The present reality of the Abrahamic Covenant

The present reality of the
Abrahamic Covenant

by David Blewett

The study of covenants is a fascinating study, to some Christians it is the very foundation upon which all theological understanding is built. "Covenant" in religious terms refers to an agreement made by God with human beings. The idea that the Almighty and Eternal God would make covenants with mortal human beings is a profound theological concept. It infers that God maintains a relationship with human beings and is willing to be bound in some way to the terms expressed in the covenants.

The doctrine of covenants has led to what Walter Eichrodt has called "the factual nature of the divine relation." In other words, God's existence and character are not grasped through speculation or mystical contemplation, they are disclosed through the overwhelming events of history. The mighty acts of God in bringing the people out of Egypt to Mount Sinai, to Eretz Yisrael and eventually to the Temple and now back into the land are confirmations of the covenant that the Almighty had made with Abraham. That is why Eichrodt's theology has been referred to as one of "recital." All prior history is seen as leading up to the moment of covenant and all subsequent history is interpreted in its light. The great anxieties of ancient man resulted from their understanding of the gods as capricious, subject to the same whims and passing fancies that people are subject to. The idea of the covenant created a sense of trust and security for Israelite life, even when they were faced with tremendous crises. Their Lord was a Lord characterized by chesed ("covenant loyalty").

The Abrahamic covenant is not the first of God's covenants, but it is the first one given to a specific people. All previous covenants are universal, whereas this covenant is given to a specific man and his family. Such a personal covenant is unique; there are no parallels to this covenant among other ancient covenant treaties. The first mention of Abraham's covenant is a broad outline (Gen. 12:1-3), it is later confirmed in more detail (Gen. 13:14-17; 15:1-7, 18-21; 17:1-8, 19-22) and finally, lest there be any confusion, the covenant is reconfirmed with Abraham's descendants Isaac (Gen. 17:18-21; 26:3-5) and Jacob (Gen. 28:12-16).

Today the relevancy of this covenant is coming under attack – how can we, 21^st century thoughtful people, possibly believe that a conversation, or a dream, that some guy said he had with God over 4,000 years ago be relevant today? There are even those today who speak for or against the current Middle East peace process based on the covenant God gave to Abraham. For many modern minds this seems beyond credible and causes most people to shake their heads in bewilderment.

Some Christian theological language assumes that the Abrahamic Covenant, or any Old Testament covenant for that matter, is irrelevant today. When we speak of an "old" covenant or testament and a "new" covenant or testament, the average Christian thinks of two covenants, an old one and then a new one that replaces the old worn out one. Some Christians believe that when Jesus the Messiah came, the "old covenant" was replaced by the "new covenant." In some circles this is referred to as replacement theology.

When replacement Christians speak of the "new covenant" inaugurated by Jesus they think of contemporary Jews as being among those who, for one reason or another, have missed the chance to be part of the "new covenant." Because the "old covenant" no longer exists and because they are not part of the "new covenant," Jews are now often thought of as people who have no covenant. The danger here is in thinking of the "old covenant" as the replaced covenant. Pope John Paul II addressed this mistaken idea when he spoke to representatives of the Jewish community in Mainz, Germany, on November 17, 1980. In part, he said:

The first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God [cf. Rom. 11:29], and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our Church, that is to say, between the first and second part of her Bible.

Neither time nor space allows for a complete examination of the relevancy of the Abrahamic covenant, but we can study parts of it and reach conclusions from that. It would seem obvious that if part of the covenant is relevant then all of the covenant must be relevant. If part of the Abrahamic covenant can be seen as relevant, can we honestly conclude that other parts of the same covenant are irrelevant?

Take for instance the universal aspect of the covenant as first presented in Genesis 12:1-3:

Then the Lord said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.

I will make you a great nation
   and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
   and you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
   and whoever curses you I will curse;
   and all peoples on earth
   will be blessed in you."
(New International Version)

Notice first that the covenant with Abraham is made at God's initiative and that it places no moral obligations on the patriarch. The emphasis falls completely on the divine promise. All that was demanded of Abraham was trust (15:6) and establishing the mark of the covenant on all male members of the family for all time (17:9-14).

