“Behold, though Moses gave the law, yet he gave no man grace to do it or to understand it aright, or wrote it in any man’s heart, to consent that it was good, and to wish after power to fulfil it. But Christ giveth grace to do it, and to understand it aright, and writeth it with his holy Spirit in the tables of the hearts of men, and maketh it a true thing there, and none hypocrisy.

The law, truly understood, is those fiery serpents that stung the children of Israel with present death. But Christ is the brazen serpent, on whom whosoever, being stung with conscience of sin, and looketh with a sure faith, is healed immediately of that stinging, and saved from the pains and sorrows of hell.”

William Tyndale, “An Exposition Upon the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Chapters of Matthew,” in The Works of the English Reformers: William Tyndale and John Frith, ed. Thomas Russell (London: Ebenezer Palmer, 1831), 2:229

I just came across again these paragraphs written by Matthew Henry of his father Philip and was struck once again by the godliness and biblical wisdom of this counsel. This is the counsel of a man who lived for many years under a persecuting government.

And here it may be very pertinent to observe, how industrious Mr. Henry was at this time, when he and his friends suffered such hard things from the government, to preserve and promote a good affection to the government notwithstanding. It was commonly charged at that time upon the nonconformists in general, especially from the pulpits, that they were all a factious and turbulent people, as was said of old,—Ezra, iv. 15,—hurtful to kings and provinces; that their meetings were for the sowing of sedition and discontents, and the like; and there is some reason to think, that one thing intended by the hardships put upon them, was to drive them to this; there is a way of making a wise man mad. But how peaceably they carried themselves, is manifest to God, and in the consciences of many. For an instance of it, it will not be amiss to give some account of a sermon, which Mr. Henry preached in some very private meetings, such as were called seditious conventicles, in the year 1669, when it was a day of treading down, and of perplexity; it was on that text, Psalm, xxxv. 20. Against them that are quiet in the land. Whence (not to curry favour with rulers, for whatever the sermon was, the very preaching of it had been known, must have been severely punished, but out of conscience towards God) he taught his friends this doctrine,—That it is the character of the people of God, that they are a quiet people in the land. ‘This quietness he described to be an orderly, peaceable subjection to governors and government in the Lord. We must maintain a reverent esteem of them, and of their authority, in opposition to despising dominion, 2 Peter, ii. 10; we must be meek, under severe commands, and burdensome impositions, not murmuring and complaining, as the Israelites against Moses and Aaron; but take them up as our cross in our way, and bear them as we do foul weather. We must not speak evil of dignities, Jude, viii. nor revile the gods, Exodus, xxii. 28. Paul checked himself for this, Acts xxiii. 5. ἐκ ἤθειν; I did not consider it, if I had, I would not have said so. We must not traduce the government, as Absalom did David’s, 2 Samuel, xv. 3. Great care is to be taken how we speak of the faults of any, especially of rulers, Ecclesiastes, x. 20.—The people of God do make the word of God their rule, and by that they are taught. (1,) That the magistracy is God’s ordinance, and magistrates God’s ministers; that by him kings reign, and the powers that be are ordained of him. (2,) That they, as well as others, are to have their dues, honour, and fear, and tribute. (3,) That their lawful commands are to be obeyed, and that readily and cheerfully, Titus, iii. 1. (4,) That the penalties inflicted for not obeying unlawful commands, are patiently to be undergone. This is the rule, and as many as walk according to this rule, Peace shall be upon them, and there can be no danger of their unpeaceableness. They are taught to pray for kings and all in authority, 1 Timothy, ii. 1, 2, and God forbid we should do otherwise: yea, though they persecute, Jeremiah, xxix. 7. Peaceable prayers bespeak a peaceable people, Psalm, cix. 4. If some professing religion have been unquiet, their unquietness hath given the lie to their profession, Jude, viii. 11, 12. Quietness is our badge, Colossians, iii. 12. It will be our strength, Isaiah, xxx. 7, 15. Our rejoicing in the day of evil, Jeremiah, xviii. 18: it is pleasing to God, 1 Timothy, ii. 2, 3: it may work upon others, 1 Peter, ii. 12, 13. the means he prescribed for the keeping of us quiet, were to get our hearts filled with // the knowledge and belief of these two things. 1. That the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, Job, xviii. 36; many have thought otherwise, and it made them unquiet. 2. That the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God, James, i. 20; he needs not our sin to bring to pass his own counsel. We must mortify unquietness in the causes of it, James, iv. 1: we must always remember the oath of God, Ecclesiastes, viii. 2: the oath of allegiance is an oath of quietness. And we must beware of the company and converse of those that are unquiet. Proverbs, xxii. 24, 25. Though deceitful matters be devised, yet we must be quiet still; nay, be so much the more quiet.’

I have been thus large in gathering these hints out of that sermon, (which he took all occasions in other sermons to inculcate, as all his brethren likewise did,) that if possible it may be a conviction to the present generation; or, however, may be a witness in time to come, that the nonconformist ministers were not enemies to Caesar, nor troublers of the land; nor their meetings any way tending to the disturbance of the publick peace, but purely designed to help to repair the decays of christian piety.

Matthew Henry and J. B. Williams, The Life of the Rev. Philip Henry, rev. ed. (1828; repr., Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1974), 112-14.

Possible Positions

1. This law applies to foreign slaves who have fled to Israel (Gill, Craigie; Merrill; McConville; Block).
a. The statement in verse 17 that indicate that the escaped slave “shall dwell with you, in your midst,” indicates that a foreign slave who has come to Israel is in view (Cragie 300; McConville, 351; cf. Poole, 381).
b. ANE treaties exist which speak of repatriating slaves; in not permitting this Israel’s law is distinctive (Merrill 312; McConville; 351; Block 544).
c. “The word [עֶבֶד] is avoided in the Deuteronomic law of slave release up to the point at which the debt slave voluntarily accepts permanent slave status (15:17). For this reason the refugee is more likely to be a foreigner than an Israelite” (McConville 351).
d. The previous context dealt with “the topic of military campaigns” and “the plight of foreign slaves may have arisen in the light of this context more than at any other period” (Woods, 245).
e. This is how the ancient Jewish writers understood it (Gill, 100)

2. This law applies to perpetual slaves within Israel (foreigners enslaved within Israel and Israelites who had agreed to permanent servitude) (Matthews, Chavalas, Walton)
a. Debt slaves served for a term of six years (and presumably did not, therefore, have a reason to run away) (Matthews, Chavalas, Walton, s.v. Dt. 23:15-16).

3. This law applies to all slaves who have escaped from their masters (Poole; Wright)
a. The text itself does not limit the law to foreign slaves (Wright, 249).
b. The option to choose any place in Israel does not necessitate that a foreign slave is in view. Rather, a benefit is being extended “on behalf of the poor and the weak” (Wright, 250).
c. The existence of this law would testify that slavery in Israel was to be of such a nature that no slave would want to run away and (as other passages indicate) that some would desire to remain in that condition (Wright, 250).

Rejected Positions

1. This law applies to foreign slaves who have fled to Israel.
a. Argument 1c is the strongest argument in favor of position 1. However, an Israelite-born escaped slave would have also needed a guarantee of a place to live. Given his socially weak condition, the protections of this law make good sense for Israelite-born slaves as well.
b. McConville and Block cite not only treaties that deal with this issue but also laws; this law could deal with both situations (McConville, 351; Block, 543-44). This point therefore actually supports view 3.
c. I don’t understand McConville’s reasoning in point 1.c. above.
d. The contextual connection is not clear. These verses could just as likely be connected with what follows.
e. The testimony of ancient Jewish writers gives weight to position 1, but it cannot be decisive.

2. This law applies to perpetual slaves within Israel (foreigners enslaved within Israel and Israelites who had agreed to permanent servitude)
a. There is no exclusion in the text of debt slaves, and six years with a cruel and wicked master would have been a long time.

Accepted Position

3. This law applies to all slaves who have escaped from their masters (Poole; Wright)
a. The decisive factor in favor of position 3 is that the law itself does not specify that it is limited to foreign slaves
b. This law would put pressure on the system of slavery in Israel to be of such a nature that it would be beneficial to the slave. Though it could be abused, it would place strong pressure on Israelite society for justice in this area.
c. McConville (who takes position 1) notes that the oppression forbidden in v. 17 “is like the oppression of the weak Israelites by the rich and powerful (all its uses, except one, Is. 49:26, relate to oppression of Israelites by Israelites…).” This does not prove that Israelite slaves are in view, but it testifies to the likelihood of this possibility.
d. The fact that ANE cultures had both treaties that dealt with foreign runaway slaves and laws that dealt with internal runaway slaves may favor seeing this law as dealing with both.

