Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Toward an Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5

by

וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֤ם אֶת־חֻקֹּתַי֙ וְאֶת־מִשְׁפָּטַ֔י אֲשֶׁ֨ר יַעֲשֶׂ֥ה אֹתָ֛ם הָאָדָ֖ם וָחַ֣י בָּהֶ֑ם אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֽה׃

“So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does them, he shall live by them; I am Yahweh” (LSB)

Thesis: This verse promises eternal life upon obedience to the statutes and judgments of the Mosaic covenant. In fact, no one (except Christ) would ever be able to fulfill this requirement and thus no one would obtain salvation by this path.

Place of Leviticus 18 in the Structure of Leviticus

Leviticus 18 begins a major section of the book of Leviticus. Leviticus 18:5 thus stands at a strategic point in the book.

Leviticus 1-16 deals with the cultic matters that relate to entering into the tabernacle. This section climaxes with the day of atonement as recounted in chapter 16. Chapter 17 “serves as a pivot between Leviticus 1-16 and 18-26” (Averbeck, “Tabernacle,” DOTP, 820).

Jay Sklar concurs with this structure:

Like chapters 1–16; Leviticus 17 addresses issues related to the proper place of sacrifice (cf. 17:4 with 1:3; 3:2; 4:4), the proper use of blood (cf. 17:10, 12, 14 with 3:17; 7:26), the importance of addressing ritual impurity (cf. 17:15–16 with 11:24–25, 39–40; 15:31; 16:16, 19), and the application of these laws to resident aliens (cf. 17:8, 10, 13, 15 with 16:29). But like chapters 18–20; Leviticus 17 also has a prohibition against illicit cultic practices (cf. 17:7 with 18:21; 19:4; 20:2). The chapter therefore serves as a smooth transition between Leviticus 1–16 and Leviticus 18–20. [TOTC, 217]

Averbeck also notes,

On the one hand, ch. 17 looks back to chs. 1-16 in the sense that it emphasizes making offerings in the tabernacle (vv. 1-9) along with blood “atonement,” which therefore includes the prohibition against eating blood (vv. 10-16). On the other hand, the primary goal of the regulations in ch.17 is to introduce one of the major concerns of chs. 18-26: the absolute exclusivity of Yahweh worship. [NIV BTSB, 200]

Averbeck also notes that the statements, “Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy” and “I am the LORD (your God)” occur throughout Leviticus 18-26 but do not occur in Leviticus 17 or 27 (DOTP, 820).

Thus Leviticus 18:1-5 is the beginning section of the next major part of the book of Leviticus. Its scope, therefore, should not be reduced to the laws regarding unlawful sexual relations. Rather, these verses occur at the center of the book of Leviticus, at the center of the Pentateuch, and at the beginning of a section about holiness of life in the promised land.

It should not be surprising, therefore, that New Testament figures discerned in Leviticus 18:5 a programmatic statement regarding the Mosaic Law. Neither Jesus nor Paul was cherry-picking a random verse from the Pentateuch when he quoted Leviticus 18:5. Both recognized that Leviticus 18:5 occupies a strategic position within the structure of Leviticus and within the structure of the Pentateuch.

The Use of the OT in Leviticus 18

Nobuyoshi Kiuchi observes numerous connections between Leviticus 18 and Genesis 2-3 (ApOTC, 330-31). For instance, much of Leviticus 18 deals with forbidden sexual relations, including between men and men and between man and beast. These laws are rooted in the creation order outlined in Genesis 2:20-23. Adam’s inability to find a corresponding helper in the animal world and God’s creation of woman as the corresponding helper for man reveals the proper creation order regarding intimate relations. Leviticus 18 also refers repeatedly sexual relations in terms of uncovering nakedness. This evokes Genesis 2:25 and Genesis 3:21. Unfallen man and woman were “both naked and were not ashamed” (Gen 2:25), but after the Fall man and woman are in need of covering (Gen 3:21). Finally, just as man was sent (שׁלח) from the garden after his sin so the nations are sent out of the promised land, the analogue to Eden (Lev 18:24).

Given the extensive connections between Genesis 2-3 in this chapter, it is difficult not to read, “”So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does them, he shall live by them” (LSB) as an analogue to “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Gen 2:17). Since Genesis 2:17 encompassed not only physical death but also eternal death, Leviticus 18:5 may also encompass not only temporal life but also eternal life.

It is also notable that Leviticus 18:5 switches from the phrasing, “So you shall keep” to “if a man [הָאָדָ֖ם] does them. Jason DeRouchie observes, “the noun phrase ‘the man’ (הָאָדָם) in Leviticus 18:5 may be an allusion to the first man (הָאָדָם) in the garden, who himself foreshadowed Israel’s existence. God created the first man in the wilderness (Gen 2:7), moved him into paradise (2:8, 15), and gave him commands (2:16–17), the keeping of which would have resulted in his lasting life (2:17; cf. 3:24). Then, upon the man’s disobedience (3:6), God justly exiled him from paradise, resulting his ultimate death (3:23–24; cf. 3:19). This too becomes Israel’s story” (“The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12,” Them 45 [2020]: 249). DeRouchie concludes, “”The Mosaic covenant, therefore, in many ways mirrored God’s covenant with creation through Adam (Isa 24:4–6; Hos 6:7), with Yahweh’s relationship with Israel supplying a microcosmic picture of the larger relationship he has over all humanity” (“The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12,” Them 45 [2020]: 249).

Exegetical Observations on Leviticus 18:1-5

Leviticus 18:1-5 establishes that just as Adam and Eve were in a covenant relationship with Yhwh, so the people of Israel are in a covenant relationship with Israel. Twice Yhwh identifies himself with the phrase, “I am Yhwh your God” (Lev 18:2, 4). For Yhwh to be “your God” implies a covenant relationship with the people he is addressing.

John Kleinig rightly observes, “The promise of life here goes beyond mere physical survival. It has to do with the possession of God-given life in its fullness: liveliness and vitality, prosperity and blessing (Deut 30:15-20). This abundant life continues into the age to come (Jn 10:10)” (ConC, 375-76). As Kiuchi astutely observes, if eternal life is not in view, the phrase “and lives” refers to a state that “will ultimately result in death” (ApOTC, 332).

In support of the eternal life interpretation, Kiuchi observes, “In Leviticus the term ḥāyâ means to ‘live’ in the biological sense of moving freely (cf. 13:10, 14-16; 14:4-5; 16:10; Deut 8:3; Ezek. 20:11, 13, 21). However, as this life is guaranteed by the observance of these rules, and not by food, the life envisaged here must mean more than just physical life, but primarily spiritual life, a life that embraces physical life” (ApOTC, 332). Kiuchi concludes, “it is possible to read this verse as saying that by ‘and live’ the Lord intends to say that a man lives forever, on the assumption that the present life is part of eternal life (cf. Eccl. 3:11; Gen. 3:22)” (ApOTC, 332).

