Brian – Page 35

Distinguishing the Kingdom Jesus Announced and the Sovereign Reign of God over All

Progressive Covenantalism, Typology, and the Land Promise

Was the Promised Land a Type of the New Creation?

How Do OT Promises and Typology Relate to Each Other?

The Importance of Nations in Biblical Theology

April 18, 2017 by Brian

Retracing the Argument

Typology is at the heart of Progressive Covenantalism’s position that the land promises are fulfilled in the new earth for all of God’s people with no specific fulfillment for Israel in a particular land. In this view, the land of Israel is a type. The type gives way to the reality of the new earth.

Previous posts have noted two problems with Progressive Covenantalism’s typological reasoning. First, it is not accurate to say that the land of Israel is a type. It was only a type at certain points in history. Second, God promised the land to Israel and promises entail obligations. God must fulfill his promise to Israel.

In response to this second problem, Progressive Covenantalists would likely respond that Israel itself is a type that is fulfilled in Christ. Thus the promise is not fulfilled for national Israel but for Christ. This is dubious reasoning because of the nature of a promise. If someone promised us something and then fulfilled the promise for someone else, claiming that we were merely standing in as a symbol for the other person, we would rightly claim to be wronged. Second, even if Israel does play a typological role in Scripture, that role does not eliminate Israel as an entity for which the land promise can be fulfilled. Brent Parker observes: “[I]t is important to recognize that when a person or entity is identified as typological, this does not include every aspect of the person or entity. . . . Israel as an ethnic group is not a type” (“The Israel-Christ-Church Relationship,” in Progressive Covenantalism).

Thesis and Counter-thesis

The simple acknowledgement of that Israel as an ethnic group continues and could receive land in the eternal state is all that needs to be acknowledged for a rapprochement between my view and that of Progressive Covenantalism. We both agree that the land theme expands to encompass the entire new earth and all of God’s people. All I’m asking is for an acknowledgement that within this broader fulfillment of the theme the specific promises that God made will also be fulfilled.

Parker, however, resists this idea by rejecting the claim that national identities persist into eternity: “[A]though the language of ‘nations’ is employed in Revelation 21-22, such does not establish that separate national identities or entities will continue throughout the consummated state” (Ibid., 108).

Exegetical Response

The basis for Parker’s assertion that national identities cease in eternity is not clear. It may be that Parker is advocating the idea that the New Jerusalem is not a city but the people of God. Thus imagery of nations coming into the city indicates that the people of God is multiethnic.

If this is Parker’s line of reasoning, it is unconvincing for two reasons. First, if this is the point, why mention kings? Second, the New Jerusalem cannot be reduced to the people of God. Grant Osborne notes,

Yet while it is possible that John transformed the Jewish tradition of an end-time New Jerusalem into a symbol of the people themselves, that is not required by the text. In Deutsch’s study of the transformation of the images of this text, she concludes (1987: 124) that John chose this as a contrast to the evil city of Babylon the Great. . . . Babylon was both a people and a place, and that is the better answer here. It is a people in 21:9-10, when the angel shows John the New Jerusalem as ‘the bride, the wife of the Lamb’ and in 21:13-14, when the twelve tribes and the twelve apostles are the gates and the foundations of the city. But it is a place in 21:3 where God ‘dwells’ with his people, in 21:7-8 where the readers either ‘inherit’ it or face the lake of fire, and in 21:24, 26 where the glory of the nations are brought into it. [Revelation, BECNT, 733.]

Nations in Biblical Theology

Parker’s view also suffers from a major theological flaw. It does not allow a major theme of the Scriptures to be consummated in the biblical storyline. Christopher J. H. Wright observes,

The nations of humanity preoccupy the biblical narrative from beginning to end. . . . The obvious reason for this is that the Bible is, of course, preoccupied with the relationship between God and humanity, and humanity exists in nations. And where the Bible focuses especially on the people of God, that people necessarily lives in history in the midst of the nations. “It is clear that ‘Israel as a light to the nations’ is no peripheral theme within the canonical process. The nations are the matrix of Israel’s life, the raison d’être of her very existence. [The Mission of God, 454, citing Christensen, “Nations,” ABD, 4:1037.]

Wright argues that the nations are part of the creation order: “[T]he Bible does not imply that ethnic or national diversity is in itself sinful or the product of the Fall . . . . Rather, nations are simply ‘there’ as a given part of the human race as God created it to be” (Ibid., 455-56). Paul affirms this in Acts 17:26: “And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place” (Wright holds that Paul is here drawing on Deut. 32:8; Ibid., 456). Wright concludes, “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” (Ibid.).

Likewise, Daniel Strange argues the structure of Genesis 10-11 supports the claim that the diversity of nations is part of the creation order. The order of those chapters is not chronological. By placing the Babel event later, Genesis avoids the idea that the division into nations is itself a curse and confirms that the “scattering” was not merely a judgment but an enforced fulfillment of God’s command (and thus tied to blessing) (Their Rock is Not Like Our Rock, 124; cf. McKeown, Genesis, THOTC, 72; Mathews, Genesis, NAC, 1:467).

If nations are part of the creation order, it is also clear that nations have been affected by the Fall. And if nations are affected by the Fall, then they form a part of the creation order in need of redemption: “The mission of God is not merely the salvation if innumerable souls but specifically the healing of the nations” (Wright, 456). Thus in new creation one would expect to see nations, and this is what one does see in Scripture:

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). The image we might prefer for the Bible’s portrait of the nations is not a melting put (in which all differences are blended together into a single alloy) but a salad bowl (in which all ingredients preserve their distinctive color, texture, and taste). The new creation will preserve the rich diversity of the original creation, but purged of the sin-laden effects of the Fall. [Ibid.]

