It’s OK to ask!

God promised him a national and an international fatherhood. The Abrahamic Covenant is divided in two parts and in two chapters in between many years of Abraham’s life. These covenants were unconditional.

The old Testament (Mosaic) covenant was conditional but it does not supercede the previous one. Each one builds apon another, they do not change the previous covenants, they do not annul them nor replace them.

Forgive me for asking, but when God said He would give the land to Abraham’s seed “forever” do you think that He meant only Israel? The reason I ask, is because Abraham was promised he would be the father of many nations; not just one or even two. Israel, as a nation was dispossessed and dispersed for centuries prior to 1947, so does that make God a liar?

When God said to David “I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and my heart shall be there perpetually.” (1 Kings 9:3, 2 Chron 7:16)) surely you read the IFs both prior to and after God’s promises? I mean, David nor Solomon’s houses for the Lord no longer exist, so how can God’s promise be still in force?

David understood God’s promise to be conditional and impressed that upon Solomon in 2 Chronicles 28:8-9. Ezra 9:12 also sets down the conditions for Israel to continue to have an inheritance in the land. Jeremiah writes that God said to Judah “And thou, even of thyself, shalt discontinue from thy heritage that I gave thee; and I will cause thee to serve thine enemies in the land which thou knowest not: for ye have kindled a fire in mine anger which shall burn for ever.” (Jeremiah 17:4 and see also v 27)

Forever is always a conditional thing in the Bible, it seems. God’s lovingkindness endures forever…alongside His righteous judgment. His wrath will not endure forever, except towards those who refuse Him finally.

I may be wrong about Israel, but I believe Paul only affirmed that God did not cut Israel off entirely, like he had the Gentiles prior to the gospel of Christ, but that a remnant of them would accept God’s new covenant which replaces the old one.

As for the reference in Hebrew, your hermeneutical approach is for the NT to redefine the OT. So that whatever God said in the OT about literal land in Israel becomes something altogether different in the NT. I have to disagree with your heremeneutical approach from the get go before we even apply exegesis….I look forward to you next posts, as I am studying this issue as well.

Let’s say that the land that God told Abraham about was obtained during Solomon’s rule….God promised it to his descendents forever and forever aint over yet and Israel isn’t in full ownership of that land right now. The heavenly city that Abraham looked forward to would definitely include the new Jerusalem but he expected to own the land that he saw from the North South East and West as God said.

What I am most against, is the idea that God has forsaken His Jewish people and replaced Israel with the church. Paul made it clear that that was not the case. He has not forsaken His people whom He foreknew. In fact, He wanted the Gentile Christians to understand this so they wouldn’t be haughty about their newly found privileged status. I look forward to reading and studying this more….you are iron sharpening my iron. God bless.

I don’t see how you can get around Heb. 11:13-16. Abraham was looking for a heavenly city and would be rewarded with one. Yes God gave him the land, and promised it to him. But the land pointed beyond. Zion is the City of God, but that of course points to the Future “Heavenly Jerusalem” where God dwells with all His redeemed people forever.

Again, you say “they have never had it”, Joshua, Solomon, and Nehemiah said they did have it and God’s promises were fulfilled, not one of them was unkept. Whose better positioned to know what God meant by his promises? You, anyone today, or an inspired author of Scripture? How can “Not one of the good promises which th eLord had made to the house of Israel failed: all came to pass” be stretched to mean that it actually didn’t come to pass? I know that dispensationalists obsess about the borders of Israel and debate about how much of the promised land they actually go, but none of the Scriptural authors did. Joshua, Solomon, and Nehemiah all agree they got all the land, God fulfilled that promise you quoted.

Okay, I’ll save the rest for my next post.

Let me get back to you on a book. I’ve read a couple and I want to recommend the best one for you. Or at least an article or two.

Blessings in Christ,

Bob

Genesis 13:14-15 And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: 15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.

Abraham was not seeing heaven, a new Jerusalem or any of that. He was seeing real land in a real place in the middle east. If God didn’t mean what He said, either He lied, or He deceived Abraham.

Genesis 15:18 18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

That land is rightfully Israel’s and they have never had it. When Messiah comes back, He will give that land to national Israel during the Millenium.

BTW, could you recommend a good Covenant Theology book that I can read along with my others ? Thanks.

As for the spiritual meaning of Israel crossing through (being baptized into) the Red Sea and the later generation having to cross through another body of water, the Jordan, being baptized anew, that makes for a very good subject in itself.

I believe, spiritually, that all who are partakers of the “first resurrection” (re-born by water and Spirit) have crossed the Jordan (“choose this day”) and are in Canaan now, warring against the enemies of their souls which reside in their sinful natures.

Granted, not everything is spiritual in it’s meaning, but I believe almost everything in the Old Testament has a spiritual meaning. After all, we are informed repeatedly that all that went before were mere shadows, which validates these as poor copies of things outside of this plane, and meant for our learning. (1 Corinth 10:6, 2 Corinth 3:7-11, Hebrews 11, etc.)

Again, great, thought provoking stuff!

I notice you recommend Christ of the Covenants, and one of John Frame’s books. I’ve read Christ of the Covenants and recommend it highly, and I respect John Frame greatly.

Blessings again,

Bob