This interpretation is consistent with other statements in the Mosaic covenant, as Jason DeRoucie notes: “Moses frequently conditions life and blessing/good (Lev 26:3–13; Deut 28:1–14), death and curse/evil (Lev 26:14–39; Deut 27:11–26; 28:15–68), on a perfect keeping of all the law (Deut 11:26–28; 30:15–19; cf. e.g., 5:29; 6:25; 8:1; 11:32; 26:18) with all one’s heart and soul (4:29; 6:5; 10:12; 11:13; 13:3; 26:16; cf. 30:2, 6, 10). By their pursuing God’s standard of ‘righteousness’ (צֶ֫דֶק, 16:20) and by their keeping his whole commandment manifest in the various statutes and rules, the Lord would preserve their lives (6:24), they would enjoy the status of ‘righteousness’ (צְדָקָה, 6:25; cf. Ps 106:30–31), and they would secure lasting ‘life’ (Deut 8:1; 16:20; 30:16)” (“The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12,” Them 45 [2020]: 247). Though many of these statements emphasize the temporal blessings that Israel would receive, those blessings were to anticipate the blessings of eternal life. Thus DeRouchie notes, “”The community needed God to preserve their present lives (cf. Deut 4:4; 5:3; 6:24), and the blessings they sought included temporal provision and protection (see esp. Lev 26:3–13; Deut 28:1–14). Nevertheless, in a very real sense the “life” Moses was promising also included a soteriological and eschatological escalation beyond their present state—one that he could contrast with being “cut off from among their people” (Lev 18:29)” (“The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12,” Them 45 [2020]: 247).

DeReouchie goes on to observe, “In light of the above, the prepositional phrase in the clause “they shall live by them” in Leviticus 18:5 most likely includes a sense of instrumentality (i.e., “by means of the statutes”) and not just locality (i.e., “in the sphere of the statutes”)” (“The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12,” Them 45 [2020]: 247).

Many interpreters (Gathercole, Moo, and others) hold that Leviticus 18:5 was speaking typologically about life in the land but that later OT passages, NT texts, and rabbinic writings interpret the typological in light of what it typified (that is, eternal life) or that they expanded the scope. It would be better, however, to understand Ezekiel, Jesus, and Paul as correctly interpreting Leviticus 18:5.

Reception History

Tg. Ps.-J. and Tg. Onq. identify the life in this verse as “eternal life” (Hartley, WBC, 282). Likewise, Damascus Document and Psalms of Solomon understand life in this passage to be eternal life (Rosner, Paul and the Law, NSBT, 63). Jewish intertestamental and rabbinic literature is not always correct in their interpretations, but these sources do provide early evidence for the plausibility of the eternal life reading

That this covenant promised eternal life on the condition of perfect obedience is a strand that runs through the Protestant interpretive tradition. As John Calvin observed, “If someone expresses the Law of God in his life, he will lack nothing of the perfection required before the Lord. In order to certify that, God promises to those who shall have fulfilled the Law not only the grand blessings of the present life, which are recited in Lev. 26:3–13 and in Deut. 27:1–14, but also the recompense of eternal life (Lev. 18:5)” (“Calvin’s Catechism (1537),” in Reformed Confession, 1:364). Calvin reiterates this understanding in the Institutes: “We cannot gainsay that the reward of eternal salvation awaits complete obedience to the law, as the Lord has promised”—while also observing, “Because observance of the law is found in none of us, we are excluded from the promises of life, and fall back into the mere curse” (Battles translation, 1:351, 352; 2.7.3).

Andrew Bonar understands the life in this verse to be eternal life, and he concludes: “so excellent are God’s laws, and every special, minute detail of these laws, that if a man were to keep these always and perfectly, this keeping would be eternal life to him.” Noting the quotation of this verse in Romans 10:5 and Galatians 3:12, Bonar finds this interpretation “to be the true and only sense here” (Leviticus, 329-30).

Similarly, Geerhardus Vos quotes this verse in support of the claim that “even after the covenant of works is broken, perfect keeping of the law is presented as a hypothetical means for obtaining life, a means that must work infallibly” (Reformed Dogmatics, 41:1).

Old Testament Use of Leviticus 18:5

Simon Gathercole identifies Ezekiel 20 as the “first commentary on Leviticus 18:5 (“Torah, Life and Salvation,” in From Prophecy to Testament, 127; cf. Kleinig, ConC, 375; Moo, BECNT, 221). In Ezekiel 20:11, 13, 21 Yhwh refers to the laws of the Mosaic covenant as those “by which, if a man does them, he will live by them” (LSB). Disobedient Israel is then given over to “statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life,” which is probably a reference to giving them over to idolatrous ways (Calvin, Commentary, 2:315; Poole, Annotations, 2:721; Owen, Works, 22:465-66; KD 9:157; Fairbairn, Ezekiel, 220-22; Vos, Biblical Theology, 144; Feinberg, Ezekiel, 112; Cooper, NAC, 205; Alexander, REBC, 749). To say that idolatrous ways were those “by which they could not have life” is an understatement as idolatry brings eternal death. Also, the contrast between eternal death and life indicates that the life in view is eternal life. Finally, this passage foretells a restoration of Israel in the new creation. Ezekiel 20 seems, therefore, to interpret life in Leviticus 18:5 as eternal life.

Nehemiah 9:29 also alludes to Leviticus 18:5 (Kleinig, ConC, 375; Moo, BECNT, 221). Once again, the laws of the Mosaic covenant are referred to as that “by which if a man does them, he shall live” (LSB). What follows are temporal punishments. This does not invalidate the thesis, for as Kiuchi above noted the eternal life in view would include this present life also.

New Testament Use of Leviticus 18:5

Matthew 19:17

When the rich young man asked Jesus, “Teacher what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” (Mt 19:16) Jesus responded in a twofold manner. First, he established that only God is good (Mt 19:17). Second, he said, “If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” (Mt 19:17). The commandments that are then detailed are the from the Decalogue to which is added the second great commandment (from Lev 19:18).

Calvin understands Jesus to teach “that the Law teaches how men may obtain righteousness by works, and yet that no man is justified by works, because the fault lies not in the doctrine of the Law, but in men” (Harmony of the Evangelists, 3:60). It will not do to say that Jesus simply answers the rich young man according to his own viewpoint. Though the young man’s viewpoint provides the framework for Christ’s answer, Jesus was not simply accomodating himself to this young man. Christ both teaches that eternal life can in theory be obtained by obedience to the law and that in fact it cannot be so obtained since no one is good but God alone.

Luke 10:28

Just preceding the Parable of the Good Samaritan, a lawyer asked Jesus, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Lk 10:25). When Jesus asked the man what the Law of Moses said, he responded by citing the two great commandments. To which Jesus, responded, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live” (Lk 10:28). The two great commandments summarize the Mosaic Law, and Jesus echoed Leviticus 18:5 in affirming this to be the right answer (Crowe, Perfect Life, 81). In context, this is eternal life that Jesus is speaking of. However, the way Jesus phrased this affirmation implied that the lawyer was not yet fulfilling the law and thus still lacked eternal life (Garland, 438-39). The lawyer, for his part, recognizes that he cannot keep the Mosaic Law without narrowing its requirements. Thus obedience to the Mosaic covenant is seen as a potential path to eternal life, but not one that any sinner will achieve. As Calvin says, “for the reason why God justifies us freely is, not that the Law does not point out perfect righteousness, but because we fail in keeping it, and the reason why it is declared to be impossible for us to obtain life by it is, that it is weak through our flesh, (Rom. 8:3.) So then these two statements are perfectly consistent with each other, that the Law teaches how men may obtain righteousness by works, and yet that no man is justified by works, because the fault lies not in the doctrine of the Law, but in men” (Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, 60).

Galatians 3:12

In this context Paul establishes first that those who do not keep all of the Mosaic Law fall under its curse (Gal 3:10 citing Dt 27:26). To this he opposes Habakkuk 2:4, “The righteous shall live by faith” (Gal 3:11). This observation is in service of the argument that “no one is justified before God by the law” (3:11) since “The law is not of faith” (3:12). To establish the provided alternative (and impossible, cf. 3:10) path to eternal life, Paul quotes Leviticus 18:5, “The one who does them shall live by them.”

