Tag: Covenant Theology

The Ultimate Fulfillment of the Land Promise

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Some time ago, I did a series of posts entitled “Understanding the Land Promise“. It is still my contention that understanding how the Bible develops the theme of the promised land will do much to help one gain a fuller understanding of how the church and OT Israel relate. Abraham and his offspring were promised that “he would be heir of the world” (Rom. 4:13), and that singular promise according to Rom. 4:16 is guaranteed to “all his offspring… to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all”.

Recently as I read through Isaiah, I couldn’t help but be reminded of this great theme. Notice Isiah 60:19-21.

The sun shall be no more
your light by day,
nor for brightness shall the moon
give you light;
but the LORD will be your everlasting light,
and your God will be your glory.
Your sun shall no more go down,
nor your moon withdraw itself;
for the LORD will be your everlasting light,
and your days of mourning shall be ended.
Your people shall all be righteous;
they shall possess the land forever,
the branch of my planting, the work of my hands,
that I might be glorified.

So possessing “the land forever” is in the context of God being the “everlasting light” which replaces the sun and moon. Doesn’t this sound a lot like these verses from Revelation?

And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. (Rev. 21:22-23)

They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever. (Rev. 22:5b)

So the land promise is connected with these heavenly realities which are ultimately realized in the eternal state.

Ezekiel 37:24-28 sounds a similar note:

My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children’s children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore.

The idea of God’s dwelling place being with his people is connected with the fulfillment of the promise of Israel dwelling in the land. Again, see Revelation 21 for a comparison (verses 1-3).

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.

Of course Isaiah concludes his book with the promise of “new heavens” and a “new earth” (64:17, 66:22). The glorious restoration of Israel to their land is ultimately fulfilled in the eternal possession of the Heavenly Jerusalem, and the entire recreated, new heavens and earth by God’s people. And that possession and enjoyment of the land will endure forever. And redeemed Jews certainly will be enjoying that land along with the Church.

So my question is, why do we need a literal possession of the entire promised land by a national Israel when we know that ultimately an eternal possession of “the world” will be realized by believing Israel? And if this is the case, why all the fussing over the millennium? However you view Rev. 20, the next two chapters in Revelation make clear that the promises to Israel find their ultimate fulfillment in that eternal era. Remember that is when we all live in the city that is significantly named the “New Jerusalem”. Doesn’t the name itself speak volumes here?

One last point, as my series on the land promise makes clear, in some way the Church enjoys some level of fulfillment of these promises in the here and now. 2 Cor. 6:16 declares:

What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For(AK) we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and(AM) walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people….”

So even now, we are enjoying God’s designation of “my people”. And we experience God as our God. Read my series on the land for more about how we enjoy rest and fellowship with God presently in a way that the OT experience of dwelling in the land was designed to foreshadow.

Ephesians 2 & Dispensationalism (part 1)

~ Bob Hayton ~ 15 Comments

From time to time, I get feedback from readers that they wish I hadn’t gone so far in my reforms and actually abandoned dispensationalism. They view that move as more a pendulum swing on my part or being unduly influenced by the attraction of Reformed thinkers. I admit that such tendencies are real, and we should all watch out for the tendency to be carried away by the charismatic appeal of any given leader whom we respect. But my views on dispensationalism, I hope, are informed by my careful study of Scripture.

I am less hesitant of progressive dispensationalism, and I haven’t necessarily landed when it comes to new covenant theology or covenant theology proper. But when it comes to classic dispensationalism as originally taught by Chafer and Scofield, and as further elaborated by Ryrie, Walvoord and others, I have strong reservations. Certain beliefs and tendencies of classic dispensationalism contradict Scripture in my opinion and affect one’s entire outlook on the Scriptures. For me, Romans 4 and Galatians 3 were significant in directing me away from dispensationalism. Ephesians 2 is also a pivotal passage. I’ve blogged on Romans 4, in my series Understanding the Land Promise. Today I want to start a 3 part series on Ephesians 2.

