3 Making the promise: Genesis
3
Making the promise: Genesis
Genesis 1 – 11: the preface to the promise of land
The promises made to Abraham in Genesis occupy a special place in biblical theology. For example, John Murray states that the Abrahamic covenant ‘underlies the whole subsequent development of God’s redemptive promise, word, and action’. Likewise, Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock state, ‘to understand the Bible, one must read it in view of the Abrahamic covenant, for that covenant with Abraham is the foundational framework for interpreting Scripture and the history of redemption which it reveals’. Certainly, many paths to the unity of Scripture exist, but Abraham’s role is foundational in that unity.
The events of Genesis 1 – 11, however, are more than simply a prologue to the story of Abraham and Israel. In many ways, these events are paradigmatic, for they reflect the movement from sin to exile to restoration, all of which cycle through the rest of Genesis, the Pentateuch and the Old Testament. That is, the role and experience of humanity progress from the first human couple to the introduction of Abram as a result of what takes place in creation, the fall and the events that unfold. Stephen Dempster writes:
The world is created by the command of God; the garden of Eden becomes the prime habitat of human beings until their exile from it. Humans are expelled from the earth with the judgment of the great deluge. The postdiluvian human community is dispersed across the face of the earth at Babel. And when Abraham arrives on the historical scene he is promised a commodity that has been in short supply for human beings: a land to call his own.
In other words, Genesis 1 – 11 is crucial for the development of a biblical theology, for Abram is God’s response to a problem that emerges from Adam. That is, God’s promises to Abram address the curse of the ground and Adam’s expulsion from Eden brought about by sin (Gen. 3:17–19, 23). Though the gracious act of salvation, but not its pattern, is illustrated with Noah, it is with Abram that a new beginning and blueprint are revealed. And a new beginning it is.
God graciously interrupts the escalation of sin and death emanating from and through Adam by promising blessing to and through Abram. This blessing is significant given the story line up to this point. ‘Bless’ (or derivatives) occurs five times in the call of the patriarch (12:1–3), which is the gracious counterbalance to the five curses against fallen creation and humanity (3:14, 17b; 4:11; 8:21; 9:25). In other words, with the call of Abram God’s blessing is resurrected. For example, whereas Adam and Eve experience exile from their homeland (3:24), God calls Abram out of Ur and promises him land that will restore the blessings of Eden. Just as Adam and Eve receive the promise of restoration in the programmatic prophecy of Genesis 3:15, so the promise to Abram clarifies the means through which God will bring his people back from exile into a new place of blessing.
The promise of land in God’s plan to redeem humanity from its fallen condition provides an idyllic place from which Adam and Eve had fallen. But this land is not merely a change in location. God’s gracious response to the sin and downward spiral of Genesis 3 – 11 is so dramatic and outstanding that it is expressed in language similar to that of a new creation. So, writes Dumbrell, ‘as in Gen. 1:3, the form of 12:1 is that of a divine speech which includes a virtual imperative, calling a new phase of history into being, just as the words of Gen. 1:3 had called existence itself into being’. Furthermore, ‘the divine speech and command at Genesis 12:1 are structurally similar to the speech and implied command at the beginning of creation’. Through Abram, then, not only will God restore and dwell with his people once again, but he will also restore and dwell with his people in his place – a new creation kingdom on earth.
Genesis 12 – 50: the Abrahamic covenant and promise of land
The covenant with Abraham promises to reverse the curse of Adam and to bring back into reality the advancement of God’s kingdom on earth. Of special importance is how God’s people will live in his place under his blessing. For Abraham, this place is the land (Gen. 12:1), and this promise runs like a scarlet thread through the rest of the biblical narrative.
The story of Abram begins with God’s calling him to leave his home to the land that God will show him. Although Genesis 12:1–3 does not specify which land Abram will possess, the promise that God will make of him a great nation implies promise of the land, for you cannot have a great nation without land. The Lord confirms his promise to Abram (Gen. 15:7; 17:8; cf. 22:17) and to his offspring, Isaac (Gen. 26:3–4) and Jacob/Israel (Gen. 28:4, 13–15; 35:12). Furthermore, the story of Joseph provides an essential link between the patriarchal promises and the exodus from Egypt, for through it the conflict of his exile to Egypt awaits resolution. And although Abraham will taste some of the reality of being in the land, the full reality is delayed four hundred years as he and his offspring live as sojourners and servants in a land not theirs (Gen. 15:13–16). But there is hope, for Abraham’s purchase of his burial site guarantees the down payment of his inheritance to come (Gen. 23; 25:9–10; cf. 49:29 – 50:26).
