Exactly who is Abraham’s seed? This is the key question. Which of the following is the seed “to whom the promises are made”:

1. all of Abraham’s physical children
2. the physical children of Jacob (nation of Israel)
3. Christian parents and their physical children
4. believers, period, in any age because of their relationship to Christ
5. Christ himself
6. a combination of the above?

On the surface the answer might appear simple. However, we have already quoted two verses that give us two different answers. Galatians 3:16 specifically argues that Abraham’s seed is singular and refers to Christ alone. In Galatians 3:29, all believers (plural) are said to be Abraham’s seed. Here we clearly have two different ‘seeds’ of Abraham. Actually, the Scripture teaches that Abraham has four different distinct seeds. The failure to clearly distinguish between these four seeds and what is, in each case, promised to a particular seed, that has created the problems and confusion. We will list the four seeds and then give the biblical proof for each one.

1. Abraham has a natural seed. This seed includes all of his physical progeny or every person who was in any way physically descended from him. The natural seed includes Ishmael as well as Isaac; Esau as well as Jacob; the Arabs as well as the Jews; and Judas as well as Paul. Some of the same promises were given to both Ishmael and Isaac because they were both Abraham’s natural seed. The same is true of Jacob and Esau. Gentile believers, however, can never be Abraham’s natural seed.

2. Abraham has a special natural seed. All of the natural children of Jacob, Abraham’s grandson, became the ‘nation of Israel.’ This nation was a special or chosen nation before God. Most of the people in that nation perished because of unbelief, but they were still a special natural seed of Abraham with unique promises from God which no other nation, before or since, ever had. However, despite their special national status before God as a physical nation, they were still only the fleshly natural seed of Abraham. An unregenerate Israelite had no more claim or right to spiritual blessing than did Ishmael or Esau, a fact which must be constantly remembered.

The unique blessings promised to Israel as a nation were not only because of its special relationship to Abraham, but also because of its relationship to Jacob. Jacob, as the father of the nation of Israel, was given unique promises that Esau his twin brother was not given, even though Esau was just as much the physical ‘covenant seed of Abraham’ as was Jacob.^[1] The difference between Jacob and Esau had nothing at all to do with physical birth. The difference was God’s sovereign electing grace discriminating within the same ‘covenant family.’ Notice how Genesis 21:12 refers to a “called spiritual seed” in Isaac, but Genesis 21:13, refers to natural seed blessings to Ishmael.

But God said to him, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son [Ishmael] of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring” (Gen. 21:12, 13 NIV).

It is in Isaac, the spiritual seed, that the “seed will be reckoned,” but Ishmael, the natural seed, will still become a ‘great nation’ because he is the true offspring of Abraham. We must always remember that Esau and Jacob were the circumcised twin grandsons of Abraham. Again, theologians do not keep this fact in mind when they speak of the promises made to Abraham and his seed. The same is true in reference to Ishmael and Isaac. One need only compare Genesis 17:20 with verse 6 of the same chapter to see that Ishmael was promised nearly every blessing that was promised to Abraham himself.

Promise to Ishmael

And as for Ishmael,…I will surely bless him, I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation (Gen. 17:20 NIV).

Promise to Abraham

I will make you [Abraham] very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you (Gen. 17:6 NIV).

Ishmael became a great nation in fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham simply because he was a true seed of Abraham. Genesis 21:13 explicitly proves that statement:

And also of the son [Ishmael] of the bondwoman will I make a great nation, because he is thy seed.

Ishmael was the true natural seed of Abraham, but God did not establish his covenant with Ishmael. Likewise, God did not include Esau in the covenant. Esau, like Ishmael, was ‘signed and sealed’ with the same covenant sign of circumcision as his twin brother Jacob. Both Dispensationalist and Covenant Theologians ignore these biblical facts when they speak loosely and in generalities about the promise of God to Abraham and his seed and make it mean the physical children of either Jews or Christian parents.