For this series, I’m going to borrow from Kenneth Gentry’s study on “Dispensationalism and Ephesians”. He shares 6 points from Ephesians that he believes contradict the foundations of dispensationalism. I am choosing the 3 that were meaningful to me, in my own journey away from dispensationalism. Don’t misunderstand me, by borrowing from his blog with its controversial name: AgainstDispensalism.com, I am not advocating a mean and spiteful view of dispensationalists. I held to classic dispensationalism for many years and I know many good people who take a generally dispensationalist approach. I’m borrowing form Gentry’s study purely because I can, and it will make it easier for me to discuss why I believe Ephesians 2 is so detrimental to dispensationalism’s claims.

Without further ado, here is the first point from Ephesians 2 which I find so important for this whole debate.

The Jew and Gentile are forever merged into one body in the final phase of God’s redemptive plan.

The leading classic dispensationalist scholar of the last fifty years is Charles C. Ryrie. On p. 39 in his important 1995 work Dispensationalism he reiterates his 1966 observation from the book’s first edition: “A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct.” According to Ryrie: “A. C. Gaebelein stated it in terms of the difference between the Jews, the Gentiles, and the church of God.” He then states rather dogmatically: “This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist.”

We must note two aspects of the matter that come undermine the system. In dispensationalism’s two-peoples-of-God theology they must hold that God (1) distinguishes Jew and Gentile and (2) that he does so permanently (at least in history, though many carry the distinction into eternity). How are these observations fatal to the system? And in light of our study in Ephesians, how do we see that problem in Paul’s epistle?

Paul notes very clearly and forcefully that God merges Jew and Gentile into one body, which we now call the church. He even encourages the Gentiles with the knowledge that they are now included among God’s people and are partakers of their blessings. They are not separate and distinct from Israel but are adopted into her. Note Ephesians 2:11–19:

“Therefore remember, that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “˜Uncircumcision’ by the so-called “˜Circumcision,’ which is performed in the flesh by human hands “” remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household.”

Note very carefully what Paul states and how it contradicts the notion of a distinction between Jew and Gentile, between Israel and the church:

1. Paul states that the Gentiles were “formerly . . . at that time . . . excluded from the commonwealth of Israel” (Eph 2:12). This is an observation about their past condition.
2. He argues that the Gentiles were “formerly . . . at that time . . . strangers to the covenants of promise” (plural covenants / singular promise). This is an observation about their past condition.
3. He reiterates the Gentiles’ former condition that has now been changed: “But now in Christ you who formerly were far off have been brought near” (Eph 2:19). This is their new experience and condition.
4. He resolutely declares that Christ has effected “peace” in that he “made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall” (Eph 2:14). This is their new experience and condition.
5. He restates this once again by noting that Christ made “the two into one new man, thus establishing peace” (Eph 2:15). This is their new experience and condition.
6. He recasts this very thought noting that Christ determined to “reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.” This is their new experience and condition.
7. He continues by insisting that Christ “came and preached peace to you [Gentiles] who were far away” (Eph 2:17). This is their new experience and condition.
8. He states still again that “through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father” (Eph 2:18). This is their new experience and condition.
9. He declares this fact once again: “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens” (Eph 2:19). This is their new experience and condition.
10. He insists: “but you are fellow citizens with the saints [obviously the Jews], and are of God’s [singular] household” (Eph 2:19). This is their new experience and condition.
11. Paul states once again that the Gentiles are a part of “the [singular] whole building, being fitted together” and “are being built together” (Eph 2:21). This is their new experience and condition.

Dispensationalism distinguishes Jew and Gentile permanently. Paul merges the two into one new body permanently.

I can attest that a separation between Israel and the Church was drilled into me in Bible College. It certainly is the distinguishing characteristic of classic dispensationalism (progressive dispensationalists seem to ditch that point, from what I’ve read). I don’t know how you can read Eph. 2 and come away with the idea that God didn’t break down the barriers and make of the two peoples “one new man”. If that’s what God did, then where do we see here the concept of going back to the two separate peoples again at some point? Parallel to this is Rom. 11, we see there the Gentiles are grafted into a single Olive tree from which unbelieving Israel was broken off of. At a later point Israel may be grafted back in, but they will be grafted back into the single Olive tree, there won’t be two Olive trees, one Jewish and one Gentile.

Stay tuned for part 2 of this series.

Mining the Archives: The Advance of God’s Kingdom

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

From time to time, I’ll be mining the archives around here. I’m digging up Bob’s best posts from the past. I’m hoping these reruns will still serve my readers.

Today’s post was originally published January 9, 2006.

I have posted here the power point presentations used in a close pastor friend’s recent 10 week series on “The Advance of the Kingdom”. This is really a fantastic presentation focusing on God’s plan in creation and salvation as expressed in the Biblical covenants. It is really a presentation of Covenant Theology 101. The presentation is well done, and you can get the gist of his messages just from the power point slides.

This presentation really encourages us with the glory of God’s salvation and His progressive revelation of the greatness of the gospel. I encourage you to check this out, and see for yourself how Biblical the essence of Covenant Theology really is.

Here are links to the power point files for each of the 10 parts to the presentation.

the-advance-of-the-kingdom

the-kingdom-and-the-covenant

the-covenant-of-creation

the-coveant-of-adam

the-covenant-of-noah

the-covenant-of-abraham

the-covenant-of-moses

the-covenant-of-david

the-covenant-of-christ

conclusion

(Note: these were originally used in conjunction with the Sunday morning sermon, so there is some review in the individual parts. Also, if you don’t have Microsoft PowerPoint, sometimes you at least have PowerPoint viewer, or you can download Open Office.org’s software which can read .ppt files.)

For more on covenant theology and a redemptive-historical interpretation see my review of O. Palmer Robertson’s The Christ of the Covenants, which stands behind many of the ideas in this power point presentation. Also see my “Redemptive Historical” category.

“The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John” by Larry Helyer

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Author: Larry Helyer
Publisher: IVP
Format: Hardcover
Pages: 432
ISBN: 9780830828883
Stars: 4 of 5

When I received The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John: An Exploration in Biblical Theology by Larry Helyer, I noticed the book looked like a college or seminary text book. After reading it, I feel like I have earned some college credits!

The book is eminently suited for a text book, because it is really a course on a Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Helyer opens the book with a question that looms large in New Testament studies today: Is the New Testament unified in its message? It is common for liberal or modern NT scholars to claim Paul’s theology is opposed to Christ’s, and John’s concerns were opposed to Matthew’s. In response to this problem, Larry Helyer sets out to trace the theology of Jesus, Paul and John as found in the New Testament. Then he compares each of their emphases and puts the question to rest, in my opinion. There are different emphases but the basic message of these three primary movers in the NT remains largely the same.

Along the way, Helyer explains exactly what Biblical Theology (BT) is, and he describes the problem of the overall unity of the Bible by tracing a history of theology from the time of the Apostles to today. He then moves on to discuss the two basic evangelical systems of BT, Covenant Theology (CT) and Dispensationalism. His chapter defining BT helpfully discusses how the canon shapes our BT, and provides a helpful method for doing BT. His historical sketch of how the Christian church has dealt with the unity of the Bible opened my eyes to some of the big players in Biblical scholarship of the last couple hundred years. He explained the influence of Bultman, Von Rad, Robinson and others, with particular stress on the development of BT. In his discussion of CT and dispensationalism, I was helped by his comparison of the growth and development within CT with the rise of progressive dispensationalism. He doesn’t come and spell out his overall conviction in the matter, but takes care to follow the clear theological teaching of Scripture. From what I can tell he ends up more in line with the progressive dispensational or revised CT perspective.

The bulk of the book is his examination of the theology of Jesus (as seen in the Synoptic Gospels), Paul and John. This examination is strengthened by Helyer’s familiarity with 2nd temple Judaism and the similarities and differences such Jewish thought has with the New Testament. Helyer also explains the theological development of various key terms as he goes along. He is abreast of the points of controversy, and he navigates them with care.

In his section on the Gospels, I found his discussion of the Kingdom extremely helpful, especially with regard to working out how the Testaments are unified. He compares the different phrases “kingdom of God” , “kingdom of Heaven” , etc. and convincingly demonstrates they are synonymous. The kingdom is explained in terms of inaugurated eschatology, and Jesus’ use of the kingdom is shown as both similar and different from the Judaism of his day.