The story of Abraham and his descendants demonstrates the importance of land within the Genesis, and Pentateuchal, narrative. Bruce Reichenbach notes, ‘Although the kingdom of God extends throughout the universe (the heavens and the earth), the primary focus in the Pentateuch is on the land.’ From the call of Abram the Pentateuch narrates the story of the patriarchs and their descendants, none of whom enters the land to possess it. To explore how the theme of land is developed, important components of the Abrahamic covenant – namely its unconditional and conditional, national and international, regional and global, temporal and eternal dimensions – will be examined. This examination will show that the land promised to Abraham is consistently presented within the Old Testament as a type or pattern of a future and greater reality.
Unconditional and conditional
Crucial to the discussion of Israel’s relationship to the land is the nature of the Abrahamic covenant. More specifically, how is the possession and fulfilment of the land affected by Abraham’s – and by extension his descendants’ – (dis)obedience? In other words, while some texts in the Pentateuch apparently promise the land to Abraham and his descendants unconditionally, other texts promise the land with certain qualifications, thus raising the vexed question as to whether the territorial promise is unconditional or provisional in nature?
Some scholars answer this question by suggesting various critical views of the text. However, Williamson rightly notes:
All such theories ultimately come up against the insuperable problem of why redactors would wish to combine two antithetic traditions, or to qualify the tradition of an unconditional promise on such a selective basis themselves. In any case, if the final redactor was somehow able to harmonize the unconditional and provisional passages, this must also be possible for those who wish to understand the text in its final form. Significantly, even those today who affirm the permanent, unconditional nature of the territorial promise have little difficulty in reconciling this premise with the passages that qualify the promise in some way.
Williamson avoids this dilemma by arguing for two Abrahamic covenants. His proposal, however, does not make the best sense of the biblical data when the covenant is situated in its textual, epochal and canonical horizons. That is, Williamson fails to see the development – a significant development, no less – in God’s covenant with Abraham as the story line moves towards its fulfilment, which is seen throughout the Abrahamic narrative.
To begin, the promises in Genesis 12 and 15 are brought together and advanced in Genesis 17. In this pivotal passage, the promises to Abram have been progressively unfolding and gradually building up until here they culminate in a divinely initiated covenant discourse. Despite Abram’s attempt to circumvent God’s means to obtain a child, God answers Abram’s sin by reiterating his promise. God will not only multiply Abram, but multiply him ‘greatly’ (Gen. 17:2). Moreover, Genesis 17 does more than consolidate God’s previous promises: it extends them. At this point, Williamson and Alexander are correct in observing the national focus of chapter 15 and the international focus of chapter 17. However, rather than viewing them as separate covenants, chapters 15 and 17 develop the promises in the same order in which they were given. That is, Genesis 15 and 17 correlate respectively with the first three promises and the second three promises of Genesis 12:1–3. Byron Wheaton demonstrates from analysing Genesis 12 – 15 and 17 – 22
the presence of two sections or panels in the narrative with balanced episodes. God’s promised solutions to the problems confronting his redemptive action that are introduced in 11:27–32 are given in programmatic fashion in ch. 12. These promises of land and seed are then individually highlighted in the remaining narrative. The land theme is foregrounded in the first half of the cycle, where Abraham’s faith is matured and tested, culminating in a divine oath that it will be possessed by the seed. The seed theme, which is foregrounded in the second half of the cycle, traces the development of Abraham’s faith in this promise, and it too culminates in an oath that God will fulfill this promise to Abraham. In each case, the oath is the response to a sequence of specific behaviors on Abraham’s part to which the promise of land and seed are linked. Each of these sequences climaxes in a noteworthy divine event or word that secures the future. In Abraham, God has created a person who, in the moment of trial, trusts God’s Word for his future as it relates both to land and seed. This distinguishes him from his ancestor Adam who through unbelief forfeited the land and corrupted the seed. God’s unconditional commitment to Abraham indicates that he can serve as the father of the elect community through whom blessing will come to the world.
