The Land Promise of the Abrahamic Covenant

To summarize what Replacement Theology (such as Covenantal Post-Millennialists and Covenant Amillennialism) teaches on the issue of the Land and Israel’s restoration to the Land, they present three different positions.

First, that the Land promises were fulfilled under Joshua based on Joshua 11:23. The dispensational response will be presented later in this paper.

The second view is that the Land promises were fulfilled under David and Solomon. It will be shown later in the paper that the prophecies of a final restoration were made well after the time of David and Solomon.

The third view is that all the restoration prophecies were fulfilled with the return from Babylonian Captivity. But there are prophecies that clearly prophesy of a restoration to that Land from which they can never again be a forced exile or dispersion from the Land and the return from Babylon simply cannot be a fulfillment of such a prophecy in light of A.D. 70 (Jeremiah 24:24b; Amos 9:14-15).

It didn't take Fruchtenbaum long to poison the well. Page 8:

"The preface sets the tone for the way Allis treats Israelology throughout his work, especially rejecting the dispensational approach to the same topic. His Israelology is sometimes tinged with anti-Semitism."

"For Allis, the dispensational position on a future for Israel, the Jewish people, is “the sore point.” This is not the first time that Allis has linked Dispensationalism with Zionism in a negative way. Again, it is hard to escape the feeling that Allis is anti-Semitic which, to a large extent, helped determine his theology."

Dispensationalists have adopted the "anti-semitic" phrase as a "debating tool." Some other dispensational "debating tools," in case you don't know, are:

"Replacement Theology." This "tool" implies the old covenant did not replace the new covenant, no matter what the book of Hebrews says; and anyone who claims it did is anti-semitic, or just plain dumb.

"Dual Covenant Theology." The opposite of Replacement Theology. This is the belief of the "righteous;" and anyone who doesn't believe it is anti-semitic, or just plain dumb.

"Spiritualizing the Scriptures." This had a dual meaning. When a dispensationalist does it, it is called "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth." When anyone else does it, it is explained away as improper or inconsistent hermeneutics, except when it is anti-semitic, or just plain dumb.

I will analyze Fruchtenbaum's ~~article~~ smear in later posts.

Philip

>>>Another rebuttle by Fruchtenbaum of recent postings that somehow the land promises of the Abrahamic Covenant have already been fulfilled. A quite lengthy and detailed article that presents the dispensational approach in contrast to post and a- millennialism. Fruchtenbaum is a converted Jew and his insights on OT issues of a prophetic nature as well as his congenial writing style give his articles a refreshing perspective today. <<<

Mr. Congenial, Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, the author who smeared Presbyterian professor Oswald Thompson Allis with the anti-Semite label on page 8, wrote on page 11 regarding Gen 13:14-17:

"The promise is clearly made that the Land is to be possessed by Abram personally as well as by Abram’s seed."

This is the passage in question:

"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: For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee." (Gen 13:14-17 KJV)

Where does God promise Abraham that he would personally possess the land? I have never been an English major, so maybe I am completely off-base; but I can't find so much as a whisper in the passage he quoted that God promised Abraham that he would personally possess the land. Let's try a different translation. This is the Orthodox Jewish Bible:

"And Hashem said unto Avram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the makom where thou art northward, and southward and eastward, and westward: For kol ha’aretz which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy zera ad olam (forever). And I will make thy zera as the dust of ha’aretz; so that if a man can number the aphar of ha’aretz, then shall thy zera also be numbered. Arise, walk through ha’aretz in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee." (Bere 13:14-17 OJB)

Maybe Mr. Fruchtenbaum explains it further down. Let's see:

"Although for the time being, the area for grazing was divided between Abram and Lot, ultimately all the land that Abram could see is to be possessed by him, according to verses 14-15. The promise is clearly made that the Land is to be possessed by Abram personally as well as by Abram’s seed. Yet Abram died never having possessed any part of the Land, except for a few wells and a burial cave, which he had to purchase with good money. In order for God to fulfill His promise to Abram, two things have to occur: first, Abram must be resurrected; and second, the Land must be restored to Israel."

