Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Was the Promised Land a Type of the New Creation?

by

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)

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

Progressive Covenantalism, Typology, and the Land Promise

Caveats

by

The nature of Leithart’s theological commentary varies. At times he is connecting the passage to redemptive history (as with the introduction, noted previously). Other times he demonstrates how a passage sheds light on a theological issue (e.g., a discussion about the rightness of prophetic declarations of judgment concludes with a reflection on the justice of eternal punishment in Hell). Most often, Leithart identifies various typological connections between Scripture texts. Some of these typologies are probably legitimate (i.e., though I don’t see a Moses-Elijah typology as Leithart does, I do think that the text presents parallels between Moses and Elijah for the purpose of demonstrating that even the great prophet Elijah is not the Prophet like Moses that the people are to anticipate),in many cases the parallels are more dependent on Leithart’s imagination and clever phasing than on the text (e.g., taking the three year drought during Ahab’s reign to foreshadow the three days that Christ, “the true Israel,” was in the tomb [133]).

So while I enjoyed Leithart’s introduction (especially after having a read a number of non-evangelicals on theological interpretation), I’m not inclined to actually buy this volume.

Leithart on Kings

by

Peter Leithart’s contribution to the “Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible” is clearly evangelical.

By contrast, Stanley Hauerwas in his BTCB contribution interprets Matthew according to his political paradigm.

Matthew’s gopspel is about ‘the politics of Jesus,’ which entails an alternative to the power politics of reading the gospel. a right reading of the gospel requires a people who are shaped by the ‘oblation familiar to the faithful,’ that is, a community whose fundamental political act is the sacrifice of the altar—an alternative to Herodian power politics. A theological reading of Matthew, therefore, reaffirms that the church be an alternative politics to the politics of the world. [28]

Leithart, however, interprets Kings according to the evangel.

He notes that in the Hebrew canon Kings is one of the Former Prophets. According to Leithart,

The message of the prophets is not, ‘Israel has sinned; therefore, Israel needs to get its act together or it will die.’ The message is, ‘Israel has sinned; therefore, Israel must die, and its only hope is to entrust itself to God who will give it new life on the far side of death.’ Or even, ‘Israel has sinned; Israel is already dead. Cling to God who raises the dead.’ [18]

Leithart also relates Kings to the wisdom books:

After Solomon, wisdom simply disappears from 1-2 Kings. The words ‘wise’ or ‘wisdom’ occur twenty-one times in 1 Kgs. 1-11, but never again after those chapters. Never again does Israel or Judah have a philosopher-king, a sage on the throne. Royal wisdom, touted so heavily at the opening of the book, fails to deliver, showing that Israel’s hope for restoration, blessing, and life does not lie in human wisdom, no matter what heights it attains. [18f.]

And to the Torah. He notes that Joshua 1:8 promises success to the one who obeys the Torah,

Yet, the only king connected to Torah in 1-2 Kings is Josiah, and we are no sooner assured that he keeps Torah to perfection (2 Kings 23:25) than we learn that Yahweh still intends to destroy Judah" (1 Kings 23:26). "Once Israel sins, wisdom cannot save Israel and Judah; nor can Torah obedience. [20]

The Temple plays a similar role. The Temple is the place to which Israel can pray when facing the curses (1 Kings 9:3).

But no Davidic king ever prays in or toward the temple until Hezekiah is threatened by the Assyrians (19:1), and in the following generation Hezekiah’s son, Manasseh, defiles the sanctuary more than any other king of Judah when he places a sacred pole for Asherah in the temple precincts. After a history of neglect and abuse, 2 Kings ends with an account of Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of the house. [20]

Leithart then relates all of this to the gospel:

Wisdom cannot save Israel from division; Torah cannot save Judah from destruction; and the last refuge of hope, the temple, is torn apart and burned by a Babylonian king. All that made Israel Israel—king and priest, Torah and temple—is destroyed. As a prophetic narrative, 1-2 Kings makes it clear that there is no salvation for Israel within Israel. Having broken covenant, it faces the curse of the covenant: in the day you eat, you will be driven from the garden. Dying, you shall die. [20]

Against this dark backdrop Leithart turns to discuss the longsuffering of God in Kings which points to the hope of the gospel.

I would like to see the gospel developed in terms of Jesus, the king who accomplished what Solomon, Hezekiah, and Josiah could not; the prophet who faithfully declares God’s word and turns people’s hearts as Elijah could not; the priest and sacrifice who fulfilled God’s Torah; the builder and sanctifier of a temple of living stones; and the Wisdom who will instruct those who fear him how to be like him.