The covenant promises always involve the land of promise; promise and land are indivisible here. Thus, the confession of faith that is found in Joshua 24 consists of a recital of the great deeds of the Lord, a renewal of the covenant, and a reminder that the Lord had given the land to the people.

Professor Abraham Joshua Heschel has movingly described this relationship:

There is a unique association between the people and the land of Israel. Even before Israel becomes a people, the land is pre-ordained for Israel. Even before there was a people, there was a promise. The promise of a land. The election of Abraham and the election of the land came together. The promise of the land to the patriarchs is the leit motif of the Five Books of Moses. . . . Beyond the promise of the land and increasing prosperity, the promise to Abraham was a blessing for all the families of the earth. The gift of the land is an earnest of a greater promise.

This concept of the physical dimension of choseness and covenant are of crucial importance. Covenant does not involve merely spiritual dimensions. The promises are tied to this world, to life here and now, to land. The Hebrew Bible is not a book about heaven – it is a book about earth. The word eretz (land), Heschel points out, occurs at least five times as often in the Bible as the word shamayim (heaven).

Let's begin to focus a little more specifically. God told Abram:

I will make you a great nation
   and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
   and you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
   and whoever curses you I will curse;
   and all peoples on earth
   will be blessed in you." (Gen. 12:2-3)

To put the question as simply as possible – so what? What relevancy does that have for us today in the 21^st century?

Several years ago I was invited to speak at a conference in Great Britain about the place of Israel in Christian theology today. The research that I did then addresses in a remarkable way the question that we are addressing today and I would like to draw upon it. My premise today is the same as it was then – a group that habitually displays an excessive anti-Israel attitude is a group in trouble. If one looks at those groups that have demonstrated an excessive anti-Israel attitude, one finds that many of them suffered great losses in the last two decades; some have even disappeared.

Let us look first at nations and governments. Since the mid-1960s, the states that did the most to generate anti-Israel propaganda were not Arab, but the Soviet Union and East Germany. Neither country exists today.

In Western Europe over the past 50 to 60 years, two of the leading centers of anti-Israel activity have been Italy and Great Britain. The Italian political system is known for its instability – there have been 60 governments since World War II, the most recent collapse happened just a few weeks ago, on April 20. Since the late 1970s Italy has also had to wrestle with the serious consequences of an annual inflation rate that sometimes reaches 20% and an unemployment rate that has grown at times to over two million. The country's situation is worsened by the phenomenon of political and ideological terrorism as well as organized crime.

The British political system is inundated with problems including the breakdown of law and order, the loss of faith in the judicial system, the deterioration of educational standards, the inefficiency of Parliament, an increasing disrespect shown to politicians of every party, the outrageous success of terrorist organizations and media attacks on members of the royal family. In light of the desperate current domestic situation many British voters are asking how Prime Minister Blair could even think of taking maternity leave when his wife gives birth this summer.

Recent opinion polls have indicated that a majority of Britons would be willing to emigrate if they could and that very few of them could point to anything they could be proud of in their country. What a remarkable change since the end of World War II, when Britons could be proud the British Empire and of being the world power that had led the victorious struggle against Nazism. Then the world admired Britain; today she is seen by her enemies with contempt and by her friends with pity.

Consider next churches. Statistics from the various churches present the following picture. The Roman Catholic Church seems to be maintaining its strength, losing members in some areas while gain members in others. Evangelical Protestants are growing rapidly. In South America, for example, it is estimated that there will be as many Evangelical Protestants as Catholics within the next decade. In some countries their activity in all levels of national life, all the way up to the presidency is conspicuous, something only dreamed of 25 years ago.

On the other hand, it is the traditional mainline Protestant denominations (Anglicans or Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.) that are shrinking and even vanishing in some countries. Thirty years ago, in the United States, nearly half of the population belonged to one of these churches, today it is less than a quarter. The largest Protestant denomination today is not the Episcopalian, Lutheran or Presbyterian Church, but the Southern Baptists. The Assembly of God Church that had only tens of thousands of members after World War II, now has 32 million worldwide – over 2.5 million in the United States alone, which means that it challenges the Episcopal Church as the second largest Protestant denomination in the country.