If the basic concept of ‘covenant seed’ in Covenant Theology is correct, then Esau must have had every promise that his twin brother Jacob had since they were both Abraham’s physical seed and their father Isaac was a believer. However, both the OT and NT Scriptures make it clear that such is not the case. Covenant Theology ignores the obvious fact that God hated one ‘covenant child’ of believing Isaac. It is impossible to deny that God loved one covenant child (Jacob) in a way that he did not love the twin brother (Esau) even though both covenant children had the same believing parents and were signed and sealed with the same covenant sign (Rom. 9:13).

3. Abraham has a spiritual seed. Every true believer in every age since the time of Abraham is Abraham’s spiritual seed. This seed is the true ‘election of grace.’ In this sense, Gentile believers are part of Abraham’s seed and Jewish unbelievers are not. It is this seed alone, through Christ, that inherits the true promises made to Abraham and his seed.

4. Abraham has one unique seed. This Seed—Christ the Messiah—is the One who is the most important of all of Abraham’s seeds. As mentioned earlier, any spiritual blessing that any of the other three seeds ever enjoyed, or ever will enjoy, is only because of their union with the true Seed, Christ, to whom the promises were made.

The following chart will help us to understand the seeds of Abraham.

The Four Different Seeds of Abraham
Natural seed	Special natural seed	Spiritual seed	Unique seed
Includes all physical children, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, Jews and Arabs.	The nation, or children, of Israel, all of the physical seed of Jacob and his twelve sons.	All believers of all ages, David and Paul, Jewish and Gentile believers, you and me.	Christ the Messiah.

It is essential that we see the first, the natural seed (Ishmael and Esau), as possessing many of the same promises as the second, the special natural seed (Jacob and the nation of Israel) even though they are two totally different seeds. We can say that the first is, because they are in a special covenant relationship with God, totally different from the second even though they are exactly alike in another sense, both being equally the natural and real seeds of Abraham.

Of equal importance, we should not confuse the second, the special natural seed or nation of Israel, with the third, the spiritual seed, the true redeemed people of God. This confusion is one of the basic mistakes often made by both Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism. In no sense is the nation of Israel ever the spiritual seed of Abraham and ‘heirs with him according to the promise.’ Israel was, despite its special national status, still only Abraham’s physical, or natural seed. That nation was given revelation and covenant promises (Rom. 9:4–6) that no other nation was ever granted. The heart of that revelation was the gospel of the promised Messiah. However, all of these things were privileges that promised spiritual blessings to genuine faith but never to fleshly birth. Most of the Israelites that came out of Egypt died and were lost because they rejected these gospel promises (Heb. 3:18–4:3). The nation of Israel was under great privileges, but it was not under grace unless the people believed the gospel. They had great advantages, but they were neither under a covenant of grace nor in a separate spiritual category before God. Any theology that does not see those facts is simply not following Scripture.

All agree that Israel had the gospel promises preached to them as no other nation. However, that did not in itself give them any spiritual status before God. We must not confuse privileges, which Israel had as no other nation, with actual possession of the thing promised which most individual Israelites did not have. It was Israel’s rejection of the gospel (Heb. 4:3) and trust in their privileges that will make them worse off than the Gentiles in eternity (Matt. 11:20–31) despite the fact they were Abraham’s real (physical) seed and wore the covenant sign of circumcision. This is Paul’s argument in Romans 2:17–3:3 when he deliberately uses the word advantage instead of a word denoting status to describe Israel’s position before God. Paul shows that one could be a Jew, have the Law, and even wear the covenant sign of circumcision; but none, or all, of those things put one into a special spiritual status or category before God. One could still be as lost as an ignorant Gentile. Paul’s detractors will ask the logical question, “What advantage then has a Jew?” (Rom. 3:1), and Paul’s answer (Rom. 3:2) has nothing to do with status or special spiritual category, but only with privilege and opportunity.

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God (Rom. 3:1–2).

The Jew had much advantage, but he did not have a separate spiritual status before God. His position of much advantage was primarily because he had both the law covenant (to convict him of sin) and the gospel promise (to bring him to salvation) clearly preached to him. The Gentiles had neither (Eph. 2:11–13).

