Covenants and Israel

I just listened to an excellent Timothy Keller sermon (by the way, that phrase is redundant.) based on the ceremony confirming God’s covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15. I decided to read more about this fascinating and powerful ceremony and came across this summary of the Abrahamic Covenant [NOTE: this article has been significantly updated since I read it and no longer includes what I would call the most problematic lines, though the general ideas are the same]. While much of it is true and helpful, a few lines made me pretty angry, so now I’m going to rant about it. This is not a political rant about the complex situation in the Middle East, nor is it a prophecy rant about the End Times and God’s plans for Israel. It’s a theological rant about how we should read the Bible and some basic (I would have thought obvious) things about God’s promises and covenants.

I don’t know if a “rant” can ever convey humility, gentleness, and a teachable attitude, but I would at least like to say I’m very open to correction on any of these things. If you have relevant verses to share or think I have misunderstood something, please let me know. I fully recognize that indulging in a rant means I might have to eat my words later.

The article I read sought to answer the question, “What is the Abrahamic Covenant?” and started off well: “(1) The Abrahamic Covenant is described in Genesis 12:1-3 and is an unconditional covenant. There are no conditions attached to it (no “if” clauses, suggesting its fulfillment is dependent on man). (2) It is also a literal covenant in which the promises should be understood literally. The land that is promised should be understood in its literal or normal interpretation—it is not a figure of heaven.” Ok, so far so good. It’s very important to distinguish between God’s conditional and unconditional promises. I also have no problem with it being understood literally. The point that really set me off was this: “(3) It is also an everlasting covenant. The promises that God made to Israel are eternal.”

This is the Abrahamic covenant. It is a promise to Abraham. Israel is literally a different person, Abraham’s grandson. In this context, the author is referring to the nation of Israel, which will not exist for several generations. No matter what further promises God may make with other individuals (yes, he does make a covenant with Jacob/Israel) or nations as a whole (yes, he does make covenants with the nation of Israel), you can’t just go around applying God’s promises to whomever you please. Covenants involve two parties; some are conditional or bilateral, where both parties agree to bind themselves to the covenant, and some are unconditional or unilateral, where one party makes a promise to another. But in no covenant are you free to swap out the parties!

My wife and I have a covenant called marriage, and, in many ways, any future children will be part of that covenant. But I will not be married to my children. I did not in my marriage vows commit to love only one child, “forsaking all others.” I will have a different relationship with my children and will likely make them different promises. For example, I might have a conditional arrangement with my kids where if they clean their rooms, then they will receive an allowance. This arrangement has absolutely nothing to do with my marriage vows, because it is a different arrangement with different parties.

So with any covenant, we have to establish: 1) who are the parties involved?, and 2) what, if any, are the conditions? In Scripture, this is often pretty straightforward because these things are clearly specified. For example, in Genesis 9 God establishes an unconditional covenant with Noah, his offspring, and all the animals, and this covenant begins: “Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you, and with every living creature that is with you...” The parties are obvious and, as can be seen in the rest of the passage, there are no conditions.

One of my favorite examples of just how specific and distinct God’s promises are is the distinction between his promises to David and Solomon. God makes an unconditional promise to David to build him an eternal house and establish the throne of his kingdom forever (II Sam 7). After David’s death, his son Solomon becomes king. God makes promises to him that are conditional and continues to make this conditional covenant with many of Solomon’s descendants (I Kings 9:1-9). Most of Israel’s kings fail to live by the terms of this covenant and are judged, yet God over and over demonstrates his patience and forgiveness “for the sake of my servant David.” (I Kings 11:13, 32, 34; II Kings 19:34; 20:6; Isaiah 37:35). God eventually decides that it’s too late and Israel will be judged for its unfaithfulness. Kings like Hezekiah and Josiah manage to delay the judgment for a while (II Kings 20:16-19;22:15-20), but the last kings of Judah get only curses, including the promise that none of their descendants will be kings (Jer. 21:4-14, 22:11-30). The line of kings ends, and there is no one left on the throne.

So God is in this tricky situation where he has made an unconditional promise to David, which he must keep, but has also had to cut off Solomon’s line in order to fulfill the judgments required by his conditional covenants with them. The offspring of David, who would be the eternal king, needs to be a biological descendant of David, but not of the wicked kings after him. All the branches of the family tree after David were rotten and needed to be chopped off.

This is why God promises that a shoot will come up from the stump ofJesse (David’s father) and grow into a new branch bearing good fruit and standing as a signal for the peoples (Is 11). This righteous Branch, Jesus the Messiah, is exactly what is needed to fulfill God’s promises because, while he legally inherits the kingly ancestry from his father Joseph, his bloodline goes back to David via a totally different son named Nathan (see Mary’s genealogy in Luke 3:31).

