Tag: Dispensationalism

“Waiting for the Land: The Story Line of the Pentateuch” by Arie C. Leder

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

Over the past few years I have fallen in love with the Pentateuch. I now see it as some of the richest theology in all of Scripture. So when I saw this book from P & R Publishing, its title and evocative cover had me hooked in no time flat. Waiting for the Land: The Story Line of the Pentateuch by Arie C. Leder did not disappoint. Instead old insights were crystallized and new gems were discovered as I paged through this wonderful book.

My copy of this book is so dog-eared and underlined that for a long time I’ve hesitated to write this review. I know I won’t be able to say everything I want to about this book, or share every insight that I gained through reading it. I almost want to read the book again right now, as I prepare to finish this review!

What Leder does in this book is to look at the Pentateuch as a whole, and to find the big picture behind it. He analyzes each part and applies the insights of a variety of scholars, yet maintains an evangelical approach throughout. He unpacks the power of narrative and then provides detailed analyses of the structure of each of the Pentateuch’s five books. He argues that the Pentateuch is the ultimate cliff-hanger. The final editors of the Pentateuch know the ultimate ending (as recorded in Joshua), yet they deny the reader the benefit of seeing the end. Like Moses, we are left on a hill overlooking the promised land. And this is an intentional part of the book. Israel is “waiting for the land”, and this waiting continues down to today. Leder argues, and I agree, that this waiting shaped Israel’s experience of the land itself, and shapes how the church views its own wilderness pilgrimage.

The Narrative Structure of the Pentateuch

The narrative problem of the Pentateuch, as expressed by Arie Leder, is that Israel refused Divine Instruction and was thus exiled. Therefore, the message of the Pentateuch as we find it in its canonical form, speaks directly to the Jewish people post-exile. The structure of the Pentateuch is one gigantic chiasm. Genesis stands opposed to Deuteronomy, each dealing with the separation of Israel from the nations, blessing, seeing the land (but not permanently dwelling in it) and promises concerning descendants and the land. Exodus and Numbers both detail Israel’s desert journeys, describe apostasy and plagues, have a role for magicians (Pharaoh’s magicians and Balaam), and discuss the first-born and Levites’ dedication to God. Then Leviticus is the crux, dealing with sacrifices, cleanliness and holiness. The center of Leviticus is the Day of Atonement, and since all of the Pentateuch is about how to live life in God’s presence in the land of promise, it is interesting to note how central a redemptive sacrifice is to it all.

Central to the Pentateuch is the role of fellowship with God, and building projects. God builds the world to be the place of fellowship, but this is marred by sin. Then mankind rebels and builds a tower for their own fellowship apart from God’s presence. Ironically the Israelites are forced to build the towers of Egypt, but end up voluntarily building a tabernacle for the LORD. This tabernacle allows God to dwell in Israel, albeit with barriers to separate His holiness from their sin. God is the one who undoes what man had done: God initiates this building project, and ultimately no temple will be needed as God will finally dwell with his people (of all ethnicities) in the new Jerusalem, where the Lamb is the temple.

Divine Presence and the Promised Land

Leder argues that the Divine presence is the defining characteristic of the promised land, and that all too often this is forgotten in discussions of the nature of the promised land. The church is to be viewed as God’s desert people today, as Hebrews 3 and 4 intimate. Leder explains:

Israel’s desert transition from Egypt to Sinai defines how believers at all stages of sanctification wait for the land: not in triumphal transformation of the desert, but in the regular testing of a rebellious heart and the experience of God’s surprising provision of daily sustenance. (pg. 198-199)

Israel foreshadows the body of Christ as the temple of God, in which each member is a living, priestly stone (1 Peter 2:5, 9; cf. Ex. 19:5). (pg. 201)

The desert is not only an historico-geographical reality but also a theological reality, one that teaches Israel not to think of herself as a landed people, for no earthly soil can produce the fruit of righteousness. (pg. 203)

Ultimately,

…Jesus completes the desert journey for his people. With his ascension he brings them into the intimate presence of God (Heb. 10:19), from where he pours out the Holy Spirit to indwell the body of Christ, the church, God’s temple (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19) on earth. Thus indwelt, the church of Jesus Christ awaits a promised future: not land to cultivate, but rest from her work just as God rested from his (Heb. 4:6-11), a full rest in God’s presence for all who have been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb (Rev. 21). (pg. 204)

Separated from earthly cultures and ethnicities, and in transition to the heavenly city, God’s people will suffer a constant uprooting from the soils of their past and will be eager for enduring instruction in righteous cultivation of the fruit that produces holy distraction from the world and its interests. (pg. 205)

I could go on offering quote after quote, but you’ll have to get the book and read it for yourself.

