The Abrahamic Covenant - What is the focal point?

[Solparvus]

There seems to be two views about the Abrahamic Covenant. Either it is primarily about Abraham receiving land, a royal lineage, a great people as descendants and being the ancestral father of Christ, or the primary focus is truly the spiritual benefits which Abraham and other believers receive.

I recently read Romans 11 and realized that both Jews and Gentiles were feeding off the same sap. Even though the Jews as a physical people were cut off from the tree for unfaithfulness (Paul and other Jewish converts excepted), the Gentiles now grafted in feed off the very same sap. Then I tried to trace down the original sap.

I see the CG initiated in Genesis 3. Anyone who would be saved must rest on the promise that a savior was coming. God made the promise without conditions. That was enough for Abel to be saved.

I traced the sap further through the OT, and I looked at the covenant with Abraham. The most clear explanation of what God did with Abraham seems to be in Romans 4:11, that God gave Abraham circumcision as a seal of righteousness that he had by faith. For Paul, the focus was not the land and people, but the spiritual blessings Abraham received. Granted, Paul is discussing justification and not the nature of the covenants, but his argument assumes this to be true.

I then asked myself what is there to conclude that Abraham understood it that way. Paul is confident that it's there in Genesis. I look and see that God tells Abraham, "I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward." God Himself and fellowship with Him is the reward--which is eternal life. Moments later, Abraham believes God, and is declared righteousness. Then God makes a covenant by passing between the halves of the calf. Then in Genesis 17, with only the conception of Ishmael intermitting, God says "walk before me and be blameless that I may establish my covenant with you," and then God identifies circumcision as the covenant. I cannot think that covenant is anything other than the one that God established 13 years earlier (Gn. 15), the one in which He was declared righteous. It makes sense that Abraham would see this righteousness as the absolute greatest blessing that he received from God, and so Abraham would also interpret circumcision as sealing the righteousness that he received by faith. (perhaps this is how Abraham saw Christ's day and rejoiced?)

Then I look in the New Testament. In Colossians 2:11-12 Paul jumps from the spiritual meaning of circumcision to the spiritual meaning of baptism without taking a breath, showing that circumcision too was meant to be seen primarily in a spiritual light. Then in studying circumcision I find that it represents righteousness, cutting off sin, fellowship with God, and regeneration--all of which baptism too represents. Not only that, but God speaks through the OT as though the Jews ought to have understood its significance and calls them to account for not doing in their hearts what it signifies (which Paul does too in Romans 2).

As I think through these things, I am not confident anymore that it's right to look at this covenant as primarily about national and generational blessings and only typically about spiritual blessings. Here is why:
- To the spiritual man, a land and a dynasty are not as great of a thing as knowing God, and so those promises are an added kindness (and an incredible kindness) to what God really meant to give by His covenant. No sensible believing Jew would be more happy about being a Jew than having fellowship with God.
- Those who were circumcised, God intended much more than that they would just become part of national Israel. God's intention is that they would be reminded by circumcision of how God justified Abraham and gave him perfect righteousness apart from works, and that way it would act as a seal of the promise.
- We'd be entirely backward to be baptized or witness baptism without feeding on its true meaning; and with circumcision representing all the same things, it's inexcusable that the Jews would miss it.

My conclusion: the sap which we feed from in the New Covenant is no different from the sap which nourished every believing Jew in the Abrahamic Covenant. In addition, it was not primarily about land and people, but the spiritual blessings which were given to Abraham, which any Jew was promised by faith to have for himself if they too would believe God.

My wife and I are doing a lot of reading and studying, and our central aim really is to find out whether we have been wrong on the nature of baptism, so all feedback appreciated.

 

[BG]

Exodus Ch 33 is a great example of what you are saying.
I like the Sap/substance analogy. The substance of the COG has not changed because it is the unchanging Christ that is the sap.

