What answer should be given to those who endeavor to “teach” that the Abrahamic Covenant, which had no mediator, was merely a promise on God’s part and not a Covenant at all?

They claim that God’s promise to Abraham was merely a preliminary statement and that the New Covenant was sealed and made effective by the death of our Lord Jesus, and that he, as the Mediator of the New Covenant, mediates first between God and the Church, and that during the Millennial Age, he will mediate further between God and the world of mankind.

It seems scarcely worthwhile to make any answer at all to such an unreasonable and unscriptural presentation of the matter so far as “teachers” are concerned. However, bold statements and misapplied texts sometimes carry weight with the unstable and scripturally unlearned; hence we feel justified in examining this question publicly.

As for the claim that a promise is not a Covenant, that is doubtless true in a legal sense, as between men. So an attorney would say that a mere promise without consideration would be of no binding force in the human courts of law, because men’s minds and plans are subject to change; and that any man may change his intentions and not be held responsible for his change, if there were no binding agreement or covenant or consideration given. But surely this is not true of any promise of God, who cannot lie, whose promise cannot be broken. God’s promise, therefore, is most absolutely a covenant and binding agreement. All the weight of Divine veracity binds it. But, lest human weakness and unbelief should doubt the Divine Word, God condescended to make his promise a Covenant in the most binding and authoritative manner conceivable. He bound his promise with an oath.

The Scriptures over and over again refer to God’s words with Abraham, not only as a promise, but as a Covenant. As, for instance, before it was made, God said to Abraham, Come out of thine own land into a land that I will show thee, and I will make a Covenant with thee. It was in harmony with that promise that Abraham removed to the land of Canaan, where God declares that he did make a Covenant with him, to the effect that in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed. The prophet tells us that that Covenant was confirmed three times to Abraham with an oath–again to Isaac and again to Jacob. (See Gen. 17:19; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14.) This which the Apostle styles The Promise (particular and special above all promises) is also called a Covenant thirteen times in the Book of Genesis alone, besides numerous other references which anyone can find with a concordance.

It seems strange indeed that a desire to establish a theory could warp the judgment of any Christian Bible student to such an extent that he would endeavor to ignore the greatest of all imaginable Covenants on record—the Covenant on which all of our hopes as Christians depend. Hearken to the Apostle Paul’s estimation of this Covenant as stated in Hebrews 6. Urging the Israelite’s to patience and faith that they might inherit the promises, the Apostle Paul says,

“For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he swore by himself,… for men verily swear by the greater and an oath for confirmation is the end of all strife. In this matter God, desiring more abundantly to show unto the heirs of the promise the immutability [the unchangeableness] of his counsel [or purpose], confirmed the promise by an oath; that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us.” The Apostle thus shows that the Abrahamic Covenant (without a mediator, because it was unconditional) was firmly bound in a manner that would be satisfactory even amongst men, namely, by an oath.

How much more convincing is God’s oath, making sure, unchangeable that basic Covenant made with Abraham, assuring the heirs of the promise (“us“) that ultimately all mankind will receive a blessing, and that it would come through us. (Gal. 3:29.) The Apostle tells us that that oath was intended of God for us rather than for Abraham, to give us strong consolation, that we might lay hold firmly of the hope set before us in that promise–that ABRAHAMIC COVENANT.

He adds (Heb 6: 19) that we have this hope as an anchor of the soul sure and steadfast within the veil, whither Jesus has entered as our forerunner, to whom we are approaching–as members to our Head. He is the Head of that Seed of promise. We, the members of his Body, will shortly follow him beyond the veil and share his glorious work of blessing the nations, beginning with Israel, under a New Covenant. We, as the adopted members of the Body of Christ, are directly the beneficiaries of the original Covenant (the Abrahamic Covenant), whose other features of blessing the world will all be worked out through us– under the New Covenant arrangement with Israel.

Surely there is no consistency or reason in ignoring this great Oath-bound Covenant made in Abraham’s day, consummated by the Divine oath. If it were not a Covenant, or if, as a Covenant, it was not ratified or made operative until the days of Jesus, why should the Apostle say that the Law Covenant was added to the Abrahamic Covenant 430 years after the Abrahamic Covenant was made? Evidently the Apostle Paul considered the Abrahamic Covenant well established, for he adds that the Law Covenant afterwards instituted could not disannul the Abrahamic Covenant (Gal. 3:17). It must have been a thoroughly completed Covenant, firmly bound with the Divine oath; else the statement that it could not be disannulled would be an untruth. (R4496)

Continued with next post.