PIEDMONT BAPTIST COLLEGE AND GRADUATE SCHOOL

THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT: ITS CONTENTS AND HOW IT GUIDES BIBLICAL EVENTS AND PROPHECY; AN EXAMINATION OF COVENANT THEOLOGY’S APPROACH TO THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT AND A REFUTATION

INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT: BSO500 DR. YOUMANS GRADUATE DIVISION

10/23/2006 BY: TIMOTHY L. DECKER

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Brief Overview of Covenant Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Hodge’s Argument Against the Literalness of the Abrahamic Covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Berkhof’s Interpretation of the Abrahamic Covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Works Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

ii

Introduction Few things are less debated amongst conservative theologians than eschatology. What makes the disagreement so wide is the differing forms of interpretations. The foundational passage of Scripture that should be the basis of any discussion on the matter of eschatology is the Abrahamic Covenant. The two main opposing eschatological views are in the Dispensational camp and the Covenant Theology camp. This paper sets out to examine Covenant Theology’s interpretation of the Abrahamic Covenant and respond to the errors within that theological system. Brief Overview of Covenant Theology The name “Covenant Theology” is somewhat of a paradox. The system is built on two or three (depending on the theologian’s view) covenants. These covenants are the covenant of redemption, works, and grace. Oddly enough, these covenants are not specifically laid out in Scripture. To say that Dispensational Theology holds more to Biblical covenants than that of Covenant Theology would be a true statement. “It should be noted that the three covenants are theologically constructed and not biblical, as are the Abrahamic, Davidic, Mosaic, Palestinian, and new covenant.”1 The Covenant of redemption is described as “an agreement among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in which the Son agreed to become a man, be our representative, obey the demands of the covenant of works on our behalf, and pay the penalty for sin, which we deserved.”2 This covenant was made because God knew man would fall into sin. Thus the Father agreed “to give to the Son a people whom he would redeem for his own possession (John 17:2, 6), to send the Son to be their representative (John 3:16; 1

Mal Couch, ed., An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2000), 42. 2 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 518.

1

2 Rom. 5:18-19), to prepare a body for the Son to dwell in as a man (Col. 2:9; Heb. 10:5), to accept him as representative of his people whom he had redeemed (Heb. 9:24), and to give him all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18), including the authority to pour out the Holy Spirit in power to apply redemption to his people (Acts 1:4; 2:33).”3 This covenant is definitely a theological construction because no such covenant is described in Scripture. Only presuppositions and bias could lead to this covenant. The covenant of works is the first covenant between God and man. “In the Garden of Eden, it seems quite clear that there was a legally binding set of provisions that defined the conditions of the relationship between God and man. The two parties are evident as God speaks to Adam and gives commands to him…In this statement to Adam about the tree of good and evil there is a promise of punishment for disobedience…In the promise of punishment for disobedience there is implicit a promise of blessing for obedience.”4 All covenant theologians will admit that “the actual word covenant is not used in the Genesis narratives.”5 In fact, Grudem understand all to well the problems with this covenant. Before he even begins to explain the covenant, he goes on the defensive to prove its factualness. Since man could not fulfill the covenant of works, God initiated the covenant of grace. Berkhof defines the covenant of grace as “that gracious agreement between the offended God and the offending but elect sinner, in which God promises salvation through faith in Christ, and the sinner accepts this believingly, promising a life of faith and obedience.”6 He describes the covenant of grace as “the main promise of God,

3

Grudem, Systematic Theology, 518. Ibid., 516. 5 Ibid., 516. 6 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Carlisle, Pa: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1958), 277. 4