 

[JTB.SDG]

There seems to be two views about the Abrahamic Covenant. Either it is primarily about Abraham receiving land, a royal lineage, a great people as descendants and being the ancestral father of Christ, or the primary focus is truly the spiritual benefits which Abraham and other believers receive.

I recently read Romans 11 and realized that both Jews and Gentiles were feeding off the same sap. Even though the Jews as a physical people were cut off from the tree for unfaithfulness (Paul and other Jewish converts excepted), the Gentiles now grafted in feed off the very same sap. Then I tried to trace down the original sap.

I see the CG initiated in Genesis 3. Anyone who would be saved must rest on the promise that a savior was coming. God made the promise without conditions. That was enough for Abel to be saved.

I traced the sap further through the OT, and I looked at the covenant with Abraham. The most clear explanation of what God did with Abraham seems to be in Romans 4:11, that God gave Abraham circumcision as a seal of righteousness that he had by faith. For Paul, the focus was not the land and people, but the spiritual blessings Abraham received. Granted, Paul is discussing justification and not the nature of the covenants, but his argument assumes this to be true.

I then asked myself what is there to conclude that Abraham understood it that way. Paul is confident that it's there in Genesis. I look and see that God tells Abraham, "I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward." God Himself and fellowship with Him is the reward--which is eternal life. Moments later, Abraham believes God, and is declared righteousness. Then God makes a covenant by passing between the halves of the calf. Then in Genesis 17, with only the conception of Ishmael intermitting, God says "walk before me and be blameless that I may establish my covenant with you," and then God identifies circumcision as the covenant. I cannot think that covenant is anything other than the one that God established 13 years earlier (Gn. 15), the one in which He was declared righteous. It makes sense that Abraham would see this righteousness as the absolute greatest blessing that he received from God, and so Abraham would also interpret circumcision as sealing the righteousness that he received by faith. (perhaps this is how Abraham saw Christ's day and rejoiced?)

Then I look in the New Testament. In Colossians 2:11-12 Paul jumps from the spiritual meaning of circumcision to the spiritual meaning of baptism without taking a breath, showing that circumcision too was meant to be seen primarily in a spiritual light. Then in studying circumcision I find that it represents righteousness, cutting off sin, fellowship with God, and regeneration--all of which baptism too represents. Not only that, but God speaks through the OT as though the Jews ought to have understood its significance and calls them to account for not doing in their hearts what it signifies (which Paul does too in Romans 2).

As I think through these things, I am not confident anymore that it's right to look at this covenant as primarily about national and generational blessings and only typically about spiritual blessings. Here is why:
- To the spiritual man, a land and a dynasty are not as great of a thing as knowing God, and so those promises are an added kindness (and an incredible kindness) to what God really meant to give by His covenant. No sensible believing Jew would be more happy about being a Jew than having fellowship with God.
- Those who were circumcised, God intended much more than that they would just become part of national Israel. God's intention is that they would be reminded by circumcision of how God justified Abraham and gave him perfect righteousness apart from works, and that way it would act as a seal of the promise.
- We'd be entirely backward to be baptized or witness baptism without feeding on its true meaning; and with circumcision representing all the same things, it's inexcusable that the Jews would miss it.

My conclusion: the sap which we feed from in the New Covenant is no different from the sap which nourished every believing Jew in the Abrahamic Covenant. In addition, it was not primarily about land and people, but the spiritual blessings which were given to Abraham, which any Jew was promised by faith to have for himself if they too would believe God.

My wife and I are doing a lot of reading and studying, and our central aim really is to find out whether we have been wrong on the nature of baptism, so all feedback appreciated.