The Abrahamic covenant itself would cause us to expect the salvation of the nations. Mathews observes,

The language of the call [of Abraham] evokes the Table of nations as the theological setting for its interpretation. In the Table’s refrain (10:5,20,31-32) are ‘lands’ (’arṣôt), ‘families’ (mišpĕḥôt), and ‘nations’ (gôyîm); also the table has the recurring verb yālad, translated ‘father of’ and ‘born; (10:8,13,15,21,24,25,26). These four terms appear in 12:1-3: ‘country’ (’ereṣ, v. 1), ‘peoples’ (mišpĕḥôt, v. 3), ‘nation’ (gôy, v. 2), and ‘people’ (mô;edet, v. 1), which is related to yālad. Although the call is directed to the individual Abraham, it is intended ultimately for the salvation of the world’s peoples. [Genesis, NAC, 2:105.]

If eternity is lived on a new earth, and if nations exist on the new earth, and if Israel is one of these nations, why would God not fulfill his specific promise to give Israel land? In fact, it would be odd for Israel to receive some other land or no land in such circumstances.

This is part of a series of posts on Progressive Covenantalism and the land theme in Scripture:

Progressive Covenantalism and the Land: Making Land Relevant (Part 1)

Progressive Covenantalism and the Land: Progressive Covenantalism’s View (Part 2)

Distinguishing the Kingdom Jesus Announced and the Sovereign Reign of God over All

Progressive Covenantalism, Typology, and the Land Promise

Was the Promised Land a Type of the New Creation?

How Do OT Promises and Typology Relate to Each Other?

April 17, 2017 by Brian

Progressive Covenantalists claim that the land promised to Israel in the Old Testament is a type of the new creation that will be received by all of God’s people (see more here).

There are two important problems with this claim.

First, the land is not a type in and of itself but only at certain periods of Israel’s history. Thus one cannot conclude on the basis of typology that the land of Israel is only a shadow with no future significance. The shadow would be the land in the time of Joshua or in the time of Solomon. The substance would be the Davidic Messiah ruling from that land over the nations in the new earth. Thus there is no logical contradiction in the land being a type at certain periods of history and Israel receiving the land in fulfillment of the promises (see more here).

The second difficulty with the Progressive Covenantalist argument from typology is the identification of the land promise as a type. Perhaps this is simply an imprecise statement or a mistaken statement since more commonly they identify the land as the type. Be that as it may, the identification of the promise as a type is problematic. As Craig Blaising notes,

“A promise entails an obligation. When somebody makes a promise, they’re not just stating something, they are doing something. They are forming a relationship and creating an expectation that carries moral obligation. Failure to complete a promise is a violation of one’s word. It is a serious matter.” [Craig A. Blaising, “Israel and Hermeneutics,” in The People, the Land, and the Future of Israel, 160.]

Indeed, “the promise and the oath are referred to as ‘two unchangeable things’ (Heb. 6:18)” (Ibid., 161). Blaising also points out that promises of the Abrahamic covenant is tied to the central storyline of Scripture. “God’s promise, covenant and oath to Abraham is not a peripheral element in the story of the Bible. It is a key structural component in the central plot line” (Ibid.). He concludes, “To posit a ‘fulfillment’ of these covenant promises by means of a reality shift in the thing promised overlooks the performative nature of the word of promise, violates the legitimate expectations of the recipients, and brings the integrity of God into question” (Ibid.).

Certain statements of Wellum’s would seem to be in agreement with Blaising. In distinguishing their approach to canonical interpretation from “most proponents of sensus plenior,” Wellum writes, “God says more than the individual authors may have known, yet he does not contravene what the authors wrote and intended” (Kingdom through Covenant, 85, bn. 11). If by this he means that that the promise to Israel of the land would be expanded (as even the Old Testament indicated) to include the nations dwelling in the world earth—without denying that Israel, as one of these nations, receives the particular land promised―then all would be well. The integrity of the promise would be maintained alongside the expansion of the promise.

But Wellum, and other Progressive Covenantalists, do deny that Israel, as one of these nations, receives the particular land promised to it. The reason they do not see this denial as contradicting Wellum’s statement in the previous paragraph or as violating the integrity of God’s promise is likely due to the fact that Progressive Covenantalists see Israel as typological. For Progressive Covenantalists Christ is the antitype of Israel. As the church is in Christ, it can receive the promises made to Israel (Brent E. Parker, “The Israel-Christ-Church Relationship,” in Progressive Covenantalism, 63-64. 67-68). Making the argument that Israel cannot be reduced to a type is far beyond the scope of these posts, and yet something must be said for argument I’m making to cohere.

Perhaps all that needs to be noted is what Brent Parker says about the ways in which Israel is and is not a type in the Progressive Covenantal view:

[I]t is important to recognize that when a person or entity is identified as typological, this does not include every aspect of the person or entity. . . . Israel as an ethnic group is not a type, but our claim is that national Israel in terms of its role, vocation, calling, and identity is typological of Christ and thus rules out the notion of a future national role of Israel in the plan of God. Ethnic Jews and Gentiles in Christ are co-heirs and fellow partakers of promise.” [Ibid., 52.]

The distinction Parker draws between Israel as an ethnic group and Israel as typological of Christ is necessary since the New Testament continues to recognize the Israel as an ethnic group. For instance, one must be able to continue to speak of Israel as an ethnic group to speak of them as branches that will be grafted back into the olive tree (Rom. 11).

For the premise of these posts to hold, one does not need to ascribe to ethnic Israel a special role, vocation, or calling. The simple acknowledgement of that Israel as an ethnic group continues and could receive land in the eternal state is all that needs to be acknowledged.

This is part of a series of posts on Progressive Covenantalism and the land promise in Scripture:

Progressive Covenantalism and the Land: Making Land Relevant (Part 1)

Progressive Covenantalism and the Land: Progressive Covenantalism’s View (Part 2)

Distinguishing the Kingdom Jesus Announced and the Sovereign Reign of God over All

Progressive Covenantalism, Typology, and the Land Promise

Was the Promised Land a Type of the New Creation?

April 11, 2017 by Brian

Progressive Covenantalists place a great deal of weight on typology in their argument that the land promises of the Old Testament are ultimately fulfilled for all of God’s people in the entirety of the new creation (see here).

In response, I would argue that to say the promised land is typical is not careful enough. It leaves time out of the consideration. For instance, the land as it is part of the new creation is not typical, for it is part of the fulfillment. Nor would the land as occupied by the Canaanites in the centuries before the promise or before the conquest be typical of the new creation. Likewise, the land with its people exiled and captive is not typological of the new creation. It is only at certain times in redemptive history that the promised land is typical of the new creation.

There are two points in Israel’s history in which the land clearly is typical of the new creation: the time of Joshua and the time of Solomon. There may be more, but in these two instances the typology can be clearly supported from Scripture.

Joshua

Land is a key theme in the book of Joshua. It is central from the opening of the book in which God tells Joshua to lead the people into the land through record of the conquest and to the allocation of the land. Joshua shows how the creation blessing is lived out by Israel in a fallen world. The land must be purged of God’s enemies, who have corrupted the land with their sin. The conquest itself typifies the Second Coming in which the Tribulation and return of Christ effect a conquest and purification of the earth (see Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses, 152-53). The result of the conquest was rest for God’s people in the land (Jos. 1:13, 15; 11:23; 14:15; 21:44; 22:4; 23:1) (see Schreiner, The King in His Beauty, 108). The Israelites were to live in the land in accordance with God’s covenant regulations. In this way the nations would be able to see what a land under righteous dominion looks like. Thus Israel’s life in the land was to typify life in the new creation. Life in the new creation is the attainment of Sabbath rest in which mankind rules over the earth under God’s greater rule; this is the antitype to the type of the land in Joshua.

Solomon’s Reign

The second point in Israel’s history in which the land is clearly typical of the new creation occurs in Solomon’s reign. In 1 Kings 4 the author intentionally draws parallels between Solomon’s reign and the Abrahamic covenant. Verse 20 says, “Judah and Israel were as many as the sand by the sea,” a reference back to Genesis 22:17, “I will surely multiply your offspring . . . as the sand that is on the seashore.” Verse 21 of 1 Kings 4 says, “Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines and to the border or Egypt. They brought tribute and served Solomon all the days of his life.” This is a partial fulfillment of God’s promise, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates” (Gen. 15:18; cf. 17:8). First Kings 4:34 says that “people of all nations came to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and from all the kings of the earth, who had heard of his wisdom.” This reflects Genesis 22:8, “And in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (cf. 12:3; 18:18). Thus all three aspects of the Abrahamic covenant—seed, land, and blessing—are fulfilled in Solomon’s reign.

Indeed, the language of 1 Kings 4 is the language that the prophets, especially Micah, use to describe the Messianic kingdom in the latter days. Since Micah prophesied before Kings was written, it seems likely that the author of Kings intentionally used language from Micah to connect this part of Solomon’s reign typologically with the Messianic kingdom.

In Solomon’s day, “Judah and Israel lived in safety” (1 Kgs. 4:25). In the Messianic kingdom “they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more . . . and no one shall make them afraid” (Mic. 4:3-5). In Solomon’s day, this safety is for “every man under his vine and under his fig tree” (1 Kgs. 4:25). In the Messianic kingdom, “they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree” (Mic. 4:4; cf. Zech. 3:10). In Solomon’s day, “people of all nations came to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and from all the kings of the earth, who had heard of his wisdom” (1 Kgs. 4:34). In the Messianic kingdom, “many nations shall come, and say, ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways that we may walk in his paths.’ For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Mic. 4:2).*

It may be significant to the typology that Solomon is a king who rules over other kingdoms. Though the boundaries given in 1 Kings 4:24-25 correspond to those God promised to Abraham (Gen. 15:18), the text does not actually say that the Israelite kingdom filled those borders. Rather, Solomon had dominion over all of the kings within those borders. This reflects the new creation in which the King of kings rules not over an undifferentiated mass of people but over other kings and kingdoms. (Note also that this is a rule that brings blessing to the kings of the earth, for they come to Solomon for wisdom.)

And yet, as the narrative of Kings demonstrates, these elements are present typologically, pointing to their greater fulfillment in the future. Solomon, as his sin makes plain, is not the true fulfillment of the promises of the Abrahamic covenant.

Conclusion

The significance of these observations should be plain. If the land is not a type in and of itself but only at certain periods of Israel’s history, one cannot conclude on the basis of typology that the land of Israel is only a shadow with no future significance.** The shadow would be the land in the time of Joshua or in the time of Solomon. The substance would be the Davidic Messiah ruling from that land over the nations in the new earth. Thus there is no logical contradiction in the land being a type at certain periods of history and Israel receiving the land in fulfillment of the promises.

*The connection between wisdom and law in the Kings/Micah comparison is not strained. As Craig Bartholomew observes, “The wisdom and legal traditions in the OT are clearly distinct, and yet they manifest some awareness of each other. Both have in common the ordering of the life of God’s people. Van Leeuwen argues persuasively, as we have seen, that a notion of creation order underlies the surface metaphors of Proverbs 1-9.” Craig G. Bartholomew, “A God for Life, and Not Just for Christmas!” in The Trustworthiness of God: Perspectives on the Nature of Scripture, ed. Paul Helm and Carl R. Trueman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 55. Thus the wisdom of Solomon’s rule points forward to the Messiah’s rule in which people once again live according to the created order, that is, humans live out the dominion of Genesis 1:28 under God’s greater rule.

