Some of you probably know that I am a former dispensationlist. I have since embraced Covenant Theology, at least in a broad sense. One of the key factors in my change concerning this position centered on the promise of the land.
In my experience, the promise concerning a land for Abraham’s descendants plays a vital role in supporting the claims of Dispensationalism. Since the specific plot of land promised in Genesis 15 has not yet been completely occupied by Israel, we must expect a future literal fulfillment of this promise. This leads to the conclusion that God still has dealings with physical/national Israel and promises He must keep for them, which in turn leads us to understand that God’s plans for the Church are different than His plans for Israel. God thus has two peoples, Israel and the Church, and two purposes (at least) for His interactions with man in this world.
My particular understanding of Dispensationalism included the notion that the church age was basically a parenthesis from his plan for Israel. And that his plans for Israel would be culminated in a physical thousand year reign in which the Temple and its physical sacrifices would be reinstated. Many dispensationalists today do not agree with these particular views, but nevertheless there are many who still hold to them, largely because of their support of Dispensationalism.
Since land was so central to Dispensationalism, when I saw how the New Testament treated the land promise, I soon became more and more convinced that Dispensationalism is flawed, and Covenant Theology or something similar to it, must be the preferred way of understanding how Scripture fits together.
New Testament View of The Land Promise
Compare these verses to the Dispensational understanding of the land promise:
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. (Matt. 5:5)
For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith….. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring“”not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,… (Rom. 4:13, 16)
Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” (Eph. 6:1-3)
Notice that the meek inherit the earth. The very promise given to Abraham concerning the land is promised to his spiritual descendants. And also the Gentile Ephesian children are promised long life in “the land” (or “the earth” as the NASB has it). Compare Eph. 6:3 with the promise as stated in Exodus 20:12b: “that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you.” Paul holds up this promise for the Ephesian Christians.
This NT understanding of the land promise certainly seems to spiritualize the promise [should the Ephesians really expect to live long in Canaan? or should the meek expect to inherit Canaan?] or more properly, to expand it to include the whole world (Rom. 4). And indeed the promise that God would be with Abraham’s descendants, dwell with them and be their God (see Gen. 17:7-8, also Ex. 29:45, Lev. 26:12, and Ez. 37:27) is repeated and realized in Rev. 21:3: “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them”. Certainly the New Testament seems to indicate that the land promise points us to this ultimate reality.
In the next posts, I will look at the land promise a little more closely, and provide some links which may prove helpful for further study.
Do you still believe that Israel as a people and Nation are under covenant? This is a friendly though theological question. I am an Anglican priest and pastor myself. I lived and taught in Jerusalem for several years. I love the Jewish people and Nation!
My understanding of the Jewish covenant is that it is abolished and replaced. The Jews have no more standing with God than any other race of people.
1. The wall of separation between God’s chosen people and the Gentiles was broken down (Ephesians 2:14)
2. The Jewish covenant was the OLD covenant which was made obsolete (Hebrews 8:10-13)
3. Jews are now equal in the eyes of God with all men (Romans 3:9)
4. The Jews rejected their Messiah and He rejected them as a nation forever (Matthew 23:38, Mark 13:35)
5. The Old Covenant placed the Jews under bondage as bond-servants. The New Covenant makes ALL believers free of the Law (Galatians 4:23-26)
6. The Old Covenant is done away with (1 Corinthians 3:14)
Simply put, all Jews have to come to God the same way any of us do: through faith and obedience to Christ Jesus. Their is no longer any special treatment for anyone (Acts 10:34)
NWProdigal
I would agree with some of your statements. However, first why did St. Paul then preach to the Jews first? (Rom.1:16) And see the Book of Acts. There St. Paul does not turn away from the Jews fully, as he sees their own rejection as a Nation (Acts 28:24-29). But, also in Romans 11:25-29, we can see that the Jews and Israel are still under God’s covenant of grace! By the way, Karl Barth even taught that Israel was under covenant, true! As does the RCC. Vatican II, states: “Israel according to the flesh, which wandered as an exile in the desert, was already called the church of God (Num.20:4).
And it is very interesting that the Incarnation was fully thru the life and people, and one certain Jewish virgin woman, who becomes herself a personification of the both the Church & Israel, (St. Luke 1:45-55) and also the Theotokos- God bearer (Council of Ephesus, 431) And Calvin followed this also as to Mary (Theotokos).
Fr. Robert
NWP…PS, Matt. 23:38, also has verse 39, “You shall not see henceforth, TILL you shall say, Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord.” No full “replacement” theology here mate.
I am an Irish born and from the UK. An Irishman in the Anglican Church. Anglo-Irish! I was also educated in England.