Sounds like you're becoming Presbyterian

The covenant with Abraham is no different than the other manifestations of the Covenant of Grace in the OT. In particular, they have BOTH a temporal element as well as an eternal element. Think of a grain of rice or wheat; there is the husk on the outside as well as the kernel on the inside. All the pictures and promises of the OT manifestations of the Covenant of Grace are like that. God promised Noah and his seed to not flood the world again. God promised to give Abe and his offspring a land, seed, and blessing. God promised to raise up for David one of his offspring to sit on his throne and reign over His people. All these things had a temporal component. Did God give Israel the physical land? Yes, Joshua 24. Did God bless Abraham and make his children like the stars of the heaven? Yes. But was there more to it than that? Yes. You can go through each promise. Psalm 37 was written by David. He lived in the land God had promised, he sat as king reigning over God's people in that very land, and yet he writes in Psalm 37 over and over that the righteous WILL inherit the land and dwell in it forever. Hey David, you've already inherited the land, why use the future tense? Because David understood the same thing Abraham did (Hebrews 11), that the promise of the land was always so much more than a physical piece of property in Palestine. It was the new heavens and the new earth God was speaking of. Which is why, in Romans 4, Paul says that the promise to Abraham was actually that he would be heir OF THE WORLD (not just of Canaan). Thus our Savior says in Matthew 5, blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. The dots connect.

Galatians 3 mostly deals with the same truth regarding the promise of the SEED. This promise has two components: 1) A singular component, the promise of Christ, the CHILD of promise; and 2) a plural component, the promise of a spiritual seed, the CHILDREN of promise, made up both of Abraham's physical seed as well as his non-physical seed, as you mentioned (Rom.11). And the same chapter deals with the same truth regarding the promise of BLESSING. What was it? In VV12-13, the Spirit is equated with the blessing of Abraham. Just a few verses earlier, blessing is equated with justification. The blessing of Abraham is the gift of justification that is applied effectually by the Spirit.

When you put it all together, you read in Galatians 3:8 that according to Paul, Genesis 12:3 was "the gospel". "All the nations will be blessed in you" is the gospel. Not a national promise; a gospel promise. Why? Because: 1) the nations are the Gentiles; 2) blessed means the gift of justification effectually applied by the Spirit; ie, salvation; and 3) "in you", clarified by Genesis 22:18, "in your seed" is referring to a singular seed of Abraham (we know this because of the singular Hebrew pronoun by the way in Gen.22:17, "he"; Hebrew syntax works the same way as English; if the pronoun for seed is plural, the seed is plural; but if it's singular, the seed is singular); namely, Christ, the Messiah.

Hope some of this is helpful. Keep studying. God bless.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

No matter what, or what conclusions, it's a wonderful subject to be considering and to trace out a host of connections.

I, as one who has grown up in a way nourished on covenant theology, this year since January have been preaching on the first half of Genesis; treating of the life of Abraham in this second-quarter of the book (to conclude ch.18 tomorrow, D.V.). That's aout 11mo. and 18chs. So, since about August or so, our focus has been on Abraham, though the covenant of grace has been part and parcel of our thinking ever since ch.3.

What I mean to say is simply: I have been richly rewarded this year by the depth of my engagement in this material, for the first time as a pastor gearing up to preach it. It isn't as if I have not had elements of all these passages with me as I've preached all over the rest of Scripture. But to progress through over a year, to have each chapter and portion percolate for a time, and simmer over the previous lessons; and to relate what is found there in expectant form to the form of its fulfillment as we know it in our time--this has been a blessing to me.

 

[TylerRay]

There seems to be two views about the Abrahamic Covenant. Either it is primarily about Abraham receiving land, a royal lineage, a great people as descendants and being the ancestral father of Christ, or the primary focus is truly the spiritual benefits which Abraham and other believers receive.

I recently read Romans 11 and realized that both Jews and Gentiles were feeding off the same sap. Even though the Jews as a physical people were cut off from the tree for unfaithfulness (Paul and other Jewish converts excepted), the Gentiles now grafted in feed off the very same sap. Then I tried to trace down the original sap.

I see the CG initiated in Genesis 3. Anyone who would be saved must rest on the promise that a savior was coming. God made the promise without conditions. That was enough for Abel to be saved.

