The following is the fifth in a series of blog posts on this topic that are meant to be read together. Links to the previous articles may be found at the bottom of this page. The series as a whole is also meant to accompany a collection of related articles currently being posted on the website Reformation21. Links to those articles can likewise be found at the bottom of this page.
I have mentioned that the Abrahamic Covenant is, in my opinion, more difficult to understand than the other biblical covenants because of the differing natures of the covenant initiation in Genesis chapter 15 and the re-initiation in Genesis chapter 17: the former seems to be unconditional while the latter is clearly conditional. This divergence is of such a degree that it almost begs the question, “Are these two different covenants?” Such a notion is no doubt radical, departing from the mainstream of biblical interpretation…but I am a Baptist, after all.
Fear not! I have no intention of doing to the Abrahamic Covenant what Solomon once threatened to do to an infant. If there were two different Abrahamic Covenants, I would expect the biblical authors to make some mention of this rather important fact. What I am suggesting is not that there are two Abrahamic Covenants, but that two different covenants came out of the Abrahamic Covenant, or if you like, they were initiated as a result of it. The Abrahamic Covenant itself contains traces of both of these later covenants. Their names should be well-known to even the most casual biblical observer: the Old and New Covenants.
About this covenantal duo scripture has much to say, so I believe I am standing on firmer ground. The first thing we must note, and a rather essential thing at that, is that Abraham has two different progenies. On the one hand, he has a line of physical descendants who share his DNA. On the other, he has a line of spiritual descendants who share his faith. This point was clearly explicated by the Apostle Paul.
“Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, ‘Faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.’ How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, (as it is written, ‘A father of many nations have I made you’) in the presence of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.”
Romans 4:9-17
This was an exceedingly radical notion for first-century Jews who had been raised their whole lives with an “us vs. them” mentality in regard to the Gentiles. The Jews believed that because God had chosen them and granted them the Law, they alone had special access to him. If a non-Jew wanted to become one of Yahweh’s people, he or she would have to formerly convert to Judaism, essentially taking on a new ethnicity in addition to a new religion. While many other nations persecuted the people of Israel, they took great pride in their descent from Abraham.
During the ministries of John the Baptist and Christ Himself, these popular notions were put to the test. When the former saw a group of Jewish religious leaders coming to him to be baptized, he urged them to show true repentance that bears fruit rather than simply relying on the outward sign of washing. Then he turned their intellectual world upside down, proclaiming, “…do not suppose that you can say to yourself, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham.” (Matthew 3:9)
These deeply religious men had always assumed that descent from Abraham was based on birth. If you shared his DNA, you had a part in him and his covenant. God worked with a nation—a community related by blood. But John the Baptist presented an entirely different model of descent based on the unilateral and voluntary action of God. To say that God can raise up children for Abraham out of stone is to say not only that He is completely sovereign over the process, but that he need not abide by any of the normal rules. He is a potter working upon clay, shaping it however He wills. It was also a prophecy that God would take those who were not children of Abraham and turn them into children of Abraham.
Interestingly, John the Baptist also warned the Pharisees and Saducees not to rely on their physical descent from Abraham for any kind of blessing. Ethnic or biological connections were not what mattered, but the will of God acting upon a person to make them a child. As the Apostle John wrote in his Gospel about Christ, “He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” (John 1:11-12)
Christ gave a similar warning to some of the Jews about assuming who would receive eternal life based on physical descent or even outward actions.
“Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets’; and He will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you are from; depart from Me, all you evildoers.’ In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out. And they will come from east and west and from north and south, and will recline at the table in the kingdom of God.”
Luke 13:26-29
Who would join with Abraham and the other Jewish Patriarchs in the presence of God for all eternity? Who would sit beside the prophets in the kingdom of God? Clearly not all of those who descended from the Patriarchs, nor even those who were around Christ or heard Him speak. Rather, they would come from all four directions across the earth. This was the prophecy made to Abraham: “…all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” (Genesis 12:3)
The majority of the Jewish nation never accepted Jesus as the Son of Man and Messiah spoken of by their prophets. They found his claim to be the Son of God utterly blasphemous. While sharing his heartache over this situation with Christians in Rome, the Apostle Paul assured them,
“But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: ‘through Isaac your descendants will be named.’ That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.”