This is an incredible example of the great lengths to which God will go in order to stay true to his promises exactly as given. The unconditional Davidic covenant is specifically a covenant with David, but the covenants with the kings after him are conditional and distinct.

So, back to the Abrahamic covenant: we’ve said that it’s an unconditional covenant, but who are the parties? Genesis 12:1-3 is addressed specifically to Abram (Abraham) and is a promise of blessing and a promise to make him a great nation. As he passes through Canaan, God says, “To your offspring I will give this land.” (12:7) He later promises him lots of descendants and repeats the promise to give the land to them (13:14-17, 15:3-6,13-16). Verses 15:18-21 repeat that the land is for “Abraham’s offspring” and give specific boundary markers. In Genesis 17, God introduces circumcision as a sign of the covenant and adds, “I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.” So the parties are God and Abraham, with a promise to continue the covenant with Abraham’s offspring. We read about the fulfillment of these promises as God continues to be in covenant relationships with Abraham’s descendants throughout the Old Testament.

But who constitutes the “offspring of Abraham” in this covenant? Some might answer, “Why, the modern-day state of Israel, of course.” What?? Where do you get that from? That is not how covenants work. You can’t just swap out the parties in a legal agreement just because they’re related. When the people of Israel left Egypt and took possession of the land, this was in fulfillment of God’s covenant promise to Abraham the individual, but it also involved the establishment of totally new, conditional covenants with the newly formed nation of Israel (Deut 29:12-15). God establishes a covenant of law at Sinai/Horeb, and another at Moab concerning their occupation of the land (Deut 29:1). Israel’s occupation of the land was absolutely conditional based on their faithfulness to the Mosaic Law (too many verses to list, but Deut 8 is clear enough). The covenants with the nation of Israel occur generations after the Abrahamic Covenant; they involved different parties, different conditions, different signs, and even different land boundaries. Compare Genesis 15:18-21 with Numbers 34:1-12 in the maps below.

Map showing biblical boundaries (Numbers 34; Ezekiel 47), via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA.

To say that the Abrahamic Covenant is in any way a covenant with the nation of Israel is about as silly as saying my grandparents’ marriage gives me legal rights to my cousins' possessions.

But what about Jacob? Didn’t God also make a covenant with him? Yes, a different one with some similar promises (Gen 28:12-15, 35:9-12) and some different ones (Gen 25:23; 27:28,29; 32:24-40). So, can we then take all the promises to the individual Jacob and apply them to the nation of Israel? No! They are different parties!

Some people look at Genesis 15 and come up with elaborate theories about how the nation of Israel will someday control that huge swath of land. Or maybe that’s where a giant new Jerusalem will come down out of heaven. Personally, I think it makes much more sense to say, “Yep, that’s where the offspring of Abraham live.”

 

You see, God also made promises concerning Abraham’s other son, Ishmael: “I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a greatnation.” (Gen 17:20) God also told Ishmael’s mother: “I will surely multiply your offspring so that they cannot be numbered for multitude.” (Gen 16:10) Sounds a lot like the promises made to Abraham.

So wait, am I really saying that Ishmael should be included in the “offspring of Abraham” who were promised land? Yes! He is obviously the offspring of Abraham; Abraham circumcised him as a sign of the covenant, and yes, it is customary for an inheritance to be split between all of the children. This would mean Esau and his descendants would also be included. I would also imagine this includes the oft-forgotten other 6 sons of Abraham (I Chron 1:32).

 

For some reason, many of the same people who advocate an excessively literal reading of the Bible seem to think that “offspring of Abraham” refers to something other than the literal “offspring of Abraham.” There’s really no reason for it to refer only to Jews. If you take a look at Abraham’s descendants in I Chronicles 1, it is not at all hard to imagine that a huge portion of those now living in the territory outlined in Genesis 15 are direct descendants of Abraham.

The fact is, the nation of Israel was conditionally given the land of Canaan, and after generations of God’s patient forbearance, they lost it because they failed to abide by the covenant. I see absolutely nothing in the Abrahamic Covenant, or any of the covenants in Scripture, for that matter, which gives the nation of Israel an unconditional right to land. There are, of course, other theological and historical factors to consider, including prophecies concerning Israel and the land, the degree to which “offspring of Abraham” refers to those who have faith (Rom 9:7,8), or God’s future plans for the modern-day State of Israel, but those aren’t my current rant topic.

The main thing that I find most irksome is when people take a verse in Genesis totally out of context as their basis for supporting a modern political state, expecting that this will result in blessing. If the US supports a political ally, it should do so for the right reasons, not because of some ludicrous idea that support of Israel is a way to gain the blessings and avoid the curses of the Abrahamic Covenant. If Israel violates international law and commits atrocities, Christians should be the first to speak out for justice and protect the cause of the oppressed. Christians should also be especially careful about trying to apply individual Bible verses to complicated political situations.