> In reading a book on Theology, I came across the following argument:
> * In the Abrahamic Covenant, the land promise to Abraham was unconditional.
> * In the Mosaical Covenant, the land promise to Israel was conditional.
> * When Israel went into Exile, it was due to the conditional element of the
> Mosaical Covenant.
> * When the Millennial Kingdom is established on earth, it will be due to the
> unconditional element of the Abrahamic Covenant.
>
> Any comments? Thanks.
JJ: In the main I believe the above argument is biblical. My main objection is that Abraham’s covenant was conditional. It was conditioned upon faith (Gen 15:6, Rom 4:3), but it was not conditioned upon works.
In the NT Paul makes an argument that contrasts the two covenants (Gal 4:22-31). Israel is compared to the Covenant of Moses with its law of bondage. Christians are compared to the covenant of Christ with its provision of grace. Israel was not successful (Acts 7:53) in keeping their covenant wherein the land would have been owed to Israel by works of the Law (Ex 20:12, Lev 18:26-28). Consequently, if Israel is to inherit the land, they inherit it through the promises to Abraham. That is why there is no difference between the Jew and Gentile in the church. Both Jew and Gentile are heirs to the promsies of Abraham through faith in Christ Jesus. Both Jew and Gentile alike inherit the promised land by faith through the Abrahamic covenant.
There is another point from the theology book with which I disagree. It is the millennial kingdom aspect. If you analyze Rev 20:4 it never says that Christ rules for 1000 years. What is says is that those who sat upon the thrones ruled with Christ for 1000 years. It says, “They lived and reigned with Christ 1000 years” (Rev 20:4, 6). The ones who participate in the first resurrection (I believe this is a literal 144,000 who rose with Christ in Mt 27:52-53) are the ones who reign with Christ. Since these arose in AD 33 and ascended with Christ to heaven when He returned there (Eph 4:8), then they are now partakers of the First Resurrection and the Second Death has no power over them. These are the ones who reigned with Christ for 1000 years. I believe that the literal 1000 years of their rule is over and we are now into the season when Satan must be loosed for a season.
The millennial theory of the 1000 year reign, as it is popularly believed, overlooks two salient points about the reign of Christ
1) Christ must continue His reign on His Father’s throne (Rev 3:21, Acts 2:34, I Cor 15:24) as King of kings (Rev 17:14) until death is destroyed at the Judgment (I Cor 15:25-26).
2) When Christ assumes His own throne (Rev 3:21, Mt 19:28, 25:31), the throne of His father David, His reign upon that throne will be eternal and not just 1000 years (Lk 1:32-33)
There is no time in the career of Jesus from His Coronation in Acts 2 until His eternal reign upon the throne of David when Christ does not rule. He is either ruling on His Father’s throne or on His own throne. There is no time when He quits reigning in order that Satan can be loosed for a little season (Rev 20:7). The people who quit reigning are the ones who sit upon the thrones (Rev 20:4). Therefore the 1000 year reign OF CHRIST is actually a misnomer. It is the saints who rule WITH Him who only reign for 1000 years. Christ reigns for ever. He reigns now on His Father’s throne and hereafter on His own throne. The saints will rise to rule the earth in the second resurrection (Mt 24:47, Lk 12:44, Mt 5:5), but the ones from the first resurrection reigned on thrones in heaven with Christ for 1000 years. Since the 144,000 are in heaven, it is not clear to me HOW they ruled on earth, but it is clear that they did so. They may possibly have ruled on earth in the same way that Jesus rules: through the agency of angels (Heb 1:14, I Cor 6:3). The millennial reign is past (possibly ca. AD 344-1344). What remains is the Second Coming, Resurrection, Battle of Armageddon, Judgment, and Inheritance of the Eternal Kingdom.
There is one more point that I want to make regarding the promises to Abraham. God promised Abraham that He would give Abraham all the land from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates (Gen 15:18). As the prophet Stephen pointed out, however, God did not give Abraham any of the land at all, not so much as to set his foot on (Acts 7:5). The promise to Abraham is very explicit, however. God says,
Genesis 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
Since Abraham personally was promised the land and has received none of it, then the fulfillment of the promise must be for the time subsequent to the Resurrection, for God simply cannot lie (Tit 1:2). Gen 17:8 says that Abraham’s possession of the land will be “an everlasting possession” just as Gabriel promised Mary that her Son’s kingdom would have “no end” (Lk 1:33). Abraham’s possession of the land occurs at the same time that Christ rules from the throne of David for Ezekiel 37 says,
24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. 25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.
Ezekiel clearly wraps the Messiah’s eternal reign with the eternal inheritance of the land.
So you see that the theology book has some good points. I do like the part that says, “When the [eternal] Kingdom is established on earth, it will be due to the unconditional element of the Abrahamic Covenant.” Because of their inability to keep the covenant of law and works, both Jew and Gentile alike will inherit the promises to Abraham including the land promise through Christ’s covenant of grace through faith.