3 which includes all other promises, is contained in the oft-repeated words, ‘I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.’”7 According to Berkhof, the covenants made between God and men are just an extension of the covenant of grace. “The rest of Scripture after the story of the fall in Genesis 3 is the story of God working out in history the amazing plan of redemption whereby sinful people could come into fellowship with himself.”8 This perspective on the Bible makes one lead to the idea that Covenant Theology understands the purpose of God to be soteriological and not doxological. If God is only working out redemption for mankind, then it would also be logical to assume that God is only working with one elect people. This leads into Covenant Theology’s other main tenant. Covenant Theology does not distinguish the Church from Israel. Since God only works redemption out with one people – the elect – He would not separate God’s people from different ages, economies, or dispensations. In the end, any Biblical covenant made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Moses, and Israel is really made to the saved people of all time. Therefore, the Abrahamic covenant is being fulfilled today according to Covenant Theologians. In other words, Israel does not have a literal claim to the land of Palestine. Israel’s future was sealed the day they rejected Christ as Messiah. Covenant Theology has Israel being the Church or being replaced by the Church. This means that there is no future for Israel. The real issue behind any theological system is the hermeneutic that is applied. A correct hermeneutic is one that is objective and free from a “private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20). Only when all subjectivity, bias, presuppositions, and outside influences

7 8

Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 277. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 519.

4 are removed, can one truly come to a correct hermeneutic. There is only one hermeneutic that is completely objective. There is only one hermeneutic that allows the text to speak for itself without adding, removing, or changing the normal reading. That hermeneutic is a consistent, literal, historical, and grammatical hermeneutic. Over and over again, the issue between a literal interpretation versus an allegorical interpretation comes into play. The question is, does the hermeneutic lead to a theology or the theology to a hermeneutic? Is a theological system founded upon an applied hermeneutic or has a theological system become the foundation in which interpretations are to be made? This is the bottom-line difference between Dispensational Theology and Covenant Theology. Hodge’s Arguments Against the Literalness of the Abrahamic Covenant Charles Hodge is a Covenant Postmillennialist. In his Systematic Theology he provides 6 reasons he believes that Abrahamic Covenant will not be literally fulfilled and thus there will be no “restoration of the Jews to the Holy Land.”9 His first argument explains that “the argument from the ancient prophecies is proved to be invalid, because it would prove too much.”10 Hodge goes on to refer to Ezekiel’s reference “that the temple is to be rebuilt, the priesthood restored, sacrifices again offered, and that the whole Mosaic ritual is to be observed in all its details.”11 Hodge’s logic is that since the New Testament declares that the “Old Testament service has been finally obolished,”12 then this cannot be a literal fulfillment thus the actuality of the Jews literally being restored to the Promised Land is also non-literal. The basis for 9

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, n.d., 3rd reprint, Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 808. 10 Hodge, Systematic Theology, 808. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid.

5 this logic is that the temple and sacrificial system is the same as that which is laid out by Moses. But the facts are that what is described in Ezekiel is not the same as the Mosaic system at all. The temple, first of all, has much larger dimensions than any other temple described in the Old Testament. Some would respond that these were the dimensions for the temple of the post-exilic era. “If the description was given to help the exiles on their return from Babylon to rebuild the Temple, it is inexplicable why Ezra, Nehemiah, or Haggai do not refer to it.”13 The priesthood could not be the exact same since Isaiah 66:18-21 refers to a Gentile addition to the Levitical priesthood. Even the priestly line descending form Aaron has shifted and not fully used in the Millennial Temple. As described in Ezekiel 44:15, “The priests who serve are not taken from the whole Levitical line, for the line as a whole was set aside because of their apostasy, but are taken from the sons of Zadok. The Levites are restricted in their ministry to that of guarding and maintaining the temple and are excluded from the priestly ministry, with the exception of the sons of Zadok.”14 There are some notable features missing from the Millennial Temple as well. “There is no Ark of the Covenant, no Pot of Manna, no Aaron’s rod to bud, no Tables of the Law, no Cherubim, no Mercy-Seat, no Golden Candlestick, no Shew-bread, no Veil, no unapproachable Holy of Holies where the High-Priest alone might enter, nor is there any High-Priest to offer atonement to take away sin, or to make intercession for the people.”15 This is a major divergence from the original Levitical system.

