Before continuing with a couple points related more directly to the land promise, and then going on to finish this series, I thought it would be good to address an important side issue. In the comments of part 5, it was again stated that I am wrong for going backward from the New Testament to the Old Testament. It was asserted that doing this is reading the NT back into the OT and is wrong hermeneutics. Proper exegesis takes the OT on its own basis and ignores later revelation. Such an approach, Will Dudding claimed, flows from a proper understanding of progressive revelation. At least that is what I understood him as saying in this comment.
Progressive Revelation
Progressive revelation is actually a good concept to explain at this point. And I hope to show how it bolsters my hermeneutical approach rather than invalidating it. So let’s start with revelation.
Revelation
As believers in inerrancy, and the “Sola Scriptura” of the Reformation, we uphold the Bible as the sole source of specific revelation to mankind. God has revealed what was unknowable and hidden from man, by declaring his mind to us in the words which make up the inspired Scriptures. Revelation is a gift to us, and it is not something which changes. God knows all, and He has always known what He would reveal to us. All along, God has had His plan for human history complete and settled. And He has known what He would reveal to us in the Bible. So from this perspective, revelation is similar to God opening a shut window to give us a glimpse, just the specific and intended glimpse He wants us to have, of what God has planned and will do for us.
Progressive
“Progressive” refers to the progression of revelation. As we look at Scripture, we can easily tell that God revealed more truth to David than he did to Moses, who had more truth than Abraham. And of course, we on this side of Christ have the complete revelation and thus have more access to truth than David, or even the apostles had (as the canon was completed after most of them had died). At each stage of human history, God advanced His story of redemption a little more. He revealed a little more truth until all was revealed through the advent of Christ (Heb. 1:1) and the subsequent NT writings (John 16:13-14; 14:25-26).
To go back to our analogy, as the Word of God was being written and compiled, the window of Heaven was being raised a little bit higher, and higher, until now it is fully open and we can know all of what God wills us to know. This is just an analogy, but there are explicit places in the New Testament where this idea is explained.
Scriptural Examples
The New Testament mentions that Old Testament passages were written for our learning (Rom. 15:4; Rom. 4:23; 1 Cor. 9:9-10), and OT events happened as lessons for us (1 Cor. 10:6, 11). Even more explicitly, Old Testament institutions were shadows of things to come (Heb. 8:5; 10:1; Col. 2:16-17). In Christ, the shadow is done away and the substance remains (Col. 2:17). In fact, the Old Testament scriptures testify of Christ and point to Him (John 5:39; Luke 24:27). And many Old Testament events are explained in NT gospel terms (Gal. 3:8).
What does this mean for our study? I take it to mean that all along, God knew the complete revelation of what He would do through Christ. And God as the Divine Author of all of Scripture, deliberately foreshadowed things as he orchestrated events and revealed Scriptures all of which would point to Christ and would have a more full meaning for believers in Christ, than they would for the immediate recipients of the OT Scriptures. Yet even for those Jewish believers in God, the very Scriptures they received would point them beyond their current day and work in them a faith in a coming redeemer.
Conclusion
So with respect to progressive revelation, I hold that God deliberately revealed truth in this way so as to hint at and foreshadow the more full revelation which God would ultimately provide. Just because Abraham and others only saw through a partially open window, does not mean God did not have the full picture in mind as He wrote. When God gave promises to Abraham concerning his descendants, God knew full well that the descendants he had in mind were spiritual faithful children, Jew and Gentile (Heb. 2:15; Gal. 3:29). Abraham knew there was more to the land promise than just the plot of land, for he was looking for a heavenly city (Heb. 11:10, 13-16) even as we believers in Christ do (Heb. 13:14). Abraham had great faith in God, even faith that God could raise Isaac from the dead (Rom. 4:14-22; Heb. 11:19), and he even believed the gospel as revealed to him through the promises (Gal. 3:8).
In short, because of progressive revelation, we have no warrant to ignore the full and intended meanings revealed in the New Testament, as we go back to exegete what Old Testament passages mean. Those passages were written with us in mind and for our learning and instruction.
Now of course much more could be said on this point, and I would encourage you to start with studying how the NT authors used the OT scriptures. I believe they used the OT in a legitimate fashion, intended to illustrate to us how we are to use it. Scripture is more than just a literal meaning couched in words. It has a spiritual meaning, discerned only by the work of the Holy Spirit. Just as Human authors use many literary devices and allusions to foreshadow events which are to happen later in their book, even so God can do and has done this with His book, the Bible. I’d encourage you to read this article by my friend Nathan Pitchford on the importance of reading and studying the Bible together as one unified revelation from God.
The first half of my Christian life (to-date) I majored only on NT scripture. It was a REAL revelation to me when I actully read the complete OT not just the typical Sundy School stories of David and Goliath, Noah’s Ark, Daniel in the lion’s den, Psalms, Proverbs, etc.
Actually reading the history of what was going on with the nation of Isreal really opens your understand as to why God needed our hearts regenerated before we could partake of the new covenant. With out the indwelling Holy Spirit, we still wouldn’t get it.
We shouldn’t ignore the NT for sure, especially right at the beginning of Luke when you see Jews—especially Zacharias, Simeon, and Anna—all premillennialists, waiting for the fulfillment of the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants, actually mentioning them. Those Jews were waiting for the land to be theirs as a part of the fulfillment of those Covenants.
The Abrahamic and Davidic covenants would not be fulfilled without the Messiah coming and the people having changed hearts. They knew this. These premillennialists were who God used to give testimony to the child Jesus. God validated their premillennial doctrine by including it in Luke 1-2.
Well Kent, that interpretation is notably persuasive only if you have already presupposed a premillennial interpretation of the passages in question, and essentially ignored everything which Bob has said so far in this series.
Regards,
Bnonn
Dominic,
Thanks. Let’s consider Zacharias, who we can see in Luke 1:67-71 was waiting for the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant, in 1:72-75 the Abrahamic Covenant, and then in 1:76-80 the New Covenant. Where did Zacharias get this understanding if he didn’t get it from the Old Testament prophets. Everything that he says in Luke 1 there can be traced to these three promises. As a Jew he was waiting for the fulfillment to his people as God has promised. He wasn’t in err in doing so.
Then let’s consider Simeon. In Luke 2:25, we see he was looking for the consolation of Israel, so he was a futuristic pre-millennialist, not an amillennialist, since he was anticipating the help, the comfort (paraklesis), of Israel. He had a hope for the coming of Messiah, the King who would bring the promised Kingdom, the Kingdom that had been promised to David in the Davidic Covenant, and the flourishing that would come with the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. The consolation really does refer to the Messiah (read Isaiah 40:1, 10-11; 49:10, 11, 13; 57:18; 66:10)—this is where He would have received His understanding.
To answer Bob,
It seems that Bob’s point is buttressed completely by a few passages, namely, Joshua 21:43-45 and 1 Kings 4:20-21.
First, Joshua 21:43-45. God kept His Word in giving Abraham’s people the land and rest. However, not every enemy had been driven out. They had failed to exercise their responsibility and possess their land. The fulfillment of the new covenant through Jesus Christ would result in that. Israel did not receive Jesus Christ, so they did not receive the blessings of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. We know from many other passages, especially in Revelation, that they will do that some day.
Second, 1 Kings 4:20-21. The extent of the land in these verses during the Solomonic reign echo the Lord’s promise to Abram in Gen. 15:18. However, this did not fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant. First, this wasn’t all the land promised to Abraham. Later in 4:25 we see that it went only as far as Dan to Beersheba. Second, the non-Israelite kingdoms did not surrender their titles or identities. They brought tribute to Solomon, but they kept their independence. Third, according to Numbers 34:6, the Med. Sea was to be the border and yet Tyre was still independent of Israel, see 5:1-12, next chapter.
Lastly, Ezekiel 36, referenced in one of the comments here, among many other passages, doesn’t make any sense if it isn’t a literal, future fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant and of the land. I suggest reading the whole chapter, but especially 36:8-31. The rest of the chapter and then chapter 37 describes what is missing and that is the fulfillment of the New Covenant with Israel.
Kent, again, you’re begging the question. You’re assuming that (i) Zacharias and Simeon expected the promise to be literally fulfilled. This in itself a far from foregone conclusion given that we know even Abraham was looking to a spiritual, rather than literal, fulfillment. If even he, with the limited information God gave him, understood the promises to be ultimately spiritual rather than physical, how much more should Simeon and Zacharias have understood this? Furthermore, you’re also assuming (ii) that even if their understanding was physical, that understanding was correct. But Luke doesn’t say that; and if he did, he would contradict other parts of the New Testament which Bob has mentioned which explicitly name these promises as both spiritual and fulfilled. So—
a. What evidence do you have, aside from circular reasoning, that Zacharias and Simeon interpreted the promises in a non-spiritual way?
b. What evidence do you have to suggest that if they did, they were not mistaken?
c. How do you reconcile a physical interpretation with the spiritual interpretation given in the New Testament itself? You can’t just post these sorts of comments and ignore the exegesis Bob has done in this very series!
Regards,
Bnonn
Bnonn,
Two of my kids happen to be in Roturua, NZ today with an orchestra they’ve been performing with.
I recognize when you are throwing a logical fallacy charge at me, but I think that saying that Abraham was looking for a spiritual fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant just because Hebrews says he was looking for an eternal city whose builder and maker was God is also begging the question. You really can’t have it both ways, that is, you can’t have the covenant fulfilled in Joshua and 1 Kings in a physical way and then also have Abraham not looking for a physical fulfillment. You are essentially allegorizing numbers of passages in the OT about a real land when you do that.
I have no doubt that things also picture something. Yes, the land is used to represent rest. The Sabbath was a real day with real physical rest that was also representative of rest.
Regarding a. and b., Zacharias in Luke 1:70-71 knew that it was actual physical salvation that the prophets spoke of, and he says that when he mentions being saved from enemies—the plain reading of that is something physical—these are actual enemies that actually hate them. It mentions their hand, that they are physically going about doing something with their hands. Tied into that physical deliverance is the Abrahamic covenant in v. 73, making mention of the hand of the enemies again in v. 74. He is talking like the Abrahamic covenant hasn’t been fulfilled and that he is looking for it. Bob says that it was fulfilled. That’s not how Zacharias looked at it and he was filled with the Holy Spirit when he said these things. So there is evidence that they were looking for something physical yet and they weren’t mistaken because it was the Holy Spirit, as the passage directly says, that revealed this to them.
Isaiah says that in the kingdom the Lord will restore the faithful remnant of Israel to the Land to inhabit the kingdom at its beginning (1:9; 25-27; 3:10; 4:3; 6:13; 8:10; 9:1; etc.), as the Lord defeats Israel’s enemies, He will provide protection for His people (4:5, 6; 9:1, 4; 12:1-6; 13:4; 14:2; 21:9; etc.), in her kingdom, Israel will enjoy great prosperity of many kinds (26:15, 19; 27:2, 13; 29:18-20; etc.), the city of Jerusalem will rise to world preeminence (2:2-4; 18:7; 25:6; 40:5, 9; etc.), Israel will be the center of world attention (23:18;54:1-3; 55:5; etc.), Israel’s mission will be to glorify the Lord (60:21; 61:3), Gentiles will receive blessing through the channel of faithful Israel (11:10; 19:18, 24, 25; 42:6; etc.), worldwide peace will prevail under the rule of the Prince of Peace (2:4; 9:5, 6; 11:10; 19:23; etc.), moral and spiritual conditions will reach their highest plane since the Fall of Adam (27:6; 28:6, 17; 32:16; 42:7; 44:3; etc.), governmental leadership will be superlative with the Messiah heading it up (9:6, 7; 11:2,3; 16:5; 24:23; etc.), humans will enjoy long life (65:20,22), knowledge of the Lord will be universal (11:9; 19:21; 33:13; 40:5; 41:20; 45:6, 14; etc.), the world of nature will enjoy a great renewal (12:3; 30:23-26; 32:15; 35:1–4; etc.), “wild” animals will be tame (11:6-9; 35:9; 65:25), sorrow and mourning will not exist (25:8; 60:20), an eternal kingdom, as a part of God’s new creation, will follow the millennial kingdom (24:23; 51:6; 51:16; 54:11, 12; 60:11, 19; 65:17), and the King will judge sin (66:24).
OT passages as these is where these devout and just men got the truths for which they were waiting. They waited for the Messiah that would fulfill the OT prophecies. Just because we get spiritual application in the NT doesn’t mean that the land is a spiritual thing.
Please take these things into strong consideration. Not because I say so, but because they are right in the text, they debunk the spiritualizing of the Abrahamic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant.
Hey Bob,
I haven’t been by here in a while and so I dropped by to see what you were up to.
I appreciate you taking up this subject. I just introduced the subject of eschatology with my volunteers yesterday during our chapel time. My goal is to do a rather extensive study on the subject at a lay level so as to get a handle on alternative eschatological systems from our understanding of Premillennialism. The discussion of the people of God and Israel will be under taken soon.