**Some may wish to challenge the idea that typology always involves a move from shadow to substance. See John S. Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton: Crossway, 1988), 77-76. But such a challenge is not necessary to the argument made here.

This is part of a series of posts on Progressive Covenantalism and the land theme in Scripture:

Progressive Covenantalism and the Land: Making Land Relevant (Part 1)

Progressive Covenantalism and the Land: Progressive Covenantalism’s View (Part 2)

Distinguishing the Kingdom Jesus Announced and the Sovereign Reign of God over All

Progressive Covenantalism, Typology, and the Land Promise

April 10, 2017 by Brian

In reviewing Progressive Covenantalism’s arguments regarding the expansion of the land promise, I have registered substantive agreement on several points. First, the land promises are connected to Eden and to the temple, rest, and kingdom themes. Second, that the land theme, in its fulfillment, will encompass the entire new creation and the entire people of God. Though there has been some disagreement on details, these agreements are significant.

However, there are some significant differences from Progressive Covenantalism as well. First, the inclusion of the entire new creation and all the people of God in the fulfillment of the land theme does not negate the specific promises made to the nation of Israel. Related to this, it has been argued that the expansion of the land theme from Israel to the entire new creation and to all the people of God comes through the Messiah, who remains the Davidic king over Israel as well as the king over all nations. Finally, the expansion of the land promise is based not primarily in typology but in explicit and implicit promises found in the Old Testament.

Progressive Covenantalists rest their argument for the expansion of the land promise primarily on typology. Before reviewing that argument, it must first be presented.

Typology and Land in Progressive Covenantalism

Progressive Covenantalism presents itself as a mediating system between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, and Wellum describes the difference between the two systems on the land promise in terms of a different understanding of the typology:

In the case of dispensational theology, if they viewed as typological both the land of Israel and the nation itself, then their view, at its core, would no longer be valid. Why? For the reason that the land promise would not require a future, ‘literal’ fulfillment in the millennial age; the land itself is a type and pattern of Eden and thus the entire creation, which reaches its fulfillment in the dawning of a new creation. Christ, then, as the antitype of Israel, receives the land promise and fulfills it by his inauguration of a new covenant which is organically locked to new creation. [Kingdom through Covenant, 122.]

Wellum says “the New Testament helps us understand that the land promise is . . . typological of the new creation” (Ibid., 86). He concedes that dispensationalists would be correct “as long as one can demonstrate that the land promise, in the Abrahamic covenant and throughout the biblical covenants, is not better viewed as typological of the creation” (Ibid., 609). (Though Progressive Covenantalism is a mediating position, on the matter of land typology, Wellum notes that it is in agreement with covenant theology. Ibid., 114, n. 75.)

Martin summarizes how this typology works:

The Promised Land in the Old Testament—when situated within the kingdom and covenantal framework of Scripture as it progressively unfolds—was designed by God to serve as a type or pattern of a greater future reality. Every fulfillment is followed by failure and, although the promise is fulfilled at various points, it anticipates a greater and final fulfillment. . . . Therefore the promise of land to the nation of Israel is understood within the broader context of God’s programmatic agenda that begins with Adam, progresses from Abraham to Israel, and culminates in an international community living in a new creation. In other words, the national dimension involving the geographical territory of Israel should be viewed as a transitional stage in the outworking of God’s redemptive plan, a plan that spans from creation to new creation and ultimately includes people from every nation filling the entire earth. [Bound for the Promised Land, 115.]

Wellum argues the same point: “Thus the ‘land promise’ associated with the Abrahamic covenant cannot be understood apart from a backward and forward look: backward to the archetype reality of Eden and the entire creation, and forward, though the covenants, to its antitypical fulfillment in the new creation that Jesus has inaugurated in the new covenant” (Kingdom through Covenant, 607).

This is part of a serise of posts on Progressive Covenantalism and the land theme in Scripture.

Progressive Covenantalism and the Land: Making Land Relevant (Part 1)

Progressive Covenantalism and the Land: Progressive Covenantalism’s View (Part 2)

Distinguishing the Kingdom Jesus Announced and the Sovereign Reign of God over All

Progressive Covenantalism and the Land: Making Land Relevant (Part 1)

April 8, 2017 by Brian

The initial statement of the Davidic covenant also contains an indication that the Davidic Messiah would reign over more than Israel alone. In reflecting on God’s promises, David said, “This is instruction for mankind, O Lord GOD!” (2 Sam. 7:19). Dumbrell summarizes Walter Kaiser’s seminal study:

W. C. Kaiser has shown clearly that v. 19b must be taken as a statement, and that the Heb. phrase concerned serves to introduce or to summarize (as here) a set of instructions. Under ‘this’ the promises of the first half of the chapter are being referred to, while under ‘law of man’ their implications as David understood them are contained. . . . With more than some probability Kaiser suggests that the sense given to 2 Sam. 7:19b is, ‘This is the charter by which humanity will be directed.’ That is to say, in the oracle delivered to him, David rightly sees the future and destiny of the human race involved. [Creation and Covenant, 151-52.]

Gentry notes the significance: “Since the God whom the Davidic king represented was not limited to a local region or territory, but was the creator God and Sovereign of the whole world, the rule of the Davidic king would have repercussions for all the nations, not just for Israel” [Kingdom through Covenant, 400].