Replacement Theology?

Some may take issue with supposed “replacement theology” here. But such is not the case. He sees the church as the ultimate fulfillment of believing Israel, not a replacement of it. Furthermore, the argument is directly tied to and springs from the text itself. Since the Pentateuch itself was concerned with the presence of God more so than mere land, the New Testament’s claims about God’s presence and the church are rightly seen as an outgrowth of this native OT concern. Even if you disagree with some of Leder’s theology, studying this book will prove immensely rewarding as time and again he focuses us on the power of the text.

I devoured this book and I expect you will too. It’s written in an accessible and clear way, with many helpful charts and diagrams. You will be blown away by the connections Leder finds throughout the Pentateuch, so you’ll want to take notes. Perhaps after reading this book, you too will fall in love with the Pentateuch anew.

UPDATE: For a look at my current thinking on the land promise and that whole theological question, I encourage you to read my series of posts: “Understanding the Land Promise“.

You can pick up a copy of Waiting for the Land at the following online retailers: ChristianBook.com, Amazon.com, or direct from P & R Publishing.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by P & R Publishing for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

The Old Testament: All about Christ, or Not?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 21 Comments

Fascinating debate recently about how to read the OT. The first two statements below are from Professor Mark Snoeberger of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary.

First:

But since I’ve spent almost all my study time in the OT during the last two months, it’s almost as though I’ve left the Gospel Carnival behind. Kind of like going for a drive in the country, but better. It’s been very refreshing, but the funny thing is that, despite the fact that I have been spending considerably more time than normal in my Bible for the past two months, I’ve read virtually nothing about Christ, the Cross, or the Gospel.

Now some of you are probably shaking your heads right now and saying, “This guy doesn’t know how to read his Bible–it’s ALL about Christ if you know how to successfully navigate between the lines!” And I’m not blind to the redemptive thread that winds through the Bible. But the thing is, when I stop reading between the lines and just start reading the lines, Christ and the Gospel do not emerge as major OT themes. In fact, they’re not themes at all.

and then in the first comment under this post:

Revelation concerning the common or civic sphere, on the other hand, begins with the dominion mandate, takes peculiar shape with the Noahic Covenant and the second table of the Law, and dominates the theocratic period.

Dispensationalism, I think, can be demonstrated to be a variation of this latter model (some would say a perversion) that offers multiple adminstrations–not just two. The various purposes of God are inter-connected, but what is key is that they are not limited to redemptive concerns. What binds them together is not so much the Gospel as it is the manifold glory of God. It’s BIGGER than the Gospel.

Let’s take one example: the OT sacrificial system. There are diverse understandings within dispensationalism on the OT sacrifices, but one that I have felt comfortable embracing is John Whitcomb’s theocratic understanding of the sacrifices, viz., that the sacrifices were only incidentally connected with being redemptively right with God; instead they were concerned with being theocratically right with the (K)ing and with the covenant community. That these sacrifices became a pattern for the redemptive arrangement in the death of Christ is not accidental, of course. And God certainly arranged history so that there is a continuity of form. However, it seems to me that rather than seeing the OT sacrifices as anticipating Christ, it is better to say that God modeled Christ’s sacrifice retrospectively after the theocratic system.

If this is the case, then the the Mosaic system has its own meaning, known plainly by the OT saint, without reference to Christ. It was not intrinsically anticipatory.

Over and against this, Brian McCrorie in the comments here shared my basic view on this matter:

Ben I don’t think I fundamentally disagree with you. However, I would only add that we should not only interpret the OT on it’s own terms, but also interpret it canonically (ie, the Bible as one book)

If we simply isolate the OT from the NT, and interpret it “on it’s own terms”, and not canonically, would we ever come to the conclusion that Jonah could be a picture of Christ? Furthermore, I don’t need an OT text to explicitly tell me the rock in the wilderness was Christ when Paul tells me as much in 1 Cor.

