The Promise to Abraham

“Know you therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.”

God made a promise to Abraham: “In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Gen.12:3). Later he repeated the promise, “because you have obeyed my voice” (Gen. 22:18).

What of this promise? Was it fulfilled? Or is it yet to be realized in some material sense? Gross confusion prevails. The tragic result is that Christians look for a fulfillment which will not come, because they look for the wrong kind of promise. People keep getting this original promise to Abraham mixed up with the Law given to Moses and with the land of Canaan in which the Israelites established a nation.

But the promise to Abraham had nothing to do with the law nor with national Israel. Paul explained, “For not through the law was the promise to Abraham or to his seed that he should be heir of the world, but through the righteousness of Faith” (Rom. 4:13). Three things are revealed here: 1) That the promise has nothing to do with the law; 2) That it does have to do with inheriting the world, and not a mere fraction of it, and 3) That it is through faith, and not through racial descent.

Jesus said that Abraham “rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad” (John 8:56, cf. 8:44). Obviously Abraham understood that the promise that he was to be the father of many nations and that all families should be blessed through him was a promise concerning Christ and the salvation he would purchase for believers. God was severe in teaching him the lesson, “in Isaac shall thy seed be called” (Gen. 21:12) because Isaac was the son of “promise”, the son born by a miracle of God in response to Abraham’s faith. Thus “it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed” (Rom. 9:8). Paul again explains, “know you therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7). It is plain that the promise is to Christians, and not to the fleshly descendants, the Ismaelites, and the many tribes and nations that descended from Abraham and rebelled against God. Nor does the promise have anything to do with modern Israel, a nation that is officially and thoroughly anti-christ. Paul declares, “Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He said not, and to seeds, as of many, but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ” (Gal. 3:16). The promise God made to Abraham had to do with Jesus Christ and the redemption He made for believers, so that all who believe on Him are blessed.

“And if you are Christ’s, then are you Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29). The promise is a spiritual one, as demonstrated in Abraham himself. Scripture says of him: “he looked for the city which has the foundation, whose builder and maker is God” (Heb. 11:10). Of Abraham and the other patriarchs, the Bible says, “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things make it manifest that they are seeking after a country of their own. And if indeed they had been mindful of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. But now they desire a better country, that is a heavenly; wherefore God is not ashamed of them, to be called their God; for He has prepared for them a city” (Heb. 11:13–16).

The promise which Abraham has not yet received is that promise that he “should be heir of the world” (Rom. 4:13). This world is to be destroyed, as described by the apostle Peter, revealing that this earth is “stored up for fire, being reserved against the Day of Judgment and destruction of ungodly men” (II Pet. 3:7). Then Peter adds, “But according to his promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwells righteousness” (II Pet. 3:13).

This is Abraham’s inheritance, the city with foundations laid, not by men’s hands, but by God, a heavenly city, the New Jerusalem. Christ is the “seed” of Abraham, and through Him all Christians are the children and seed of Abraham, and thus joint-heirs of the new creation. Thus the promise, yet to be realized by Abraham and all God’s children, is an eternal home for saints resurrected and made immortal, not the land of Palestine occupied by a certain few in the 20th century.

This has always been the hope of the true Israel, the children of God by faith. The apostle Paul preached the resurrection of the dead everywhere he went. He claimed to glory in only one thing, the gospel of Christ, which is the good news of Christ’s death and resurrection. For preaching this gospel he was persecuted by the Jews and finally imprisoned and sent in chains to Rome, where he declared, “because of the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain” (Acts 28:20). Paul is the inspired apostle who wrote emphatically that there is “one hope” (Eph. 4:4). This hope, held by Abraham and all believers of all time, is the hope of immortality in the new creation, after the present world has passed away.

