The Prosperity Gospel’s Misinterpretation of the Abrahamic Covenant Part 1

This is another entry in my responses to Jonathan Shuttlesworth’s video series “35 Questions for Those Who Hate the Prosperity Message.” Question 17 focuses on a centerpiece for Prosperity/Word of Faith Christianity, the “Blessing of Abraham,” or Abrahamic Covenant.

17. Do you believe that the blessing of Abraham is not extended to Christians and does not include financial wealth?

The arrogance and audacity a person must possess to claim that no one can answer this question is just astonishing. The Word of Faith movement has consistently misinterpreted the Abrahamic Covenant since its founders, E.W. Kenyon and Kenneth Hagin who, as has been pointed out many other times, got many of their ideas from purported private divine revelation (i.e., not from the Bible). The Abrahamic Covenant, and Paul’s reference to it in Galatians 3 is a centerpiece for Word of Faith theology, so I will be devoting a significant effort to responding to this particular question.  

In this response particular attention will be given to the biblical narrative and covenants. When reading Scripture we must read narratively and covenantally. That is, we must pay attention to where an event or book finds itself in the biblical narrative, and under which biblical covenant it was written. This is the opposite approach taken by those in the WoF/Prosperity camp; their approach is to use the New Testament texts to interpret statements in the Old Testament, rather than considering first the narrative of the Old Testament and seeing the trajectory leading to the New Testament revelation. The biblical covenants (Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, New Covenant) are the backbone structure of the biblical narrative, so a lot of attention will be given there.

From the introduction to Ramm’s classic, Protestant Biblical Interpretation: 

“…we need to know the correct method of biblical interpretation so that we do not confuse the voice of God with the voice of man. In every one of those places where our interpretation is at fault, we have made substitution of the voice of man for the voice of God. 

“Because Scripture has not been properly interpreted the following has been urged as the ‘voice of God’: in that the patriarchs practiced polygamy we may practice it; in that the Old Testament sanctioned the divine right of the king of Israel, we may sanction the divine right of Kings everywhere; because the Old Testament sanctioned the death of witches, we may put them to death; because the Old Testament declared that some plagues were from God, we may not use methods of sanitation, for that would be thwarting the purposes of God; because the Old Testament forbade usury [charging interest] in the agrarian commonwealth of Israel we may not employ it in our economic system; because the Scripture makes certain remarks about the suffering of women in childbirth we may not approve any method of easing the pain; because tithing was a law in Israel, it is a law to the Church—and incidentally, when it was so considered the people were tithed to such a point of penury [poverty]that the Church had to check it before complete economic exhaustion prevailed…. A sound hermeneutics would have prevented all of this.”

And a sound hermeneutics also prevents the heretical teachings of the Word of Faith movement. A sound hermeneutics is not one that is sound because it prevents those teachings we consider heretical, but one that clarifies as well as possible the meaning intended by the human and divine authors. In taking this approach, the teachings of these movements are prevented and shown to be false.

“Blessing of Abraham” or Abrahamic Covenant?

The reference to this as “the blessing of Abraham,” reveals an assumption that God blessed Abraham with certain things, and those who follow in the faith of Abraham are also to receive the same “blessing.” By referring to it as the Abrahamic Covenant, we view it as a formal agreement initiated by God that would culminate in Abraham’s “seed” being a blessing to the world. So, is the Abrahamic blessing something God did for Abraham, and therefore something He will do for all believers, or did God issue Abraham a promise and a missionally-minded commission to produce a nation that will bring about a salvific blessing to all nations? Is this an instance of God making a promise to a person, or making a promise to the world through a person? 

In all fairness, I suppose that’s dismissing too much of their position too quickly. There is, after all, a biblical reason to call it, “the blessing of Abraham.” The reason they use this terminology is because that’s what Paul called it in Galatians. In Galatians 3:14 Paul says Christ’s redemption was so, “the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles.”

The Word of Faith/Prosperity Gospel argument regarding the Abrahamic blessing and Galatians goes like this: Deuteronomy 28:15-68 lists many curses the Israelites were to incur for disobedience to the Law of Moses. In Galatians 3:13-14 Paul says that, “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—as it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.’”  The last sentence, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree (or pole),” is a quote from Deuteronomy 21:23. The “curse of the law,” as the argument goes, must therefore be a reference to the curses in Deuteronomy 28, many of which include poverty and sickness. Paul says in Galatians 3:14 that Christ’s redemption was, “so the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles,” and since Abraham was made wealthy by God in his lifetime, and since Christ has redeemed us from the curses of Deuteronomy 28, the “blessing of Abraham” received by believers today (although it says Gentiles, not Christians…we’ll get back to that in a subsequent post) must include financial wealth and physical health. 

