# Unchained Radio: The Abrahamic Covenant was Fulfilled in Joshua 23



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 30, 2007)

I was listening to the Narrow Mind today while working out. Jonathan Goundry was doing most of the talking but he and Gene Cook stated that the Abrahamic Covenant was _fulfilled_ in Joshua 23.

The main point they were arguing is that the Abrahamic promise is not a New Covenant promise. The New Covenant is new and better, they argue. It is not merely New with reference to the Mosaic administration but that even the Abrahamic promise was abrogated somehow in favor of the New Covenant.

It is unclear how they distinguish the Covenant from the promise. Do you believe that there is a difference in the promise made to Abraham from the Covenant made with him by God.

If the substance of what was promised to Abraham was Christ then how can the Promise have been fulfilled in Joshua 23?

How is Abraham the father of our faith if he didn't participate in substance of the New Covenant? How is he a present example to believers if the promises made to Him were all fulfilled and his is the nature of things that have completely passed away?

This is going to stay bounded. I don't want debates about those who are the proper subjects of a Covenant marking. I want that discussion to remain separate so as not to cloud the very specific issue of the nature of the Abrahamic Promise and its substance.

What struck me most, however, about the discussion is that the nature of the Abrahamic Promise purposefully stuck to Genesis and Joshua with scant attention to Galatians, Romans, and the Gospels that show Abraham believing in the Gospel.

Discuss...


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 31, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I was listening to the Narrow Mind today while working out. Jonathan Goundry was doing most of the talking but he and Gene Cook stated that the Abrahamic Covenant was _fulfilled_ in Joshua 23.
> 
> The main point they were arguing is that the Abrahamic promise is not a New Covenant promise. The New Covenant is new and better, they argue. It is not merely New with reference to the Mosaic administration but that even the Abrahamic promise was abrogated somehow in favor of the New Covenant.
> 
> ...




Rich, 

What episode was it?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 31, 2007)

Wednesday, 29 Aug.


----------



## MW (Aug 31, 2007)

The fulfilment motif tends to be deliberately vague in theological discussion. Jesus fulfils the whole Bible, does that mean the Bible now has no application to us? That would be a strange conclusion. There are various levels in which we can speak of fulfilment -- e.g., historical, moral, eschatological, etc. It is usually the eschatological which requires discontinuity. Was the Abrahamic covenant eschatologically fulfilled in Josh. 23? Let's ask another question -- were all families of the earth blessed in Josh 23? No. Question answered. More precision is required in theological discussion, especially when the unfolding purpose of God is at the centre.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Aug 31, 2007)

Acts 13:32-33,38 we preach to you the good news of *the promise made to the fathers*, that *God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus*...that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.

That God fulfilled the promises through types is not the same as fulfilling what the promises always ultimately pointed to. Thus Robertson, "The possession of the land under the old covenant was not an end in itself, but fit instead along the shadows, types, and prophecies that were characteristic of the old covenant in its presentation of redemptive truth. ...Abraham received the promise of the land but never experienced the blessing of its full possession. ...The people actually possessed the land during the period of the kings, but their possession never reached perfection." - Robertson, Israel of God.

Indeed, the promised land was never sone little dust bowl. 

The land promised to Abraham and to our forefathers, could not have been the land in Joshua 23:

Ezekiel 36:28 "And *you will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers*; so you will be My people, and I will be your God.

Are we going to live in a small piece of real estate in the Middle East?

Since the land given to our forefathers in Josh. 23 was the complete, final promise (supposedly), then Ezekiel must be referring to us bunched together in the dirt.

Now, I'm afraid someone has confused beggerly down payments with the fulness of the promise


----------



## Herald (Aug 31, 2007)

Rich - first, I am thinking this out just as you are.

I took a moment to look at all the prophetic passages in Genesis that pertain to Abraham and the promise. 



