Author: fundyreformed

Understanding the Land Promise: Part 3

~ fundyreformed ~ 4 Comments

–continuing from part 2.

Justification for “Spiritualizing” the Land Promise

Whenever one starts talking of “spiritualizing” a text, various wrong-headed assumptions abound. Dispensationalists often use this charge to show our disregard for the Biblical text. And sometimes, any honest effort to show metaphorical language in Scripture is met with suspicion — oh so you are spiritualizing, huh? Now many act as if it is obvious that spiritualizing a text is clearly not acceptable. But what Scripture teaches us this? In fact, is Jesus spiritualizing the Bible, when he claims that the serpent raised by Moses in the wilderness, pointed to Him? Or Paul, when he claims that the Rock in the wilderness wanderings, was Jesus Christ?

Scripture and the Scriptural authors often make clear that they are finding fuller meaning in Old Testament events and pictures. In years gone by, this aspect of Scripture was widely understood and various types and anti-types were common knowledge. But even beyond the places where Scripture points us to a typological understanding, many Christians recognize that some kind of analogical or typological [or more simply, a spiritual] meaning is warranted. I hold that all of Scripture points to and finds its ultimate meaning in Christ. God as the Architect of and sovereign over all history, can work events such that they foreshadow and typify spiritual realities He will later reveal or make clear. Scripture is thick with this, and we can expect that this is how God operates. Granted we do not have liberty to spiritualize and allegoracalize wherever we see fit. We must be guided in this by Scripture.

In the case at hand, I bring forth four reasons why we should view the land promise as pointing to a spiritual reality.

1) God’s purposeful placing of Israel

In Ezekiel 5 we read:

Thus says the Lord GOD: This is Jerusalem. I have set her in the center of the nations, with countries all around her. (Ezekiel 5:5)

This shows us that the very placing of the land of Israel was intentional, by God. It was not just a plot of land, that God liked, but it was chosen to be central to the known world of the day. This strongly hints that the land had a purpose beyond merely being a home for his people. Rather it was to make Israel a city on a hill, and let it testify of God’s might to the nations all around. So there are aspects of the land which have spiritual and other meanings, beyond mere national turf.

2) The connection between the NT Church and the OT Temple

The NT often presents God’s people (the Church) as a figurative Temple.

Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? …God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple. (1 Cor. 3:16-17)

…we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (2 Cor. 6:16b)

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. (Eph. 2:19-22)

In the second passage above, it is interesting to observe that the very promise that God would dwell with His people and be their God is not merely for Abraham and Israel. It is not something only ultimately fulfilled in the time Revelation 21 describes. Rather, it is true now, and for God’s people, the Church. And more, God’s dwelling in His Church today is a fulfillment of those promises quoted in 2 Cor. 6:16 (quoted from Old Testament passages such as Gen. 17:7-8, Ex. 29:45, Lev. 26:12, and Ezek. 37:27).

3) The NT interpretation of the OT Jewish restoration promises

Now the Dispensationalists make much of the many promises in the Old Testament that God would restore Israel, and rebuild the Temple. Since this has not happened yet, they argue, these promises point to a future fulfillment. I won’t discount any future aspect to these promises, but I would like to look closely on how a key promise is interpreted and understood by James, the brother of Jesus and leader of the church at Jerusalem.

Here is the passage in Amos:

“In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old, that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name,” declares the LORD who does this…. “I will restore the fortunes of my people Israel, and they shall rebuild the ruined cities and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and drink their wine, and they shall make gardens and eat their fruit. I will plant them on their land, and they shall never again be uprooted out of the land that I have given them,” says the LORD your God. (Amos 9:11-12, 14-15)

It is pretty obvious that this passage is referring to the restoration of Israel in their land. They are going to be planted on their land, never to be uprooted again. However, see how James understands and applies this passage. James is speaking in the verses below:

Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, “After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.” Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God…. (Acts 15:14-19)

James was not looking for some future fulfillment of this passage. He saw it being fulfilled now. The growth of the Church was the fulfillment of the rebuilding of the fallen tent of David. Gentiles were turning to God, even as the Church was rising in prominence.

This passage should be important to us as we seek to interpret other restoration passages in the Old Testament. The New Testament has provided a model for how to interpret them. The Church is the new Temple. According to Ephesians 2, the Church and Israel together are “one new man” (cf. Eph. 2:15), and are being built into a single dwelling place for God (see the above quote from Eph. 2:19-22).

I’ve already gone too long for a single post, so I’ll keep the 4th point for next time. We’ll look at the connection between land and rest, and move on to view the Promised Land in perspective with other earthly realms mentioned in Scripture.

Before I go, I should point you to this link, where you can hear an excellent treatment of this topic by blogger Drake Shelton, in a message entitled “The Blossoming of the Land Promise“. If you listen to that message, some of my thunder will be stolen, but I want you to have the link. It’s an excellent treatment of the totality of Scripture in regards to this topic.

Understanding the Land Promise: Part 2

~ fundyreformed ~ 16 Comments

–continuing from yesterday’s post.