Fr. Robert
Thanks guys for commenting on this. My position is not full replacement, but I believe Eph. 2 and also Rom. 11 teach that the Gentiles were included in the single covenant of grace made to Israel. But as Paul teaches in Romans, “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (9:6). Every promise is yes in Christ (2 Cor. 1:20), and so unbelieving national Israel today, which rejects Christ, has no claim to the promises. Galatians makes clear that “if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” (3:29).
Ultimately this series focuses on the land promise directly. And this is just part 1, so hang with me!
Blessings in Jesus,
Bob Hayton
Crisp and clear. Way to go, Bob!
On “replacement,” I read a Wikipedia article on replacement theology once and it pointed out that Calvin himself used to defend the covenantal position against the charge of replacement theology. Covenant theology is in no way replacement theology!
As Barth has pointed out the real covenant is the fullness of God’s grace. And there are no portions here! The Incarnation has given, and continues to give it all. Christ is on the throne of grace!
Fr. Robert
I believe that Paul makes it very clear when he says “And so shall all Israel be saved”, that he means “so” to indicate that it is through Christ that a remnant will be saved. Not by any other means.
Fr. Robert, the Word is clear about the Jews being preached to first and Jesus being sent to them first out of respect for the fathers of Israel – not for their own piety or the sake of their righteousness. Paul also makes clear, as does Christ, that that generation was so hardened and blind to their salvation because of their iniquities that it met the plan of God to open the door of acceptance to ALL men. That is why Paul says “at the right time (or due time) Christ died for the ungodly” in Romans 5:6. Just because Kalr Barth and the RCC say the covenant still stands for Israel, doesn’t mean they are right. Remember the educated scribes were unable to understand the prophesies of the Messiah while He was with them!
NWProdigal
I am not a dispensationalist! But, I do see as the Scripture seems to show, that God still has his hand on the Jewish people. And with the Holocaust, this has not always been easy for them. But as we can see with the nation of Israel (1948), and the amazing presence of the Jewish people center stage! God does in His providence have His hands on this people. I don’t see how we can deny this? And we must give Barth credit for seeing this! And even the RCC also. Though I an not uncritical of Rome for sure! But Rome has come along way too. In fact all of us Christians must be willing to change, when both scripture is seen in better light, and the Spirit of God does enlighten us! No one has a grip on God, He alone is God! But He has given us both the Scripture and the Church of God!
Fr. Robert
Dear Irish,
I am willing to change my perspective when it is clear to me in scripture that I am wrong. But one scripture does not the Bible make, so I am sure you’ll agree we have to balance every view upon the whole of it.
As for Israel’s predominance on the world stage, it’s establishment as a nation in 1948, the Holocaust, etc. are obviously ordained by God or these things would not have happened. Was the Holocause theoir final retribution? If o, why do they still suffer persecution from all their neighbors? It’s certainly not because they are a righteous people! They still reject their Messiah, are a a somewhat democratic and very secular country. How is God glorified or honored by this? I certainly cannot see it, but then I may be missing some key point.
Overall, I feel that the nation of Israel, as we know it, is a red herring. If Anti-christ is truly a future person, this “fact” will be used by Satan to implement the deception that will convince almost the entire world that Jesus has somehow returned “in the flesh”. When Christ says “Behold, your house is forsaken. And I tell you, you will not see me until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!'” (Luke 13:35 ESV) whom do you think he means by “he who comes in the name of the Lord”?
NWProdigal
Well scripture is never our “possesion” for right or wrong really, we just simply seek to obey and understand. But I understand what you mean.
My point to the Jewish people is that God never really forsakes any of His people, He does what is in His will and purpose (Rom. 11: 32). And it was really the Jewish Nation that forsook Christ (Matt. 27:25). Though as we know he had and has a remnant always according to grace. This is my point, God will have another remnant from the Jewish people, but this will be “All Israel” when that time comes, again “my covenant unto them” (Rom.11: 26-27). But right now, they are as verse 28 declares, “enemies for your sake: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers sakes.”
I don’t share the future one anti-christ view myself. (See, 1 John 2:18;22 / 4:1-3 / 2 John 7-9). Indeed God allows evil until the end. But in my view, as the E. Orthodox, evil does not have a lasting ontology. And I see the Book of Revelation more from the Idealist position. But with a real covenant of grace again at or near the end for Israel. But, I am always open for change on eschatological views. We only “know in part” as St. Paul says and also St. John (I John 3:2).
Fr. Robert
Thanks NW Prodigal and Irishanglican for continuing to comment here, and to do so charitably. I agree with irish that my views on eschatology especially are open to change. I personally have not taken a position on whether the a mass repentance of the Jews is to be expected prior to Jesus’ return or not. It all hinges on that little line in Rom. 11. I currently hold to something like an Idealist view of Revelation, and I also embrace amillennialism.