The same expansion of the territory Messiah’s kingdom can be seen in the Psalms. The Father says to the Son in Psalm 2, “Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession” (2:8). Psalm 72:8 says of the Messianic king, “May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River,” one of the boundaries of the promised land, “to the ends of the earth!” Less explicitly, but still in keeping with these promises, David speaks of the Messiah’s rule over Moab, Edom, and Philistia in addition to Israel (Ps. 108:7-9). Psalm 110 reveals that Lord seated at the right hand of Yhwh will one day “shatter kings on the day of wrath” (110:5) and will “execute judgment among the nations” (Ps. 110:6). [For an recent argument for seeing the Messiah in several of these Psalms, see Gordon Wenham, The Psalter Reclaimed, 163-64.]

Examples of the Davidic Messiah ruling over the nations can be found elsewhere in Scripture. (For instance, Gentry argues that the “sure mercies of David” [Isa. 55:3, NKJV] refers to the steadfast love shown by the Davidic Messiah. In context, these mercies would be shown to the peoples or nations [Isa. 55:4][Kingdom through Covenant, 406-21].) But these passages sufficiently establish was is needed for the argument: when Paul said that God promised that Abraham “would be heir of the world” (Rom. 4:13), he has firm exegetical basis in the Old Testament for seeing the extension of the land promise to the entire world (see Martin, Bound for the Promised Land, 134-36).*

Conclusions

A number of conclusions should be drawn from these explicit promises of the extension of the land promise noted in this and in the previous post.

First, it is important to see that the Messiah is the key person through whom the land promise is expanded. It is through his reign that this expansion takes place. There would be no argument from Progressive Covenantalists on this point. But this claim has an entailment that they do not seem to reckon with, namely, that the Messiah is a Davidic king who rules from Zion over Israel and from there to the ends of the earth (Ps. 2:6; 72:8). Thus the expansion of the land promise to encompass the world does not negate the promises to Israel in particular about the land.

Second, the fact that these expansive promises sit alongside more specific promises to Israel about its particular land means that the two should not be pitted against each other. The reality of the expansion of the land promise to encompass the world is not the negation of the center from which the expansion takes place. The enjoyment by the nations of lands that are caught up in the land promise in the new creation does not negate Israel’s enjoyment of the land promise in its own nation.

Third, the expansion of the land promise rests primarily on these implicit and explicit promises rather than primarily on typology. Though Progressive Covenantalists recognize the promises, they place the weight of their argument on typology.

*Nelson Hsieh argues that contextually Paul defines the promise that Abraham would be “heir of the world” (Rom. 4:13) “in terms of Abraham becoming the father of many nations and having innumerable descendants (vv. 17-18).” To be heir of the world thus means that Abraham is heir of a seed from many nations who have faith in God as he did. Hsieh argues that not only does this reading make better sense of the context, but it is also a promise that Abraham believed. Abraham knew of the promise that he would be the father of many nations. Abraham did not know (and thus could not believe) in an expanded land promise. Hsieh closes his article by making the case that κόσμος and κληρονόμος can refer to seed and need not point to the land promise. Nelson S. Hsieh, “Abraham as ‘Heir of the World’: Does Romans 4:13 Expand the Old Testament Abrahamic Land Promises?” Master’s Seminary Journal 26, no. 1 (Spring 2015): 95-110. Whether or not Oren Martin or Hsieh is correct regarding Romans 4, the expansion of the land promise to the world is found in numerous Old Testament texts.

This is part of a serise of posts on Progressive Covenantalism and the land theme in Scripture.

Progressive Covenantalism and the Land: Progressive Covenantalism’s View (Part 2)

Distinguishing the Kingdom Jesus Announced and the Sovereign Reign of God over All

Progressive Covenantalism and the Land: Making Land Relevant (Part 1)

April 7, 2017 by Brian

Some Progressive Covenantalists do make a stronger connection between land and kingdom than I found in Kingdom through Covenant. Oren Martin indicates that there is a geographical component to the consummated kingdom. Martin summarizes kingdom as “God’s people in God’s place under God’s rule” (Bound for the Promised Land, 42). Martin says, “[T]he entire world will become God’s kingdom and his people’s inheritance. An important link is forged, then, between inheritance, the Promised Land and the kingdom of God” (Ibid., 137).

I agree with Martin’s conclusion that the land theme and kingdom theme are connected because the “entire world will become God’s kingdom.” In fact, I think Scripture explicitly develops the kingdom theme in this way such that (1) the extension of the land theme to cover the entire world doesn’t primarily depend on typology and (2) the specific promises to the nation of Israel are not lost in the expansion of the theme to the entire world.

My argument is that the expansion of the kingdom from the borders of Israel to the entire world is explicitly stated in the Old Testament itself.

Land Promise Extended in the Pentateuch

In Genesis 22 God promises that Israel will possess the gates of its enemies (22:17). This is followed by the affirmation that all the nations will be blessed by Abraham’s seed (22:18). These are not contradictory ideas. The rule of the Messianic King over Israel’s former enemies can be viewed as a great blessing to those nations (Robert Saucy, Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 231-34; cf. Kingdom through Covenant, 399-400). From this latter perspective there is a close connection, then, between Abraham’s seed possessing the gates of its enemies and all the nations of the earth being blessed in Abraham’s seed (22:18).