Joshua, Fulfilled Promises, and the Abrahamic Covenant

by

One reader sent an e-mail in response to the post on the fulfillment of God’s promises: “You should deal . . . with whether or not that part of the Abrahamic covenant is still in force if Joshua says the land was given to the people.”

This actually raises a fairly big issue within Joshua itself. Some passages in Joshua seem to say that the entire land had been conquered (Josh 10:40-42; 11:16-23; 21:43-45). Other passages seem to say that there was more land to conquer (Josh 13:1; 18:3).

This seeming discrepancy should not be blown out of proportion. For instance, Joshua 11:23 reads, “So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the Lord had spoken to Moses,” immediately after noting that there remained land to conquer in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod (Josh 11:22).

It is important to remember exactly what God spoke when he promised the land to Moses (Josh 11:21; 21:45). In Deuteronomy 7:22, God said, “The LORD your God will drive out these nations before you little by little. You will not be able to destroy them all at once; otherwise, the wild animals will become too numerous for you” (HCSB).

In other words, God had given to Israel the land as a whole, but, just as he had said, there still remained land to conquer little by little: the border lands and pocks of resistance within each tribe’s territory.

As to the Abrahamic covenant being fully fulfilled, this becomes more of an issue in 1 Kings 4:20-21. That passages says Solomon ruled all the land by the Abrahamic Covenant according to the specified boundries (Gen. 15:18). It is important to note, however that this land was promised to Israel as an “everlasting possession” (Gen. 17:8). That was not fulfilled either in Joshua’s day or in Solomon’s.

The Threefold Office of Christ – Part 7

by

With the failure of the king to right Israel’s (and the world’s) sin problem, the focus turns to the prophets. The book of Kings contains more references to the prophet or the man of God than any other book of the Bible. Kings emphasizes the sure fulfillment of the prophetic word, and this emphasis should have reminded the people that God would fulfill the covenant curses prophesied by Moses if they continued in their disobedience.

The account of Elijah, the greatest of the prophets during the time of the divided kingdom, echoes in many ways the ministry of Moses. It is possible that attentive Israelites looking for a prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:18) thought Elijah was that man.

Just as Yahweh demonstrated through Moses that the gods of Egypt were no gods, through Elijah Yahweh demonstrated Baal was no god. The three year drought challenged the belief that Baal brought fertility to the land, and the miraculous provision of food in Sidon, Jezebel’s homeland, demonstrated that Yahweh could do what Baal was supposed to be able to do. In Baal mythology, during the dry season the god Mot held Baal captive in the world of the dead. Each year Anath rescued Baal and together they would restore fertility to the land. By raising the widow’s son from the dead during the drought, Yahweh demonstrated that even though Baal could not rise from the dead, as it were, Yahweh had power to raise people from the dead.

This contest climaxed on Mount Carmel. Elijah’s prayer was the same as the oft repeated purpose of God in the Exodus (Ex 6:7; 10:1; 16:6, 12; 29:46): “that this people may know that you, O Lord, are God, and that you have turned their hearts back” (1.18:37). The last part of the prayer is a request for the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 30:1-10.

Elijah may have realized the many ways in which his ministry was like Moses’, but after the climatic confrontation on Mount Carmel he saw that Jezebel was going to kill him just as she had killed Yahweh’s other prophets. [It is better to read וַיַּרְא with the KJV rather than repointing to וַיִּרָא. Keil perceptively notes, “For it is obvious that Elijah did not flee from any fear of the vain threat of Jezebel, from the fact that he did not merely withdrawn into the kingdom of Judah, where he would have been safe under Jehoshaphat from all the persecutions of Jezebel, but went to Beersheba, and thence onwards into the desert” C. F. Keil, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, (Reprint, Hendrickson, 1996), 178. Note also Ronald B. Allen, “Elijah, the Broken Prophet,” JETS 22 (Sep. 1979): 198-99.] So despite the fiery response from God and the immediate confession of the people, in the next chapter Elijah is found taking a forty-day journey to Mount Sinai. But Elijah realized that instead of being a prophet like Moses, he was “no better than [his] fathers” (1.19:4). He was not about to let Jezebel kill him, but he would be happy if God would simply take his life (like he did with Moses?). God did not take his life, but, interestingly, before Elijah is taken from earth he crossed the Jordan in a manner reminiscent of Moses’ crossing of the Red Sea.

In some ways Elijah surpassed Moses since, unlike Moses, who died and was buried by the Lord, Elijah was caught up to heaven in a fiery chariot. [Interestingly, it is Moses and Elijah who appear with Christ at the Transfiguration.] Even so, Elijah was not the prophet like Moses. That Prophet was still to come.