Abraham is one of the most important men in all history; and, next to our Savior himself, he is one of the most significant individuals in all the Scripture. The following will serve to demonstrate Abraham’s importance.

1. Abraham is the only man who was ever called “the friend of God” (Isa. 41:8; James 2:23) by any writer of Scripture. Abraham’s friendship with God, or “justification by grace through faith,” is used by Paul to prove the single pattern of “salvation by grace through faith” for all believers of all ages (Rom. 4).

2. All of Scripture from Genesis 12 to the end of the book of Revelation is the story of Abraham and his ‘seed’ as that seed relates to the rest of mankind.

3. No two men (apart from Adam) in all of Scripture or history are related to each other as Abraham and Christ as it concerns their seed.

4. Every blessing of God experienced by the nation of Israel was only because of God’s promise to Abraham. In fact, they were delivered from Egypt and formed into a nation at Sinai only because of their physical relationship to Abraham.

…and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage. And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them (Ex. 2:23–25).

5. Christ came into this world “To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; the oath which he sware to our father Abraham” (Luke 1:72, 73).

6. The apostles preached the gospel as the fulfillment of the covenant that God made with Abraham.

Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities (Acts 3:25–26).

7. It is impossible to even begin to understand the book of Galatians without grasping the significance of Abraham and his relationship to believers today. All who are “of faith” are “Abraham’s children” (Gal. 3:7), and are “blessed with faithful Abraham” (Gal. 3:9). Christ died on the cross so that “the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles” (Gal. 3:14).

8. Abraham enjoyed God’s inheritance of justification by faith in the gospel promise concerning Christ (Gal. 3:6–9, 18), and you and I, who believe the same gospel message today, enjoy the same inheritance of justification because by faith, we are “Abraham’s true seed,” and the true “heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:29).

I repeat my original statement. Next to Christ himself, Abraham is one of the most significant men in all the Scriptures. No two people are related to each other as it concerns their ‘seed’ as are Abraham and Christ. The whole of the history of redemption revolves around “Abraham and his seed.” There is no information that will help us to see the one unifying message of redemption through our Lord Jesus Christ in both the OT and NT Scriptures as much as knowing exactly what was promised to Abraham and his seed and who that seed is to whom those promises were made. This is a significant difference that separates Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology at their basic starting points.

Up to this point our study has been easy. Everyone will agree with the biblical texts and the one major conclusion concerning the importance of Abraham. There are many questions that should be raised and discussed. The answers to the following questions are not only basic to an understanding of Abraham and the promises made to his seed; they also form the foundation of our approach to the whole Scripture. Our view of history, prophecy, the future of the Jews, the nature of the church, baptism, the kingdom of God, the relationship of the law and the gospel and many other things are radically affected by how we answer these questions.

Basic Questions About Abraham and His Seed

1. Exactly to whom is Scripture referring in the various passages that speak of Abraham’s seed? It is obvious that all the natural children of Abraham are not ‘reckoned’ as his seed as it applies to God’s Covenant.

a. Does Abraham’s seed always mean the same people?

b. How many different meanings can it have?

c. How do we know for sure which particular meaning, or people, is meant in a specific passage? When does Abraham’s seed include the following:

(1) Isaac but not Ishmael,

(2) Jacob but not Esau or

(3) a Christian Gentile but not a Jew?

2. Exactly what specific blessing, or blessings, were promised to Abraham’s seed in the different passages? Jacob was given promises that Esau his twin brother was not. How would Ishmael, Isaac, Esau, Jacob and a New Covenant Gentile believer fit into the answer to each of the following questions:

a. Is the ‘blessing of Abraham’ one thing, or is it more than one?

b. Are there different blessings for different seeds?

c. Do all of the different seeds of Abraham get some of the same blessings?

d. Are some blessings given only to one specific seed, or to several seeds?

e. How do we know for sure which particular blessing is meant in a specific passage?

3. What are the precise conditions upon which any specific blessing, or blessings, will be realized by a particular seed? The promises upon which the church, as Abraham’s seed, is built are not the same as the promises upon which the nation of Israel, also Abraham’s seed, was founded.

a. Are some of the promises to Abraham and his seed made with ‘conditions’ and others made ‘unconditionally’? How do we differentiate?

b. Are some blessings automatically guaranteed by physical birth and other blessings obtained only by personal faith?

c. How do we know which particular condition applies to which blessing and which seed in a particular verse?