13

Charles C. Ryrie, Study Bible, expanded ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 1326. Dwight D. Pentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1958), 520-521 15 Nathaniel West, The Thousand Years in Both Testaments (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1880), 429. 14

6 The purpose of the Millennial Temple, sacrifices, and priesthood is to portray and illustrate what Christ has already done on the cross. The sacrifices of the Old Testament looked forward to Christ, the Church looks back to the cross, and the Millennium will illustrate Christ so the people will also look back to the cross. Hodges second argument is his full-blown allegorical hermeneutic coming into play. “It is undeniable that the ancient prophets in predicting the events of the Messianic period and the future of Christ’s kingdom, borrowed their language and imagery from the Old Testament institutions and usages. The Messiah is often called David; his church is called Jerusalem, and Zion; his people are called Israel…To them, Zion and Jerusalem are the church and not the city made with hands. To interpret all that the ancient prophets say of Jerusalem of an earthly city, and all that is said of Israel of the Jewish nation, would be to bring down heaven to earth.”16 But doesn’t the New Jerusalem come from Heaven? This is where subjectivity and bias must be removed and the only true objective hermeneutic – the consistent, literal, grammatical, historical one – must be employed. Hodge’s logic is that the “’Messiah is often called David,’ and ‘David’ here is a symbol of the Messiah. Yet these prophecies are better understood as a reference to the literal David.”17 Clearly Hodge is asserting his presupposition before he does any exegesis of the text. “He claims that the Church is called Israel; but here Hodge is presupposing his theology, for he has failed to prove this contention…The few times that these terms are used symbolically, they refer to the New Jerusalem in

16

Hodge, Systematic Theology, 809. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology (Tustin, Ca: Ariel Ministries, 1989), 99. 17

7 heaven and not to the Church. In fact, the Church is listed as only one resident of several in the New Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22-24).”18 Hodge’s third argument is not too far removed from his second. The issue is still a hermeneutical one. Hodge present the typical Covenantalist view of the true Israel – the Church. Hodge believes that since the term seed of Abraham is used by Paul, then that seed is his natural heir to the promises. What Hodge fails to recognize is that “not all physical descendents of Abraham are Jews; most of them today are Arabs.”19 I highly doubt that Hodge would admit the Muslim Arabs are believers in Christ as their Savior. The point is, being of the seed of Abraham does not make one physically or spiritually Israel. “Hodge operates from a faulty definition of what is a Jew. Jewishness was determined by descendancy from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with Jacob being the most crucial. It was his name that was changed to ‘Israel.’”20 If there was ever any reference to the seed of Jacob, then Hodge might have some ground to stand on. Hodge’s logic is that the Church can be thought of as recipients to Abraham’s Covenant, and the Church is not promised restoration to the land. But this is the case because the Church is not Israel nor does the Church replace Israel. Hodge’s fourth argument is built on the Pauline doctrine that “the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile has been broken down…” Hodge quotes Gal. 3:2729 and then goes on to say that “there could not be a more distinct assertion that all difference between the Jew and Gentile has been done away within the pale of the Christian Church.”21 The main flaw in Hodge’s argument is that the point of the passage

18

Fruchtenbaum, Israelology, 99. Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Hodge, Systematic Theology, 810. 19

8 is not to say that Israel and the Church have become one or anything to that nature. “The fact that Jews and Gentiles are united into one body does not mean that all distinctions between Jews and Gentiles have been erased. Furthermore, Galatians 3:27-29, cited by Hodge, contextually concerns the way of salvation which is the same for both Jews and Gentiles. The same passage also teaches the same thing about male and female, and yet Hodge would hardly maintain that all distinctions between men and women are erased!”22 In other words, Hodge uses a “proof-text” to support his supposition, yet he fails to establish the context and the exegetical point that Paul was making – Jews and Gentiles are saved by grace through faith! Hodge also assumes the postmillennial system asserting that the Christian Church will usher in the Kingdom. His theology is still playing a big roll in his exegesis and not visa-versa. Hodge’s fifth argument is filled with unwarranted claims that he never proves from the Bible. The Apostle uniformly acted on this principle. They recognize no future for the Jews in which the Gentile Christians are not to participate. As under the old dispensation proselytes from the heathen were incorporated with the Jewish people and all distinction between them and those who were Jews by birth, was lost, so it was under the Gospel. Gentiles and Jews were united in undistinguished and undistinguishable membership in the same Church. And so it has continued to the present day; the two streams, Jewish and Gentile, united in the Apostolic Church, have flowed on as one great river through all ages. As this was by divine ordinance, it is not to be believed that they are to be separated in the future.23 Again, Hodge offers no Biblical support for such statements. “Divine ordinances do change; the sacrificial system was a divine ordinance, and Hodge did believe that the ordinance changed with the death of Christ.”24 Hodge also seems to recognize the plain