I traced the sap further through the OT, and I looked at the covenant with Abraham. The most clear explanation of what God did with Abraham seems to be in Romans 4:11, that God gave Abraham circumcision as a seal of righteousness that he had by faith. For Paul, the focus was not the land and people, but the spiritual blessings Abraham received. Granted, Paul is discussing justification and not the nature of the covenants, but his argument assumes this to be true.

I then asked myself what is there to conclude that Abraham understood it that way. Paul is confident that it's there in Genesis. I look and see that God tells Abraham, "I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward." God Himself and fellowship with Him is the reward--which is eternal life. Moments later, Abraham believes God, and is declared righteousness. Then God makes a covenant by passing between the halves of the calf. Then in Genesis 17, with only the conception of Ishmael intermitting, God says "walk before me and be blameless that I may establish my covenant with you," and then God identifies circumcision as the covenant. I cannot think that covenant is anything other than the one that God established 13 years earlier (Gn. 15), the one in which He was declared righteous. It makes sense that Abraham would see this righteousness as the absolute greatest blessing that he received from God, and so Abraham would also interpret circumcision as sealing the righteousness that he received by faith. (perhaps this is how Abraham saw Christ's day and rejoiced?)

Then I look in the New Testament. In Colossians 2:11-12 Paul jumps from the spiritual meaning of circumcision to the spiritual meaning of baptism without taking a breath, showing that circumcision too was meant to be seen primarily in a spiritual light. Then in studying circumcision I find that it represents righteousness, cutting off sin, fellowship with God, and regeneration--all of which baptism too represents. Not only that, but God speaks through the OT as though the Jews ought to have understood its significance and calls them to account for not doing in their hearts what it signifies (which Paul does too in Romans 2).

As I think through these things, I am not confident anymore that it's right to look at this covenant as primarily about national and generational blessings and only typically about spiritual blessings. Here is why:
- To the spiritual man, a land and a dynasty are not as great of a thing as knowing God, and so those promises are an added kindness (and an incredible kindness) to what God really meant to give by His covenant. No sensible believing Jew would be more happy about being a Jew than having fellowship with God.
- Those who were circumcised, God intended much more than that they would just become part of national Israel. God's intention is that they would be reminded by circumcision of how God justified Abraham and gave him perfect righteousness apart from works, and that way it would act as a seal of the promise.
- We'd be entirely backward to be baptized or witness baptism without feeding on its true meaning; and with circumcision representing all the same things, it's inexcusable that the Jews would miss it.

My conclusion: the sap which we feed from in the New Covenant is no different from the sap which nourished every believing Jew in the Abrahamic Covenant. In addition, it was not primarily about land and people, but the spiritual blessings which were given to Abraham, which any Jew was promised by faith to have for himself if they too would believe God.

My wife and I are doing a lot of reading and studying, and our central aim really is to find out whether we have been wrong on the nature of baptism, so all feedback appreciated.

This is a beautiful post, Harley. It's clear that you've been thorough in your study of the subject, and I think the conclusion of your reasoning (which is dead on) is that you will inevitably accept the paedobaptist view.

What I find so beautiful about your post is that there is no reference to theologians or church history--only a thorough study of the Scriptures' teaching on the covenant. I would be the last one to discount history or the ministers Christ has given to his church, but the Scriptures are the standard.

 

[Solparvus]

Sorry I haven't written more, but I appreciate all the replies.

Jon, Galatians makes far more sense in this lens. After recently reading through Hebrews, I notice that while the Old Covenant (ie. the Mosaic) is talked about as becoming obsolete, all the promises and encouragements of the Abrahamic Covenant are still in force, and they are the basis for the encouragement of the persecuted Christians; so the AC appears not less glorious, but more glorious.

Rev. Bruce, I almost want to spend all my time in Genesis to see what more I get.

Tyler, I appreciate your good words, though I admit a special debt to Ted Donnelly on helping me to tie together so many ends (as well as things I've read here on PB and elsewhere). Though, as I look at the Scriptures I am coming to these conclusions not ultimately because of him, but because of what God says in the Word.

I may write more if I have time, but we've been doing a lot of reading together.