The Land Promise Fulfilled?

But was the actual promise fulfilled? Were the boundaries of the land promised in Gen. 15:18-21 ever completely owned by Israel? The dispensationalists say no, and they point to history and the Biblical record of what land Israel possessed. The Philistines and other groups remained in the land such that Israel never truly owned all the land.

However, as  I started studying these claims on my own a few years ago, I came across an article by my friend Nathan Pitchford which pointed out that Scripture Itself declares that the promise of the land was fulfilled. In his article entitled Land, Seed, and Blessing in the Abrahamic Covenant, Nathan pointed me to Joshua 21:43-45. Since then, I’ve also seen this restated in other scriptures, which I will quote below.

So the LORD gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it. And the LORD gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the LORD gave all their enemies into their hand. Not one of the good promises which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass. (Joshua 21:43-45)

So the descendants went in and possessed the land, and you subdued before them the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, and gave them into their hand, with their kings and the peoples of the land, that they might do with them as they would. And they captured fortified cities and a rich land, and took possession of houses full of all good things, cisterns already hewn, vineyards, olive orchards and fruit trees in abundance. So they ate and were filled and became fat and delighted themselves in your great goodness. (Nehemiah 9:24-25)

Blessed be the LORD who has given rest to his people Israel, according to all that he promised. Not one word has failed of all his good promise, which he spoke by Moses his servant. (1 Kings 8:56)

Nathan goes on in  his paper to explore how Abraham himself viewed the land. He was looking for a heavenly city and not satisfied with an earthly inheritance, according to Hebrews 11:10, 13-16. Nathan shows how even in Genesis we can see this heavenward focus  about Abraham. I encourage you to read his paper for more.

In the  next post in this series, I will explore a Scriptural justification for “spiritualizing” the land promise. And I’ll link you to another  resource that may put everything into perspective for you.

Understanding the Land Promise: Part 1

~ fundyreformed ~ 27 Comments

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.

John Piper's Respect for Fundamentalists

~ fundyreformed ~ 8 Comments

Here are John Piper’s 20 reasons for not taking “potshots” at the fundamentalists.

1. They are humble and respectful and courteous and even funny (the ones I’ve met).

2. They believe in truth.

3. They believe that truth really matters.

4. They believe that the Bible is true, all of it.

5. They know that the Bible calls for some kind of separation from the world.

6. They have backbone and are not prone to compromise principle.

7. They put obedience to Jesus above the approval of man (even though they fall short, like others).

8. They believe in hell and are loving enough to warn people about it.

9. They believe in heaven and sing about how good it will be to go there.

10. Their “social action” is helping the person next door (like Jesus), which doesn’t usually get written up in the newspaper.

11. They tend to raise law-abiding, chaste children, in spite of the fact that Barna says evangelical kids in general don’t have any better track record than non-Christians.

12. They resist trendiness.

13. They don’t think too much is gained by sounding hip.

14. They may not be hip, but they don’t go so far as to drive buggies or insist on typewriters.

15. They still sing hymns.

16. They are not breathless about being accepted in the scholarly guild.

17. They give some contemporary plausibility to New Testament claim that the church is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

18. They are good for the rest of evangelicals because of all this.

19. My dad was one.

20. Everybody to my left thinks I am one. And there are a lot of people to my left.

The more I’ve maintained my ex-fundamentalist blog, the more I’ve learned how much I really owe fundamentalism and how much we can commend it. Sure it has problems, but so does evangelicalism at large. Praise God for those determined to preserve the Truth at all costs. I pray we evangelicals can aim to get along with the fundamentalists, rather than focusing on how we can woo the Catholics and others. It would do us all some good!

Our Time is Short

~ fundyreformed ~ 5 Comments

I just found out that, Larry Lawton, a regular commenter on my blog, passed away this Sunday. He was a close blogging acquaintance and online friend. He frequently commented over at Sharper Iron.

He leaves behind a wife and young son (2 years old, or so, I think). His obituary is here. From this Sharper Iron discussion, I learned he died of an infection coupled with his having no spleen. He was just 37 years old.

I know Larry loved Jesus and loved studying the Bible. He was a good father and cared for his family, even as he pursued theological education. He will be missed.

Larry’s death reminds us that our time is short. It also calls us to face the realities of life and death. It argues that we should all live with eternity in view, as we have no sure bet that we will be here tomorrow, next week or next year.

Recently, my oldest daughter, has been learning about death. Her friends’ grandfather died a few weeks ago, and then on Saturday we attended the funeral of her great grandmother. She’s been growing through all of this and her simple faith is encouraging. As we drove away from the funeral, Saturday, she made up a song, and the words go something like this:

When someone dies, I won’t be afraid.

I won’t worry. I won’t be sad, I’ll be happy.

I’ll just trust in God.

In the face of death — and I can only imagine how hard this must be for Larry’s wife and family — we all can do no better than follow the advice of my daughter’s song. Since Larry knew Christ, let’s not worry or fear, let’s trust in our God!