In England, on a typical Sunday, there are more worshippers in Catholic churches than in Anglican churches, even though the Anglican Church (the Church of England) is the state church headed by the Queen. Moreover, about half of the Anglicans who do regularly worship belong to the evangelical stream within the church. The same can be said for the Lutheran Church in Sweden where it was, until this past year, the official state church. That relationship was dissolved by the Swedish Parliament because church affiliation had decreased so drastically that government officials actually saw it as a liability for the State to be identified with the Church.

The traditional Protestant churches still have large official memberships in Germany because the government levies a "church tax" on its citizens – any citizen that does not specify a religion is automatically registered as a German Evangelical Lutheran. However, on any given Sunday there may be only twenty worshippers in a city church that has a registered membership of several thousand, while in the same city, there may be several quite active "free churches," where several hundred regularly worship.

When one looks at the attitudes of these churches toward Israel, there is a remarkable correlation. For three decades, the Roman Catholic Church has sought a historic reconciliation with the Jewish people, culminating in 1993 with the establishment of full diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the State of Israel. Evangelical Protestants have had a long history of great enthusiasm and generous practical support for Israel, before there was a modern state of Israel – even before Theodor Herzl wrote The Jewish State and developed the concept of modern Zionism. Evangelical Christians were his most early and ardent supporters.

By contrast, the disappearing mainline Protestant denominations have for many years been among the most severe critics of Israel. In the United States, Israel's friends perceive the National Council of Churches in Christ (NCCC) as being particularly hostile, no better than the Middle East Council of Churches. The NCCC has consistently supported, if not instigated, calls to cut all aid to Israel, to sever U.S. relations with Israel, to divide the city of Jerusalem and make it the capital of an expected state of Palestine while never recognizing it as Israel's capital. The NCCC has also been known to give some emotional support for the Palestinian Intifada and certain acts of terrorism.

Today the NCCC is in a financial crisis. It is often unable to meet its payroll and is in the midst of reorganization. To avoid a complete shutdown of activities there have been massive layoffs and whole departments have been closed, but not necessarily the ones that pro-Israel supporters hoped for.

In Britain it is mainline Protestants who are the mainsprings of "Christian Aid," a "charitable organization" that has campaigned tirelessly against Israel. Even in 1994, after the Oslo Agreement between the Israeli government and the PLO, "Christian Aid" published a "prayer calendar" showing how to pray for the Palestinians on every day of the year. It is also these churches that support so-called "political justice tourism," that is, they organize Christian groups whose "pilgrimage to the Holy Land" is completely oriented toward filling participants with sympathy for the Palestinian political cause. This they make quite clear in their tour publicity. It so happens that the US church that sponsors the largest number of such tours in Jerusalem was in the news a few years ago due to a million-dollar high-level scandal that had been uncovered.

Similar correlations are found in other cases of excessive anti-Israel attitudes, such as in the media. In Britain, a leading newspaper called The Independent that in practice was not independent but notably hostile to Israel, steadily lost readers to the point of financial collapse. In the United States, the television networks were among the first to publicly practice savage criticism of Israel; their audiences have fallen notably over recent decades, especially in the area of news coverage. Time magazine's subscription numbers have decreased consistently over the past years and it is no longer regarded as the standard for news reporting.

What is the explanation for this? Evangelical Christian friends of Israel will see in this the work of God – the continuing fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant,

I will bless those who bless you,
And I will curse him who curses you . . . (12:3a)

How does this work in practice? Consider a newspaper that constantly prints false or unbalanced reports about Israel. Obviously, it lacks a self-control mechanism for ensuring that it performs its proper task of faithfully informing its readers about events. If so, then its reporting of events in other countries, even events in its own country, will be unreliable. Although its readers may not know exactly what is wrong, they will increasingly feel dissatisfied. They will gradually abandon the newspaper, magazine or TV/radio station and seek another source of news. There are numerous other examples of broadcast news, publications and governments that demonstrate the validity of this.