Likewise, a physical child of a believer today has the great privilege of being under the teaching of the gospel, but that does not make him a spiritual seed of Abraham and an heir with him according to the promise. A child of believing parents has no more special spiritual status than had circumcised Ishmael and Esau. There is no basic difference in the spiritual condition of the physical children of believers and the spiritual condition of children of unbelievers. Both are equally lost apart from the sovereign regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. There are both Esaus and Jacobs born into many ‘covenant homes’ today just as those twins were born into father Abraham’s covenant home. As was the case with Esau and Jacob, one ‘covenant child’ is loved and regenerated while the other ‘covenant child’ is hated and rejected. Esau, a non-elect ‘covenant child’ had great privileges that a ‘non-covenant child’ born in Ur of the Chaldees did not have. However, both children are by nature ‘children of wrath’ (Eph. 2:3), equally lost apart from sovereign electing grace. It is essential to see that when God wants to teach sovereign election, he does not compare covenant children (Jacob and Esau) with non-covenant children (pagans); he compares two blue-blooded covenant children named Jacob and Esau.

We must remember that Esau and Jacob were the twin sons of Isaac. They both had gospel privileges or opportunities (Rom. 3:1–3) that the Gentiles did not have. It is just as true that children whose parents are believers (as Esau’s parents were) have privileges that those born in a non-Christian home do not have. However, Esau, like many children born in Christian homes today, was not numbered among the elect of God. God did not establish his covenant with Esau even though he did establish it with Jacob, his twin brother. Likewise, God does not establish his covenant of saving grace with any child just because he is born into a Christian home or because he is baptized. We cannot equate the sovereign election of God with physical birth into a Christian home without also denying God’s sovereignty in electing grace. Paedobaptists are often guilty of this very error.

We simply must realize that physical birth can never, in any dispensation, make anyone a spiritual seed of Abraham or an heir with him of the promise. Every child born into this world is in the same spiritual status before God—guilty—and every one is under the wrath of God by birth (Eph. 2:3)^[2] and is in need of personal salvation. The same thing was true in Israel as it concerned a child’s spiritual status before God.

Any kind of a one-on-one comparison, or equating, of Israel as a physical nation with the church as a physical institution will always be just as wrong as equating a physical Jew with a true believer. Israel, as a nation, is a type of the New Covenant church in the same sense that every individual physical Israelite who left Egypt at the Exodus ‘redemption’ is a type of a saved believer; but in no sense whatever can either of these types be treated as the same thing or one-on-one with the reality of which they are a type. The whole nation of Israel was physically redeemed, but only a small handful of individuals was spiritually redeemed (cf. Heb. 3:16–4:3 and 1 Cor. 10:1–13 with Num. 14:22–35). If Israel was the church, then over 99% of the first ‘church members’ are in hell according to these verses.

The designation ‘redeemed people of God’ can only be used in a physical sense and never in any spiritual sense when we are referring to the nation of Israel. One cannot build NT doctrine and experience on the typology of the OT Scriptures. God could never say the following about anyone that had been spiritually redeemed:

Your eyes have seen all that the Lord did in Egypt to Pharaoh, to all his officials and to all his land. With your own eyes you saw those great trials, those miraculous signs and great wonders. But to this day the Lord has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear (Deut. 29:2b–4 NIV).

Israel’s becoming a distinct nation at Mount Sinai is in no sense whatever the forming of the ‘Body of Christ.’ God himself said that nation was an evil congregation (Num. 14:27, 35) that never did know him in the way of saving faith (Deut. 29:4). As we will discuss later, the Body of Christ is a new creation brought into being by the personal advent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. The church of Christ is not simply the adding of the Gentiles to the ‘Jewish church’; it is the true ‘new man’ (Eph. 2:11–22) and the totally ‘new creation’ (2 Cor. 5:17). The church of Christ is also not a parenthesis between a supposed “temporary casting aside and future dealing of God with the nation of Israel.” The church as the Body of Christ is the fulfillment of God’s redemptive goal as prophesied in Genesis 3:15.