> *Genesis 12:1-7* Genesis 12:1 Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go forth from your country, And from your relatives And from your father's house, To the land which I will show you; 2 And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; 3 And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed." 4 So Abram went forth as the LORD had spoken to him; and Lot went with him. Now Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. 5 Abram took Sarai his wife and Lot his nephew, and all their possessions which they had accumulated, and the persons which they had acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land of Canaan; thus they came to the land of Canaan. 6 Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. Now the Canaanite was then in the land. 7 The LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your descendants I will give this land." So he built an altar there to the LORD who had appeared to him.





> *Genesis 15:4-6* 4 Then behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, "This man will not be your heir; but one who will come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir." 5 And He took him outside and said, "Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be." 6 Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.





> *Genesis 15:18-21* 18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I have given this land, From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates: 19 the Kenite and the Kenizzite and the Kadmonite 20 and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Rephaim 21 and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Girgashite and the Jebusite."





> * Genesis 17:4-8* 4 "As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, And you will be the father of a multitude of nations. 5 "No longer shall your name be called Abram, But your name shall be Abraham; For I will make you the father of a multitude of nations. 6 "I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings will come forth from you. 7 "I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. 8 "I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."





> *Genesis 22:16-18* 16 and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies. 18 "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice."



As I look at these passages I can certainly see where there was a partial fulfillment in Joshua 23. The descendants of Abraham were given the land of Canaan, but through disobedience were not able to possess all the land that God intended for them. But there is more to this picture than just a land promise.

_"And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed..."_

What is this pointing towards? Fulfillment in Joshua 23, or something greater?

*Romans 4:16-18* 16 For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 (as it is written, "A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU") in the presence of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist. 18 In hope against hope he believed, so that he might become a father of many nations according to that which had been spoken, "SO SHALL YOUR DESCENDANTS BE." 

Again, I can understand looking at Joshua 23 as a partial fulfillment, but how can Romans 4 be left out of the equation? To be fair, I don't subscribe to UNCHAINED Radio so I did not hear what was said. 

_"Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be." 6 Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness."_

Physical fulfillment or spiritual? I think it is both. The true descendants of Abraham are those who are of the faith of Abraham (Romans 4). That is both a physical (as they are persons) and a spiritual fulfillment of the promise. 

Genesis 15:18-21 seems to be one of the promises that was fulfilled in Joshua 23. 

_ "I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."_

Here we read of an _everlasting covenant_ that promises Abraham's descendants will be followers of Yahweh. It seems that the promise of, _"the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession"_ is also a spiritual promise since it is followed by, _"and I will be their God."_

Genesis 22 seems to be a reaffirmation of the promises made earlier. 

Conclusion: I have no problem with a partial fulfillment in Joshua 23, but the greater promises are fulfilled as part of the New Covenant. 

Rich - I may have deviated from some of the questions in your OP, so please feel free to redirect. There's a lot here to digest.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 31, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> The fulfilment motif tends to be deliberately vague in theological discussion. Jesus fulfils the whole Bible, does that mean the Bible now has no application to us? That would be a strange conclusion. There are various levels in which we can speak of fulfilment -- e.g., historical, moral, eschatological, etc. It is usually the eschatological which requires discontinuity. Was the Abrahamic covenant eschatologically fulfilled in Josh. 23? Let's ask another question -- were all families of the earth blessed in Josh 23? No. Question answered. More precision is required in theological discussion, especially when the unfolding purpose of God is at the centre.



I agree.

I kind of hope Jonathan (VanVos) interacts here because he was really struggling with stating the issue coherently.

If you read the previous portion of Joshua 23 then Joshua even alludes to the fact that there is yet work left to do on the part of the tribes to subdue the land promised. There is, of course, the sense that they already possess it but have to put the people out of it.

Yet, I thought it an odd use of Scripture to try to specifically strike a discontinuity as if the Abrahamic Promise was included in all the promises promised to "...your fathers..." in Joshua 23 and to argue that everything promised to Abraham had been fulfilled. The immediate context is the land itself. They certainly hadn't entered into an eternal rest with God.

