Genesis 15: God passing through the carcasses

[Polanus1561]

I see the ceremony saying that God is swearing that May He be like these carcasses if the Abrahamic promises not come true.

Well, they did in the end. Which of course is wonderful.

What I do not get is why most people see it as a picture of the cross? Who does Jesus represent? He cannot represent Abraham of course since this was an unconditional promise to him.

And he does not need to represent God because.. God fulfilled the covenant promises and was not a covenant breaker. Jesus did not come to fulfill a self-maledictory oath of God did He?

So, really, there is no need to think of it as a picture of the cross. Unless, Abraham had a role to achieve the promises of the earlier part of the chapter, i.e, he didn't and so he was a covenant breaker and Christ had to come in to bear that for him? But Abraham's role in this chapter was to simply believe right? (v.6) The ceremony was so that Abraham could be further assured (v.8).

 

[iainduguid]

And he does not need to represent God because.. God fulfilled the covenant promises and was not a covenant breaker. Jesus did not come to fulfill a self-maledictory oath of God did He?

Surely this is the whole point of the cross: God in Christ, the perfect covenant keeper (and new Israel), took the curse that we deserved as covenant breakers, so that we might receive the blessing that Christ merited for his perfect righteousness. 2 Cor. 5:17

 

[Polanus1561]

Morning Dr Duguid, (I do have your book on Living in the Gap..) I can affirm what you say of course in your above post, but I do not see the link to Gen 15. You have to walk me through because all I see in Gen 15 is God graciously telling Abraham that these promises will be fulfilled (in response to v.8) by a gracious display of an oath. Unless one posits that there were actually two parties walking between the pieces (God and the coming Mediator).

You write, " But in God’s covenant with Abram, only one of the parties passed between the pieces: God himself in the form of a blazing, smoking torch (v. 17). That foreshadowed the pillars of cloud and fire on Mount Sinai. The one who would give the law was here showing that grace comes first, for this was a totally one-sided covenant. It depended entirely on God for its fulfillment. Do you see how amazing this was? God, the ever-living One, was saying, “I would rather be torn apart than see my relationship with humanity broken, the relationship that I have promised to establish through Abram’s descendant.”"

I affirm the above, the covenant and ceremony is of grace! but my problem is I cannot see the transition from the above to how it foreshadows the cross.

or to address my dilemma in another way, would you grant that it is understandable how one would not see the cross in this; that this view (my view) is feasible. I would be satisfied with that as an answer to my dilemma!

Thank you for your time Dr Duguid.

 

[greenbaggins]

John, I will take a stab at it. The covenantal curse of Genesis 15 has its main message death for the covenant breaker. It would be easy to get fixated on the "split in half" part to the exclusion of a simple recognition that being split in half means dying. The two halves are a very vivid way of portraying the self-maledictory oath, but what is really being said is, "May death find me if I break this oath." At the cross, Jesus was saying, "Death has found me because you broke this oath, and I am taking the penalty for it instead of you." Another way it foreshadows the cross (at least, the way I think about it), is that God took on Himself both sides of covenant keeping. Normally, of course, both parties walked in between the pieces. However, in this instance, only God went between the pieces. This foreshadows the grace of the cross in that Jesus did the obedience required, but He also took the curse for our disobedience, thus taking on Himself both sides of the covenant, the obedience and the curse, so that our disobedience might be forgiven, and blessing might come our way through faith.

 

[Polanus1561]

John, I will take a stab at it. The covenantal curse of Genesis 15 has its main message death for the covenant breaker. It would be easy to get fixated on the "split in half" part to the exclusion of a simple recognition that being split in half means dying. The two halves are a very vivid way of portraying the self-maledictory oath, but what is really being said is, "May death find me if I break this oath." At the cross, Jesus was saying, "Death has found me because you broke this oath, and I am taking the penalty for it instead of you." Another way it foreshadows the cross (at least, the way I think about it), is that God took on Himself both sides of covenant keeping. Normally, of course, both parties walked in between the pieces. However, in this instance, only God went between the pieces. This foreshadows the grace of the cross in that Jesus did the obedience required, but He also took the curse for our disobedience, thus taking on Himself both sides of the covenant, the obedience and the curse, so that our disobedience might be forgiven, and blessing might come our way through faith.

Hi Rev Keister,

1. The covenant breaker who Jesus stood in place of was Abraham? My crux is that Abraham did not take up the oath, that was the point of the narrative as he was asleep, it was utterly a one-sided, one party (God) oath. Unless I am missing something.

2. Further, and further in your point, I do not see that Gen 15 had the Dt 27 covenant breaking/obedience element. I prefer the simpler reading of Gen 15 as simply, God will accomplish the covenant of grace because what He promises will surely come to pass as surely as He shall not die.
The element of curse strictly in Gen 15 finds no historical reality (in the cross), but it was just to show the impossibility that the promises would not come. The idea of Jesus as in the place of covenant breakers would find place in other places, not in Gen 15.

 

[greenbaggins]

John, I think you need to connect Gen 15 and Gen 17 more closely in your mind. Contrary to Paul Williamson, they are not two different covenants. Rather, they are an illustration that the covenant of grace is unilateral in its initiation, but bilateral in its working out, though the exact nature of its bilateralness needs to be carefully defined. One can ask this question to get at the issue as well: why would there need to be any passing between the pieces at all if sin were not being addressed? The Abrahamic covenant is completely unnecessary if sin were not in the world. The whole point of the covenant God makes with Abraham is to deal with the sin problem.

 

[Polanus1561]

John, I think you need to connect Gen 15 and Gen 17 more closely in your mind. Contrary to Paul Williamson, they are not two different covenants. Rather, they are an illustration that the covenant of grace is unilateral in its initiation, but bilateral in its working out, though the exact nature of its bilateralness needs to be carefully defined. One can ask this question to get at the issue as well: why would there need to be any passing between the pieces at all if sin were not being addressed? The Abrahamic covenant is completely unnecessary if sin were not in the world. The whole point of the covenant God makes with Abraham is to deal with the sin problem.

Good point, will sit on that