Bryan Estelle observes, “When we come to Paul’s use of these terms and explore the context in which he understood the promise of life conditioned upon obedience, he clearly parsed that ‘life’ as ‘the life of eternity’ or ‘the world to come'” (“Leviticus 18:5 and Deuteronomy 30:1-14 in Biblical Theological Development,” in The Law Is Not of Faith, 110).

Some claim that when Paul cites Leviticus 18:5 he is doing to so to critique a misinterpretation of the verse (Sklar, TOTC, 229). However, Paul was not citing a misinterpretation of Leviticus 18:5 but was citing the verse itself. In context, Paul was contrasting the Mosaic and new covenants. He could do this by quoting verses from the Pentateuch because the Mosaic writings contain not only the provisions of the Mosaic covenant but statements of its inadequacy (due to human sinfulness) and predictions of the coming new covenant and its provisions. In addition, what Sklar identified as a misinterpretation seems to be the interpretation Jesus gave to the verse in Luke 10:28.

Romans 10:5

In context Paul is discussing two ways of pursing righteousness. The Gentiles pursued righteousness by faith and attained it, but the Jews pursued righteousness by works and stumbled over the stumbling stone, that is Christ. By seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not receive Christ’s righteousness. They failed to see that Christ was the end (the fulfillment, terminus, and completer) of the law for the purpose of bringing righteousness to everyone who believes. In other words, justification through faith in Christ is what the Mosaic Law was always pointing to and the coming of Christ brought the Mosaic law to a point of completion.

In Romans 10:5-9 Paul establishes his argument with Scripture. He quotes Leviticus 18:5 to establish that the Mosaic covenant promised righteousness and eternal life based on doing the commandments. To this he opposes Deuteronomy 30, in which the people are told that the word of faith can bring them salvation. Paul is not pitting Moses against himself here. In context Deuteronomy 30 establishes that the Mosaic covenant would not save the Israelites; it predicted they would come under its covenant curses. Therefore, Deuteronomy 30 points the people forward to a coming new covenant, the benefits of which could be obtained by faith by anyone in any era who called on the Lord by faith.

Romans 7:10

Though Paul does not quote Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 7:10, the statement “the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me” seems to allude to it (Rosner, Paul and the Law, NSBT, 66). Leviticus 18:5 was a promise of (eternal) life on the basis of obedience. However, as Paul makes clear in Romans 7, no one (other than Christ) is able to keep the Law and obtain life by that promise.

Proposed Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5

This verse promises eternal life upon obedience to the statutes and judgments of the Mosaic covenant. In fact, no one (except Christ) would ever be able to fulfill this requirement and thus no one would obtain salvation by this path. Something the Mosaic Law itself made clear. However, the “except Christ” is a very important exception. Christ was born under this Law, and he fulfilled it in our place.

Objections to the Proposed Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5

Obj. 1: The claim that eternal life is promised upon obedience to the Law is contrary to the doctrine of justification by faith alone

Mark Rooker observes that verse 5 ” has been interpreted as rewarding salvation to those who keep the commandments,” but he rejects this interpretation on the grounds that it is “in conflict with the doctrine of justification by faith” (NAC, 240).

Ans. Galatians 3:12 and Romans 10:5 cite this verse as pointing to a way of justification by the works of the law. These passages are clear that no one will actually be justified in this way. But it is nonetheless presented as a hypothetical way of obtaining righteousness.

Obj. 2: Israel had already been graciously redeemed by Yhwh

This is how Jay Sklar argues: “It is crucial to understand that this verse does not mean the Israelites were to earn relationship with the Lord through their obedience. The larger context makes clear that the Lord gives the Israelites the law after he redeemed them (cf. Exod. 1–19 with Exod. 20–23). The law regulates this relationship; it does not create it. As in the New Testament, relationship with the Lord is always grounded in his gracious redemption (cf. Rom. 5:8)” (Sklar, TOTC, 229).

Ans. This is to confuse the type and the reality. Physically and typologically Israel had been redeemed from slavery in Egypt. The very structure of the exodus account reveals that the physically and typologically redeemed Israelites still stand in need of redemption.

Exodus 15:1-21 marks the end of Israel’s redemption from Egypt. These verses mark the beginning of a transitional section between that redemption and the giving of the Mosaic covenant (ch 19ff.). This transitional section begins with three pericopes in which the people are grumbling against Yhwh and against Moses regarding food and water. These three pericopes reveal that even though Israel was physically redeemed from Egypt, the Israelites were still in need of new hearts. They still needed redemption from sin.

At the end of the first of these grumbling pericopes, the text provides a brief preview of the Mosaic covenant: “There Yhwh made for them a statute and a rule, and there he tested them, saying, ‘If you will diligently listen to the voice of Yhwh your God, and do that which is right in his eyes, and give ear to his commandments and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you that I put on the Egyptians, for I am Yhwh, your healer'” (ESV, adj.).

Note the conditional nature of the statement: If Israel keeps Yhwh’s law, then God will keep the judgments of Egypt from Israel. The implication is that if Israel does not keep Yhwh’s law they will receive the judgments of Egypt themselves. A case and point would be the locust plague Israel experienced as recorded in Joel 1.

Note also Yhwh’s identification of himself at the end of this statement, “for I am Yhwh, your healer.” This is given as a reason for why Yhwh will not bring the diseases of Egypt upon Israel. It is not a statement that Yhwh will heal Israel from these diseases.

The fact that this pericope is followed by two more in which Israel grumbles at Yhwh demonstrates that the nation did not come to Yhwh for healing. Israel’s rebellion at the golden calf incident and in Numbers shows that Israel still remained in need of healing.

Jason DeRouchie observes, “By Leviticus 18, the narrator has highlighted how the people have tested God seven times since leaving Egypt, and by the time the ten spies fail to believe the Lord, the total testings would be ten (Num 14:21–23).24 Thus, Moses rightly labels them “stubborn” (Exod 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Deut 9:6, 13; 10:16; 31:27), “unbelieving” (Num 14:11; Deut 1:32; 9:23; cf. 28:66), and “rebellious” (Num 20:10, 24; 27:14; Deut 9:7, 24; 31:27; cf. 1:26, 43; 9:23). … The cry, “Do this law so that you may live!” came to a primarily unregenerated community” (“The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:!2,” Them 45 [2020]: 248).

Thus, the Israelites whom Moses addressed in Leviticus 18:5 were still in need of eternal life.

Obj. 3: The sacrificial system would have dealt with the problem of imperfect obedience, thus enabling the Israelites to keep Leviticus 18:5

Jason DeRouchie responds to this claim by observing, “If, as I have argued, most original recipients of Moses’s words were unregenerate, a call to “do in order to live” would have resulted in nothing less than a type of legalism for the majority, as the ‘gracious character of the Levitical system’ would be inoperative without the feeling of guilt, confession, and trust (Lev 5:5–6; Num 5:6–7)” (“The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:!2,” Them 45 [2020]: 251, quoting Jim Hamilton to critique his view).

The regenerate in Israel were to continue to practice the sacrifical system, but they should have realized that repeated animal sacrifices could not ultimately atone for their sin. They should have been looking forward to the new covenant sacrifice of the promised Seed.

Obj. 4: An offer of eternal life based on obedience to the law cannot be made because the Israelites (and all mankind) are already born sinners as a result of Adam’s sin

Ans. 1: In actual fact no sinner would be saved by their personal obedience to the Mosaic law because no sinner could meet the requirement of this covenant. However, this very fact reinforces the inability of sinners to be saved by the works of the Law.