In other words, through the nation of Abraham’s descendants will come a multitude of nations.
Furthermore, Genesis 22:17–18 thickens the cord of promises. This crowning passage gathers multiple elements from prior Abrahamic promises and expands upon them. First, ‘I will surely bless you’ intensifies the original promise (12:2). Secondly, ‘the stars of heaven’ recount Abram’s God-given vision (15:5) but also includes ‘and I will surely multiply your offspring’ (cf. 3:16). Thirdly, the theme of immeasurable sand brings to mind God’s promise to Abraham after his separation from Lot (13:16). And fourthly, although the possession of the ‘gate’ of his/their enemies is new to the promise, it will be picked up in the blessing of the offspring of Rebekah (24:60). In this passage, God again answers Abraham’s failures and questions with bigger promises that advance and escalate the certainty of his plan to bless Abraham and the nations through him.
Finally, when the larger canonical context is considered, there is sufficient ground to conclude that there is a singular Abrahamic covenant. In a later epochal horizon, Nehemiah praises the Lord, the God who chose and brought out Abram, gave him the name Abraham and made a covenant with him to give to his offspring the land (9:7–8). In other words, he conflates chapters 15 and 17 and treats them as two aspects of the Abrahamic covenant, connecting the land grant of chapter 15 with the change in Abraham’s name in chapter 17, and regards the Abrahamic covenant as having been fulfilled. Even more, from a canonical perspective, the New Testament never refers to God’s relations with Abraham as ‘covenants’ – in the plural (see e.g. Rom. 4; Gal. 3). So the narrative in chapter 17 is reconfirmation by God – to an even greater degree – that he will make good on his promises, especially after Abraham’s unbelieving liaison with Hagar in chapter 16. This reassuring promise reveals a surer word in the Abrahamic narrative. Hence Williamson’s approach to the Abrahamic covenant(s) is problematic in the light of the biblical data. Another explanation, then, should be given to account better for this divinely intended tension in the text.
One common solution is to appeal to the Abrahamic covenant as unconditional. However, this distinction is not quite accurate, for both unconditional and conditional elements exist. In one sense, the Abrahamic covenant was conditional, for Abraham’s obedience was necessary. For example, ‘So Abram went’ (Gen. 12:4) fulfils the divine command to ‘Go from your country’ (Gen. 12:1). That is, Abram’s response was necessary in order that the promise of land, offspring and blessing might be fulfilled. From the outset, then, God’s commands are fulfilled in and through Abram’s obedience of faith. Though God’s gracious promise provides the basis of future fulfilment, Abram’s response is necessary to bring it about. To be sure, God’s promise engenders the capacity to embrace it by faith, but Abram also shows himself to be an obedient servant when he follows God’s commands. Already in Genesis 12, then, a tension exists between God’s commands and Abram’s response.
Genesis 17 also emphasizes the necessity of Abram’s obedience when the Lord commands him to ‘walk before me, and be blameless, that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly’ (17:1–2). Furthermore, circumcision is added to the condition of membership within the covenant community. It is important to note, however, that these obligations come after the repetition of the promises and making of the covenant in Genesis 15. That is, they do not constitute a covenant relationship but presuppose one already in place. Gentry rightly demonstrates that the story line leading up to this moment is instructive:
The circumstances of chapter 16 are important motivation for the covenant confirmation in chapter 17. Genesis 17:2 begins with the verb wĕ’ettĕnâ, a form almost certainly to be identified as a first person singular modal, which in direct sequence with the commands of the previous verse marks a purpose or result clause: ‘Walk before me and be blameless so that I may make my covenant between me and you.’ Obedience is expected of Abram in the covenant relationship. Already in Genesis 12, when Yahweh called Abram and gave him such great promises, there were commands: ‘Go’ . . . and ‘Be a blessing!’ Chapter 15 reiterated the great promises and enshrined them in a covenant. Abram has not demonstrated full integrity [in Gen. 16], and so, in chapter 17, God comes to confirm/uphold his covenant and emphasize, among other things, the need for an obedient son in Abram’s Adamic role.