4. Are all of the promises made to Abraham unconditional; that is, once a promise is made, it cannot be revoked, or are some of the promises so connected to other things that they are withdrawn under certain circumstances? For example, are they revocable because the condition under which the promises were made has been changed?

a. Are the promises that were made to Abraham and repeated to the nation of Israel concerning the land of Palestine

(1) now ended,

(2) spiritually fulfilled in the church,

(3) or ‘postponed’ to be fulfilled in a future earthly millennium?

b. Which promises to Abraham’s seed in the OT Scriptures do we ‘spiritualize,’ and which ones are to be understood in ‘natural’ or ‘physical’ language?

5. Exactly how do we apply the answers to these questions today regarding

a. The nature of the church and its relationship to the nation of Israel in the past, present, and future

b. The relationship of the Old Covenant to the New Covenant?

c. The purpose and function of the law at Sinai and in the church today?

d. The meaning and subjects of baptism and the relationship of baptism and circumcision?

e. The relationship between church and state?

f. Millennialism?

It will be impossible to answer all of these questions in this book. I would only hope to stimulate others to do some extensive work on each question. Every one of these questions is tied into our understanding of the blessings that were promised to Abraham and his seed. The really basic differences between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism are over these questions. The answers to these questions are also one of the basic reasons that I, as a Baptist who is basically Reformed in his theology, cannot accept the basic presuppositions of either Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology.

By the way, the term Dispensationalism in this book is referring to the system as defined and set forth in the Scofield Reference Bible. The phrase Covenant Theology refers to the system as defined and set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith. I use those two sources only as points of reference. Readers must judge for themselves where they do, or do not, agree with either designation. I think we will all agree that these two sources give an accurate view of the basic presuppositions of these respective systems of theology as they have been defined and accepted historically. I am aware that many people have greatly modified both of these systems of theology. I question if some of the individuals are being intellectually honest when they continue to apply either of these labels to themselves. Some men have more than modified their positions; they have actually changed the basic presuppositions upon which their respective systems rest.

The real difference between a historic Baptist and a Paedobaptist (those who baptize babies) is not the mode of baptism, but rather “who is the true heir of God’s promise to Abraham and his seed?” The answer to that question is also my real difference with both Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism. Both the Dispensationalist and the Covenant Theologian insist on making ‘physical children’ to be the objects of God’s promise to Abraham and his seed. It is rather amazing (and to a Reformed Baptist, amusing as well) to hear a Dispensationalist plead the unconditional covenant made with Abraham and his seed as the foundation of his belief in a separate and future purpose for the nation of Israel, and then hear a Paedobaptist plead the very same unconditional covenant made with Abraham and his seed as the foundation for his infant baptism. It is obvious that one, or both, of these theological camps is confused about who Abraham’s seed is and exactly what specific blessing was promised to that seed.

As you can see, we are asking some very important questions. We are dealing with some of the basic presuppositions upon which whole systems of theology are built. If the Dispensational view of Abraham and his seed can be proven from Scripture, then Covenant Theology cannot be a correct approach to understanding God’s Word. On the other hand, if Covenant Theology can exegetically establish its view of Abraham and his seed from the Scriptures, then not only is Dispensationalism nonsense, but the Baptist view of baptism is proven to be a denial of the major covenant promise given to Christian parents. Baptists are literally guilty of heresy if Covenant Theology is correct. If neither Dispensationalism nor Covenant Theology can prove from Scripture alone that they really understand Abraham and his seed (and many Reformed Baptists are thoroughly convinced that neither of them can do so), then both of these systems may be wrong at their starting points.

I am sure we all realize that real agreement on the answers to the foregoing questions would eliminate many of the divisions among evangelical Christians. The questions about baptism, the church, prophecy, the Jews, law/gospel, etc., would all be resolved if we could agree on what God really promised Abraham and his seed. The rest of this book will1 attempt to address a few of the questions raised in the foregoing list.^[1] However, I repeat that my main purpose is to deal with basic presuppositions. Our views on all of the subjects just mentioned are determined by our basic starting points. If our starting points are wrong, then everything that totally depends on that foundation is also suspect. It is my goal to clearly demonstrate that the starting points of both Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism, considered as complete ‘Systems of Theology,’ are not established with the Word of God but with logic applied to previously accepted theological concepts that may or may not be true. Both systems do exactly the same thing that evolution does. They assume the system is true without proving the basic assumptions and then establish specific doctrines by applying logic to the assumed ‘facts’ or system. Everything seems to fit as long as one does not try to prove the basic presuppositions. This is when the whole system is seen to rest on arbitrary assumptions.