Indeed, there was a promise to Abraham concerning the land where he sojourned. “In that day (not the same day God made the original promise) Jehovah made a covenant with Abraham, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the Euphrates” (Gen 15:18). This promise was completely fulfilled after the Israelites returned from Egypt. The book of Joshua describes the conquest of the land, and declares, “So Jehovah gave unto Israel all the land which he swore to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein…There failed nothing of any good thing which Jehovah had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass” (Joshua 21:43, 45). Under King David, the kingdom was expanded all the way to the river Euphrates (II Sam. 8:3). This is further verified in I Kings 4:23, 24.

The kingdom also embraced laws, generally known as the Mosaic Law, initiated in the ritual of circumcision. This law, called the Old Covenant, began at Mt. Sinai, and was finished at the cross, some 1400 years later. It included circumcision, the observation of certain days, feasts and ceremonial sacrifices, involving the slaying of animals for atonement of sins. All of this is done away in Christ, for He is the “end of the law.” In His death he became the final and complete sacrifice, paying the penalty for sin once and for all in his own death (Heb. 10:10, 14). Furthermore, the Old Covenant being fulfilled, there is now no racial barrier to the Kingdom of God. Ancestry or genealogy has nothing to do with redemption in Christ. By his death for sin Christ has brought all believers into the commonwealth, into His Kingdom (Eph. 2:12–19). “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. There can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for you are all one man in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s then are you Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:27–29).

The earthly kingdom which was the glory of David and Solomon, and which their fleshly descendants have endeavored to restore to this day, was part of the national covenant made with Moses. They so trampled underfoot the laws of God that He sent their enemies to take them captive into Assyria and Babylon. Prophets foretold a return to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the temple. All of this was fulfilled. A remnant of all the tribes returned to their homeland, and a great temple was built. But again they refused to walk in the faith exemplified by Abraham. “Jesus said unto them, if you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham” (John 8:39, cf., 40-56).

Instead of believing on Christ, as Abraham and Moses did, even before He appeared in the flesh, they rejected Him. Jesus then said, “The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Matt. 21:43). Peter identifies the church as this nation: “you are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that you may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (I Pet. 2:9)

To the fleshly nation of Israel, Jesus said, “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate” (Matt. 24:1–2), and in a few years his prophecy was fulfilled to the letter when the Roman armies demolished Jerusalem in 70 AD.

As Christians our hope is not hinged on a piece of temporal land nor a fickle and rebellious ethnic group. Our hope is not in this earth, which is to perish, nor in worldly governments — no, not in our own government nor some super government. Our hope is in the coming of Christ to judge the world, to deliver Christians out of it, to change our bodies to glorious ones like His own and plant us in the “new heavens and new earth wherein dwells righteousness.”

“Know you therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.”

Verse 9: "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, ..."

How do you reconcile that with all the other verses referring to the Church as composed of "nations", other than to realize that he is referring to the Jewish believers here in his first epistle.

After all, he is quoting Deuteronomy 7:6 which said that the children of Israel would be a "special people to him above all the people who are on the face of the earth."

I Peter was written to the "sojourners", the Jewish believers scattered and being scattered again throughout that area of Asia Minor due to the conflict with Rome in Judea and the ongoing diaspora. In the letter he even tells them to "have your behaviour honest among the nations".[I Peter 2:12]

Count all the places in Scripture where the Church is referred to as a community of "nations" and that's the only way to reconcile those verses with Peter's first epistle. Afterall, Peter was there on the day when Jesus answered the disciples' collective question about when He would "restore again" the Kingdom to Israel", and when Jesus answered it saying that the time for that is in His Father's hands.

And where do you find "future nation of Israel" that you say Peter revealed?

Acts 15:14-17 -- the words of the prophets as it is written.

I’ve read and know the Book of Daniel and there is not a single verse that mentions specifically “house of Israel” or “house of Judah” having been united since 721 BC. You need to look somewhere else, but you will never find the answer to my question in the Bible. Keep searching.

Right, the Book of Daniel is not specific on this. Both of these "houses" were taken captive: the first ten by the Assyrians and the last two by the Babylonians. When Cyrus gave the order for the temple to be rebuilt in Jerusalem, a remnant of all the twelve tribes returned, but most of them remained in Babylon. Watch for my next thread topic :-)

Me: Verse 9: "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, ..."