When a Covenant Theologian says, “The covenant at Sinai cannot possibly be a legal covenant since it was made with a redeemed people,” he is mixing apples and oranges, and when a Dispensationalist treats Israel in the wilderness as ‘saved but not victorious,’ he is mixing oranges with lemons. Both systems are treating a physical redemption as being equal to spiritual salvation.

The law covenant at Sinai had a most gracious purpose but it was not a gracious covenant. We must remember that the legal covenant at Sinai was not given to regenerated and justified believers to ‘aid them in sanctification.’ Most of those people were not regenerate. The law covenant was laid on the conscience of a generation of blind rebellious sinners to convict them of their unbelief and to kill their hope in their own righteousness! That covenant only ministered grace as it effected the knowledge of sin and spiritual death in an Israelite’s heart and led him to faith in the gospel covenant given to Abraham.

Paul specifically says that the stated purpose of the law covenant at Sinai was a ministration of death. The covenant written on “tablets of stone” (the Ten Commandments) was deliberately designed by God to minister death (2 Cor. 3:6–9 and Rom. 7:9, 10) to the people described in Deut. 29:4 and Heb. 3:18–4:2. Those rebels did not need a rule of sanctification; they needed a law covenant to kill their conceit and pride—and God graciously gave them a legal covenant to do that very killing work. Do not confuse a gracious purpose (the giving of the legal covenant to convict lost sinners) with the nature of the law covenant that does the essential convicting work. Likewise, do not try to use the instrument that God specifically designed to administer death as the chief instrument in a believer’s conscience today to produce holy living.

A Covenant Theologian simply cannot make the clear biblical distinction concerning the difference between a gracious purpose and a gracious covenant and stay within the framework of his system of theology. In his theology, the law covenant at Sinai must be a ‘covenant of grace.’ This insistence is not because the Scriptures in any way state that Sinai was a covenant of grace, but is purely on the grounds that Covenant Theology’s system cannot have a legal covenant after Genesis 3:15. That destroys the whole ‘one covenant with two administrations’ theory.

We grant that the legal covenant at Sinai administered, or furthered, the single purpose of God’s plan of salvation by grace, but that in no way negates the clear fact that Sinai was a covenant of works. In reality, the covenant made at Sinai could not perform the ‘killing work’ that was the essential preparation for grace, if that covenant could not legally administer death, and it could not legally administer5death, if it did not have the status and authority of a true legal covenant.^[3]

The following statement, if correctly understood, will help to clear up a lot of confusion: The nation of Israel was not the ‘Body of Christ,’ even though the Body of Christ is indeed the true ‘Israel of God.’

Covenant Theology cannot accept the first part of that statement and Dispensationalism cannot accept the second part. The basic presuppositions of Covenant Theology make it mandatory that Israel be the church and be under the same covenant as the church, and the one thing a Dispensationalist must maintain is the church’s present and future distinction from Israel which makes it mandatory that Israel and the church can never be under the same covenant or inherit the same blessings. What is essential to one system is anathema to the other system.

Dispensationalism cannot get Israel and the church together in any sense whatever, and Covenant Theology cannot get them apart. Dispensationalism cannot see that the church is the true Israel of God and the fulfillment of the promises that God made to Abraham and the fathers, and Covenant Theology cannot see that the church, as the Body of Christ, did not, and simply could not, exist in reality and experience until the personal advent of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. Dispensationalism insists that Israel and the church have totally different promises and destinies (one earthly and the other heavenly), and Covenant Theology insists that Israel and the Body of Christ are equally the “same redeemed church under the same ‘covenant of grace’ and governed by the same identical ‘canon of conduct.’”

Dispensationalism drives a wedge between the OT and the NT and never the twain shall meet as specific promise (OT) and identical fulfillment (NT); and Covenant Theology flattens the whole Bible out into one covenant where there is no real and vital distinction between either the Old and New Covenants or Israel and the church.