A similar extension of the land promise may be found in Genesis 35. Along with the reaffirmation of the land promise, Jacob is promised, “a nation and a company of nations shall come from you” (35:11) Land is likely implied in this promise (Mathews, Genesis, NAC, 2:622). Likewise kings rule over land, so land is also likely implied in the promise, “and kings shall come from your own body” (35:11). Gentry argues that goyim does not properly apply to the twelve tribes since they were not “politically and socially structured entities with government.” Nor does the divided kingdom of two nations constitute a “company of nations” (Kingdom through Covenant, 292-93). Thus, he argues that this is a promise of the bringing in of the Gentiles. The difficulty with Gentry’s view is that the kings are said to come, “from your loins” (lit.). “From you” stands in parallel with this phrase. This would indicate that the nations and the kings come from Jacob in physical descent. Further, it seems that the tribes of Israel could legitimately be said to be “politically and socially structured entities with government.” The tribes had their elders; they were not without government. Gentry could maintain his case, however, by arguing that an intentional distinction is meant between the kings who come by physical descent (“from your loins”) and the nations that are related to Jacob in a more generic “from you.” This is possible, and it would be the universal blessing aspect of the promise to Abraham that would be alluded to by this distinction. It would also be an early instance of implied extension of the land promise.

Jacob’s blessing of Judah establishes that a son of Judah will reign over Israel. Not only will the tribes of Israel be subject to him, but the peoples will also obey him (49:10) (Mathews, 2:896; Wenham, Genesis, WBC, 2:478). The earth over which this king from Judah will reign is one of abundant fertility. A donkey can be tied to a choice vine with no concern that it will eat the vine. And while no one would actually wash clothes with wine rather than water, the imagery of doing so highlights again the abundant fertility of the land (Wenham, 2:79; Mathews, 2:896-97; McKeown, Genesis, THOTC, 186). This is a land in which the curse has been removed. This is an explicit indication that the land promise will extend beyond the borders of the Promised Land to encompass the entire new creation.

If these interpretations are correct, then at the end of the toldedth sections that focus on Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph/Judah are promises that extend the land blessing beyond the confines of Israel’s land. The means by which the land promise is extended is the extension of the Judaic king’s sovereingty to encompass the entire world.

This is part of a sereis of posts on Progressive Covenantalism and the land theme in Scripture.

Progressive Covenantalism and the Land: Progressive Covenantalism’s View (Part 2)

Distinguishing the Kingdom Jesus Announced and the Sovereign Reign of God over All

Progressive Covenantalism and the Land: Making Land Relevant (Part 1)

Naselli: How to Understand and Apply the New Testament

April 6, 2017 by Brian

Andy Naselli has just had published a book on interpreting the New Testament: How to Understand and Apply the New Testament. For table of contents, sample chapters, and more see Andy’s post at his own website.

I’ve not yet read more than a few chapters of the book, but in an interview Andy described as the gist of his book the conclusion I argued for in my dissertation. Andy said:

The gist is that you can’t do exegesis without doing theology, and you can’t do theology without doing exegesis. They are interconnected—interrelated. So we’re just trying to make the readers aware that when you study one aspect of exegesis or theology, it’s impossible to do just that, apart from the other aspects; they are so interconnected. So if you sit down and look at a text, all of your understanding of how the whole Bible fits together is influencing how you read that text. And if you’re trying to put the whole Bible together, the ways you understand individual texts are influencing how you do that broader, macro-reading.

We both borrowed a diagram from D. A. Carson that shows the how exegesis and the theological disciplines relate.

So far I’ve just dipped into the chapters on historical-cultural context and historical theology. The chapter on historical theology provides some excellent reasons for including historical theology in the process of interpretation. Andy follows this with an example of a historical work that he’s done related to Keswick theology. One thing that I didn’t see in the chapter was a discussion of how a text’s reception history should function in the interpretive process.

The role of historical-cultural context in interpretation has been an interest of mine recently. See Is it True that Bible Background Context “Changes Everything”?. Though we frame the question somewhat differently, I think Andy’s discussion is on target. Andy thesis is that “background information is sometimes necessary for understanding the Bible accurately.” He calls his position “a cautious yes” to the necessity of background information.

The discussion of four dangers if one answers “yes” along with the affirmation of the Scripture’s sufficient clarity are excellent. In addition, I appreciate Andy’s sympathetic critique of Wayne Grudem’s “no.” Grudem wants to say that extra-biblical lexical study can be necessary but that historical background information is not necessary. Andy responds:

Here’s my pushback: How can you logically grant language this degree of independence from the historical-cultural context? It doesn’t seem possible because the authors use some words to refer to things outside the text (i.e., the words have extratextual referents) that the first readers would have immediately grasped but that we might not. How can we determine the meanings of words apart from a historical-cultural setting? [p. 164]

I think this is correct. However, I would note that even the lack of extrabiblical lexical information has not prevented the Bible from being sufficiently clear throughout church history. In fact, I would argue that the Bible is sufficiently clear even in translation “for us to base our saving knowledge of [God] and of ourselves, and our beliefs and our actions, on the content of Scripture alone, without ultimately validating our understanding of these things or our confidence in them by appeal to any individual or institution” (Timothy Ward, Words of Life, 127).

Andy also includes several example passages. Though it is far beyond his intent and purpose for this book, I would be interested in fairly exhaustive survey of passages to see just how necessary historical-cultural context is for rightly understanding passages.

For instance, Andy points to Matthew 19:24 as a passage in which background material can debunk bad interpretations. This is certainly the case. But is background material necessary to do this? Probably not. In fact, it seems that a poor use of background material led to the common misinterpretation of this passage. A theologically sensitive reading of the text would flag and reject this misuse of background material.

Another example given is 1 Corinthians 11. Andy argues that background material is necessary to understand this passage and that Bruce Winter provides the best survey of the material. However, I’ve found Noel Weeks to give a telling criticism of Winter’s argument (and frankly have found Winter’s deployment of background material unconvincing in other passages in 1 Corinthians). Weeks says:

I must comment on what seems an obvious flaw in the argument. Winter sees the material in 1 Cor 11 on head covering for women as directly dependent upon imperial pressure for modest female attire (ibid., 73–91). Yet the existence of statues and images of bare-headed women, even imperial women, is a fact of the period. He postpones that information until he deals with hair styles for women, where once more the concerns of 1 Tim 2:8 are seen as responding to external influence. In that context he rather lamely suggests that the images of bare-headed imperial women are an attempt by the imperial household to display the hair treatment that was appropriate for women (104). Surely a requirement for covered female heads makes hair styles irrelevant. [“The Ambiguity of Biblical Background,” Westminster Theological Journal 72, no. 2 (Fall 2010): 233, n. 54.]