Ans. 2: The New Testament does not present Christ as being born under the Adamic covenant and keeping the requirements of the Adamic covenant in our place for salvation. That covenant was already broken by Adam. The New Testament presents Christ as being born under the Mosaic Law and keeping the requirements of the Mosaic Law for our salvation (Gal 4:4). if obedience to the Mosaic Law could not bring salvation, how could Christ’s obedience to that Law bring us salvation?

Obj 5: The Mosaic Covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace and thus cannot be a works covenant

Ans. 1: This presumes that there is a single overarching covenant of grace of which all the biblical covenants (save the Adamic covenant) are administrations. However, there are several factors opposed to this presumption. (1) It is difficult to establish the single, overarching covenant of grace position exegetically. (2) There is significant exegetical evidence for the Mosaic covenant as being in some way a works covenant, and while there are various ways to integrate this evidence into an overarching covenant of grace view, the exegetical data and theological construction do stand in some tension with each other. (3) There are better models which better account for the data.

Ans. 2: There are ways for those who hold to a unitary covenant of grace to hold that the Mosaic Covenant is in some sense a covenant of works. These approaches have their own complications, but it allows certain covenant theologians to handle the exegetical data of Leviticus 18:5 and its co-texts well without abandoning their system of covenant theology.

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the ESV.

The quotation of a source above does not mean that source is complete agreement with the arguement I am making. For instance, Calvin’s views of law and covenant have some complexity to them. Likewise, Estelle’s view is complicated; he holds that the “temporal life promised in the Mosaic covenant portended and typified the greater ‘eternal life'” but that this is not “merely and exclusively a typological arrangement.” (“Leviticus 18:5 and Deuteronomy 30:1-14 in Biblical Theological Development,” in The Law Is Not of Faith, 118).

Both Major Party Presidential Candidates are Pro-Abortion

by

Philip Klein of National Review posted today:

Over the course of the campaign, as he’s internalized the idea that opposition to abortion is a drag on Republicans, President Trump has been tempted to revisit his old pro-choice positions. Up until now, however, he has calibrated his statements in the way that could still be defensible from a pro-life perspective.

That all changed today, however, with a single post on Truth Social:

He continues:

The latest Truth Social post is different. The idea that his administration would be “great” for “reproductive rights” is hard to interpret in any other way than as an affirmatively pro-choice statement. By the common usage of the term, if you support reproductive rights it means you want broader access to abortion.

For an account of how the pro-life position was excluded from the 2024 GOP platform, see “Is the Republican Party Becoming Pro-Choice,” First Things. Included in the piece is this observation:

Trump claims to hold a federalist position on abortion, but in practice he condemns only states that pass pro-life protections—such as Florida—while saying nothing about states with permissive abortion regimes. During the presidential debate, he expressed his support for the abortion pill; Ohio Senator J. D. Vance, a potential running mate, followed suit in a Meet the Press interview. 

For addtiional articles on the exclusion of the pro-life position from the 2024 GOP platform, see:

“RNC 2024 Platform: No Support for Federal Abortion Ban,” National Review.

“‘Profound Disappointment’: Mike Pence Slams RNC for Ditching Abortion Ban,” National Review.

“How to Write a Pro-Life Platform,” National Review

“Republican-Platform Process: What Went Wrong,” National Review

“Social Conservatives, Populism, and Confused Republicans,” Public Discourse

The Democratic Party has for some time been firmly pro-abortion, and its current presidential ticket is staunchly so. Here is one example: “Claims about Children Born Alive After Abortion Attempts in Minnesota Are True,” The Dispatch.

Will Christians vote for a pro-abortion candidate this November?

Proverbs 11:3, “The integrity of the upright guides them.”

Update 8/26/2024:

The Dispatch:

Asked later that day if the post represented a change in his stance on abortion, Trump gave a rambling answer in which he reiterated his desire to bring the issue to the states. “I’m very strong on women’s reproductive rights, the IVF, very strong. I mean, we’re leaders in it, and I think people are seeing that,” he said at a press conference in Nevada. 

“Vance says Trump would veto a national abortion ban,” NBC News, Meet the Press

Asked on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” about GOP lawmakers like Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina who would want Trump to advocate for and sign an abortion ban, Vance told moderator Kristen Welker that Trump has “explicitly” said he would veto a ban.

“I mean, if you’re not supporting it, as the president of the United States, you fundamentally have to veto it,” Vance argued.

“Trump’s Humiliation of Social Conservatives Is the Rational Response to Their Cowardice,” National Review

If you consider the game from Trump’s point of view, embracing social leftism might be rational. This is because Trump knows that the leading voices of purported social conservatism would never abandon him. From his perspective, they have no leverage. And he’s right. By becoming unabashedly pro-choice, Trump plays to the center of the electorate without sacrificing his base, because there is nothing he could do to sacrifice his base.

Update 8/30/2024:

“Trump’s Shifting Position on Abortion Bewilders Pro-Life Supporters,” The Dispatch

In Michigan on Thursday, former President Donald Trump promised to subsidize or mandate insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization treatment and suggested he would vote for a ballot measure in his home state of Florida that would overturn the state’s ban on abortions after six weeks of gestation.

“I think the six-week is too short. It has to be more time, and I’ve told them that I want more weeks,” Trump told NBC News during an interview before a campaign event in Potterville, southwest of Lansing. He was pressed on how he would vote on the ballot measure, which would amend the Florida constitution to protect the right to abortion before fetal viability but contains broad exceptions that some have claimed could allow abortion through all nine months. The Republican nominee replied he would “be voting that we need more than six weeks.” 

“Trump Stabs Florida Pro-Lifers in the Front,” National Review

Florida has a six-week ban on abortion with exceptions for rape, incest, and threats to the mother’s life. A ballot initiative would restore a Roe-like sweeping right to abortion that extends throughout pregnancy. Asked how he would vote today, Donald Trump  said he would vote that six weeks is not enough time. His campaign later explained that his statement did not imply that he would vote yes.

Trump also announced that if elected, he would have either the government or insurers (which is to say taxpayers, workers, and Americans generally) pay for in vitro fertilization, which inevitably will mean the deliberate destruction of many more human embryos.

Update 9/11/2024: Another Trump Middle Finger to Pro-Lifers

The long-term consequence for the pro-life movement covering for Trump, rather than calling him out, will not just be the massive repetitional hit of continuing to ally with someone who is uniquely odious to many college-educated suburban women. It will be that he is realigning the G.O.P. along his effectively pro-choice personal stances. Republican House members will be put under tremendous political pressure to go along with Trump’s stance when they get back from recess, according to reporting from Politico’s Sarah Ferris and Olivia Beavers.

……….

If there are those in the pro-life movement want to argue the short-term consequences of a Harris administration are so great that they outweigh the long-term damage posed by Trump, they are free to. But too many pro-lifers greet each time they have been thrown under the bus by Trump with more justifications and excuses. They will have to ask themselves at what point having to rely on a likely razor-thin Republican Senate majority to forestall much of the policy damage will be worth the benefits of starting with a clean slate in 2028. For some of us, that hour seems to have arrived.

Resources on the Pretribulation Rapture

by

The most helpful resource on the pretribulation rapture is Craig Blaising’s chapter in the revised Three Views on the Rapture (see below). For a much abbreviated argument, see his excellent talk, “The Rapture and the Day of the Lord.”

Ryan Meyer of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary has recently published a series of posts interacting with John Hart’s argument that Matthew 24:36-44 refers to a pretribulation rapture. In general, I agree with Meyer’s assessment (including his disagreement with Hart’s sixth argument). My one minor difference with Meyer is that I see 2 Peter 3:10-12 as referring to the events of the tribulation period rather than to events following the Millennium.

Does Matthew 24 Describe the Rapture of the Church? (Part 1)

Does Matthew 24 Describe the Rapture of the Church? (Part 2)

Does Matthew 24 Describe the Rapture of the Church? (Part 3)

Does Matthew 24 Describe the Rapture of the Church? (Part 4)

Does Matthew 24 Describe the Rapture of the Church? (Part 5)

Other rapture resources:

Review of Three Views on the Rapture by Craig Blaising, Alan Hultberg, and Douglas J. Moo

Jonathan Pratt, “The Case for the Pretribulational Rapture” in Dispensationalism Revisited

1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 and the Timing of the Rapture

Απαντησις in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and Dispensationalism in Scholarship

Interpreting 2 Thessalonians 2:3

Jonathan Pratt, “The Case for the Pretribulational Rapture” in Dispensationalism Revisited

by

Pratt provided the final chapter to this Festschrift for Charles Hauser, Jr. published by Central Baptist Theological Seminary. I found the arguments presented later in the chapter more persuasive than the arguments presented in the beginning of the chapter. His argument that texts like 1 Thessalonians 5 and Revelation 3:10 promise that God will spare his people from going through the period of time in which the final day of the Lord judgment is poured out on the earth is convincing. Likewise, Pratt makes a convincing case from the immanency of Christ’s return.

Pratt begins his chapter by arguing that John 14:1-3; 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7; Revelation 12:5 support a pretribulational rapture. These arguments are shakier. John 14:1-3 fits well within a pretribulation rapture scheme, but it is difficult to prove the pretribulation rapture from this text because doing so requires the having already established particular interpretations of related texts.

The argument from 2 Thessalonians 2 is even less compelling. Even granting that the restrainer is the Spirit, how does the rapture of the church remove him from earth? The Spirit is omnipresent. A further step in the argument is needed such that the Spirit working in and through the church is the restrainer. But it is not clear that such an argument could be mounted from the text. Nor do I find Darby’s interpretation of Revelation 12 plausible. I don’t find any of the proposed double referents convincing. The dragon refers to Satan, not the nations. The woman refers to Israel, not to Mary. And the male child refers to Christ, not to the church.

Pratt does mount a convincing argument for the pretribulational position in this chapter, but it is burdened, in my view, by some accompanying less-than-convincing arguments.

Review of Three Views on the Rapture by Craig Blaising, Alan Hultberg, and Douglas J. Moo

by

Blaising, Craig, Alan Hultberg, and Douglas Moo, Three Views on the Rapture: Pretribulation, Prewrath, or Posttribulation. 2nd ed. Counterpoints. Edited by Stanley N. Gundry. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.

This second edition of Three Views on the Rapture is a fine work in the Counterpoints series. The quality of argumentation in this book is high. Moo, who contributed to both the first and second editions, comments several times that he found his opponents’ argumentation superior in this volume in comparison to the first edition.

Summary

Blaising’s case for the pretribulation rapture can be summarized as follows: 1 Thessalonians 4-5 teaches that Christians will be spared from the wrath of God poured out on the earth during the day of the Lord. The rapture is the stated means by which believers are spared. Furthermore, by harmonizing the teaching of Daniel about the end and the teaching of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse, it becomes clear that the ultimate day of the Lord equals Daniel’s seventieth week, which equals the period described in the Olivet Discourse as the parousia of Christ. The book of Revelation supports this view by correlating the tribulations it describes with the OT day of the Lord. Revelation 3:10 supports the pretribulation rapture by promising the Philadelphian Christians (as representative of the church) that they will be spared from the hour of trial which shall come on the whole earth. By adopting this view, one is able to explain why some texts present the parousia as unexpected and preceded by no signs while other passages say the parousia is preceded by signs. The pretribulationalist understands the parousia to be a complex event that spans many years. The rapture will begin the parousia and will not be preceded by signs, but the return of Christ to earth to begin his reign (which can also be called the parousia) will be preceded by signs.

Hultberg says that “the prewrath position rests on two major theses: that the church will enter the last half of Daniel’s seventieth week and that between the rapture of the church and the return of Christ to earth will be a significant period of extraordinary divine wrath” (109). The following points support the first thesis: (1) the Olivet discourse is addressed to the disciples as representative Christians, who will see the abomination of desolation, (2) parallel language connects 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16 and Matthew 24:31 together as rapture passages; (3) 2 Thessalonians 2:3 indicates the rapture is preceded by the abomination of desolation; (4) Revelation presents the church entering the tribulation since the letters to the seven churches are letters to first century churches and eschatological predictions (letters to Smyrna and Thyatira indicate the church will enter the tribulation); and (5) the rapture occurs at Rev. 7:9 and Revelation 14. In support of the claim that the rapture will occur before the wrath of God is poured out Hultberg argues: (1) Paul is clear that Christians will not experience God’s wrath (Rom. 5:9; 1 Thess. 1:10; 5:9), and in some texts this wrath is clearly connected to the parousia; (2) The parousia must be a complex event rather than an instantaneous event to make sense of all Scripture says about it; (3) Revelation displays rapture, wrath, return sequences.

Moo begins his essay by emphasizing that the church will face tribulation throughout history. Though he does not deny there is a final tribulation, he consistently minimizes it. His main point is that the end time is not something distinctively future. It is a time the church has been living in since its inception. Similarly, Moo understands Daniel’s seventieth week to run through the entire church age. Moo also disassociates the final tribulation from the day of the Lord (a point to which he returns repeatedly throughout his essay). This allows him to minimize the wrath of God during the tribulation and emphasize the persecution of God’s people. Moo does not, however, deny that God pours out his wrath at the very end in a way that affects the whole earth. But he argues that this sword cuts two ways since there are some of God’s people on earth during the tribulation under anyone’s scheme. He resolves this problem by noting that believers in the OT were often affected by judgments directed toward others. Much of the rest of Moo’s article argues that there is no clear evidence for a rapture distinct from Christ’s return to earth. He notes the words used to describe the second coming do not distinguish comings. Nor do the main rapture passages (John 14:3; 1 Cor. 15:51-52; 1 Thess. 4:13-18) indicate the second coming happens in two stages. In fact, a number of passages disassociate the day of the Lord from the tribulation and tie it to the descent of Christ. Thus when 2 Thessalonians 2 places events of the tribulation before the day of the Lord, it is placing the tribulation before the rapture. Moo finds confirmation for his view in the Olivet Discourse (which he thinks refers largely to the church age) and it’s one return of Christ in Matt 24:31, 40-41. Likewise, Revelation (which Moo interprets to largely refers to the entire church age) never refers to a rapture, though it does place the first resurrection in close connection to the return of Christ to set up the millennium. Since there is a resurrection in connection with the rapture, and since this is the first resurrection, the rapture cannot precede this point in time.

Evaluation

Evaluation of this topic is exceedingly complex. Rapture positions are determined by correlating facts from a wide variety of passages. This in itself makes the topic complex, but the complexity is compounded by interpretational difficulties encountered in the key texts. This means that the debate is not merely over how key facts are systematized; the debate extends to the level of what facts can be deduced from a series of debated texts.

Strengths of Moo’s position

1.        Moo has the simplest position. All parousia and rapture texts refer to the same event.

2.        The absence of any clear mention of the Rapture in Revelation favors Moo’s position.

3.        Moo’s is correct that all positions have believers on earth when God pours out his wrath and that the Bible often indicates that believers can be indirectly affected by judgments directed toward others.

Weaknesses of Moo’s position

1.        Moo repeatedly appeals to inaugurated eschatology in support of his position. But inaugurated eschatology would indicate that there are initial fulfillments to be followed by fuller final fulfillments. Moo doesn’t seem to fully reckon with these fuller, final fulfillments. He grants there will be a final tribulation, but he routinely minimizes it to emphasize that the church has always gone through tribulation. This seems to evade the issue under discussion.

2.        In connection with the appeals to inaugurated eschatology, Moo applies Daniel’s seventieth seven, much of the Olivet discourse, and much of Revelation to the church age. However, since the previous 69 sevens in Daniel 9 refer to periods of seven years that lead up to the time of the incarnation, it would seem that the final seven should be understood as a period of seven years rather than as an undefined period of time between the two advents of Christ. With regard to the Olivet Discourse, even if one grants that the abomination of desolation referred to the destruction of the temple (a debated interpretation), it would seem, given the context of the prophecy in Daniel, that the destruction of the temple was typological of a final fulfillment in connection with Antichrist. Overall approaches to Revelation are debated, but I find a generally futurist approach more compelling than generally idealist approach that Moo adopts. See my “The Futurist Interpretation of Revelation: Intertextual Evidence from the Prologue” and “The Futurist Interpretation of Revelation: Evidence from the Seal Judgments’ Reliance on the Olivet Discourse.”

3.        Moo consistently downplays the tribulation as a time of God’s wrath, and he relegates the day of the Lord to Christ’s return to earth. This disregards compelling data to the contrary presented by both Blaising and Hultberg. Moo even grants in his rejoinder that the Old Testament evidence may stand against his position. Replying that the New Testament alone should determine the matter is hardly a sufficient reply.

4.        Moo also has trouble with some particular texts. His attempt to understand Revelation 3:10 in light of John 17:11-12, 15 fails on the grounds that Revelation speaks of being kept from a time period rather than from the evil one. Moo’s understanding of Revelation 20:4 also runs into problems. Moo understands first resurrection in an absolute sense as the first resurrection since the resurrection of Christ. This not only fails to reckon with the resurrection recounted in Matthew 27:52-53, but it also requires displacing 20:4 chronologically (since the resurrection mentioned there is post-parousia). This is unlikely since 19:11-20:10 is best understood as a single vision with the subject of ἐκάθισαν being the armies that returned with Christ to earth (see Svigel, TrnJ, 22.1, pp. 51-52). Or to put it another way, 1 Thessalonians 4 has the saints rise before Christ descends to earth while Revelation 20 has them rise after Christ has descended to earth.

I find evidence for an extended day of the Lord / parousia persuasive. I also remain convinced that promises that the church (in general) will be spared the wrath of God during this time period. In addition, I find Moo downplaying events that he concedes will happen (e.g., a final tribulation). Thus, I find his view less than persuasive.

Strengths of Hultberg’s position

1.        The discussions of and warnings about tribulation events in the Olivet discourse, Thessalonians, and Revelation could indicate that Christians will experience some tribulation events (though it does not necessitate this).

2.        His arguments for the parousia as a complex event connected with the outpouring of God’s wrath is convincing. On this point the pretribulation and prewrath positions are aligned.

Weaknesses of Hultberg’s position

1.        It is difficult to find the Rapture in Revelation 7:9, and Revelation 14:16 seems too ambiguous to bear the weight of the position.

2.        I find it unlikely that the first five seals are not the outpouring of God’s wrath. Hultberg argues that simply because God opens the seals does not mean that the seals are outpourings of God’s wrath because God is in control of all things. But this minimizes the symbolism of the sealed scroll. This was a scroll that only the Lamb who had been slain was worthy to take and open.

3.        Though the exegesis of 1 Thessalonians 2:3 is tricky, I’m convinced that the text is saying that the day of the Lord is not present unless two other things are also present. The first of these is the apostasy and the second is the revelation of the man of lawlessness. I’m not convinced that the verse is saying these two things must precede the day of the Lord. (See Interpreting 2 Thessalonians 2:3.)

Hultberg’s arguments for the rapture of the church before the outpouring of God’s wrath mirror Blaising’s own argumentation. His arguments that this wrath occurs during only part of the seventieth week are more inferential and rest on more debatable texts.

Strengths of Blaising’s position

1.        Blaising makes an impressive case for correlating Daniel’s seventieth seven, the tribulation, and the day of the Lord.

2.        Blaising makes a solid case that the church will be spared from God’s wrath in the final day of the Lord. Though some texts are debatable, his argumentation is sound.

Weaknesses of Blaising’s position

–     Blaising does have to deal with the problem of tribulation saints (whom he regards as part of the church) being on earth during the outpouring of God’s wrath during the day of the Lord.

Blaising has constructed the most convincing pretribulation argument that I have encountered. He has abandoned many of the less convincing arguments that are often proposed in support of pretribulationalism. I also found Blaising’s argumentation more convincing than Hultberg’s or Moo’s. He seemed to best understand the significance of the Day of the Lord prophecies and their connection to the parousia as a complex event. He also rightly recognized that God promised the church deliverance from this time period of special judgment. The most damaging objection is the presence of saints in the tribulation period. However, the tribulation saints are an anomaly because they were saved after the rapture of the church (on the pretribulation view), and the presence of an anomaly does not entirely overthrow Blaising’s position.

This may now be the best introductory resource to the topic of the rapture, and Blaising’s article may be the best current defense of the pretribulation position.

W. Edward Glenny, “Will Jesus Come Before the Millennium? A New Testament Answer from Revelation 20,” in Dispensationalism Revisited

by

Glenny contributed an excellent brief articulation of a premillennial reading of Revelation 20. I began this chapter wondering about the value of this chapter. It did not seem that Glenny would be contributing anything new to the debate. However, upon completing the chapter it would be fair to say that Glenny has contributed an excellent, clear articulation of the premillennial position coupled with brief but cogent critiques of Amillennial readings of this chapter. For someone who wanted an introduction to the premillennial position, this chapter would be an excellent place to start. Those who took the time to track down the sources mentioned in the footnotes would be led to some of the best resources from all sides of the debate as well as to several of the most significant Revelation commentaries.

I won’t try to summarize Glenny’s chapter since it is already a succinct summary of the premillennial approach to Revelation 20, but I do commend it to all.

Ryan Martin, “The Chruch, Israel, and Supersessionism,” in Dispensationalism Revisited

by

Ryan Martin contributed a chapter on Romans 9-11 in Dispensationalism Revisited: A Twenty-First Century Restatement, a Festschrift for Charles Hauser, Jr. published by Central Baptist Theological Seminary. In this chapter Martin exegetes Romans 9-11 to demonstrate that Paul does not view the church in Christ as the New Israel which will inherit all the promises made to Israel in the Old Testament. Instead, he argues that these chapters demonstrate that Paul distinguished ethnic Israel from the church and envisioned a future fulfillment of promises for ethnic Israel.

Martin begins by surveying Romans 1-8, paying special attention to the significance that Jew and Gentile play in Paul’s argument. In the course of that survey Martin defends the view that the Jew in Romans 2:28-29 is not a reference any true believer in Christ but to believing ethnic Jews:

Four considerations, however, indicate that Paul is referring to ethnic Jews who believe in Jesus Christ and are part of the church of God. First, Paul’s argument in Romans 3 continues to focus on Jews, their advantages, and their unfaithfulness. Second, later in his argument (4:11-12; 9:6-8; 11:5-7) Paul makes the same point he is making here, namely that biological ancestry alone neither qualifies nor disqualifies one from receiving God’s promises. Third, if these verses are about Jews who believe, then they set up a relevant contrast to Paul’s subsequent observations, which focus on the Jews who relied on their physical ancestry and circumcision to put them right before God. Finally, the interplay between Jew and praise (the name Judah means praise) confirms that 2:28-29 is a reference to Jews who have believed in Jesus Christ (199).