In a video from Kenneth Copeland Ministries, George Pearsons claims the meaning of the Abrahamic Blessing, according to this text, is that Christ…  “took all of our sickness, he took all our disease, he took all of our pain, he took all of our suffering, he took all of our fear, he took all of our lack, insufficiency, he took all of our poverty, we’ve been redeemed from all of that. Hallelujah.”  The interpretation is that “curse of the law” in Galatians 3 refers to the specific list of curses in Deuteronomy, and that Christ’s redemption of believers today is a freedom from the curses in that specific list.

This argument only works, however, if “the curse of the law” really does refer to the specific curses of Deuteronomy 28, and not the curse of death and exclusion from the covenant and community of God. “The curse of the law” in Galatians 3 has to refer to whatever Paul intended when he penned these words. 

But before we get further into the Galatians 3 discussion, let’s establish some things that are more fundamental, like what a “blessing” actually is, and what the Abrahamic Covenant story is all about.

What is a blessing?

Sometimes biblical words are used so often we lose a real sense of what the word means. Those of us who grew up in the church have heard and said the word “blessing” so many times that I think many of us are not aware anymore of what we’re talking about. Bless and curse are antonyms, and are most easily understood in relation to each other. In the Hebrew Bible, a blessing is a good word or message spoken to someone (usually by God) that comes with the power to accomplish it. A curse, by contrast, is a bad word or message spoken to someone that also carries with it the power to accomplish it.

We see the best example of a curse (well, an attempted curse anyway) in the famous pagan cursing prophet Balaam in Numbers 22-24. Balaam was extraordinarily well known and in demand in his day, and we know that because of the Deir Alla Inscription found in the 1960’s, which is a set of wall inscriptions containing written curse oracles of, “Balaam son of Beor,” written hundreds of years after his time. That detail is not really important here. I just think it’s ridiculously cool. One day I might write an article on that and the Balaam story’s significance for understanding inspiration of Scripture. 

In any case, Balaam was commissioned by the leaders of Moab to curse Israel to remove them from their land. God interfered in Balaam’s attempts, and no matter what he tried, when he spoke his cursing oracles, which would have worked otherwise, he uttered true and theologically correct blessings for Israel. What Balaam attempted is a prime example of a biblical curse.  A blessing is the opposite of that. 

When we see God blessing animals and Adam and Eve in the opening scenes of Genesis, God is both commissioning and empowering them, and that constitutes their “blessing.” “God blessed them, saying, ‘Be fruitful and multiply,’” (Gen. 1:22) describes the blessing. Blessing and saying, “be fruitful and multiply,” is one event. The speech is the blessing, and the speech carried with it the ability to accomplish what was spoken. 

Most often the word “blessing” is used as a general term for giving good things, or encouragement, or financial benefits –the Word of Faith proponents certainly have a tendency to interpret “blessing” as meaning material provision or benefit–but it is important to recognize the true biblical meaning. A blessing is not a gift, but an empowering to pass along what has been received to others. 

When God first mentions the covenant He intended to enter into with Abram in Genesis 12:1-3, He told Abram to leave his family and country of origin, and promised to bless him and make him a blessing to all families of the world. This is arguably the first “Great Commission.” The Hebrew word behind families in verse 3 is mishpat. Ordinarily the Hebrew word that refers to nations is goy (or the plural goyim), often meaning Gentiles. However, mishpat refers to extended families, tribes, or ethic groups, so this means something beyond simply “families.” This is referring to all families, tribes, nations, etc. It is very important that we distinguish between God making a promise to a person, and God making a promise to the world through a person. The latter is what we have here in Genesis 12. 

The Abrahamic Covenant’s Role in Redemptive History

What has to be acknowledged about this Covenant is its role in God’s Redemptive-Historical program, what Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser refers to as the “Promise-Plan of God.” As he explains: 

A new progress in the divine revelation begins with Genesis 12. In this new era, there is to be a succession of individuals who now serve as God’s appointed means of extending his word of blessing to all humanity. Under God’s election for service and his call to personal and worldwide blessing, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob became hallmarks for a new phase in the accumulating divine blessings in the promise-plan of God.

The Promise-Plan of God, Pg 52

Kaiser further observes that, of the primary components of this covenant (a seed, a land, and a blessing to all nations), the primary emphasis is on the third. Five times this emphasis of worldwide blessing is mentioned to the Patriarchs; three times to Abraham (12:3, 18:18, 22:17-18), once to Isaac (26:3-4), and once to Jacob (28:13-14). “Worldwide blessing was the whole purpose of God’s promised blessing ever since the very first statement of that promise in 12:2-3.” (pg. 54) Bruce Waltke’s way of stating this emphasis is that, “God elected the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to bless the earth. They are the heirs of the promissory covenant God made with Abraham.” (An Old Testament Theology, pg 305)

The Abrahamic Covenant formalized the vague promise of redemption uttered in the Garden in Genesis 3:15, what scholars sometimes refer to as the proto evangelium, or “first gospel.” 

And I will put enmity between you and the woman,

And between your seed and her seed;

He shall bruise you on the head,

And you shall bruise him on the heel.

The reason God is making a promise to Abram about blessing all families of the earth through innumerable decedents is because this promise is THE Promise, the promise to redeem and restore what was lost to sin in the garden. This is the promise of the Messiah, a Savior for the world. When Jesus died and rose from the dead He fulfilled the Abrahamic Covenant. The New Covenant in Christ’s blood is the Abrahamic Covenant fulfilled (fulfilled in part; there are elements that are yet to be fulfilled, as I covered in Part 1) .

Abraham’s covenant is a long-term promise that guarantees the historical trajectory that will lead, in increasing concentric circles from his person working outward, to the Messiah, to redemption, to the defeat of death, the removal of sin and sickness, and to perfect union between the Bride and Groom, the Church and Christ. 

When God “cut” the covenant with Abraham, He put the man to sleep and carried out the roles of both parties in the ceremony (Gen. 15:8-21). That means that the Abrahamic Covenant is a unilateral covenant wherein God Himself makes and guarantees all parts by fulfilling both parties’ sides of the agreement. That means this covenant is a guarantee, as certain as if already fulfilled, because God Himself will do it. This is why, when His people are unfaithful, deserving a punishment of death, the death was carried out on the Son. 

Paul interprets Christ’s New Covenant as a fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant means that Jews and Gentiles alike will have equal access to God through faith because Abraham was justified by faith before the Law or circumcision, yet his family lineage is the Jewish nation who had the Law and circumcision. In other words, The Abrahamic Covenant applies to Jews (because Abraham’s descendants were the Jewish nation) and to Gentiles (because he was justified by faith long before the Law).

Paul spends a fair bit of Romans discussing Abraham’s relationship with God. In Romans 4:13 says “For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants, that he would be heir of the world, was not through the law, but through the righteousness by faith.” Back in Genesis 15 just prior to God making the covenant with Abram, God tells him he will have innumerable descendants, and in verse 6 it says “Abram believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Abram was thereby justified, or declared righteous by and before God, on the basis of faith. The word faith in this context means trust. Abraham trusted God, or as Paul puts it in Romans 4:21, “being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform.” 

Paul interprets the Abrahamic Covenant as a promise that he and his descendants would be the heir of the world. That sounds very similar to Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:5, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” Paul specifies that the promise that to be the heir of the world was “through the righteousness by faith.” Again, this is clearly a long-term promise of historical trajectory. Abraham would be the father of those who inherit the world in Christ by their union with Him. If the “Abrahamic blessing,” is a temporal promise regarding physical life experience, then why are not all who believe in Christ literally owners of the world now? It makes far more sense to interpret this in line with what Jesus says in Revelation 3:21: “He who overcomes, I will grant him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.” 

While this is only part 1 of our consideration of the Abrahamic Covenant’s misinterpretation by this movement, I’ll say this. It should already be clear that viewing this enormously important element of the biblical narrative as meaning God promises us health and wealth is amazingly short-sighted, based on preconceived notions and a failure to consider the relevant narrative and theological contexts. Much, much more to come. We haven’t really gotten to the good stuff yet.

Part 2 of this Abrahamic Covenant series will look more closely at the role of the Abrahamic Covenant in the narrative structure and plot of Genesis, and in the overarching narrative of the Bible.