Stay tuned for more on this issue as my posts continue to in this series.
Bob,
Have you seen or read G.K. (Kelly) Beale’s NIGTC …The Book of Revelation? Great work! Perhaps THE work on the what he calls: a Redemptive-Historical Form of Modified Idealism. “The Apocalypse symbolically portrays events throughout history, which is understood to be under the sovereignty of the Lamb as a result of his death and resrurrection. He will guide the events depicted until they finally issue in the last judgment and the definitive establishment of his kingdom. This means that specific events throughout the age extending from Christ’s first coming to his second may be identified with one narrative or symbol. We may call this age inaugurated by Christ’s first coming and concluded by his final appearance “the church age,” “the interadventual age,” or “the latter days.” ….
Therefore, the historicists may sometimes be right in their precise historical identifications, but wrong in limiting the identification only to one histrical reality.” (Intro. pages 48-49)
Fr. Robert
Fr. Robert,
I have spent a little time in Beale’s commentary (NIGTC), and I can only endorse your recommendation — very helpful.
Anyway, interesting discussion — and good original post. I’m following with interest.
Nathan
Fr. Robert,
I haven’t seen that, but if Nathan Pitchford endorses it…. I’m all in. Actually, your quote you gave sounds right on, as well.
I’ve read the introduction of Vern Poythress’ small little commentary on Revelation, The Returning King (P&R), and I highly recommend that. Poythress finds bits of truth in all the major interpretive schemes of Revelation, but is basically idealist in his outlook. He is also the one who pushed me into amillennialism with his paper on 2 Thess. 1.
Thanks for the recommendation.
Thanks also, Nathan, for commenting. I hope my series here is coherent and making sense.
Bob
Irish and Bob,
I am glad to see your positions defined more closely to what I believe is consistent with scripture. Then again, one must always be willing to be corrected by truth. Thanks for the book recommendation everyone! I’ll try to check that out.
I honestly believe that Revelation, if taken for what it says in the introduction (things which must shortly come to pass) and the repeated emphasis on “THE day of the Lord”, “His return”, and other singular uses of those terms, supports A-Millenialism as the only interpretation that doesn’t require scripture twisting to support it. It is very difficult to construe Matthew 24:15-22 as anything but near future for the disciples.
Enjoying the conversation and the articles Bob!
NWProdigal
Hey mate, I am certainly more inclined to an A- Mill position at the present. But, I must confess I am interested in the historic pre-mill also. This has nothing to do with dispensationalism, however. But I do wonder about the Jewish people? I cannot escape a covenant of grace perhaps for the Jewish people in Romans 11. But there are many good A-Mill writers, theologians, etc., who see this also.
I have a book in my library: Regnum Caelorum – Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity, by Charles E. Hill (2001). This book is the most scholarly book of its kind that I have seen on the subject. The author is non-chiliasm also, but is fair with the very early Apostolic Fathers, those both chiliasm and those not.
Fr. Robert
Dear Brother Hyton,
I thank the Lord for this study that illuminates the meaning of the Land. Raised in deep dispensationalism, now reformed, I am seeing the difference between the physical types and the eternal spiritual realities they point to.
Thank you for taking the time to put this site and study together.
~David
Thanks for the kind words, David. Blessings to you and your family.
David – I don’t mean to pry but I know of a David Pyle that is/was a missionary to Israel. Would that be you?
Joel.
http://www.sovereigngod.wordpress.com
Hello Joel,
Please email me at proverbsc9v10-shop@yahoo.com
Thanks for sharing Sovereign God Ministries link. I’m reading Understanding Covenant Theology.
David.
A great article and some astute comments! But I notice that nobody has mentioned the biblical teaching regarding the “New Earth” (Is 65:17; 66:22; 2Pe 3:13 and Rev 21:1). I consider this teaching a element in understanding the OT promises regarding “land,” or as you have already observed “cosmos” or “world,” a deliberate alteration from the original promise to Abraham that Paul did for theological reasons. If we take this teaching seriously into account in our development of our eschatology, where will that lead? If you want to see my answer to that question, check out my article in Wikipedia on “The New Earth.” For me, this teaching is the thread that pulls all these promises together.
Greg,
Thanks for the good words. I actually added another post recently, which looks at how the New Earth fits in with this idea of the land promise. See it here: “The Ultimate Fulfillment of the Land Promise“. I agree that the New Earth is a renovation of the existing one. A glorious renovation but the physicality of life on earth and many other such things will remain.
In Christ,
Bob
By the way, click here if you haven’t read all the parts in my series on the land promise there are about