SEED versus SEEDS

Several things will help us in looking for clear answers to our questions. First of all, we must realize that the Scriptures themselves make a clear distinction between Abraham’s seed (singular) and seeds (plural), and that this distinction is vitally important. Paul argues that the real promise that God made was to Abraham and a specific singular seed and not plural seeds. The following text is crucial to a correct understanding of Paul’s use of the OT promise of God to Abraham and his seed:

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

We may not agree on exactly what promises Paul was talking about in the above text, but one thing is certain: the seed to whom the true promises were made cannot involve the use of a plural to describe the objects of the promise. It must be a singular seed and not plural seeds. The importance of Paul’s dogmatic argument is obvious. If our theological view holds that the “promise to Abraham and his seed” (singular) involves either the Jews and their physical children (plural) or Christian parents and their children (plural), then we are contradicting Paul’s statement in Galatians 3:16. This clear fact cannot be denied.

Paul’s whole argument, based on the Holy Spirit’s use of the singular seed instead of plural seeds, is that the promises were made to Abraham and one particular seed, namely Christ. Any attempt to make Abraham’s seed refer to either the Jews or to Christian parents in this passage is to destroy Paul’s whole argument. We can assert with apostolic authority that the seed of Abraham to whom the promises were made has absolutely nothing to do with physical birth. It does not matter if the physical birth was into a Jewish or a Christian home.

The true promise that God made, and the real inheritance of that promise, are given to Abraham as the father of Christ and not to Abraham as the father of the Jews or the church. We, as believers, only inherit any blessing promised to Abraham because of our spiritual connection to Abraham, and it should go without saying that physical birth cannot relate either us or our children to Abraham spiritually.

Obviously this was just as true in the OT as it is in the NT. Theologians of all persuasions often lose sight of this clear biblical fact. This principle was true for a Jew, regardless of when he lived. Neither a Jew himself, nor his physical children, ever inherited a spiritual blessing just because he was born into a Jewish home and was circumcised. He had to have true faith.

This principle is also just as true for a Christian parent today and for the same reason. One must be spiritually related to Abraham in order to receive any spiritual blessing promised to Abraham, and neither physical birth and circumcision nor physical birth and baptism can make one spiritually related to Abraham. Physical birth in a specific home cannot guarantee that a child is “under the covenant of grace” and therefore in a special spiritual category before God.^[2]

Neither a Jewish birth certificate accompanied by circumcision nor a Christian birth certificate accompanied by baptism ever made anyone heir to a single spiritual promise made to Abraham. Union with Christ that is produced by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit because of electing grace is the only ground for any person being the object of any spiritual promise given to Abraham and his seed (Rom. 9:11, 23, 24). Both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology either deny or totally ignore this clear biblical fact.

The second thing that will help us is the clear two-fold meaning that the Scriptures themselves give to the promises made to Abraham. The writer of Hebrews sets forth this fact several times. In both of the following passages, we are urged to imitate Abraham’s persevering faith if we expect to receive the blessing promised:

For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could sware by no greater, he sware by himself, Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise (Heb. 6:13–15).

In Hebrews 11, the writer says the exact opposite. After mentioning Abraham specifically in verses 11 and 12, the writer makes this statement:

All these people [including Abraham] were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised…These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them [including Abraham] received what had been promised (Heb. 11:13, 39 NIV).

Now it is obvious that the promise of a seed to Abraham was fulfilled when Isaac was born, and it is equally obvious that the real promise of a seed to Abraham was not fulfilled until Christ came. In other words, the promises to Abraham must have both a physical and a spiritual application. However, we must insist that there are not two different things promised, but rather, the physical aspect is the visible pledge and testimony to the spiritual or true promise. The spiritual aspect is the real thing promised and supersedes the physical aspect. The failure to see and keep remembering this clear biblical fact is one of the errors of any theology that does not see the church as the true Israel of God. The following chart shows how we hope to develop this truth in this book:

Thing Promised	Physical Fulfillment	Spiritual Fulfillment
Seed	Isaac	Christ, true Seed
Nation	Israel	Church, true nation
Land	Palestine	Salvation rest, true land

 

---