Further, Paul’s argument is not from culture but from creation in 1 Corinthians 11.

The third major example of the necessity of background information is from Revelation 3:15-16. I think this is a good example, but it’s not a slam dunk.

Greg Beale outlines the traditional interpretation and the problem he sees with it:

The image of the Laodiceans being “neither cold nor hot” but “lukewarm” has traditionally been understood to be metaphorical of lack of spiritual fervor and half-hearted commitment to Christ. One problem with this is that Christ’s desire that they be either “cold or hot” implies that both extremes are positive. The traditional view, however, has seen ‘cold’ negatively. [The Book of Revelation, NIGTC, 303]

Beale opts for the view the background to this phrase contrasts the hot, healing waters of Hierapolis and the pure, cold water of Colossae with the warm nauseating water of Laodicea (Ibid.).

Interestingly, Gordon Fee combines the two views in his Revelation commentary:

Christ reveals their actual condition from the divine perspective: you are neither cold nor hot, which is probably a reflection on the fact that they are across the river from the actual hot springs, so that by the time the hot water reaches them across stream it has cooled enough to be insipid, useful for neither medicinal nor drinking purposes. The more remarkable moment of judgment comes next: Christ would rather have them either one or the other! In actuality, of course, he would prefer them to be “hot”; but if they were “cold” then they could more easily recognize their situation and be helped. Rather, his judgment is that because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. [Revelation, NCCS, 58.]

Further Beale concedes that 2 Peter 2:21 is a cross-reference that could support the traditional view.

None of the above is meant to detract from Andy’s fine work. These are the natural passages that I would expect to find in this discussion. It does show, however, there is room for a detailed study to investigate in which passages background material is truly necessary to understand the meaning of the passage. My hunch is that the number of passages in which historical-cultural context is helpful are numerous but that the number in which it is necessary might be fewer than many suppose.

In sum, if the other chapters of this book are as good as this one (and I would expect some, particularly those dealing with original languages, to be better), then this is a book to get and use.

Distinguishing the Kingdom Jesus Announced and the Sovereign Reign of God over All

March 29, 2017 by Brian

Wellum seems to distance the idea of kingdom in the New Testament from the theme of land. On the one hand he identifies “the entire universe [as] God’s kingdom” on the basis of God as Creator and sovereign of all things (Kingdom through Covenant, 592). But he also holds that due to the Fall there is now “an important distinction between the sovereignty and rule of God over the entire creation and the coming of his saving reign in the context of a rebellious creation to make all things right” (Ibid., 593). As God’s image-bearers, humans are priest-kings through whom “God’s rule is extended throughout the life of the covenant community and to the entire creation” (Ibid., 594). On this reading, there should be a close connection between land and kingdom.

But as he turns his attention to the New Testament, Wellum seems to minimize connection of the kingdom to the land. He says, “[The kingdom of God] does not primarily refer to a certain geographical location, rather the phrase tells us more about God (the fact that he reigns) than about anything else” (Ibid., 595-96). Wellum does indicate that though the kingdom is already present its consummation is “not yet.” Nonetheless he does not specify whether or not there is a geographical component to the kingdom in the consummation (Ibid., 596-99).

There are a number of points where Wellum’s analysis can be improved. First, though in the latter part of the 20th century it was common to claim that the kingdom language of Scripture referred primarily to a reign rather than to a realm, the scholarly sentiment seems to be shifting such that scholars more and more are recongizing the realm component. See, for instance Jonathan T. Pennington, Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009), 281-82, 285; Dale C. Allison, Jr., “Excursus 1: The Kingdom of God and the World to Come.” In Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010), 201-2.

Second, the distinction between the “sovereign reign” and the “saving reign” of God is not quite the right distinction. The sovereign reign of God does need to be distinguished from the kingdom of God announced by Jesus because the former has always been present while the latter arrived with Jesus Christ. But there is a better way of explaining the difference between God’s ever-present reign and the kingdom that arrived with Christ.

The better way of distinguishing God’s sovereign/providential reign from the kingdom of God announced by Jesus arises from the storyline of Scripture as it is run through the covenants. The foundation for the needed distinction can be laid in Gentry’s observation that Hebrew grammar requires Genesis 1:26 to be translated “let us make man . . . so that they may rule. . .” (Kingdom through Covenant, 188; cf. NIV 2011). This verse is the foundation of the kingdom theme in the Bible. God made mankind to rule, and the scope of this reign is the earth (Gen. 1:28).

Sin, of course, frustrated this rule. Mankind does not rule over the world under God. He now rules in opposition to God. Injustice is often the result of human rule. The covenants exist, however, to restore the rule of man over the earth under God’s greater rule.