Bibliography: Block, NIVAC; Cragie, NICOT; Gill, An Exposition of the Old Testament, vol. 2; Matthews, Chavalas, and Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary; McConville, AOTC; Merrill, NAC; Poole, Annotations upon the Holy Bible, vol. 1; Woods, TOTC; Wright, NIBC.

I recently left a lengthy comment at a friend’s website, where he was commenting on D. A. Carson’s book about gender-neutral Bible translations. My comment was lengthy enough that I thought worth reposting here as a blog post.

First, the Bible was not written in a gender-neutral milieu, and making it gender-neutral may distort a proper understanding of the Bible in its world. This is an observation that David Clines, who I think would be happy to be called a feminist, made in 1989:

I have not managed to use inclusive language in the translation; committed though I am to its use in my own writing—and it is employed throughout the commentary proper—it is not always possible, in my experience, to conform the writing of another person to a gender-free style. For example, in the depictions of the “wicked man” in chap. 18, there is no reason to think that the words should refer only to males; on the other hand, there is no reason to doubt that the author so intended. One option that I have not taken is to convert all the references to the “wicked man” into plurals, for the poetic image of the evildoer would be weakened if I did so. [To the NIV 2011’s credit, they also leave the “wicked man” in Job 18.]

David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, vol. 17, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1989), xxxi.

Robert Yarbrough, in his BECNT commentary on the Johannine epistles, draws attention to this (and several other problems) that emerge in the attempt for gender-neutrality:

“Edwards 1996: 91-92 questions the wisdom of translating John’s ἀδελφός as ‘brother and sister’ or other generic label (cf. NRSV, NLT; cf. also English translations of Strecker 1996: 47 and Schnackenburg 1992: 82). CEV reads, “If we claim to be in the light and hate someone.” TNIV opts for ‘those who claim to be in the light but hate a fellow believer,’ thus avoiding ‘brother’ but also losing the individual focus of the assertion by changing the particular ‘one who says’ into an unspecified collection of persons. The original spotlight an arrogant individual (ὀ λέγων), not an impersonal group. (Paul’s periphrastic rendering of Ps. 32:1-2 in Rom. 4:7 is reasonable and legitimate, but hardly justifies a translation philosophy that would render Ps. 32:1-2 plural or Rom. 4:7 singular.) The words of Porter 1989: 33-34 on the CEV and gender language come to mind: ‘At points the biblical text may well be considered hopelessly insensitive in matters of gender, but I cam convinced that it is in the best interests of making the meaning of the original text clear if the clear meaning that exists is in fact obscured.’”

Robert Yarbrough, 1-3 John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 103, n. 15.

Second, part of the narrative of the Bible is that all humanity was initially represented by the man, Adam, and that all of the redeemed are represented by the Man, Jesus. There is something about male representation that’s part of the created order and part of the way the Bible regularly speaks.  There is something significant going on in naming the first man “Man” and in noting that God created “man” male and female. There is so much seminal theology in Genesis 1-3, that not seeing that as theologically significant would be odd. It would be doubly odd given the representative role that Adam played. Likewise, when Christ came as a man, he came as a male human; I don’t think he could have come as a female human to represent redeemed humanity given the creation order God established. Nor do is this representative function limited to Adam and Christ. Husbands and fathers have representative roles in the family, pastors/elders have representative roles in the church, etc. In personal writing, I think it is fine to vary writing and not insist on always using the generic “man.” However, style guides the prohibit the use of the generic “man” are, I think, contrary to a biblical worldview on that point. With regard to Bible translation, I don’t think that we fully understand the impact on the meaning of Scripture when we seek to move it in a gender-neutral direction.