Whereas initiating the covenant was an act of God’s grace, confirming it involves a human response. In other words, divine grace precedes commands. Indeed, God’s grace is evident when, after Abram and Sarah sinfully attempt to fulfil the promise through Hagar (ch. 16), chapter 17 begins with the Lord saying, ‘I am God Almighty’ (17:1). This timely revelation of God’s name is significant because of the distance between the fulfilment of God’s promise and the barren reality of the situation. As a result, Abram’s confidence and faith will be bolstered in God Almighty, who is able to make good on his word. The fulfilment, then, will not finally depend on Abram’s ability, but on God, who is powerfully able to do what he has promised.
Perhaps the clearest text that underscores the conditional nature of the Abrahamic covenant is Genesis 22:17–18 (cf. 26:3–5):
I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.
This text specifically states that the blessings were given to Abraham ‘because’ he obeyed the Lord’s voice. Wenham holds God’s promise and Abraham’s obedient response in tension when he writes, ‘It could be said that the original promises made in chapter 12 have now been turned into guarantees thanks to Abraham’s faithful obedience.’ These promises will be fulfilled because Abraham has faithfully obeyed God’s word. This emphasis on the necessity of obedience appears again in 26:5, where Isaac receives the promises because his father was obedient. Clearly, the emphasis up to this point has been weighted on the faithful promise and performance of God, but it will not come about apart from the faithful obedience of his covenant partner(s). Thus through Abraham’s faithful obedience God’s blessing will extend to his descendants. Though Abraham’s obedience is necessary for the fulfilment of God’s oath, it does not function as the basis for God’s gracious blessings. This subordination of covenant obedience to promise leads to the other aspect of the Abrahamic covenant.
Genesis 15 powerfully illustrates a clear and profound unilateral-unconditional emphasis as God invokes a curse upon himself if he does not keep his covenant and fails to fulfil his promise. Indeed, God will fulfil his promise concerning Abram’s future seed, and Abram receives God’s promise by faith (Gen. 15:6). House notes:
Certainly [Abram’s] earlier acts of faith help him believe now, yet this instance is all the more impressive because it occurs years after the original promise is tendered and because it continues to have no evidential basis other than God’s word and God’s character.
Thus God counts it to Abram as righteousness and then focuses on the land to be possessed (15:7). With the promise of land and offspring in place, then, it appears that in Abram God’s plan for history is progressively coming about. Nevertheless, Abram wants to know how he will possess the land (15:8). The remainder of the chapter is devoted to God’s covenant ceremony with Abram that guarantees the promise. After Abram arranges the animal pieces, God himself passes between them in fiery fashion. In this dramatic act, God is unilaterally obligating himself to Abram and his offspring to the degree that God places himself under a potential curse. Should this God of promise not make good on his word, then may he take the curse on himself. Regarding this ritual, Waltke notes:
According to extant ancient Near Eastern texts, passing between the slain animals is a ritual that invokes a curse on the participants if they break the covenant. To walk between the carcasses is to submit oneself to the fate of the slaughtered animals as a penalty for covenant breaking. Note that only God walks between the carcasses, signifying that the covenant is not conditioned upon Abraham’s future action, but based on Abraham’s past faithfulness.
The fact that only God passes between the pieces – as represented by the smoking fire pot and a flaming torch – is astonishing because it shows that the fulfilment of the promise rests on him and him alone. To be sure, God will unconditionally and unilaterally fulfil and meet the conditions of his promise.
Some conclusions can be drawn from above. To begin, the Abrahamic covenant consists of both unconditional and conditional elements and, therefore, is not reduced to one or the other. Thus the common distinction between unconditional and conditional covenants is not quite accurate. Genesis 15 forcefully shows that God will unilaterally fulfil the promise and conditions of the covenant, even if it means taking the curse upon himself. God will keep his promise, and Abram receives the promise by faith. As demonstrated in the covenant ceremony in Genesis 15, Abram can do nothing to enter into the promise. He can only rely on the Lord to fulfil his word.