The Noahic covenant reaffirms that the reign of man over the earth, though affected by the Fall, has not been removed due to the Fall.
The Abrahamic covenant reaffirms the creation blessing in kingly terms for the sake of the nations. G K. Beale comments, “Notice that the ruling aspect of the commission is expressed to Abraham elsewhere as a role of “kingship” (Gen 17:6, 16), and likewise with respect to Jacob (Gen 35:11)” (Gregory K. Beale, “Eden, the Temple, and the Church’s Mission in the New Creation,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48, no. 1 (March 2005): 13, n. 18. Gordon Wenham sees a royal aspect to the entire set of promises: “Behind the fourfold promise of nationhood, a great name, divine protection, and mediatorship of blessing E. Ruprecht (VT 29 [1979] 445-64) has plausibly detected echoes of royal ideology. What Abram is here promised was the hope of many an oriental monarch (cf. 2 Sam 7:9; Ps. 72:17)” (Gordon Wenham, Genesis, WBC, 1:275).
As it relates to the kingdom, the Mosaic covenant governed the establishment of Israel in the land and thus made way for the Davidic covenant.
In the Davidic covenant a promised Davidic king who will establish God’s kingdom on earth is promised.
The problem of sin was dealt with in Christ’s new covenant sacrifice, which led to his enthronement, now in heaven and later on the earth (Acts 2:34-36; Rev. 20:4; 22:1).

Notable to the way the covenants develop the kingdom theme is the emphasis on a human king ruling under God. It is a son of Adam, the seed of the woman, the son of Abraham, the son of David that must be king. What distinguishes the providential reign of God over all things from the kingdom of God announced by Jesus in the Gospel is that the latter is a restoration of the rule of God’s image-bearer under God. If one starts with the assumption that the kingdom is God’s providential rule over creation, then one is left with the difficult question of how the kingdom comes with the Messiah. This problem is alleviated when the kigndom of God is understood to be God’s rule mediated through God’s image-bearer. (See also Central Role of Kingdom to Biblical Theology and The Role of Man in the Kingdom of God.)

That the Messiah’s reign in the kingdom of God fulfills the reign of man over God’s world is confirmed by the quotation of Psalm 8 in Hebrews 2. Psalm 8:6 refers back to Genesis 1:26-28: “You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet.” Hebrews 2:8-9 indicates that God’s purpose for mankind is fulfilled in Jesus.

On this understanding, the kingdom inaugurated by the Messiah does have an emphasis on salvation and transformation. The Messiah’s goal is to reverse the Fall by creating a people who will rule the earth under God’s greater rule (Dan. 7:27; Rev. 22:5). For this people to fulfill this goal, they must be saved and transformed. Those who are not will be judged by the king when he returns and fully establishes his reign on earth.

But this conception of the kingdom does not allow the “a theocratic state in which God rules by his human vassal in the Davidic dynasty” and “the immediate transforming reign of God” to be pitted against each other. The latter is what makes the former possible.

Further, on this understanding, it is significant that Jesus remains human even as the ascended Christ. What is more, he remains a son of Abraham and a son of David. He is specifically an Israelite king over the Israelite kingdom, and it is as such that he rules over the world. God specifically moved his kingdom plan forward through Israelite covenants.

This is part of a series of posts on Progressive Covenantalism and the land theme in Scripture:

Progressive Covenantalism and the Land: Progressive Covenantalism’s View (Part 2)

Progressive Covenantalism and the Land: Making Land Relevant (Part 1)

March 28, 2017 by Brian

Oren Martin describes the connection between land and rest:

[T]he rest in Canaan functions as a type of God’s heavenly rest in Genesis 2 and Psalm 95; that is, entering the presence of God on the last day. The rest that came with possession of the land was achieved in some measure under Joshua. . . . However, it still left something to be desired. The rest, then, anticipated the eschatological rest for the people of God, which David announced in Psalm 95. [Bound for the Promised Land, 143.]

This leads Martin to conclude:

God’s people are not exhorted to return to the type of rest in the land of Canaan. Rather, they are exhorted to enter God’s eschatological rest. [Ibid.]

I would argue that Martin has correctly traced out the connections between Genesis 2, Joshua, Psalm 95, and Hebrews 4. But his conclusion needs some correcting because his conception of land typology is not nuanced enough.

The idea that rest in Canaan typifies eschatological rest is the teaching of Hebrews. Hebrews 3:11 quotes Psalm 95:11 to the effect that the unbelieving Israelites in the wilderness would “not enter my rest” (cf. 3:18-19). Numbers 14:23, 30, 35 make clear that what they do not enter is the land. But the author of Hebrews concludes from the use of “today” by David in Psalm 95 that the conquest of Canaan in Joshua’s day did not fulfill the promise of rest (Heb. 4:8-11). And yet the rest of God that his people enter into is not disconnected from the promised land. Psalm 132:13-14 identifies Zion as Yhwh’s eternal resting place.

Martin holds that the antitype is expanded beyond Canaan to encompass the new creation. This is also a reasonable conclusion from Hebrews. Hebrews 4:3-4 indicates that the rest of God to which believers enter is the rest that God began upon finishing Creation. This also indicates that the rest has a creation-wide aspect to it. In fact, it may be that believers finally enter God’s rest when they fulfill the creation blessing of rightly ruling over God’s earth.* Thus the rest is centered on Zion, but it extends throughout the world.

To conclude from the tracing of the rest theme that none of God’s people are to find their rest fulfilled in Canaan involves a bit of category confusion. God’s eschatological rest includes Canaan because it includes the whole world. Further, it is not the land of Canaan simpliciter that is the type. It is the land of Canaan after Joshua conquered Canaan and thus gave the people rest that is the type. There is therefore no violation of typology if spome of God’s people recieve their rest on the renewed earth in the land of Canaan.

* If this supposition is correct, I would view the Millennium as the period in which mankind under the Messiah’s rule fulfils God’s purpose for man as set forth in the creation blessing. However, the fulfilling of this blessing and the entering into God’s rest cannot mean that humans cease to rule over the earth or that they are inactive in the new creation. See Revelation 21:24-26; 22:5.

This is part of a series of posts on Progressive Covenantalism and the land theme in Scripture:

Progressive Covenantalism and the Land: Progressive Covenantalism’s View (Part 2)