The additional problem is that it looks at the promise of the New Covenant or the inauguration as obliterating all that came before it. The Newness is in the sense of not merely _improving_ or _fulfilling_ but _supplanting_. Thus, if the NC _supplants_ everything before it then whatever was promised to Abraham is supplanted by something that was promised _after_ him and was not part of the promise to him.

Mary, in her thanksgiving to God about news of the Incarnation, praises God for remembering his promise made to Abraham. Seems she didn't buy into this idea that the Abrahamic promise had already been fulfilled.

I obviously think it is important to note that administration has progressed and that the things hoped for are now seen but I was struck by how dispensational this was coming from someone who fashions himself to believe in Covenant theology.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 31, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Conclusion: I have no problem with a partial fulfillment in Joshua 23, but the greater promises are fulfilled as part of the New Covenant.
> 
> Rich - I may have deviated from some of the questions in your OP, so please feel free to redirect. There's a lot here to digest.



No, that was great Bill. Thanks.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 31, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Acts 13:32-33,38 we preach to you the good news of *the promise made to the fathers*, that *God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus*...that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.
> 
> That God fulfilled the promises through types is not the same as fulfilling what the promises always ultimately pointed to. Thus Robertson, "The possession of the land under the old covenant was not an end in itself, but fit instead along the shadows, types, and prophecies that were characteristic of the old covenant in its presentation of redemptive truth. ...Abraham received the promise of the land but never experienced the blessing of its full possession. ...The people actually possessed the land during the period of the kings, but their possession never reached perfection." - Robertson, Israel of God.
> 
> ...


Good post. I agree.


----------



## aleksanderpolo (Aug 31, 2007)

> but I was struck by how dispensational this was coming from someone who fashions himself to believe in Covenant theology.



This was why I was asking how progressive dispensationalist view the Old Covenant, and how is their view differ from Reformed Baptist's view. I suspect that both of them attempt to physicallize not only the Mosaic but also the Abrahamic covenant.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 31, 2007)

aleksanderpolo said:


> > but I was struck by how dispensational this was coming from someone who fashions himself to believe in Covenant theology.
> 
> 
> 
> This was why I was asking how progressive dispensationalist view the Old Covenant, and how is their view differ from Reformed Baptist's view. I suspect that both of them attempt to physicallize not only the Mosaic but also the Abrahamic covenant.



I don't want to precisely "go there". I'm trying to keep people from protecting rice bowls right now and want to focus on the nature of the Abrahamic Covenant without labelling a particular view. If the view is going to stand it needs to be that which comports to the Scriptures and doesn't serve a system.


----------



## Herald (Aug 31, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> aleksanderpolo said:
> 
> 
> > > but I was struck by how dispensational this was coming from someone who fashions himself to believe in Covenant theology.
> ...



Polo - well if you look at my response I certainly didn't "physicalize" every aspect of the Abrahamic covenant. So much for stereotypes.


----------



## aleksanderpolo (Aug 31, 2007)

Bill, I have the significance of the Abrahamic covenant sign in mind, which is tied up to the content of the Abrahamic covenant. I suppose you don't view it as mainly a sign of physical blessing (land, physical descendant) then? my apology for generalizing.


----------



## Herald (Aug 31, 2007)

aleksanderpolo said:


> Bill, I have the significance of the Abrahamic covenant sign in mind, which is tied up to the content of the Abrahamic covenant. I suppose you don't view it as mainly a sign of physical blessing (land, physical descendant) then? my apology for generalizing.



Polo - in light of Romans 4, how can I? This has been a lightening rod issue for some Baptists, but that's mostly because of dispensationalism. No need to apologize. You would be spot on in describing most dispensational Baptists.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 31, 2007)

Wow.. this sounds a bit weird. Without having listened I am suspect. Are you sure he didn't say it was partiallly fulfilled? Having not read Joshua 23 I am guessing it is fulfilment of Isreal obtaining Land by your posts. But that is not all of the promises involved. What about the fulfilment of THE SEED? Something sounds amiss. Did Gene have a guest? Was this Gene Cooks view or the guest he had? Sounds weird and limited.


