dependent upon Him. He pledged Himself to fulfill all that He had said before to Abraham, and such details as He added here (15:18-21) and later (e.g., 22:16-18). All these things were announced sovereignly by God to Abraham, as being His unconditional good pleasure. He knew Abraham’s faith and love would implement the beginning of that sequence of events described progres sively in Genesis 12:1-3 and enlarged and reaffirmed in such passages as Genesis 12:7; 13:14-17; 15:1-21; 17:1-8, 15-21; 18:17-19; 22:15-18; 26:2-5, 24; 28:12-15; 35:9-12; 46:3-4; 48:14-16,19-20. God’s purpose did not rest upon Abraham’s faithfulness, but God encouraged and assisted him to grow little by little from the partial step of obe dience in leaving Ur, to the full climax of his obedience in offering Isaac, a sacrifice supematurally interrupted by God Himself. Thus by the viewpoint suggested in this article, certain advantages are attendant: (1) the unconditional character of the Abrahamic Covenant is not jeopardized through the admission of even one condition as essential to the estab lishment of the covenant with Abraham (2) the uncon ditional character of the covenant is clearly demonstrated; (3) the amillennial viewpoint is shown to be totally out of keeping with the facts of the case and thus totally incorrect; (4) the establishment of the covenant is shown to be an act of God’s own will which is to be carefully distinguished from subsequent blessing or discipline for obedience or disobedience, respectively. To summarize, therefore, the basis for God’s making the covenant with Abraham was not the fact of his leav ing Ur or any other act(s) of obedience. The covenant was given to him before he left Ur, not because he left Ur, and rested upon the unconditional purpose of God to do something in grace, not only for Abraham but ultimately for all the world through his greater Son and Seed, the Lord Jesus Christ. It is maintained that the following points have been established: (1) It is urged that the usual definitions of a condi tional covenant be re-examined to conform to the thesis expressed in this article, namely, that the condition is offered by God and accepted by man (men) before the covenant is ratified and is not the issue after the ratifi cation. (2) It is held that blessing and discipline after a cove nant is established are an inevitable and inherent part of God’s way of dealing with men and their response to Him; and that, in the case of the unconditional covenant, there is no affect whatever on the validity or continuance of the covenant. (3) It is claimed that a clarification of our thinking, as emphasized here, as to what constitutes a conditional or an unconditional covenant, will warn us against the fallacy of permitting any condition as a prelude to an unconditional convenant, such as the Abrahamic Cove nant which has been under consideration here. And, finally, (4) It is declared that no concession or comfort be given the amillennial position by the fallacy of requiring Abraham to leave Ur, or perform any other act of obedi ence, in order to pave the way for the instituting of the Abrahamic Covenant. Rather, God announced this cove nant of His own free will, apart from any condition, because He had the wisdom, power, and grace to carry out His purpose, for He “ . . . worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” (Eph. 1:11). (Comment from readers, using Scripture as evidence, will be welcomed by the writer. He may be addressed at 1800 Arch Street, Philadelphia 3, Pa.)
In addition, Abraham’s failures (as well as those of his descendants) would have long since abrogated the cove nant, if its continuance were contingent upon continual obedience (e.g., Rom. 4:13-16). Any one of the following disobediences would have abrogated the covenant. (1) Abraham’s lack of faith and his lie in Genesis 12:10-20. (2) His failure to separate from Lot previous to Genesis 13. (3) His failure to trust God to give him Isaac instead of Ishmael (Gen. 16). (4) His failure to trust God for the renewal of Sarah’s body (Gen. 17:17-19). (5) Sarah’s failure to believe God’s promise of a son (Gen. 18:12ff.). The same thesis would apply to the disobediences of Isaac, Jacob, and their many descendants. Because this was not the case and because the covenant was not established upon the condition of Abraham’s obedience, it is therefore improper for the amillennialist to bring in a condition then or later; and especially in the case of Israel’s failure involved in the rejection of their Messiah, and urge that this is the basis for God’s abrogation of that part of the Abrahamic Covenant which refers to the land of Palestine, while also urging that Israel’s failure permits only certain spiritual promises to remain to those in Christ, the Seed, namely the Church. All the covenant was unconditional in its institution and from the time of its institution. An excellent proof of this may be found in the words of Hebrews 6 :13ff., which reads in the Centenary Version: “ For when God made the promise to Abraham, since he could sware by none greater, he swore by himself, saying: ‘Surely I will bless you, and bless you; I will increase you, and increase you’ (Gen. 22:16-17). And so by patient waiting, Abraham obtained the promise. (I am referring to the oath) because men swear by what is greater than themselves, and in every dispute of theirs the oath is final for confirma tion. On which principle God, wishing to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the immut ability of his purpose, mediated with an oath; that by means of two immutable things—his promise and his oath—-in which it is impossible for God to break faith, we refugees may have strong encouragement to grasp the hope set before us. This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, secure and strong, and passing into the sanctuary which is beyond the veil; whither Jesus himself is entered as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a priest forever, after the order of Melchisedek.” It is plainly stated that God made a unilateral covenant, imposing upon Himself alone the responsibility for the origination and culmination of the covenant ( “ he swore by himself” ). Abraham entered into the blessing benefits by obediently waiting in faith, but it is just as clear that only Abraham’s subjective enjoyment and encouragement were affected by his response. The covenant itself was as firm, unchangeable, and inviolate as the character of God Himself. Because God is unchanging, Abraham can know how sure the covenant is. It is on the basis of His immutability that Abraham is encouraged to rest in sure confidence. This is in harmony with the great scene in Genesis 15. Customarily in a blood covenant, the carcasses were divided and both covenanters passed together between the carcasses in confirmation of the solemn covenant. But in Genesis 15 Abraham is in “ a deep sleep” (v. 12) and cannot pass through the carcasses with God. God passed through alone (v. 17), since the covenant was entirely
THE KING'S BUSINESS
28
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker