We now turn to the Abrahamic covenant to further explore what this biblical idea of covenant consists of. Murray notes two special features in the Abrahamic covenant that was not present in the post-diluvian Noahic covenant. These are: 1) God promises Abraham that he will inherit Canaan (Gn. 15:8-18), 2) there is reference to keeping and breaking the covenant (Gn. 17:9, 10, 14).
God’s Promise
Murray makes the following observations that are related to this particular promise, that may help define covenant.
- Covenant is intimate. The covenant is about union and communion with God, it is relational.
- Covenant is monergistic. Again, we see God being the initiator of the covenant and fulfiller of it as well. God is the one who passes through the divided halves of the animals. It is God who puts His name on the line.
Conditions in Covenant?
Abraham’s covenant is different than Noah’s in that Abraham’s concerns a relationship with God, whereas Noah’s is not. Thus, the keeping of the covenant is resultant from the intimacy of the Abrahmic covenant. The closer the relationship, the more obligation there is to obey the commands of God. There is an element of mutuality in the covenant because fellowship requires mutuality. Abraham’s obedience is the condition for the inheritance. However, we should not misconstrue this idea of conditionality as conditions for the initiation of covenant. Covenant is still a divine bestowal of grace, monergistic in its inherent character. The “continued enjoyment of this grace and of the relation established” is only the result of fulfilled conditions, but the conditions are not conditions of the bestowal. In other words, covenant-keeping only comes into play after the covenant is established by God’s grace.
Therefore, covenant-keeping is not failure to keep one’s side of the agreement. Covenant-keeping is in regards to being faithful to grace already bestowed. Murray writes, “by breaking the covenant what is broken is not the condition of bestowal but the condition of consummated fruition.”
Murray ends this examination of the Abrahamic with a sharp observation. The discrimination involved in this covenant (unlike the Noahic covenant which blesses the entire world), not only emphasizes God’s sovereign grace, but also requires covenant-keeping. Indiscriminate covenants cannot be broken or kept, but particular ones can. So the character of the Abrahamic covenant, being particularly bestowed on Abraham, emphasizes the necessity of covenant-keeping for promise-fulfillment.
A Quick Personal Note
I find this has great bearing on the covenant we now have with God through Christ’s atonement. We do indeed have a relational covenant, one that is dispensed through God’s grace alone to the elect. And thus we seek to obey God’s commandments, not as a condition to attain entry into God’s covenant, but as a response to grace bestowed. I may be jumping the gun on this, since Murray will eventually deal with the new covenant in Christ, but I just thought it was an excellent illustration (although perhaps oversimplified) of some mechanics between law and grace.