22

Fruchtenbaum, Israelology, 100. Hodge, Systematic Theology, 811. 24 Fruchtenbaum, Israelology, 101. 23

9 teachings of the OT prophets concerning Israel’s restoration. He distinguishes that the Apostles do not specifically deal with the literal restoration of Israel to the land. It is almost as if the Apostles’ words are more important and the OT prophets’ writings are less inspired. The fact is, the Apostles dealt with Church truths mainly. The restoration of Israel was laid out so thoroughly in the Old Testament that it would be unnecessary for the New Testament writers to clarify what is already clearly taught. Plenary inspiration means that the words of Paul are just as important as the words of Daniel or Isaiah. 2 Timothy 3:16 says that all Scripture is inspired and profitable. Hodge’s sixth and final argument is that Israel will never be head over the Church in the future. Thus, there can be no literal fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant where Israel is restored to her land. Again, Hodge relies only on the New Testament teachings. He completely ignores the simple language of the Old Testament prophecies concerning Israel. “Hodge’s sixth argument is based on a misunderstanding as to what those who believe in a literal restoration actually teach.”25 No Biblical Dispensational theologian will admit that Israel will be in a superior place to the Church in the Millennial Kingdom. In fact, the Bible says that the Church will reign with Christ (1 Tim. 2:12). In terms of all the nations of the earth during the Millennium, Israel will be the central political, economic, religious, and military power of the world. Nations will go up to Jerusalem for worship and governmental duties (Isa. 66:20, Zech. 8:22-23, & 14:16-19). So in that regard, Israel will be the head and not the tail. The part the Church will play in the Millennium is not extremely clear in the New Testament. What is clear is that the Bride will not be subordinate to any nation.

25

Fruchtenbaum, Israelology, 101.

10 Berkhof’s Interpretation of the Abrahamic Covenant Before one can even look at Berkhof’s interpretation of the Abrahamic Covenant, one must understand that there is not a distinction made between the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Palestinian, Davidic, or New Covenants. They are all extensions of the covenant of grace, which is “the main promise of God, which includes all other promises.”26 Berkhof offers 7 reasons why he believes there is a “unity of the covenant in all dispensations.”27 First, Berkhof points out that in each of the covenants mentioned above, the phrase “I will be thy God” is mentioned in each. Berkhof calls this “the summary expression of the covenant.”28 It must be first pointed out that not all of the Scripture passages that Berkhof provide have such a statement. For the Mosaic/Sinaitic Covenant, he sites Exodus 19:5 and 20:1. Exodus 19:5 refers to Israel being God’s own possession, but this is determined on the basis of Israel’s obedience. Are we to infer that this is an extension of the covenant of grace? Does this mean that there was a condition for the covenant of grace? Exodus 19:5 is a conditional passage. Berkhof himself would deny such a doctrine that the covenant of grace teaches salvation through faith and obedience. 2 Samuel 7:14 was listed for the Davidic Covenant, but here again, there is no similar phrase to the “summary expression.” God says He will be a father to him, but this phrase is not soteriological. God uses the term not for a Trinitarian proof, but to show His relationship with the man that will be on the throne. If that man falls into sin, then God will punish and correct him as a father punishes his son. Fruchtenbaum adds that “mere similar wording would hardly make the covenants 26

Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 277. Ibid., 279. 28 Ibid., 279. 27

11 29

all the same, especially if the content is very different.”

Since these two passages

(which are non-soteriological) do not have the “summary expression,” it might be logical to say that these are meant to be separate and distinct covenants. The fact that the phrase “I will be thy God” might emphasize salvation and since that phrase is not mentioned in the Mosaic and Davidic Covenants, this would lead to the idea that the Mosaic and Davidic Covenants are distinguished from a covenant of grace because they do not deal with salvation whatsoever. Berkhof’s second argument is that “the Bible teaches that there is but a single gospel by which men can be saved.”30 This phrase is not disputed among Dispensationalists. Salvation has always been obtained by grace through faith. The disagreement is the content of faith. Berkhof’s logic is that “the gospel is nothing but the revelation of the covenant of grace, it follows that there is also but one covenant.”31 The question is, when Genesis 15:6 says that Abraham believed God, what was the content of Abraham’s faith. According to the context of the passage, it was not Genesis 3:15 but Genesis 15:1-5 and specifically the promise of a son from Sarah and descendants as numerous as the stars of the heavens. Another problem with Berkhof’s logic is that he begins with a false presupposition that the gospel is the “revelation of the covenant of grace.” Berkhof never offers any proof for such a supposition as this. In fact, Berkhof never offers Scriptural proof for any covenant of grace. Third, Berkhof uses a similar (if not the exact same) argument from the second. He argues from Romans and Galatians that Abraham was saved the same way in which Christians are saved – by grace through faith. The disagreement is again the content of 29