How do you reconcile that with all the other verses referring to the Church as composed of "nations", other than to realize that he is referring to the Jewish believers here in his first epistle.

After all, he is quoting Deuteronomy 7:6 which said that the children of Israel would be a "special people to him above all the people who are on the face of the earth."

Yes, Peter is writing to those who left Judahism and turned to Christianity; those who were dispersed into the locations he mentions because of the persecutions aimed at them in Jerusalem. The gentile Christians are joined with them in that "holy nation" mentioned in Verse 9 above which is not a quote from the OT. About Deut. 7:6 - Peter never quoted it in either of his two letters.

Count all the places in Scripture where the Church is referred to as a community of "nations" and that's the only way to reconcile those verses with Peter's first epistle.

Hmmm..."community of nations": where did I say anything like that? Please don't put words in my mouth (typing). Christians of all nations are joined in the nation Christ created - the universal "church". Nations don't come together in any way...it's the people who do - and in this case, only the people of God who are joined together into one nation. Is that too hard to understand? Hmmm...maybe it could be stated better, maybe not. Whatever...

ME: And where do you find "future nation of Israel" that you say Peter revealed?

Acts 15:14-17 -- the words of the prophets as it is written.

I agree with Peter's words 100%! Gentiles are added to the new nation of Israel, which is the "assembly of called out ones" in His name. It is erroneously called the "church", but because of the infirmity of the flesh, most Christians use it. It is the restoration of the "house of David", of which, Jesus Christ is now seated on "Davids throne" in heaven - that may be too much for you to stomach, but it is very Scriptural. In the series of articles I'm willing to post to a thread this will be expounded upon to some extent, so I'm not going to attempt to explain it is some short post to anyone. Sorry, but that's the way it is :-)

ME: Later examination of the origins of dispensationalism intensified my conclusions that it was really wrong theology.

And what origins would that be?

Ribera, a Jesuit priest, wrote of a future antichrist in the 17th century which was translated into English in the 18th century, and in the 19th century (1830) Edward Irving preached his dispensational theories which culminated in prophetic conferences. In the church Irving pastored, a Miss Margaret McDonald gave a prophecy in which she spoke of Christ's visible second coming - but in continuing she began to speak of another coming, a coming that was secret and would result in the rapture of believers only; those who were left had to face tribulation.

This spread to the "Plymouth Brethren" church and let to John Nelson Darby systemizing this new doctrine. He wrote over 30 volumes of 600 pages each concerning this new theological theory. Following him, Charles Henry Mackintosh, simply known as C.H.M., popularized the spread of dispensationalism. William Blackstone wrote a book untitled "Jesus is Coming" which taught the secret rapture theory. Next came probably the largest single factor that spread that theory - the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909.

Naw, this dispensational theory is a recent addition to the topic of the return of Jesus - and has caused so many other theories to pop up that it is ridiculous to the extreme. In all respect to those who hold to this doctrine, some of my best friends being in that number, I am fully convinced that it lacks a solid scriptural foundation. It is a theory based on a faulty method of interpretation.

This Curtis fellow you keep posting has an impressive array of articles, but if they mis-represent positions and are full of shotty exegesis (which they are) then its a pile of bits at a link. Replacement theology is not true theology, it ignores the priority of the OT text in OT interpretation.

Replacement theology it is not! I would dare you to write on any of the topics he has written on with such clarity. None of what he wrote is new - it's been proclaimed for centuries by various individual who were, so it seems, persecuted and put to death quite often. It upset the ecclesiastical establishment so much that they did all they could to silence it - without success I may add. In fact, most of todays theologians and writers stay away from addressing what he and many others have to say about many topics, including the destiny of man. Replacement theology is dispensationalism, pure and simple; and it uses a rubber dictionary - as FR Quix likes to say.

Even doubling it, it is still to small to be Ezekiel's temple. Ezekiel's temple will be large enought for all nations to come to and give respect to Jesus.

