten me.
Reglerjoe,
Where have you been? We have missed you here and are glad to welcome you back into the discussion!
Anyway, back to the question at hand. The point of using Gal. 3:15 is the fact that the Abrahamic Covenant is NOT based on man's faithfulness.....it IS based on God's faithfulness, sovereignty and glory! When Gal. 3:15 says that "no man annuls it" I believe that it proves my point even more that the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant are not dependent upon Israel's faithfulness but upon God's sovereignty and goodness.
Unfortunately, many allegorical approaches to Scripture have taken the approach that this covenant is fulfilled in the Church today. A view that simply does not hold water.
Don't be a stranger Joe! I was beginning to think that your truck had broken down :-).
Mike
I still don't see how that proves your point. Perhaps you should do an all out exposition of that text for a future post.
Do you not believe that the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant are enjoyed by the Church?
Further, wasn't Peter's interpretation of Joel chapter 2 (per the sermon at Pentecost) a bit allegorical? And would you consider James interpretation in Acts 15 of the prophecies of Amos 9:11-12 allegorical?
Both James and Peter suggest that the blessings of covenants find their fulfillment in the Church.
Regler,
Finally somebody brings some sense to the conversation!!!
I've tried explaining to Mike that conditional/unconditional is not the best terminology to use in an attempt to show that God is faithful to the covenants in spite of man's unfaithfulness.
But he won't listen! BTW, his wife says the same thing!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home