Fruchtenbaum, Israelology, 150. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 279. 31 Ibid. 30

12 faith. It seems to me that this should be a part of the second argument since Berkhof just adds more evidence to his initial supposition in his second argument. Berkhof’s fourth argument is a Christological one. This again is still an extension from his second argument. He tries to argue that the basis of salvation for all dispensations is the sacrifice of Christ. While this is true, this does not prove there exist a covenant of grace, nor does it prove that all the other covenants he listed are just an extension or more revelation of the covenant of grace. In fact, Berkhof does not even provide his logic. He assumes his readers will understand what is meant. His fifth argument is yet again the same argument repeated again. “The way of salvation revealed in the covenant is the same. Scripture insists on the identical conditions all along.”32 The question is not the method, but the content. Even though the method of obtaining salvation is the same in all dispensations, that does not mean that there must exist a covenant of grace in which all Biblical covenants reveal it or are united to it. In fact, Berkhof uses the sacraments as a proof of there being no distinction between all the Biblical covenants. “The sacraments, though differing in form have essentially the same significance in both dispensations.”33 This statement is from a bias from his theology. Fruchtenbaum responds that “’sacraments…differing in form’ would argue against there being only one [covenant].”34 Berkhof’s remaining arguments do not delve into the topic at hand.35 He fails to deal with the topic. Thus, there will be no examination or response to the remainder of his arguments.

32

Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 280. Ibid. 34 Fruchtenbaum, Israelology, 151. 35 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 280-2. 33

13 Now that this has been established, we can more easily understand why Berkhof interprets the Abrahamic Covenant the way he does. Berkhof and other Covenantalists do not distinguish and make any difference between any Biblical covenants. They seem them all as the covenant of grace unfolded. Berkhof begins to explain the time before the Abrahamic Covenant as a time of “no formal establishment of the covenant of grace.”36 From a Dispensational point of view, this is true since there is never any clear covenant of grace ever laid out in Scripture. “The establishment of the covenant with Abraham marked the beginning of an institutional Church. In pre-Abrahamic times…there were families in which the true religion found expression, and undoubtedly also gatherings of believers, but there was no definitely marked body of believers, separated from the world, that might be called the Church.”37 Berkhof sees the Abrahamic Covenant as the covenant of grace working out into a formal and organized manner among humans. Here is where hermeneutics comes into play. What I, Berkhof, or anyone else says does not matter. What is important is to accurately understand what the text says. A simple reading of this covenant [of Abraham] actually shows that what begins is a new nation or people: Israel the nation or the Jewish people. Berkhof’s Covenant Theology just cannot allow for two separate entities such as Israel and the Church, because in accordance with the covenant of grace, only the elect are God’s people. It would appear that one would have to approach the covenant with Abraham with a theological bias to arrive at Berkhof’s conclusion. Simply read, what God is promising Abraham is a physical seed and a nation, not to become the father of the ‘institutional Church.’38 To understand the Church formally institutionalizing at the Abrahamic Covenant, one would have to apply a subjective, non-literal, allegorical, and spiritualized hermeneutic.