Third, I think the Bible often uses gendered-imagery purposefully, and we misunderstand the imagery by making it gender-neutral:

The current tendency, influenced by the pressure of gender-inclusive language, to refer to believers as ‘sons and daughters’ of God is misleading, blurs this vital truth, and has the effect of blunting the church’s appreciation of what union with Christ entails. Jesus Christ is the Son of the Father, and is so eternally; that is his name and that is his status. It is not a sexual term, for God is not a sexual being. By referring to Christian believers as ‘sons,’ the NT is not, under the influence of patriarchal culture, bypassing half the human race. Instead, it is pointing to our shared status with the Son of the Father, in and by the Holy Spirit. The introduction of talk of ‘daughters’ obscures this point, placed at the hub of the Christian life.

Robert Letham, Union with Christ (P&R, 2011), 54, n. 19.

“So the thing to notice, especially in Paul’s treatment, is not an ostensible chauvinism in identifying the people of God as “sons” rather than “sons and daughters,” but the radical discontinuity with both Judaism and Hellenism in identifying daughters and slaves as sons—that is, the legal heirs of the estate. In the process, the whole notion of who constitutes the right to “property” is subverted, at least in the communion of saints.”

Michael S. Horton, Covenant and Salvation, 243.

“As I explained in the introduction, the gender-specific ‘sons/sonship’ is used here and elsewhere in the commentary in order to preserve the first-century concept of inheritance (almost always involving male offspring) and the relationship between the ‘sons’ and the ‘Son’ (4:5-6). The term refers, of course, to male and female believers equally.”

Moo, Galatians, BECNT, 196, n. 1.

“Before we turn to the five huiothesian texts that elucidate Paul’s sons-in-the-Son gospel, an important contemporary contextual comment is in order. As does modern culture at large, modern academia prefers to neutralize gender whenever possible. It might seem preferable to employ “adopted child” or some other gender-neutral formulation in the translation and derivations of huiothesia. As noted already, however, the Greek term for “adoption,” huiothesia, contains the masculine term huios. While in some cases gender-neutral terms may properly convey the meaning and organic (intracanonical) theology in biblical revelation, the use of huiothesia is generally not one of those cases.
Because the shared etymology between huios and huiothesia aligns the redeemed sons of God with the redeeming Son of God, opting for a gender-neutral term in English muddles this verbally poignant Son/sons solidarity. Since Christ is not teknon, the chosen conception for filial grace is not teknothesia. To preserve this sons-in-the-Son solidarity that shapes Pauline theology, I will normally use the word son, while celebrating how the Pauline adoption concept unambiguously indicates privilege for both male and female (2 Cor. 6:18; cf. Gal. 3:25—27). In fact, at times Paul speaks of the huioi as tekna (e.g., Rom. 8:15—17); we can be assured that Paul’s choice of huiothesia and huioi representing both sexes perpetuates no gender bias and divulges no misogyny. With its etymological composition, huiothesia prominently serves his pervasive in Christ soteriology in a way that should govern our understanding of both tekna and huioi as they reference the redeemed people of God.”

David B. Garner, Sons in the Son: The Riches and Reach of Adoption in Christ (P&R, 2016), 52.

Despite Moo’s comment in his Galatians commentary, the NIV 2011, though translating “sonship” in 4:5 then translates huios as “child” in 4:6-7.

Mark Dever is correct that something is lost with NIV 2011’s avoidance of “one new man” in Eph. 2:15 by the move to “humanity.” Humanity is an abstraction. Man is a concrete, inclusive image that likely ties into the body imagery and into the representative theology the first Adam and the last Adam.

It is worth noting that God gave us gendered imagery with “sonship/sons”, and “man,” just as he gave us gendered imagery in describing the church as the bride of Christ.

Here are a few other specific examples:

The gender-neutral translation of כָּל־אִישׁ (kol-ish) (v. 13) as “anyone” (e.g., NRSV) [also NIV 2011] is inappropriate since in ancient Israel only men were allowed to make sacrifices. Tabernacle and temple worship was a male privilege and duty.

Harry A. Hoffner Jr., 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. H. Wayne House and William Barrick, Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 1 Sa 2:13b–14a.

In Job 14:1, the NIV 2011 obscures the references to Adam by translating adam as “Mortals” rather than “Man.” This translation allowed the NIV translators to transform all of the singular pronouns (“he,” “him,” etc.) into plurals, which further obscures the fact that the man being referred to is a stand in for Job. This is most problematic in the final verse of the chapter where the loneliness and isolation of this man is portrayed: “He feels but the pain of his own body and mourns only for himself” (NIV 1984). The isolation doesn’t come through with the plural pronouns: “They feel but the pain of their own bodies and mourn only for themselves” (NIV 2011).