Helyer’s discussion of Paul begins by explaining that we only have insights into Pauline theology extracted from his overall thought. Paul’s letters are occasional documents, addressed to a specific church in a specific situation. After discussing the question of a center of Pauline theology, he handles the matter of justification and the new Pauline perspective quite well. He is careful to appreciate the new insights into Pauline thought, yet with his familiarity with 2nd temple Judaism he explains why he thinks the NPP goes to far in overturning Reformation thought. His discussion of Paul’s view of the Law was masterful, even though he took just a couple short pages to survey Paul’s view of the relationship of the believer and the law of Moses. He explains that while Jews are “under the law” , the Christian is “not under law” . The law has run its course in redemptive history. The Spirit, now, is the “moral governor of the Christian life” . “For Paul, the new covenant operates under a new law, the law of Christ, the law of love, which, while embodying underlying moral principles of the old Mosaic legislation, should not be strictly identified with it.” (pg. 266-268).

In detailing John’s portrayal of Christ’s person and work, Helyer takes pains to explain John is countering a proto-Gnostic error. There is a polemical thrust behind John’s presentation of Christ. On the question of John’s use of the term “Logos” , Helyer explains that the term has as much of an OT and 2nd temple Judaistic background as it has roots in Greek thought. In examining John’s writings, the emphasis on eschatology goes up a notch, of course. Yet an already, but not yet view of the kingdom is still inherent in John’s thought. Helyer’s treatment of Revelation was excellent. I especially liked his chiastic outline of the book (from pg. 353):

    A.  The Inaugural Vision: The Risen and Reigning Christ (ch. 1)
        B.  Messages to the Seven Churches: The Church Militant (chs. 2-3): What is the
          present prospect and promise for the church?
            C.  Vision of the Throne Room (chs. 4-5): Who is in charge?
                D.  Visions of the War for the Throne (chs. 6-16): The Wrath of the Lamb
                    1.  Seven Seals
                    2.  Seven Trumpets
                    3.  Seven Bowls
            C’.  Vision of Babylon the Great (chs. 17-18): Who will lose charge?
        B’.  Vision of the King and His Kingdom: The Church Triumphant (chs. 19-21):
          What is the future prospect and fulfillment for the church?
    A’.  The Final Vision: The Returning and Rewarding Christ (ch. 22)

His discussion of Rev. 20, also almost pushed me back into historic premillennialism. His exegetical treatment was clear and forceful. It forces me to go back and study that passage again in more depth.

At the end of the book, Helyer ties up the various strands of theology that Jesus (the Synoptics), John and Paul have been developing. Within the overarching and unifying theme of the Kingdom, Helyer finds a great degree of unity in this NT witness. Helyer is right to conclude by the end of his book that “enough… has been said to counteract the lopsided insistence that diversity and contradiction drown out any meaningful sense of unity and harmony.”

After sitting through Helyer’s “class” , I have a greater understanding of NT theology, and biblical theology in general. If you pick up the book, you will be glad you entered his course as well.

Disclaimer: this book was provided by the publisher for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to provide a positive review.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com or direct from IVP.

Dispensationalism Examined

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

I’ve been caught up in a couple interesting articles over on Sharper Iron. One is a story of one man’s journey out of dispensationalism, another is a story of why a former Lutheran is a classic deispensationalist. The comments are a wild ride through a sticky debate, to put it mildly.

At some point I want to type out my own story of leaving dispensationalism. But for now, I thought I’d compile a few helpful resources on the Dispensationalism question. Of course you can check out that category in my own blog, but here are a few resources. If anyone else wants to share something along these lines, please chime in.

My friend Nathan Pitchford, of Psalm 45 Publications and Reformation Theology, has several excellent articles on the topic. His article on the Abrahamic Covenant sticks to the OT witness about that covenant and explains how it fits with Hebrews’ spiritual perspective on the land promise.

Vern Poythress has an excellent book about this issue, available for free online: Understanding Dispensationalists. He presents Scriptural arguments against Dispensationalism, but does so in a charitable and helpful way.

There are also several articles and resources on Dispensationalism compiled at Monergism.com.

I have also been greatly helped by O. Palmer Robertson’s books on the Scriptural covenants. I’ve reviewed his books The Christ of the Covenants and The Israel of God on my blog. His books influenced my series of posts called Understanding the Land Promise, which presents a good explanation of my views. I also once posted an excellent power point presentation, from a friend of mine, on how to view all of Scripture from a covenantal perspective. The presentation is called The Advance of God’s Kingdom, and I found it extremely helpful.