You being a typical, “young and restless” neo-Reformed, ex-IFBer, you articulate the current Reformed view of this subject well. So I will make sure to reference your material.
I was well on my way to becoming an amillennialist, but was fixed in my tracks by Barry Horner’s book “Future Israel” which is well worth your read as a supplement challenge to your position. Sam Waldron has attempted a rebuttal at his blog with like some 20-plus posts, but he seemed to miss the point of Horner’s book in some areas.
I also have a collection of unpublished articles from R.K. McGregor-Wright that were certainly enlightening for me on this subject and gave me newer resources to explore with regards to the development of hermeneutics from the Reformed position.
A couple of thoughts.
I do find the so-called “apostolic hermeneutic” a bit problematic, especially this notion of a radical re-interpretation of the OT prophecies. I believe there is an extreme danger of losing the perspicuity of the OT when we especially misapply the apostolic use of the OT in the NT. For example, I believe it is going beyond James’s use of Amos 9 in Acts 15 to draw the implication there is no longer any fulfillment of physical land promises for Israel. James use of Amos simply says that God’s plan for Israel also includes the salvation of the gentiles, which is what they were witnessing during their day. Also, keep in mind that James only uses the first half of Amos’s prophecy. The remainder of it (Amos 9:14-15), speaks of a future fulfillment, after the return from captivity where Israel is told by God, “I will plant them in their land and NO LONGER SHALL THEY BE PULLED UP FROM THE LAND I HAVE GIVEN THEM…” I don’t think we can ignore this aspect of Amos’s prophecy even if James utilizes a portion of it as an explanation of what was happening with the gentiles.
Additionally, and forgive me if you guys have talked about this for I have not read all your posts yet, but in Acts 1:6, 7, the disciples ask Jesus directly as to when he will “restore the kingdom to Israel?” Jesus responded by not correcting a misconception of a spiritualized kingdom promise, as if all those land promises will be fulfilled in the church, but by noting that it is not for them to know the “times and the seasons which the father has put in His own authority.” The timing of Israel’s kingdom restoration is not one of physical/spiritual, but on understanding and perceiving the timing of its coming. I think that is an important word from our Lord to note on this subject.
Fred
Lots of meaty comments over here. I’m afraid I need to get the next post out soon before addressing all these things. I think once my position gets fully on the table, you’ll see the strength of the reasons which hold me to it. I see how this impacts the millennial question quite clearly, and there are other considerations which weigh on me regarding that debate.
I really should read that book you mention Fred.
And I should give a recommendation for a book (now available online) by Vern Poythress on the subject which tries to explain why this issue is so complicated and how and where we talk past each other. Check out his: Understanding Dispensationalists.
I’d like to respond to a couple of points above. I chose to wait until I laid out my position clearly, which I believe I have in posts #6 and 7 in this series.
First, in Luke 1 and 2 I find it interesting that these literal promises that Zechariah and Simeon referred to are fulfilled at Christ’s first advent. They see his coming as the fulfillment. Particularly, Simeon’s prophecy he mentions after seeing Jesus, shows that the inclusion of the Gentiles and glory for Israel come through Jesus. My reading of these passages doesn’t seem to move me away from the position I’ve advocated in this series.
Second, re: the many prophecies mentioned in Isaiah, by Kent Brandenburg (who is currently finishing up a series of messages through Isaiah), I don’t think these decide anything. I can see how these easily are best fulfilled through the present church age. Spiritual Israel is seeing these things happen and they will continue to happen until “the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea”.
Third, I do think the apostles use of the OT should inform us. Interpreting the OT irrespective of the NT is putting the cart in front of the horse. God wrote both the OT and NT and new all about the NT as He wrote the OT. The NT explains and develops the OT, providing fuller and clearer revelation of what God was doing and planning in the OT. We must take the NT into account as we try to rightly divide the OT.
Fourth, re: Acts 1:6-7, Jesus doesn’t explicitly say “you guys are wrong about the physical restoration of Israel”. Instead he tells them to take the Gospel to the ends of the earth. It seems he says they’ll understand everything once the Spirit comes and shows them that the Kingdom of the Gospel will be taken into all the earth (not just Israel). We must be careful not to read into the passage too much. And both sides could read into it things, or use the passage’s silence to bolster their view. I think it can fit with my view just nicely. Again, I have clear NT Scripture informing my view. And have not had someone deal with my presentation of Rom. 4, yet.
Blessings to all,
Bob Hayton