Romans 9:6-8
Obviously, those who were physically descended from Abraham were, in a sense, his children. However, Paul clearly taught in his epistles that Abraham has two progenies, described here as “children of the flesh” and “children of the promise”. Only the latter are truly children of God. Paul appeals to the story of Abraham’s two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. The Jewish people took great pride in their descent from Isaac, the child of promise, but on a spiritual level, Paul tells them that they are more like Ishmael: physically descended from Abraham but not spiritually chosen to receive the promises. The distinction, Paul taught, was between Law and faith.
“Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘All the nations will be blessed in you.’ So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer. For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.’ Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, ‘The righteous man shall live by faith.’ However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, ‘He who practices them shall live by them.’ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’—in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”
Galatians 3:6-14
I have mentioned the distinction that the Protestant Reformers drew between Law and gospel in scripture. What even the early Protestants were not able to accept is that this is not merely a division between verses of scripture, but also between covenants. Many Christians read the passage above in Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians and assume that when Paul uses the term translated as “Law”, he does not mean the Mosaic Covenant but simply an outward, typological part of that covenant, or else he is referring to people who thought they could fulfill the covenantal demands without the help of faith.
I disagree. Scripture actually teaches that the whole Mosaic Covenant, referred to as the Old Covenant, was based on works. That is to say, the path to blessing it offered was through the performance of righteous acts, namely the keeping of the Mosaic Law. There was no separation between the Mosaic Covenant and the Law. This is why Paul says, “However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, ‘He who practices them shall live by them.’” (Galatians 3:12) This is a reference to what is written in the Book of Leviticus: “You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord.” (18:4-5)
As proof of this interpretation, I offer the following passage from that same Epistle to the Galatians, which makes an explicit distinction between covenants.
“For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother…And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also…So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.”
Galatians 4:22-26, 28-29, 31
Paul refers here to two covenants: one that corresponds to Hagar and bears children who will be slaves, and another that corresponds to Sarah and bears children who will be free. The first can be identified by his comment that it proceeds from Mount Sinai. This is the Mosaic Covenant. That very thing that the ethnic Israelites thought made them free children of God and heirs of the promise had in fact made them slaves, placing them under the burden of commands that were meant to reveal their need for grace more than offering them grace. For, as Paul teaches, no flesh can be justified by Law. After the Fall, a covenant like the Mosaic Covenant may be gracious, but no human being can meet its demands and thus be declared righteous.
The second covenant which bears free children of the promise seems quite clearly to be the New Covenant inaugurated with the Atonement of Jesus Christ. It alone was able to set its participants free by offering a better sacrifice and a sufficiency of righteousness. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote the following about those were priests under the Old Covenant.
“They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: ‘See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.’ But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said: ‘The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, “Know the Lord,” because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.’By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.”
Hebrews 8:5-13
The author of this epistle gives multiple reasons why the New Covenant is superior to the Old Covenant.
- It has Jesus Christ as its mediator.
- It offers better promises.
- God takes sovereign action to write His law on the hearts of its members.
- It was initiated in the blood of Christ rather than the blood of animals. (Hebrews chapter 9)
- It allows entrance into the fullness of God’s presence. (chapter 9)
This is why the author makes the rather logical declaration that if nothing was wrong with the Old Covenant, there would be no need for a new one. The New Covenant is not separated from the Old Covenant merely by chronology or a few secondary elements. It is substantially different.
To be concluded…
All scripture references are from the New American Standard Bible, copyright The Lockman Foundation.
Other articles in this blog series in order of publication:
“Why I Am a Reformed Protestant: The Covenant with Abraham”
“Why I Am a Reformed Protestant: The Requirement of Works”
“Why I Am a Reformed Protestant: The Prophecy of Substitution”
“Why I Am a Reformed Protestant: The Circumcision of the Heart”
Related articles hosted on Reformation21 in order of publication:
“Infusion and Imputation: An Introduction”
“Justification: The Roman Catholic View”
“Justification: The Reformed Protestant View”
4 Comments
Comments are closed.