----------



## CDM (Aug 31, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Acts 13:32-33,38 we preach to you the good news of *the promise made to the fathers*, that *God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus*...that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.
> 
> That God fulfilled the promises through types is not the same as fulfilling what the promises always ultimately pointed to. Thus Robertson, "The possession of the land under the old covenant was not an end in itself, but fit instead along the shadows, types, and prophecies that were characteristic of the old covenant in its presentation of redemptive truth. ...Abraham received the promise of the land but never experienced the blessing of its full possession. ...The people actually possessed the land during the period of the kings, but their possession never reached perfection." - Robertson, Israel of God.
> 
> ...







puritancovenanter said:


> Wow.. this sounds a bit weird. Without having listened I am suspect. *Are you sure he didn't say it was partiallly fulfilled*? Having not read Joshua 23 I am guessing it is fulfilment of Isreal obtaining Land by your posts. But that is not all of the promises involved. What about the fulfilment of THE SEED? Something sounds amiss. Did Gene have a guest? Was this Gene Cooks view or the guest he had? Sounds weird and limited.



Yeah, I know what you mean. I need to get the podcast and listen. It seems amateurish and too simplistic.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 31, 2007)

puritancovenanter said:


> Wow.. this sounds a bit weird. Without having listened I am suspect. Are you sure he didn't say it was partiallly fulfilled? Having not read Joshua 23 I am guessing it is fulfilment of Isreal obtaining Land by your posts. But that is not all of the promises involved. What about the fulfilment of THE SEED? Something sounds amiss. Did Gene have a guest? Was this Gene Cooks view or the guest he had? Sounds weird and limited.



Well, Jonathan (VanVos), is much more talkative on the air than I've noticed him here. I'm hoping he'll qualify. He actually stated that all promises in the Abrahamic Covenant were historically fulfilled. He was stressing the differences in the Abrahamic Covenant and they both repeatedly stated that the Abrahamic Covenant was not the New Covenant.

In my estimation, it seems inescapable that the New Covenant is the historical realization of what was promised to Abraham and that Abraham participated in the substance of the New Covenant (Christ) even as the administration of it was in types and shadows.

I kept wishing I had some sort of dictation software so I could share their remarks. I found it very confusing and eclectic.

I'm actually relieved to hear that Baptists have problems with this. I was quite afraid it was something new I had discovered about Reformed Baptist theology.

Nevertheless, let's continue to flesh this out.


----------



## Herald (Aug 31, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> puritancovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Wow.. this sounds a bit weird. Without having listened I am suspect. Are you sure he didn't say it was partiallly fulfilled? Having not read Joshua 23 I am guessing it is fulfilment of Isreal obtaining Land by your posts. But that is not all of the promises involved. What about the fulfilment of THE SEED? Something sounds amiss. Did Gene have a guest? Was this Gene Cooks view or the guest he had? Sounds weird and limited.
> ...



Rich - the problem withe "White Horse Inn" type radio programs is that they can be off the cuff. A speaker can go off on a tangent or make remarks that are not in keeping with what they actually believe. Maybe Jonathan will elaborate on his comments and provide some context?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 31, 2007)

Bill,

This was a pretty deliberate discussion. He had at least 30 minutes to clarify.


----------



## Herald (Aug 31, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Bill,
> 
> This was a pretty deliberate discussion. He had at least 30 minutes to clarify.



Just trying to be charitable. Maybe we'll hear from Jonathan...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 31, 2007)

I'm not trying to be uncharitable Bill. It's just that they talked about it for a long time. I'm planning on calling in the AM (Friday PM their time) to discuss.


----------



## Herald (Aug 31, 2007)

> I'm not trying to be uncharitable Bill.



I know . You heard the program, I didn't. All is kewl.


----------



## VanVos (Aug 31, 2007)

Okay guys, enough already. Let me break it down. The Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled *historically* in the days Joshua and was renewed/reaffirmed periodically until the arrival of Christ and the New Covenant. The New Covenant alone saves because it's in Christ's blood, the Abrahamic Covenant was not. Therefore there is a substantive difference between the two covenants. Abraham was saved by the New Covenant which the Abrahamic covenant promised. 