Hmmm...the USA, UK, Germany, Italy, Russia, Canada, etc., they are all going to fit into Ezekiel's temple? Never! As with others, you use the word nation instead of its people. The scriptures mean the people of all the nations, which again would never fit into Ezekiel's temple - there would be too many of them. However, all of the people of the world, past, present and future could fit into the new nation created by Jesus - for his kingdom is not of this world, but is within each and every person who belongs to Him. A new world in new heavens will be our home. That is the promise of God. Not only that, but its inhabitants will never die, for they will be immortal. Praise God for His promise!

If you would read your bible it says that during the 1000 year reign of Christ we will be here on earth.

Yes, during the thousands of years of Rev. 20, we Christians will be here on earth - and Jesus the Christ of God is the one reigning.

And yes nation means all people groups. But the bible still says that they will give homage to Christ with memorial sacrifices in Ezekiel's temple in the Millennium. If the prophecies of the millennial temple are not true then most of the OT prophets are false prophets along with Isiah and that Jesus was not the Christ.

In my opinion you're reading way too much into what is actually said. You have yet to explain these so-called "memorial sacrifices" in light of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross which was once for all times completed!

Unfortunately for you, even scholars on your side have discounted that "origin" a while ago. But I needed to ask that question to see where you were and I have my answer. I have noticed that those on your side enjoy propagating this kind of information. It certainly fits your standard of Biblical studies perfectly.

I am fully convinced that it lacks a solid scriptural foundation. It is a theory based on a faulty method of interpretation.

On the contrary, your side is the one that abandons solid theological method.

Dispensationalism begins with the development of a Biblical theology of the OT based on the grammatical-historical approach to the OT text. Then a Biblical theology of the NT based on the NT text is constructed; then all results are synthesized into a systematic theology.

Non-dispensationalists start with a Biblical theology of the NT, then construct a Biblical theology of the OT based; not on the OT text, but on the NT understanding of the OT text. Then systematic synthesis.

This gives you the justification you need to trash the OT covenants as fulfilled by the church, or the silly position of "it all happened in AD 70."

Replacement theology it is not! I would dare you to write on any of the topics he has written on with such clarity.

Clarity? That is not the issue, sure he can write with clarity, but the theological method and interpretive conclusions he reaches are aberrant. Who cares if he can communicate false doctrine clearly.

Replacement theology is dispensationalism

lol ... you're the first person to claim that.

"I am fully convinced that it lacks a solid scriptural foundation. It is a theory based on a faulty method of interpretation."

On the contrary, your side is the one that abandons solid theological method.

That's the argument that is advanced all the time - By both sides (and various other groups)! The only way for any group is to display and present for study what they see of the future; which is the main part of the arguments.

I haven't got all that much against dispesations revealed in the OT; it's just that Dispensationalists make mountains out of mole hills - they start with an ant hill and pile loads of dirt and rock on it. There is so much wrong with the theology of a lot of groups; Dispensationists have carried a lot of false teachings on the destiny of man that it makes one wonder who is actually following a grammatical-historical based approach in their theology.

Non-dispensationalists start with a Biblical theology of the NT, then construct a Biblical theology of the OT based; not on the OT text, but on the NT understanding of the OT text. Then systematic synthesis.

In this I think you are wrong again. Think: what did the writers of the NT understand from what is recorded in the OT? They applied much of the OT to events recorded in the NT. Do you think they then systematically synthesized thier teachings?

Clarity? That is not the issue, sure he can write with clarity, but the theological method and interpretive conclusions he reaches are aberrant. Who cares if he can communicate false doctrine clearly.

Wrong! Clarity, as Curtis uses it, is explaining certain things so that the simplest individual can understand it. I've read some of his in-depth exegesis and it is up-to-par with the most educated theologians and translators of Scriptures that I have read - and I've read works from almost all the groups found in Christianity. As for "Who cares", there are millions who do! If you don't, that's no big loss.

"Replacement theology is dispensationalism"

lol ... you're the first person to claim that.

LOL...nope. I just quoted, in simple words, what thousands have stated in those words and have expounded upon.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.