We will never understand either the biblical history of redemption or the relationship between the two major covenants in Scripture (Heb. 8:6–13; 2 Cor. 3:6–18; Gal. 4:21–31) until we grasp the truth and implications of the last paragraph. Few people realize that neither the supposed ‘covenant of works’ with Adam nor the supposed ‘covenant of grace’ with Adam after the fall are ever mentioned one time in a single text of Scripture. They are not biblical covenants^[4] that grow out of the Bible itself, but they are theological covenants that must be logically deduced from a theological system. Those who insist on using these two theological covenants must, to be consistent with their system, either ignore or deny the existence and theological implications of the two biblical covenants (the Old Covenant at Sinai and the New Covenant that replaces it) constantly contrasted in both the OT Scriptures and the NT Scriptures. Once we understand the biblical relationship of the nation of Israel and the Body of Christ, we will have trouble accepting either the system of Covenant Theology or the system of Dispensationalism.

Covenant Theology insists on equating Israel and the church, and totally loses the true newness of the New Covenant and its function in the conscience of a believer. On the other hand, Dispensationalism fails to see the church as the true fulfillment of God’s promise to the fathers, and it totally loses the unity of the Scriptures and God’s single goal in redemption. We reject both of these views as being based on an incomplete understanding of the true unity of Scripture pertaining to the true Seed of Abraham (Christ) and the eternal purposes of God in the redemption of his one elect people (believers of all ages).

The Four Different Seeds of Abraham

In the next few chapters we will give the textual evidence for the four different seeds of Abraham. There is a sense in which we should start with the fourth one, Christ the unique seed, since he is, beyond question, the most important of the four seeds. However, for the purpose of our study, I think the following order is best.

We will look at the natural seed first. This one is simple and obvious, but usually it is completely overlooked. When the promises made to Ishmael are clearly identified and brought into the discussion of ‘the promise made to Abraham and his seed,’ it helps to clarify some questions and avoid some fuzzy thinking. The same is true of Esau.

We will then quickly cover the spiritual seed. There is very little disagreement in this particular area since the NT Scriptures are so clear.

We will next take Christ the unique seed. My Dispensational brethren will not agree with some of this section—especially the part on the ‘Seed of David’—for obvious reasons. I believe the NT Scriptures clearly establish that the Davidic covenant was fulfilled in the resurrection and ascension of Christ (Acts 2:22–36). The Davidic throne is not waiting to be set up in the future, but it is already established. My view denies one of the basic tenets of Dispensationalism. A quotation from John Walvoord will show this clearly:

The Davidic covenant is most important as assuring the millennial kingdom in which Christ will reign on earth. Resurrected David will reign under Christ as a prince over the house of Israel . . . The Davidic covenant is not fulfilled by Christ reigning on His throne in heaven . . . It is rather an earthly kingdom and an earthly throne (Matt. 25:31). The Davidic covenant is, accordingly, the key to God’s prophetic program yet to be fulfilled[emphasis mine].^[5]

I personally find that Walvoord’s key locks up far more Scripture than it unlocks.

Lastly, we will look at Israel as the special natural seed. Very few people see the necessity of treating Israel under such a designation. Israel must be seen as the natural seed of Abraham despite the fact that some Israelites were true believers; and thus, through faith, they were also part of the spiritual seed. Israel, as a nation, must never, in any way except as a type, be mistaken for or confused with, the church as the Body of Christ even though Israel had special national covenantal privileges. My Covenant Theology brethren will find their widest disagreement with me in this section.

Covenant Theologians are just as convinced as Walvoord that their understanding of covenants is vital. Walter Chantry writes:

It would be nearly impossible to overstate the central importance of the biblical teaching on covenants…Covenant theology is at the heart of biblical truth. Those who are its enemies will do great harm to the church of Christ.^[6]

As one can see, I have chosen to move from the easiest to the hardest, and from where we can all agree to where we must gird up the loins of our minds and pray for light and objectivity.

---