To the NIV 2011’s credit, the revised some of these issues as they appeared in the TNIV. For instance, the TNIV translated Lam. 3:1, “I am the one who has seen affliction,” and the NIV 2011 reverted to “I am the man who has seen affliction.” This reversion is correct as Berlin’s comments demonstrate:

The speaker is not Jerusalem, or her people, or a poet observing Jerusalem and her people. Rather, the chapter gives voice to a lone male, speaking in the first person about what he has seen and felt and what sense he can make of it. Because the first-person speaker announces himself so forcefully in his maleness (geber), many interpreters have puzzled over who this geber, this speaking voice in chapter 3, represents.
. . . . . . . . . .
“The male voice is a counterpart to the female voice of the city in chapter 1. Zion, personified as a woman, speaks in chapter 1, and here a male voice also speaking in the first person echoes, form a different perspective, the experience of destruction and exile. Just as the imagery in chapter 1 was feminine–the widow, the unfaithful wife, the raped woman–so here the imagery seems more masculine, invoking the physical violence against the male body associated with war and exile.

Adele Berlin, Lamentations, OTL (Louisville: WJK, 2002), 84. (On page 88 Berlin specifically calls out “Gender-neutral translations, like NRSV.”)

I wouldn’t deny that language is changing. but when it comes to Bible translation and gendered language, I think we need to recognize that we are translating an ancient text with a different worldview with regard to gender than our modern American or European worldview regarding gender. I think it is therefore safest to stick closest to the way the Bible itself uses gendered language as long as our language permits it. Further, I think we should recognize the worldview motivations behind at least some of the move toward gender-neutral language. Insofar as the worldviews are contrary to the biblical worldview, and insofar as adopting the changes to language makes Bible translation more difficult, I think Christians should be slow to adopt them.

In the most recent issue of BJU Seminary’s Journal of Biblical Theology and Worldview, I have an article that evaluates David VanDrunen’s two kingdoms, natural law approach to culture by examining his understanding of the biblical covenants. While appreciative of many of VanDrunen’s insights, it finds that flaws in his understanding of the covenants renders his two kingdoms theology untenable.

Michael Brendan Dougherty notes that Trumpism poses a threat to religious conservatives.

Donald Trump has endorsed New York congresswoman Elise Stefanik to replace Liz Cheney as chair of the House Republican caucus…. She also voted for the Equality Act, a sweeping piece of legislation that would dramatically weaken religious-liberty protections in the face of LGBT claims….[T]here has always been another side to the Trumpian coin. Trump was always stronger among voters who identified as non-church-going Evangelicals. And there are political figures such as Stefanik who like Trump precisely because he will wave the rainbow flag and declare himself the “most pro-gay president” ever. They like him because his nationalist culture-warring can act as a replacement for the religious culture war…. We may really see this tested in a candidacy such as Caitlyn Jenner’s in California. Jenner is being advised by people from Trump’s orbit.

My greatest concern is not these kinds of political losses, though I do not think that they are insignificant. My concern is with the way Trumpism has led many Christians to violate the ninth commandment in support of a president who was breaking the eighth commandment. However, it does show that compromising one’s integrity to gain political influence often results in the loss of the very goals the Christian was after in the first place.

I recently spoke with Eric Newton about Herman Bavinck on the Theologically Speaking podcast. I enjoy listening to this podcast. Colleagues of mine have recently been on to speak about biblical worldview and John Owen and apologetics. I especially benefited from a recent episode on prayer.

