Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Progressive Covenantalism, Typology, and the Land Promise

by

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)

The Theological Importance of the Physical World

Eden and the Land Promise

Eden, the New Jerusalem, Temples, and Land

Rest, Land, and the New Creation

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

Land and the Kingdom of God

Land, the Kingdom of God, and the Davidic Covenant

Land, the Kingdom of God, and the Davidic Covenant

by

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: Making Land Relevant (Part 1)

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

The Theological Importance of the Physical World

Eden and the Land Promise

Eden, the New Jerusalem, Temples, and Land

Rest, Land, and the New Creation

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

Land and the Kingdom of God

Land and the Kingdom of God

by

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: Making Land Relevant (Part 1)

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

The Theological Importance of the Physical World

Eden and the Land Promise

Eden, the New Jerusalem, Temples, and Land

Rest, Land, and the New Creation

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

Land and the Kingdom of God

Naselli: How to Understand and Apply the New Testament

by

41tivm3bsFL._SX348_BO1204203200_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

by

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: Making Land Relevant (Part 1)

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

The Theological Importance of the Physical World

Eden and the Land Promise

Eden, the New Jerusalem, Temples, and Land

Rest, Land, and the New Creation

Rest, Land, and the New Creation

by

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: Making Land Relevant (Part 1)

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

The Theological Importance of the Physical World

Eden and the Land Promise

Eden, the New Jerusalem, Temples, and Land

Eden, the New Jerusalem, Temples, and Land

by

Adam’s sin had three major effects: (1) death in the inner and outer man, (2) the cursing of the creation blessing, and (3) the exile of mankind from Eden, the place of God’s presence. The last of these three judgments connects the land theme to the temple theme. Exile, an aspect of the land theme, is connected to removal from God’s presence, an aspect of the temple theme.

Wellum presents this argument in full:

[T]hink of the theme of the garden of Eden as a temple sanctuary. . . . [Greg] Beale convincingly demonstrates that the land of Eden is presented as the archetypal temple, the place where God uniquely dwelt with Adam and Eve as they served God as priest-kings and sons in obedient devotion and worship of God. Adam and Eve’s task was to subdue and rule over the entire earth, which suggests that they were ‘to extend the geographical boundaries of the garden until Eden covered the whole earth,’ which, as Psalm 8 makes clear, was a role that the entire human race was to carry out. . . . [W]hat is significant for our purposes is the close connection between land and temple, and how Eden serves as the archetype which both the land of Israel and the later tabernacle/temple are patterned after.

When we combine all of these points and set the land promise in the context of creation, we have biblical warrant to view the ‘land’ as a type and pattern of creation. In this reading, the archetype is the land of Eden, whose borders are to be extended to the entire creation. [Kingdom through Covenant, 710-11.]

Martin makes this the thesis of his book:

The aim of the present study is to demonstrate that the land promised to Abraham advances the place of the kingdom that was lost in Eden and serves as a type throughout Israel’s history that anticipates the even greater land—prepared for all of God’s people throughout history—that will come as a result of the person and work of Christ. In other words, the land and its blessings find their fulfillment in the new heaven and new earth won by Christ. [Bound for the Promised Land, 17.]

He also draws a tight connection between temple and the new creation by following G. K. Beale in identifying the New Jerusalem, spoken of in Revelation in temple terminology, with the entire new creation:

Instead of the temple being the exclusive place of God’s presence, John declares that the entire ‘paradisal city-temple of Revelation 21:1-22:5 encompasses the entirety of the newly created earth.’ The most evident sign of this city-temple is its perfectly cubic shape (21:16). This glorious description is like no other previous place on earth, but is more akin to the holy of holies (1 Kgs 6:20). Thus the new earth now serves as the place of God’s presence. [Martin 135 citing Beale, “Revelation (book),” NDBT, 358.]

Leaving aside the issue of typology for now, I will here argue that the Progressive Covenantalist formulations on the connection between Eden, land, temple, and new creation must receive a mixed verdict. There are some insightful connections made but also some mis-steps.

Was Eden a Temple?

I have previously argued that when looked at in detail Beale’s arguments that Eden was a temple fail to hold up. This does not mean that there is no Eden-temple connection. I would agree with Daniel Block’s assessment:

In my response to reading Gn 1-3 as temple-building texts, I have hinted at the fundamental hermeneutical problem involved in this approach. The question is, should we read Gn 1-3 in the light of later texts, or should we read later texts in light of these? If we read the accounts of the order given, then the creation account provides essential background to primeval history, which provides background for the patriarchal, exodus, and tabernacle narratives. By themselves and by this reading the accounts of Gn 1-3 offer no clues that a cosmic or Edenic temple might be involved. However, as noted above, the Edenic features of the tabernacle, the Jerusalem temple, and the temple envisioned by Ezekiel are obvious. Apparently their design and function intended to capture something of the original environment in which human beings were placed. However, the fact that Israel’s sanctuaries were Edenic does not make Eden into a sacred shrine. At best this is a nonreciprocating equation.

[Daniel I. Block, “Eden: A Temple? A Reassessment of the Biblical Evidence,” in From Creation to New Creation: Biblical Theology and Exegesis: Essays in Honor of G. K. Beale, eds. Daniel M. Gurtner and Benjamin L. Gladd (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2013), 20-21.]

In sum, though the tabernacle and temple looked back to the garden of Eden and the loss of the presence of God that occurred with humanity’s exile from the garden, the garden itself was not a temple.The reality was present in the garden so the symbol (tabernacle/temple) did not need to be present.

However, I do agree with Wellum that mankind was to spread the geographical boundaries of the garden, as it were, by subduing the entire world. Thus there is a close connection between the initiation of the land theme in the Creation Blessing of Genesis 1:26-29 and the fulfillment of that theme in the new creation.

Is the New Jerusalem the New Creation?

The argument that the New Jerusalem is the new creation is also problematic.

In justifying this interpretation Beale says that it is “an interpretive and theological problem” for John to see the new creation in Revelation 21:1 and the New Jerusalem in 21:2, 10-21. He asks, “How can we explain the apparent discrepancy that he saw a new heaven and earth in verse 1 and then saw only a city in the shape and structure of the temple in the remainder of the vision” (The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 365-66).

However, it is not clear that there is a discrepancy. As Beale himself notes, “It is possible, of course, that he merely first sees the new world and then sees a city-temple in that world.” Beale rejects that solution because he says John “seems to equate” the two. As evidence he notes that no uncleanness will be permitted in the city, when it is well-established that there will be no uncleanness permitted in the entire new creation. He also claims that Revelation has a pattern in which what is seen is later interpreted by what is heard or vice versa, giving as an example the time when John hears of the Lion of the tribe of Judah but sees a Lamb (Rev. 5:5-6) (Ibid., 366-67).

Response:

First, that no uncleaness is permitted in both the new creation and the New Jerusalem does not necessarily mean the two are the same.

Second, the parallel with Revelation 5 is inexact. In Revelation 21 John sees both the new creation and the New Jerusalem before hearing about the New Jerusalem. It is not that he sees the New Creation and then hears about the New Jerusalem. He sees the New Jerusalem and then hears about it.

Finally, there are indications in the text that the new creation and the New Jerusalem are distinct. In the first place, the New Jerusalem comes down out of heaven (21:2, 10). By saying that he “saw a new heaven and a new earth” directly before saying that he saw the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven, John seems to imply that he saw the city coming out of the new heaven to the new earth. In addition, for the nations to walk by the light of the city and for kings to bring their glory in through its gates (21:24-26) implies that there are nations and kingdoms in the new creation outside of the New Jerusalem. This thesis is strengthened by the fact that in Isaiah 60, a passage alluded to here, verses 3, 10, 16 refer simply to kings. John adds “of the earth.” Thus John’s  vision seems to affirm that all of God’s people dwell in New Jerusalem (21:12-13) wile also envisioning the people of God filling the entire new creation as nations with kings who reign under the King of kings.

The interpretation presented here are, I believe, more exegetically defensible than those proposed by Beale and adopted by Progressive Covenantalists. But they require no major alteration to the Progressive Covenantalists’ argument. For them the New Jerusalem symbolizes the whole new creation. Presumably this new creation is not just one large city, and presumably people live all over the new earth. But also presumably the Messiah reigns from a city. We might as well call it the New Jerusalem. And now we are back to a situation fairly close to what Revelation 21 describes.

The New Jerusalem and the Temple Theme

In addition to identifying the New Jerusalem as the new creation, Progressive Covenantalists identify the New Jerusalem with the temple. The connection between New Jerusalem and temple is made on the basis of its cubic shape, which was the shape of the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle/temple (Martin, 155).

Though the symbol of tabernacle/temple is replaced by the reality of God’s presence in the new creation (21:22), an allusion back to the symbol in the shape of the city is reasonable. An explicit connection to the temple theme is the identification of the New Jerusalem as “the dwelling place [σκηνή] of God . . . with man” (21:3; cf. Ex. 25:8). Another reason to connect temple and New Jerusalem is that the city is identified as the “Bride, the wife of the Lamb” (Rev. 21:9; cf. Eph. 2:22).

Nonetheless, a refinement of the Progressive Covenatalist view is in order. Based on the cubic shape of the city, it seems best to identify the New Jerusalem not simply with the temple imagery in general but with the Holy of Holies in particular. The Holy of Holies was the place where God was symbolically enthroned between the cherubim (1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 2 Kings 19:14-15), and the New Jerusalem is the place where God and the Lamb is enthroned (Rev. 22:1). If the symbolism of the Holy of Holies is fulfilled in the New Jerusalem, then it remains plausible for the symbolism of the temple as a whole to be fulfilled in the new creation as a whole.

Conclusion

Much of the Progressive Covenantalist viewpoint remains intact with the above analysis. The land theme and the temple theme remain related, the temple theme is seen as fulfilled in the new creation, and the land theme is also fulfilled in the new creation.

However, there are some differences.

First, there is no direct connection between the Abrahamic covenant’s land promises and the temple/New Jerusalem theme. On this understanding when Abraham is looking for a better country than the Canaan he sojourned in, the city he receives is not the entire new creation but Jerusalem, the chief city of the land promised to him (Heb. 11:16). This is not to deny that a connection exists between the Abrahamic covenant and the new earth nor is it to deny that Abraham is “heir of the world” (Rom. 4:13). It is to say that such connections cannot be directly based on the unpacking of this theme.

The second difference between the analysis proposed here and Progressive Covenantalism is the greater weight given here to the reality of nations in the new creation.

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

The Theological Importance of the Physical World

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

The Theological Importance of the Physical World

Eden and the Land Promise

Eden and the Land Promise

by

Wellum observes, “The ‘land’ promise of the Abrahamic covenant must also be understood in terms of what preceded it, namely, the covenant of creation. When this is done, there is further biblical warrant to view the ‘land’ as a type or pattern of the entire creation” (Kingdom through Covenant, 709). Leaving typology aside for the moment, the connection between Eden and the land promise in the Abrahamic covenant is a strong connection.

All three of the summary categories of the Abrahamic covenant are found in Genesis 1:26-28:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

This passage recounts God’s first stated blessing of man: “And God blessed them.” The blessing focuses on seed and land/dominion. The first blessing, that mankind would “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth,” is tied to the seed promise. The blessing then turns to land/dominion: “fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

God’s intended land/dominion blessing was never limited to the garden. God. intended for man to “fill the earth” (1:28). Genesis 2, which is largely a development of the blessing, seed, land/dominion themes introduced in 1:28, looks to beyond the garden in verses 10-14. The river that provided water for garden (2:6, 10) also provides the highways into the lands beyond Eden. Yet when Adam and Eve leave the garden it is not to extend good and wise dominion over the earth. Instead they find themselves exiled from the garden (3:23-24). This begins an exile theme in Scripture.

These three themes of blessing, seed, and land also appear in the Fall narrative. In Genesis 3 Adam’s sin results in a curse rather than a blessing. Fittingly, the curse focuses on seed (pain in childbearing; 3:16) and on dominion over the earth (3:17-19). Adam’s role as the cultivator of the ground is reaffirmed (see also 3:23). But the ground now resists human dominion. It is painful to work the ground, and the ground produces thorns in thistles along with food. In the end it seems as though the ground will have dominion over the man because the man returns to the dust of which he was created.

These three themes also occur in the Flood narrative and in the Noahic covenant. Land words occur in Genesis 7 at a higher percentage per verse than in any other chapter in Genesis. In both chapters 7 and 8 land is at the center of the problem. instead of being filled with humans as God intended (1:28), the earth is filled with violence. This violence corrupts the earth, just as Cain polluted the ground with the blood of Abel. When God makes his covenant with Noah, he reiterates the creation blessing of Genesis 1:28, though in the context of the Fall. The nature of the Noahic covenant is to set bounds on the curse so that God’s plan of redemption can be worked out in the world. The culmination of the redemption made possible by the Noahic covenant is the removal of the curse. In this way Noah plays a significant role in God’s plan to bring the earth relief from the curse. Land plays an important role in the Noahic covenant. This is clear when God’s purposes (8:21-22) are enshrined in the covenant (9:8-17). The heart of the covenant is that God will never again destroy the earth with a flood.