36

Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 295. Ibid. 38 Fruchtenbaum, 142. 37

14 The fact that Christ Himself declares the Church to be something to be built in the future (Matt. 16:18) argues that the Abrahamic Covenant had nothing to do with beginning the institutional Church. A normal reading of the Abrahamic Covenant deals only with the ethnic Jewish people. Berkhof then makes a lofty claim concerning his interpretation of the Abrahamic Covenant. “The best Scriptural exposition of the Abrahamic covenant is contained in Rom. 3 and 4, and Gal. 3.”39 Berkhof is assuming that the New Testament writers only viewed the soteriological aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant. Since that is all they saw, that is the aspect they wrote about and thus making it an outworking of the covenant of grace. This is quite an assumption to say the least. The point Paul was making in Romans 3-4 and Galatians 3 is that no matter who you are, be it Jew or Gentile, salvation is by faith not works or nationality. That Paul mentions Abraham as an example of this does not mean that Paul recognized a covenant of grace and assumed that the Abrahamic Covenant was a further revelation of that covenant. After reading the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis, one would immediately call into question the physical promises that God makes to Abraham. What would a promised land, nation, and cursing/blessing have to do with the covenant of grace? It seems that there is a great emphasis on the physical promises and thus physical fulfillments. Berkhof explains these away as “a symbolic element. On the one hand it had reference to temporal blessings, such as the land of Canaan, a numerous offspring, protection against and victory over the enemies; and on the other, it referred to spiritual blessings.”40 Berkhof goes on to say that the physical or temporal promises are

39 40

Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 295-96. Ibid., 296.

15 subordinate to the physical and are only present to symbolize the spiritual aspects of the Covenant. This conclusion is only reached with a preset theological supposition. To call the physical promises temporal is the first mistake. Genesis 17:8, God promises Abraham the entire land of Canaan as an everlasting possession! True Israel possessed the land at one time (although the land had not been totally cleared out from Canaanites), but that possession was not an everlasting, permanent possession. The word for everlasting is the same word used in Genesis 21:33 to describe God as eternal. If for some reason this word has a temporal meaning, then that would have extreme effects to theology proper. A normal, simple reading of the text states very plainly that the possession of the land is not temporary but everlasting which means it has yet to be completely fulfilled. To address the subordinate view of the physical promises, Fruchtenbaum writes, “If a complete list were made of the physical promises and set side by side with the spiritual promises, the former would greatly outnumber the latter.”41 This important point alone seems to emphasize the fact that the physical promises of the Abrahamic Covenant seem to outweigh the spiritual ones. To address the symbolic view of the physical promises, it must be stated that the Scriptures do not account for such a symbolization. When Scripture symbolizes something, there is often a warning or explanation of such. This is not the case here. The physical promises, if taken at face value, must be interpreted as an actual promise still waiting to be fulfilled. That is the main reason that the Abrahamic Covenant is the foundation to Biblical prophecy. Any eschatological system that avoids the simple reading of the Abrahamic Covenant and symbolizes the promises is doing an injustice 41

Fruchtenbaum, Israelology, 143.

16 to the Word of God by applying a subjective and allegorical hermeneutic. If an interpreter can write off the clear physical promises as Berkhof has done, then the authority of the Word of God has become man and not God. Conclusion Charles Ryrie rightly insists that “the interpretation of the Abrahamic Covenant is a watershed between Premillennialism and Amillennialism.”42 I would go so far as to say that it is a watershed between Dispensational Theology and Covenant Theology. Objectivity is the crucial matter here. How can we let the text speak for itself and get the human bias and presupposition out of the way? Only a consistent, literal hermeneutic will allow for objectivity to rule in the realm of interpretation. This must be applied to the Abrahamic Covenant to seek a proper exposition of the text. Theologians cannot approach the text with a theological framework already set into place. That is isogesis and poor interpretation. Proper exegesis will remove all subjectivity and seek the plain, intended meaning of the author. When dealing specifically with the Abrahamic Covenant, one must not ask what this has to do with a covenant of grace or a Premillennial system of eschatology. One must seek to find out what the text of the Abrahamic Covenant says about the rest of Scriptures. Let the hermeneutic build the theology. In the case of Covenant Theology, it falls short to a proper interpretation of the Abrahamic Covenant due to the lack of applying a proper hermeneutic.

42

Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 526.

WORKS CITED Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Carlisle, Pa: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1958. Couch, Mal, ed. An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2000. Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. Tustin, Ca: Ariel Ministries, 1989. Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994. Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, n.d. 3rd Reprint. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003. Pentecost, Dwight D. Things to Come. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958. Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999. ________. The Ryrie Study Bible. Expanded ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995. West, Nathaniel. The Thousand Years in Both Testaments. New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1880.

17