Based on these points, two questions can be asked – Has this anti-Israelism done any damage to Israel? And second, If this aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant is still in effect, what about other parts of the covenant?

The answer to the first question is that anti-Israelism seems to have done no physical harm whatsoever. On the contrary, Israel has been enjoying a period of increasing prosperity ever since 1976, when the UN General Assembly passed its notorious resolution slandering Zionism. Especially since 1987, when the Palestinian "Intifada" began, Israel has turned into one of the world's most successful economies, with a growth rate second only to Japan. In the same few years, over a million Jewish immigrants have been absorbed from Russia, Ethiopia and throughout the world. In fact, last Sunday, May 7, the one millionth Russian immigrant was welcomed at Ben Gurion Airport. Israeli exports, especially in the area of advanced technology, have greatly increased. Once Israel was famous for oranges, today it is famous for computer chips and software.

Israel also does more to help developing nations and those places hit by natural disasters than most other nations. Israel is often the first nation to reach the sites of disasters; one of the effects of being the target of so many terrorist attacks is that they are always ready. Through Israel nations are being blessed, especially those who need it most.

. . . and all peoples on earth
will be blessed in you. (12:3b)

I think it is obvious that today God does bless those who bless Israel and curses those who curse Israel. In fact, I believe that one of the most obvious lessons that the modern State of Israel teaches the world is that God is a covenant keeping God. Maybe that is why it is such a target of the evil one.

Turning now to Genesis 17, God is again speaking to Abraham and putting the final touches on the development of the covenant.

Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, "As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God." (verses 4-8, emphasis added)

Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will 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. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year." When God had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him. (verses 19-22, emphasis added)

As in the beginning of the covenant (Gen. 12:1-3), the overwhelming emphasis is on what God has done or will do. Abraham can still do nothing but receive and begin the process of circumcision, begin to teach the tradition of what it means to carry the sign of the covenant. This is God's doing, completely apart from Abraham. It is one-sided, it is eternal, it exists as long as God exists and it is a gift of grace. God is the God of Jews and Jews are the children of God eternally and unconditionally.

That concept of God's covenant with the people being eternally unbreakable regardless of the people's actions is the lesson of Hosea. One of the most powerful and briefest commentaries on that lesson comes from the Talmud:

The Holy One, praised be He, said to Hosea, "The Israelites have sinned." His reply should have been: Sovereign of the universe, they are Thy children, the offspring of Thy chosen ones, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, extend them mercy;" not only did he fail to say this, but he spoke thus: "The entire world is Thine, exchange them for another people." Said the Holy One, praised be He, "What shall I do with this old man? I will tell him to take a harlot for a wife and I will tell him to send her away. If he should be able to send her away, then I will reject the children of Israel." After she bore him two sons and a daughter, the Holy One, praised be He, said to Hosea: "Should you not have followed the example of Moses who separated from his wife after I began speaking to him (Exodus 18:2)? Separate yourself from her." Hosea replied, "Sovereign of the universe, I have children borne by her. I cannot divorce her." The Holy One, praised be He, then said to him: "If you feel thus about your wife who is a harlot and whose children were conceived in harlotry, shall I not feel similarly about the children of Israel, My children, the offspring of My chosen ones, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? And yet you said, 'Reject them for another people!'" When Hosea realized that he had sinned, he began to plead for mercy on his own behalf. The Holy One, praised be He, then said to him: "Instead of pleading for mercy on your own behalf, plead for mercy on behalf of Israel."

Hundreds of years after God gave the covenant to Abraham the Almighty led the Hebrew people out of Egypt and to Mount Sinai where they received and ratified the Sinai Covenant so that they could fully appreciate the relationship that they have with God because of the Abrahamic covenant. The Law is never presented as that which maintains God's relationship with the people, it is always presented as that which maintains the people's relationship with God. The traditional concept of "Law" is misleading, what is given at Sinai is best understood as instruction, help, guidance – a gift of grace.