Thus when we come to the promises to Abraham in Genesis 12, there should be little surprise that land has a prominent place alongside seed and blessing in these promises. Land was part of God’s initial blessing to mankind, land was affected by the Fall, and land was the focal point of the Noahic covenant. Nor, given this background should it surprise us if, as the Scripture unfolds this theme, the promise has a significance that broadens out beyond Israel to encompass all of God’s people and all of creation.

On the connection of the land promise with Eden, and on the implications of that connection for the expansion of the land promise, I register no disagreement with Progressive Covenantalists.

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)

The Theological Importance of the Physical World

Interpreting John 11:25-26: “I am the resurrection and the life…”

by

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

As is often the case in John’s Gospel Jesus is recorded as using the same words with subtlety different meanings.

In verse 25 Jesus uses life to refer to resurrection life. So even the one who’s body is buried, if he is a believer, will live despite his death. He will be resurrected.

But in verse 26 Jesus speaks of one who lives and believes never dying. Here “lives” is probably referring to eternal life. John it is clear that eternal life is not something that believers will get in the future; it is something that believers have now.

So Jesus is saying that even if the outer man dies, the believer will live in the outer man again since Jesus is the resurrection. But more than that, the believer already has eternal life in the inner man and he will never die in the inner man.

This passage then can help shape our understanding of death at the Fall. Genesis 3:19 records the pronouncement of the coming death of the outer man. Genesis 3:7-13 records the effects of the death of the inner man: shame (3:7), separation from God (3:8), failure to love others as one’s self (3:12). Of course, standing over the entire event is the failure to love God.

Sources:

The language of inner man/outer man comes from 2 Corinthians 4:16.

Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xii), Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 434.

D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 412-11.

 

 

The Theological Importance of the Physical World

by

Those who spiritualize the land promise fall prey to what Robert Saucy calls “the common view that the Old Testament deals with material and earthly realities while the New Testament deals with higher, spiritual matters” (Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 242). Against this “common view” Paul places the bodily resurrection at the heart of the gospel:

For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. . . . When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: ‘Death is swallowed up in victory.’ O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting? [1 Cor. 15:21-22]

Redemption involves reversing sin and its effects, with death as the chief consequence of sin. Thus the redeemed are given life in the inner man: “and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die” (John 11:26). But life in the inner man alone is not the conquest of death. Christ conquers death in the outer man as well: “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live” (John 11:25). (For futher explanation, see here.) At the heart of the gospel is something physical, the resurrection body.

Sin also affected the physical creation in the cursing of the creation blessing. Attending the seed blessing is pain in childbirth (Gen. 3:16) and the blessing of dominion over the land is frustrated (Gen. 3:17-19). Paul notes that “the creation was subjected to futility,” a reference to the curse. Furthermore, Paul connects the creation waiting for freedom “from its bondage to corruption” to “the redemption of our bodies,” a reference to the resurrection (Rom. 8:19-23). The reversal of the curse on creation, therefore, is an important part of redemption.

Given the tight relationship between redemption and the material creation, Saucy is certainly correct when he rejects “the common hermeneutical tendency to see statements dealing with material things as symbolically depicting New Testament spiritual realities.”

Progressive Covenantalists are in line with Saucy here. Martin writes:

Jesus taught his disciples to pray that God’s (heavenly) kingdom would come to earth (Matt. 6:9-10). The hope for Jesus’s followers, then, is not an ethereal, non-physical existence, but the consummation of spiritual realities coming into effect on the earth. Likewise, in Matthew 19 the future place of Jesus’ disciples is not described as a destruction of the earth or a spiritual, non-physical kingdom, but a palingenesia, a new world (19:28). Thus the earth has a territorial connotation and the Beatitudes an eschatological dimension. When put together, Matthew describes an eschatological reborn earth for those in the kingdom. Amazingly, the ‘blessed’ in Matthew will inherit the earth (Matt. 5:5)—the kingdom of heaven (vv. 3, 10)—and though they mourn in the present, they will reign with Christ in the new earth. [Bound for the Promised Land, 126]

This point of agreement is significant, for it forms the foundation for a commonality of viewpoint and the possibility for rapprochement that would not be possible if the land promise was spiritualized.

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)