[P]rogressive dispensationalists have moved toward answering the classic covenantal objection as to how one can distinguish between national Israel and the nations, given Jesus’ messianic status as simultaneously the promised Israelite Messiah and the head of the one new humanity. Their view is not inconsistent with a holistic, cosmic salvation. Indeed, it would appear that the more progressive strains of dispensationalism seek to share the holistic soteriology of Ladd’s Kingdom theology. Indeed, the claim to hold an even more ‘holistic’ salvation than Ladd because they see no biblical grounding to translate the Old Testament national/political promises into spiritual blessings of the present age. At the same time, the new dispensationalists argue that salvific equality does not mean equality of roles, an understanding shared by their conservative interlocutors on the question of male/female relations. After all, some progressives argue, salvific equality in Christ does not rule out differing roles for national groups, even as Galatians 3:28 does not rule out complementary roles for men and women, who also enjoy salvific equality in Christ. But this argument falls short also, in that it fails to distinguish between the creation order and the specific place of Israel in redemptive history. After all, human beings are created male and female—and that pronounced ‘good’—but are human beings created Jew and Gentile from the beginning? The answer is obviously no, since the biblical storyline begins with one man and one woman—from whom all nations spring (Acts 17:26). The Galatians 3:28 text, when seen through the lens of male/female complementarity, actually undermines the dispensationalist argument at this point. For Paul, there is ‘no male or female,’ just as there is no ‘Jew or Greek.’ Why? It is because all Christians are, not ‘sons and daughters of God, but ‘sons of God.’ In accordance with the laws of biblical patriarchy, all Christians (male and female) receive a common inheritance because they are ‘in Christ,’ who is the Jewish royal firstborn son who receives all these blessings. Indeed Galatians 3:28 does not establish androgyny—or even egalitarian gender roles. But it does speak to the key issue in the debate over the future of Israel, namely, who will inherit the promises made to the Israel of God?”

Russell D. Moore, The Kingdom of Christ (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004), 116-17.

Moore makes two errors here.

First, he reads the creation order too narrowly. As Christopher Wright and Daniel Strange both argue nations are indeed part of God’s created order and are part of the plan of redemption. (Neither of these men is a dispensationalist.)

Although we first meet the nations in the context of the fallenness and arrogance of humanity even after the flood, the Bible does not imply that ethnic or national diversity is in itself sinful or the product of the Fall—even if the deleterious effects of strife among nations certainly are. Rather, nations are simply ‘there’ as a given part of the human race as God created it to be. God’s rule over the nations, amply affirmed throughout the Old Testament, is simply a function of the fact that he created them in the first place. Speaking as a Jew to Gentiles in an evangelistic context, Paul takes for granted the diversity of nations within the unity of humanity and attributes it to the Creator and to his world-governing providence. ‘Form one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times et for them and the exact places where they should live’ (Acts 17:26).

Although Paul goes on to quote from Greek writers, his language in this verse is drawn from the Old Testament, for the ancient song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32:

When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, / when he divided all mankind, / he set up boundaries for the peoples. (Deut 32:8)

National distinctives, then, are part of the kaleidoscopic diversity of creation at the human level, analogous to the wonderful prodigality of biodiversity at every other level of God’s creation

Furthermore, the eschatological vision of redeemed humanity in the new creation points to the same truth. The inhabitants of the new creation are not portrayed as a homogenized mass or as a single global culture. Rather they will display the continuing glorious diversity of the human race through history: People of every tribe and language and people and nation will bring their wealth and their praises into the city of God (Rev 7:9; 21:24-26).

Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006.

Kreitzer, along with a number of other recent commentators, takes both the table of nations and Babel to be a single literary unity and ordered dischronologically. Although there are various strands of structural and literary evidence for such a reverse (or better, interspersed) chronological order, for Kreitzer such an order is theologically important, for it gives justification to one of his major contentions throughout his study that ethno-linguistic diversity is itself a naturally occurring creational ordinance and blessing, rather than a judgment and curse, a ‘negative’ impression that would be created if the Babel pericope had come first in the narrative.

Daniel Strange, Their Rock is Not Like Our Rock: A Theology of Religions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 124.

Note especially that though Moore quotes Acts 17:26, it actually disproves the point he is trying to make from it. The nations are all “made” by God.

Second, Moore errs in the way he sees all promises fulfilled in Christ. Israel’s promises are ultimately fulfilled in Christ as the Davidic Messiah. The Bible describes this fulfillment in terms of the Davidic Messiah extending his rule from the promised land over the entire earth. The benefits of the land promises are therefore extended to the Gentiles by virtue of the Davidic Messiah’s rule over the entire earth, but this is not done in such a way that the specific land promises to Israel are negated.

The progressive dispensationalist argumentation here holds together all the relevant biblical data better than all the alternatives.