In this survey Martin demonstrates that that the “Jew-Gentile” motif is prominent in Romans 1-4. Romans 9-11 is thus resuming a theme that Paul had begun to develop earlier in the book. Second, Martin observes that “every reference to a Jew in Romans 1-8 is a reference to an ethnic Jew” (201). Since these opening chapters of Romans do not replace ethnic Israel with the church, the book of Romans raises a significant question: If the Jewish people as a whole continue to pursue justification according to the Law, what will become of God’s promises to the nation. This is the question that Romans 9-11 seeks to answer.

As he begins his survey of Romans 9-11 Martin observes that Paul’s designation “kinsmen according to the flesh” indicates that the topic of these chapters are ethnic Jews. He further denies the claim that the statement “for they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel” (Rom 9:6) indicates that Israel can be used to refer to Gentile believers. Rather, in context, this phrase is referring to two groups: unbelieving ethnic Jews who are descended from Israel but are not properly designated Israel in a more narrow sense and believing ethnic Jews who are descended from Israel and are properly designated Israel in the more narrow sense. This truth of about Israel leads Paul to defend the doctrine of election in Romans 9.

Gentiles do not enter the discussion until Romans 9:24, where Paul asserts that God has called people not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles. Paul supports this statement by quoting from Hosea 1:10; 2:23 and from Isaiah 1:9; 10:22-23. Martin denies that these passages are directly applied to Gentile believers. Romans 9:27 specifically says, “Isaiah cries out concerning Israel.” Paul’s point is to highlight that just as not all Jews were truly God’s people, and he elected a remnant to be saved, so also with the Gentiles.

Martin continues the survey into Romans 10, which demonstrates Israel’s culpability for its unbelief.

Martin finds in Romans 11:1-6 a significant answer to the question of supersessionism:

The opening paragraph of Romans 11 is pivotal. It asks the very question at the heart of this study: “Has God rejected his people?” If the church actually has replaced Israel in God’s program—if God’s promises to Israel are now fulfilled in the body of Christ (cf. Rom. 9:4)—then rather than denying that God has rejected Israel, Paul should try to explain how the church is spiritually fulfilling all the promises that God made to Israel. Instead, Paul advances his own election as evidence that God has not utterly forsaken his people” (210).

However, the salvation of individual Jews like Paul does not fully resolve the dilemma that Paul has raised. Martin notes, “Paul’s presentation of himself as exhibit A that God has not rejected his people is an important part of his defense of God’s justice, but it is not the end of his argument” (209, n. 33).

Martin rightly notes that the root in Paul’s metaphor of the tree and the branches cannot be Israel because Israel is identified as the branches. The root, as Martin understands it, refers to “God’s covenant promises to the patriarchs” (214). He further notes that though the unity of believing Jew and Gentile is symbolized by the single tree, the distinction between natural branches and grafted branches remain. He also observes that though some natural branches are grafted in at present, this does not negate what Paul will say about the future salvation of Israel. 

As he comes into Romans 11:25-32 Martin interacts in more detail with those who do not envision a widescale conversion of the nation of Israel.

O. Palmer Robertson argues that when Paul says that Israel’s hardening will continue “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” he is simply saying that Israel will remain hardened “until the end of time.” The “until” is not marking a new stage in God’s redemptive plan. However, given 11:26, Martin replies, “This interpretation must equate the ‘partial hardening’ of Israel and the salvation of all Israel. Such theological gymnastics—where two radically opposing notions are treated as complementary—strains credulity. If the hardening of Israel is actually a good thing, and if it is the same thing as the salvation of Israel, then why did Paul need to begin this defense of God’s dealings with Israel at all?” (218).

Martin also addresses Robertson’s interpretation of “In this way all Israel will be saved” (11:26). Martin summarizes Robertson’s argument as follows: “He suggests the phrase addresses the manner Israel will be saved.” Robertson insists that kai houtōs does not have a temporal meaning. Furthermore, “For Robertson, all Israel means the ‘Israel of God,’ which comprises true believers in the body of Christ (Gal 6:16). Thus, when Paul says, ‘in this way all Israel will be saved,’ he refers to the fullness of the Gentiles who receive salvation through faith in Christ” (220).

Martin responds: First, he notes that “whether kai houtōs is temporal has relatively little bearing on the interpretation of Romans 11:26. The best clue concerning timing lies in the future tense verb ‘will be saved'” (220).

Second, Martin observes, “To take Israel in Romans 11:26 as the Christian church is to take it in a totally different sense than Paul has used it throughout chapters 9-11″ (221).

Third, Martin notes that Robertson’s interpretation undermines the defense of God’s integrity in these chapters. Robertson’s view is that God will not fulfill promises to ethnic Israel for ethnic Israel but for the church.

Martin turns next to meaning of “all Israel.” After surveying the various views he settles on the reference being to the nation of Israel as a whole in the future. Martin observes that this is not a uniquely dispensational viewpoint. It was held by Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, Michael Horton, and Kim Riddlebarger.

In the course of discussing the Old Testament quotations in 11:26-27, Martin observes, “one should not limit Paul to saying that only these four lines of prophecy will be fulfilled when ‘all Israel will be saved.’ Romans 9-11 has been a defense of God’s faithfulness to his promises to Israel” (228), which means that promises regarding land and kingdom will also be fulfilled for Israel. Though this is not typically understood to be a dispensational viewpoint, it was held in the past by non-dispensationalists such as Jonathan Edwards.

Martin also ably handles the objection that this places too much focus on Israel alongside Christ in the fulfillment of prophecy: This claim misrepresents dispensationalism. [Michael] Horton [who made this claim] ignores dispensationalists’ Christological emphasis in their vision of the millennial kingdom. For example, Alva J. McClain wrote, ‘All [the future kingdom’s] spiritual blessings will be centered in the royal Man…. And since He will be King over all the nations, His spiritual blessings will be extended to all men.'” This, Martin discerns, is precisely the point of Romans 11:26.

Martin has provided a fine exegetical survey of Romans 9-11, and I believe he ably demonstrated that Romans 9-11 disallows any supersessionism. My only slight disagreement would be with his interpretation of Paul’s use of Hosea in Romans 9.

Andrew Hudson, “Acts, the Church, and the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament,” in Dispensationalism Revisited

by

Andrew Hudson contributed a chapter on Acts in Dispensationalism Revisited: A Twenty-First Century Restatement, a Festschrift for Charles Hauser, Jr. published by Central Baptist Theological Seminary.  Hudson explains that this chapter was written to do four things. “First, it considers the historical setting of Acts. Second, it reviews the argument of Acts. Third, it addresses the use of the Old Testament in Acts. Fourth, it explains the transitional nature of Acts” (168).

Most of the conclusions in this chapter are not unique to dispensationalism. However, Hudson does survey different approaches to Peter’s use of Joel 2 in his Pentecost sermon, he takes the view that events of Pentecost did not fulfill the prophecy of Joel 2. Instead, he holds that what happened at Pentecost is analogous to what Joel prophesied. He provides four reasons for this interpretation. First, he notes that not all that Joel prophesied was fulfilled at Pentecost. Second, he claims that the NT often draws analogies with the OT. Third, he claims that the word “is” can be used to indicate such analogies. Thus, Peter’s statement, “this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel” need only mean “this is analogous to what was uttered through the prophet Joel.” Fourth, Joel said that the Spirit would be poured out after the eschatological day of the Lord. Since the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost preceded the eschatological day of the Lord, it cannot be a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy.