I cannot believe what I am reading? Mr. Congenial is grasping at straws. I would recommend he spend some time studying the New Testament, before writing any more foolishness. This is Stephen speaking shortly before being martyred:

"So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem. But when the time of the promise drew nigh, which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt, Till another king arose, which knew not Joseph." (Acts 7:15-18 KJV)

So Stephen stated the time of the promise was still future, even in the days after Jacob! How could Abraham have been promised possession of the land when the promise was still hundreds of years in the future? And was Abraham even looking to possess the land? Not according to Paul in the Hebrews:

"By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." (Heb 11:8-10 KJV)

"These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. 15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. 16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city." (Heb 11:12-16 KJV)

And this is that city:

"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant..." (Heb 12:22-24 KJV)

I guess it all boils down to who you believe: Stephen and Paul, converted Jews, filled with the Holy Spirit, who were martyred for Christ; or Mr. Congenial, a converted Jew and biblical lightweight, whose only claim to fame so far is smearing one of the finest scholars in modern times with the anti-Semite label?

Philip

Fruchtenbaum wrote on page 14:

"Because the Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional, it is still very much in effect though it has remained largely unfulfilled."

Let's assume Fruchtenbaum's first clause is correct, and the covenant was unconditional. I personally think that statement is correct (the first clause,) but not in the way he thinks or argues.

Recall that, while Moses was on mount Sinai, the children of Israel broke the blood covenant (before the ink was dry.) The Lord decided to take the covenant away from Israel and give it to Moses:

"And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee [Moses] a great nation. And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?" (Exo 32:9-11 KJV)

Moses was a fourth-generation descendant of Jacob. The Lord saw no problem with destroying all the other children of Israel, and giving the promise to a single seed of Jacob named Moses.

With that in mind, this verse identifies the final inheritor of the promises (promises with an "s"):

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." (Gal 3:16 KJV)

Let's get rid of all the extra words:

"To Abraham and his seed were the promises made: to one seed Christ." (Gal 3:16 KJV)

So, Christ, the seed of Abraham, inherited all the promises, and Christ distributes the promises to his children, as follows:

"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:29 KJV)

This is the context of that last verse:

"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:26-29 KJV)

There is no ambiguity. Christ inherited all the promises, and his children (both Jewish and Gentile Christians) inherit the promises from Christ. Therefore, arguments about the unconditionality of the Abrahamic convenant are in vain. Christ inherited the covenant, thus it is forever.

Philip

>>>Fruchtenbaum wrote on pages 16-17:

God must raise [the Patriarchs] back to life and bring them into the Messianic Kingdom. And so it will be according to Matthew 8:11:

"And I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven: "<<<

If the Patriarchs were looking for a heavenly country, as written in the Hebrews, they are in for a big disappointment.

The Patriarchs will also sit down in the kingdom of God. How does that work?

"There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God." (Luke 13:28-29 KJV)

>>>Fruchtenbaum quoted Loraine Boettner in the following passage on page 2:

"When Ezekiel says that Israel is to be restored to her land forever (37:24–28), he indicates clearly that those words are not to be taken literally. He says: “And my servant David shall be king over them … David my servant shall be their prince for ever” (vv. 24, 25). Jeremiah likewise says that David is to be their king (30:9). If we take that literally, then David must be raised from the dead to be the millennial king in Palestine,—David, and not Christ. The literalists say that David is here used as a symbol for Christ. But that is not what the Bible says. To take David as a symbol for Christ would be to “spiritualize” the prophecy away. If the other parts of the prophecy are literal this must be too."

And Fruchtenbaum comments, "Of course what [Boettner] states is true with many Dispensationalists." <<<

But he never comes back to explain how a literalist can believe that David is a symbol for Christ. Which reminds me of another great "debating tool" of dispensationalists:

"Ignore The Scripture." If the scripture doesn't fit, do what Scofield did over and over again in his "Reference" Notes: just ignore it.

>>>On page 27, Fruchtenbaum wrote:

"The third section, Ezekiel 48:1-7, describes the northern division of the Land as subdivided for seven of the Twelve Tribes. The tribes will be settled running north to south in the following order: Dan, Asher, Naphtali, Manasseh, Ephraim, Reuben, and Judah. The western and eastern borders will parallel each other. . . Then the fifth section, Ezekiel 48:23-29, describes the division of the Land for the remaining five tribes. Again, running from north to south, the tribes will be settled in the following order: Benjamin, Simeon, Issachar, Zebulun, and Gad; running along the southern border in verses 28-29."<<<

Where did the tribe of Dan and Ephraim come from, and what happened to Joseph and Levi? In Revelation 7:5-8, the tribes are: Reuben, Gad, Juda, Aser, Nephthalim, Manasses, Levi, Simeon, Issachar, Zabulon, Joseph, and Benjamin. Something doesn't fit.

That can only mean one thing: that Ezekiel was talking about the restoration of land after returning from Babylon, not 2500 years in the future.

Philip

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.