However, this unconditional emphasis does not remove the necessity of Abraham’s obedience. Genesis 17:2 and 22:17–18 demonstrate that God requires an obedient partner in the covenant relationship. God promised the covenant blessings to Abraham, but these blessings are reserved for people who trust and obey the Lord. In other words, the ultimate fulfilment of the covenant is grounded on God’s promises, but the means of fulfilment will come through Abraham’s – and his descendants’ – obedience. Blaising and Bock state that God’s commandments to Abraham ‘function as the conditions for Abraham’s historical experience of divine blessing, for as he obeys God, God blesses him more and more. But these obligations do not condition the fundamental intention to bless Abraham. They condition the how and when of the blessing.’ This conditionality, therefore, is instrumental to the reception and fulfilment of the promises. This tension between God’s promise and the necessity of an obedient partner in the covenant relationship becomes clearer and stronger as the story line progresses.
Ultimately, the grace of God – not the obedience of Abraham or his descendants – remains foundational. To be sure, God will see to it that the demands of the covenant are fulfilled. But if sin is native to fallen humanity, then it is safe to say that the fulfilment of the covenant, and thus the covenant blessing of land, will be brought about by an obedient one who lies beyond Abraham’s – and Israel’s – horizon. The student of Scripture, therefore, must look forward to an obedient covenant partner who will fulfil the conditions of the covenant in order to bring blessing on himself and, through him, to the nations.
This tension is crucial for understanding the nature and progression of the covenants as they reach their telos in Christ, who inaugurates a new and better covenant in his own blood. That is, when the larger canonical story line is considered, the conditions are met by God himself when he sends his obedient Son – the true seed of Abraham and Son par excellence – to fulfil the demands of the covenant. Indeed, all of God’s promises find their yes in Christ (2 Cor. 1:20), who will win the blessing of a new creation for all of Abraham’s offspring.
National and international
Another important aspect of the Abrahamic covenant is whether it is intended to be national (Gen. 12:2, ‘nation’) or international (Gen. 17:4–6, ‘nations’). Williamson considers Genesis 15 as a covenant made between God and Abram and his ‘seed’, while the covenant in Genesis 17 creates a broadening of the category of ‘seed’. Furthermore, God changes Abram’s name to Abraham, for God made him ‘the father of a multitude of nations’ (Gen. 17:5). An intended ambiguity exists in the text, then, for Abraham’s ‘seed’ both encompasses a multitude of nations (Gen. 17) and relates to an individual descendant (Gen. 22:17b) who will mediate blessing to all the nations of the earth.
When these texts are put together, then, the ultimate inheritors of the patriarchal promises are not restricted to a national entity but extend to an international community. That is, God’s programmatic agenda for humanity after Eden begins with the formation of a nation through Abraham and ends with an international people. Thus the promise to and blessing of Abraham reach their goal only when it includes all the families of the earth. This international component comes into focus in the latter prophets (see ch. 6). But for now, it is already difficult to see how the territorial promise could be exhausted by any limited geographical plot, whether Israelite or otherwise, for the multiplication of descendants naturally expands the territorial borders until the earth is filled.
Regional and global
Another issue brought to the fore is whether the land promised to Abraham is restricted to a single geographical plot or is expanded also to include a much broader area. Put another way, from the beginning it seems that the geographical boundaries occupy a considerably larger area than the land of Canaan, which will eventually encompass the whole earth as God makes Abraham’s offspring as countless as the stars (Gen. 15:5) and into nations (Gen. 17:6). After close examination, then, the land promise(s) may actually support a global, and not strictly regional, fulfilment.
The promise to Abram involves land, but not just any land. This land will be given by God. The boundaries of the land are broad (Exod. 3:8) and there is some flexibility as to its geographical dimensions. John Goldingay suggests that there are at least three ways of determining its boundaries: first, Canaan, the land west of the Jordan, is Israel’s heartland; secondly, a territory broader than the land west of the Jordan, which includes land east of the Jordan; and thirdly, a territory broader than the first two that includes land north and east of Canaan that will be part of the area Israel control, but not part of their actual land. Specific geographical boundary markers are given in a number of texts, and the extent of the Promised Land is not identical in each (e.g. the boundaries in Deut. 11:24 are significantly broader than those in Num. 34), which has led some scholars to detect redactional activity. However, Williamson has rightly noted a weakness in this view when he writes, ‘The fact that no steps were taken to impose uniformity suggests an element of flexibility difficult to harmonize with rigidly defined territorial borders.’ Therefore the interpreter must seek another explanation for the varying accounts of the geographical boundaries.