It is significant that neither Abraham, Isaac, Jacob nor anyone else is ever asked if they would accept the Abrahamic covenant. At Sinai, however, the people are asked to accept the Law, which they do (Ex. 24:7-8). Therefore it is appropriate that this is the covenant Jews focus on, it spells out their responsibilities to God. It is their covenant with God as much as it is God's covenant with them.

The clear purpose of the Law is to maintain the people's relationship with their God, not God's relationship with the people (Deut. 30:11-20). That is why the Law is celebrated on Shavuot, it is why the Torah is spoken of in such appreciative tones (Ps. 19:7-12; 119:105; Prov. 6:23), it is why the scroll is paraded through the synagogue to be touched or kissed; to simply open God's Word is not enough. It is a powerful thing to realize that God cares so much about each person that the Almighty provides helps and resources so that everyone, if they obey the rules, can fully appreciate their relationship with God. What an amazing thing the Law is, how can it not be celebrated?

Christians believe that God has done the same thing for us in the person of Jesus Christ, especially his death, resurrection and ascension. God has also done awesome things to help us non-Jews appreciate a relationship with God. However, because God has done wonderful, salvific things for us does not negate or even minimize the wonderful salvific things that God has done for another family, i.e., Jews. What God did for them has no salvific meaning for us because we are not part of that family, just as what God has done for us has no salvific meaning for them because they already have an eternal covenant.

There is only one God and so we share the Abrahamic covenant – that is God's relationship to us. However, there is more than one people, more than one tribe, and so how we relate to God is not universal. God established the Law, better understood as teachings, instruction, helps for Jews as an act of grace. God gave Jesus, the apostles, church fathers and other helps for us non-Jews as another act of grace. Dialogue is where we, Christians and Jews, can come together and learn from each other about what each of us have experienced and what each of us have learned on our own unique paths to God. It is this kind of dialogue that helps each of us better comprehend and worship the fullness of the one God.

Is this not the lesson we are to learn from Moses' second stay on Mount Sinai (Ex. 32-34)? During that visit Moses asked for a full disclosure of God's glory and God answered him by saying he has asked for the impossible, no one can receive such a revelation. While humans can recognize attributes of God, we are told, "You cannot see My face, for humans cannot see Me and live." Moses is assured by God, "You will see My back, but My face will not be seen." The text speaks of God's "goodness" passing before Moses (33:19). Moses experienced the reality of God's existence so that God's uniqueness would remain fixed in his mind.

The lesson here is that the most profound spiritual moment can never lead to complete knowledge. An encounter with the Absolute is overwhelming and convincing but it does not provide a complete picture of the Divine. Our attempt to fully know God remains incomplete; we can only be given glimpses of God's back, but never God's face. In other words, there are limits to our religious knowledge. The mysterious, infinite God can never be fully comprehended, at best we can only recognize God's attributes.

Each one of these "glimpses" can be a true realization of the Divine, however limited. This position respects the coherent meanings that each community gives to the events and traditions that it recognizes as truth. Through a community's truth its members hope to catch a glimpse of the Divine and incorporate it into their lives, both their personal and communal lives. Theological humility requires each community to remember that this is its truth. They are entitled to proclaim it from the rooftops and celebrate it with joyous devotion. But it remains theirs alone, a partial glimpse of the infinite.

One criterion for the truth of a religion might be theological humility, a recognition that the nature of any human understanding of God is finite. Must believers assert the superiority of their perspective over others? Must they believe that in order for their way to be true it must be true for everyone? Is it not enough for believers to rejoice, celebrate and witness within their own way?

Another criterion might be the lesson Moses learned on that first Yom Kippur. One cannot fully comprehend God's ways and predict the manner in which God will be revealed, but we can recognize God's goodness. In other words, wherever we find graciousness and compassion and other attributes of the Divine we encounter God, even if it is outside our own community.

These two criteria challenge us to avoid self-righteous criticism of other communities and to exercise humility, recognizing God's grace in others. Truly humble people avoid arrogance and leave room for other perspectives; they learn from others because they know they do not possess the whole truth, and they leave room for God's mysterious majesty to express itself in the world in ever new and unexpected ways.

David Blewett is the Executive Director of the Ecumenical Institute for Jewish-Christian Studies in Southfield, Michigan.