Btw the conversation was completely off the cuff, wasn't even scheduled

VanVos


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 31, 2007)

VanVos said:


> Okay guys, enough already. Let me break it down. The Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled *historically* in the days Joshua and was renewed/reaffirmed periodically until the arrival of Christ and the New Covenant. The New Covenant alone saves because it's in Christ's blood, the Abrahamic Covenant was not. Therefore there is a substantive difference between the two covenants. Abraham was saved by the New Covenant which the Abrahamic covenant promised.
> 
> Btw the conversation was completely off the cuff, wasn't even scheduled
> 
> VanVos



I think I see what you are saying. Check out this thread and see where I am going here.
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=24488
It is kind of a take off from this thread.
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthre...t=23640&page=3

Tell me what you think.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 31, 2007)

VanVos said:


> Okay guys, enough already. Let me break it down. The Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled *historically* in the days Joshua and was renewed/reaffirmed periodically until the arrival of Christ and the New Covenant. The New Covenant alone saves because it's in Christ's blood, the Abrahamic Covenant was not. Therefore there is a substantive difference between the two covenants. Abraham was saved by the New Covenant which the Abrahamic covenant promised.
> 
> Btw the conversation was completely off the cuff, wasn't even scheduled
> 
> VanVos



How could the Abrahamic Covenant be fulfilled *historically* in Joshua 23 when the Seed promised was Christ?

OK, not scheduled but you did have 45 minutes in which to elaborate. I still think your answers are very muddy.

You still seem to indicate that the Abrahamic Promise was completely fulfilled in Joshua 23 but Mary herself indicates that Christ's coming fulfils the Promise.



> 46 And Mary said:
> 
> 
> “ My soul magnifies the Lord,
> ...



When, precisely, is an _everlasting_ Promise fully *historically* realized?

Abraham was saved by his union with Christ as one of His elect. This was the nature of the Promise that the One He believed in and saw afar off would come. This is what He believed in the Promise. He saw the New Covenant afar off. This Promise was sealed to him in His flesh. How can you say that this was fulfilled in Joshua 23?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 31, 2007)

puritancovenanter said:


> VanVos said:
> 
> 
> > Okay guys, enough already. Let me break it down. The Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled *historically* in the days Joshua and was renewed/reaffirmed periodically until the arrival of Christ and the New Covenant. The New Covenant alone saves because it's in Christ's blood, the Abrahamic Covenant was not. Therefore there is a substantive difference between the two covenants. Abraham was saved by the New Covenant which the Abrahamic covenant promised.
> ...



That's weird that I completely missed that first thread. I think it must have been while the whole Baptism thing was in full swing. The second thread is still inadequate.

Now, I might disagree with you on the "multiple signs in Abraham" and don't want to get into that here. What I do think you still agree with is that there was an everlasting component to the Promise that was promised, in substance, to Abraham.

Jonathan has not sufficiently qualified his remarks by saying it was *historically* fulfilled in Joshua. I think his exegesis is backwards on this point as I noted. He's relying on Genesis and Joshua, ignores passages that Paul pointed out in Ezekiel and elsewhere, and neglected to fully address Galatians and Romans and the Gospels on this point.

I think it is a fanciful interpretation of Joshua 23, primarily addressed on the issue of the possession of the land, to overthrow clear didactic teaching in the New Covenant. It is using the things concealed to overthrow the things revealed.


----------



## tartanarmy (Sep 5, 2007)

Hey guys..The show Gene and Jonathon were commenting on started off with some discussion with some of my comments at their blog. I have provided a brief response below at doctrinesofgrace.net.

http://doctrinesofgrace.net/modules/weblog0/details.php?blog_id=153

Blessings 
Mark


----------



## tartanarmy (Sep 11, 2007)

I am getting somewhat paranoid in my old age, but I seem to have this habbit of kinda ending discussions in threads!

Mark


----------