Response

First, all interpreters acknowledge the fact of prophetic telescoping, which could account for the fulfillment of some but not all of what Joel prophesied. Further, Peter knew that he had entered the last days and the inauguration of the new covenant, but he did not know how long the last days will extend. We know that there will be thousands of years separating the fulfillment of these events, but Peter did not know this.

Second, while it is true that the NT can draws analogies to events in the OT, it is not clear that this is what Peter is doing here. The pouring out of the Spirit was a promised eschatological event. What happened at Pentecost was not merely analogous to what was promised. It was what was promised. The giving of the Spirit cannot simply be analogous to the giving of the Spirit. (And in this case, the Spirit is poured out on Jews, so the argument cannot be made that the pouring out of the Spirit on Gentiles is only analogous to the pouring out of the Spirit on Jews.)

Third, while the term is can be used to indicate analogies, no sufficient argument has been made that that is how is functions in this context.

Fourth, Hudson’s argument from the chronology of Joel 2 is his strongest argument. However, if Joel 2:18-27 is read as telescoping together the restoration of the land after the locust plague recounted in chapter 1 as well as the restoration after the final day of Yhwh judgment from the first part of chapter 2, the “afterward” in verse 28 could take place anytime after the original restoration. In fact, it must precede the eschatological restoration because some of the events in Joel 2:28-32 must take place before the eschatological restoration. To use technical theological terminology, the day of Lord/tribulation must precede the millennium and consummated new creation.

R. Kendall Soulen. “Generatio, Processio Verbi, Donum Nomiinis: Mapping the Vocabulary of Eternal Generation,” in Retrieving Eternal Generation

by

Soulen’s chapter can be summarized in his own words:

Barth challenged Christians to speak of the mystery of eternal generation in every available way. I have proposed that in practice this means cultivating three patterns of scriptural speech: one that emphasizes the First Person and the mystery of divine uniqueness at the source of the triune life; one that emphasizes the Second Person and the mystery of divine copresence at the heart of the Trinity; and one that emphasizes the Third Person and the mystery of connection mutual blessing that glorifies the Trinity in eternity and time. My hope is that by cultivating these three forms of speech Christians might speak of the mystery of eternal generation—not adequately, but perhaps a little less inadequately. (146)

Madison N. Pierce, “Hebrews 1 and the Son Begotten ‘Today,'” in Retrieving Eternal Generation

by

Pierce examines the quotation of Psalm 2:7 in Hebrews 1, giving particular attention to what is meant by, “the Son was begotten today.” She notes two interpretations of the phrase: “(1) the “day” is the day of Jesus’s enthronement and exaltation or (2) the “day” is eternity—the span of Jesus’s existence” (117). The first option she associates with adoptionist Christology. She positions herself against this view and against scholarship which argues for approaching the text in an unbiased, critical manner (and thus rejects the influence of orthodox theology on interpretation). I share Pierce’s concerns about critical scholarship and adoptionist Christology, but I don’t think view 1 is necessarily linked with either.

Pierce begins setting the quotation of Psalm 2:7 by Hebrews 1:5 in the context of Hebrews 1:3, which she understands, with Athanasius, to reveal the relationship of the Son to the Father. Hinted at here is the idea that Hebrews 1:3 teaches the eternal begotteness of the Son from the Father.

Pierce then turns to modern interpretations of Hebrews 1:5, which serve as a foil for her own approach. She notes that most exegetes today understand locate the speech of Hebrews 1:5 at the exaltation of Christ, noting that the catena of quotations closes with a quotation of Psalm110:1 in Hebrews 1:13. This is a statement at the exaltation of Christ after the resurrection. Pierce takes exception to the conclusion that the “begetting” cannot be eternal begetting if the speech recorded in 1:5 took place at the exaltation.

Pierce observes that Hebrews 1:5 brings together quotations of Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14, which thus places both in a context of “a metaphorical father-son relationship between God and the [Davidic] human king” (122). Pierce then raises a potential problem: “If one or both elements [the statement is timed to the enthronement of a human Davidic king and the nature of the sonship is metaphorical] are intended to carry over into the use of these passages in the New Testament, then Jesus too might be God’s metaphorical offspring who is praised as Son only at his exaltation and not in his preexistence or earthly life” (123).

The problem  with Pierce’s concern can be found in the word “only.” These passages could be about the Davidic sonship of Jesus in his humanity in connection with his enthronement as the Davidic king upon his resurrection and other passages would affirm his divine Sonship and eternal begottenness.

However, Pierce contends that the author of Hebrews was using “prosopological exegesis” by identifying the son in these passages with Jesus. Pierce distances this kind of reading from contextual exegesis of the Old Testament texts, noting, “the author suggests that something is distinct about God’s bestowal of the title son here—it is unfit for a (human) king,” and, “If the author of Hebrews is not using every element of the Old Testament context, and is perhaps even creating some distance between his reading and common readings of Psalm 2, then the assumption that numerous elements of Psalm 2 obviously influence other elements for Hebrews 1 requires further evaluation” (126). Thus, she argues that the sonship in view in the Hebrews context is the divine sonship of the one who is “the exact representation of God’s being,” is “superior to the angels,” can be called “God,” and can be called Lord (=Yhwh).

Once again Pierce makes some valid points. I would agree that someone more than a human king is in view, but I would argue that this conclusion is not at odds with a contextual reading of both Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7—the one being a direct messianic prophecy and the other containing a messianic prophecy. Therefore, I would argue that the author of Hebrews is keeping the OT context in view. Furthermore, while Jesus’s deity is emphasized in Hebrews 1 and 2, so is his humanity. Pointing to verses that highlight the deity do not negate the verses that refer to his humanity.

Having argued that the Hebrews is using Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7 acontextually, Pierce then argues that Hebrews 1:5 should be read as speaking of eternal generation. First, she notes that the speech “You are my son; today I have begotten you” is “reported speech from the past” (127). Though she understands this speech to be “contemporaneous with his appointment,” she distinguishes that from the subsequent “report [of] the Father’s speech” and a still further even of the inheritance of the promise (127-28). Pierce then turns to the word “today,” which seems to complicate this reading. She argues that the other uses of “today” in Hebrews (1:38; 3:7, 13, 15; 4:7-8) points to an eternal today. Thus, she paraphrases the verse: “You are my Son; forever I have begotten you” (130), concluding that this verse “is not just a claim about Jesus reaching an exalted status. It is a declaration of his eternal relationship with the Father that is always in effect” (131).

This interpretation is a false reading for a number of reasons. 1. As noted above, it opts for an acontextual reading of the Old Testament material. 2. It neglects the reality that both divine and human sonship are in view in Hebrews. 3. It neglects the language in verse 4 that relates the session at the Father’s right hand with his “having become as much superior to the angels.” In other words, not only is Pierce reading Hebrews 1:5 apart from the context of Psalm 2, she is also reading apart from the context of the previous verse. 4. The author of Hebrews argues for his use of “today” in chapters 3-4, which he does not do in 1:5. Furthermore, even in chapters 3-4, “today” does not refer to eternity. 5. Acts 13:32-33 specifically says that the statement, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you” was fulfilled “by raising Jesus.” In other words, Jesus was “begotten” as the Davidic Son when he was raised and enthroned as such. 6. This reading does not necessitate an adoptionist Christology, as Pierce seems to think. Numerous evangelical scholars affirm this interpretation and explicitly reject adoptionism.

The reality to which eternal generation refers is spoken of when Hebrews says that the Son “is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature” (Heb 1:3), but Hebrews 1:5 is not teaching eternal generation.