The various texts that map the territorial borders of the Promised Land indicate that the land was not conclusively defined with geographical precision. One solution is put forth by Goldingay, who says that the boundaries of the land in the Old Testament ‘reflect political realities of different periods rather than having significance in their own right’. Or perhaps Williamson is correct when he notes that it can be reasonably inferred that ‘the map of the promised land was never seen as permanently fixed, but was subject to at least some degree of expansion and redefinition’. For Williamson, such a conclusion is bolstered by texts where the territorial inheritance more generally describes the pre-Israelite occupants, the geographical location of the beneficiaries, and texts that, at the least, implicitly point to a further expansion of the territorial promise. Of particular importance is Genesis 26:3–4, where the unique plural ‘lands’, when juxtaposed with Genesis 22:17–28, reveals that Abraham’s seed will possess or inherit the gate of his enemies. One can already see that Paul is not spiritualizing texts when he says that ‘the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith’ (Rom. 4:13). Rather, Paul is reaching sound exegetical and theological conclusions when he puts all three elements of the covenant together, for he now sees Abraham inheriting the world as all people – both Jew and Gentile – come to faith in Jesus Christ.
Therefore, while the Promised Land was primarily a specific territory, there is sufficient biblical warrant to conclude that it was also something more. Williamson writes:
The fact that the promised land was of more than political significance has often been overlooked, especially by those who still anticipate some sort of future, national fulfillment of the territorial promise. When the global significance of the promised land is taken on board, a future fulfillment in a narrow, regional sense appears largely redundant, and indeed somewhat anticlimactic.
Because the land is not described with geographical precision, then, one might say that it was to some degree an idea – yet it was a territory – and this territory would expand with the increase and expansion of its inhabitants.
Temporal and eternal
The last issue to observe concerning the nature of the Abrahamic covenant is whether the territorial promise is temporal or eternal. An important issue in the promise and fulfilment of land is whether to locate its fulfilment in the past—that is, in Israel’s history—or in the future. As stated above, God’s promise and purpose for Abraham are a reversal of the recurring pattern in Genesis 1—11. The land, seed and blessing forfeited by Adam are answered with God’s promise of land, seed and blessing to Abraham (Gen. 1:28; 9:1; 17:2, 6). The international scope of the covenant and global dimensions of geography in God’s promise suggest that God’s solution to humanity’s plight is not ultimately limited by physical, geographical or temporal restraints. Moreover, God’s promise to Abraham is said to be everlasting. Although the term may not always mean a limitless duration of time, its connection to the blessing of land(s) and nation(s) suggests that the promise will at least be as everlasting as the covenant itself, a covenant that relates primarily to the blessing of the nations through Abraham’s seed.
A further indication that the territorial promise is of an enduring nature is its association with rest. This link to rest becomes clearer as the story line progresses and is grounded on the divine rest at the beginning of creation. It is at this point that the anticipatory, or typological, aspect of the Promised Land comes into focus. So again, while the Promised Land includes the territory occupied by Israel throughout their history, it also encompasses something greater. Such a conclusion grows out of the ways the Abrahamic promise of land, seed and blessing are fulfilled through redemptive history. Thus understood, one finds exegetical basis for the New Testament claim that Abraham looked forward to something greater, ‘For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God’ (Heb. 11:10).
Conclusion
Some conclusions can be drawn from above. First, the promise of land in the Abrahamic covenant should be understood in the light of what preceded it, namely Eden as the prototypical place of the kingdom. The land, then, advances through Abraham the place of the kingdom that was lost in Eden. Secondly, the flexibility of the geographical boundaries indicates that, although the boundaries initially delimit territory, the territory anticipates something more. That is, although it begins as a localized geographical plot, its rich theological associations and eschatological horizons actually extend beyond the territory itself. As a result, the patriarchal promise of land anticipates something greater and, therefore, the promise will not ultimately be fulfilled until Abraham’s seed fills and occupies the world. The land promised to Abraham, then, is presented as a type or pattern of a greater reality with international and worldwide dimensions.