If we isolate the testaments we may not even (like some comments above) see how Adam prefigured Christ. But it blows my mind that someone who has the NT would even question the correlation of the first Adam to the second, or King David to his greater Son whom he calls “Lord”.

The bigger question in all of this I think is how or if we can do what the NT writers do. For instance, we don’t have explicitly or implicity (that I know of)in the NT that Joseph was a type of Christ. But the correlations are almost as clear as day. I agree with James that Keller’s references to Esther and others are much more of a stretch. However, that doesn’t make his hermeneutic “special”, he’s just trying to follow the pattern of intertextual canonical interpretation. How confidently we do that today without divine inspiration is the sticking point (at least for me).

Lastly, I wanted to comment on something Keith said:
“How could God, ‘retrospectively’ do anything when he decreed it all outside of time?”

Marriage from the perspective of Eph 5 is a perfect example of this. We know now, this side of the cross and through later revelation, that marriage was instituted to be a picture of Christ and the church. In other words, the cross and the church preexisted (in the purpose of God, not strictly in time) the marriage of man and woman. Why then would we be surprised to find the events and words of the OT orchestrated and inspired to point to Christ? We’re not necessarilty reading Christ and the NT back into the OT. It’s almost as if we’re going back before the OT, now with the knowledge of God’s ultimate plan climaxing in Christ. We have now what angels and prophets once only dreamed of seeing. Please don’t make me go back to that day.

and then:

Here [is an] illustration supporting canonical reading (or reading the NT back into the OT):

Black box: Imagine a FAA flight inspection team reviewing data and clues from the site of a plane crash. All their information is leading them down a path of understanding the cause of the crash. But when they find the black box they have the pilot’s definitive word on how and why the plane went down. Wouldn’t they then go back and look at all the collected data and see how all along it pointed to that particular failure. But without the black box it wasn’t clear. The recording didn’t change the data (NT revelation doesn’t alter the OT), but shed new light on its proper and full interpretation. Furthermore, without the box, the collected data could never have been fully understood. Why would any inspector then go back and disregard the recording, or separate it from the data, and try to interpret the two separately? Instead, he would interpret the (less clear) clues with the definitive recording….

By isolating the OT and having a hermeneutic based on original authorial intent instead of a wider canonical interpretation based on divine Authorial intent, we are severely limiting our understanding of the text. We can better locate, appreciate, and interpret the signs and symbols pointing to Christ in the OT only as we see them through the lens of the NT. Lastly, we must be very careful to isolate the OT from the NT because, in my opinion, the function of OT revelation (as well as parables, for example) is not simply to reveal, but also to conceal. We weren’t meant to get all the information on God’s redemptive plan from the OT. Throughout the OT God gives us clues which only later can be identified for what they were. My guess is that originally God intentionally concealed the whole story (like any good writer) from all people, but particularly from rulers and authorities, and ultimately Satan himself. How else can we explain Satan killing the King of the Jews only to realize the salvation of the world and his own defeat?

I encourage you to read the comments where Brian made these statements above. There is an in-depth discussion of this question and all participants are quite irenic and charitable. Makes for great reading. The comments at Snoeberger’s blog will just puzzle you more than anything. If that is the result of dispensationalist thinking, I say beware.

Makes me excited that I’ll be going to the Gospel Coalition Conference this year where the theme is preaching Christ from the Old Testament. Maybe that’s why the Conservative Evangelicals have such an appeal to young fundamentalists, they get what the message of the Bible is all about.

Are We “New Covenant Believers”?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 31 Comments

In the comments on a recent article I came across, someone made the following statement:

…Then move to something controversial: Zech. 12:10-14 and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. In guiding our people responsibly through that passage, we need to wrestle with similar “outpouring” language in the NT, but also with the limited object of the outpouring in Zech. 12:10, “the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.”

If we leave behind the matter of literalness, who is to say our application isn’t heresy (to quote Haddon Robinson)? Am I, a new covenant believer, in the house of David? Am I an inhabitant of Jerusalem? (I wish)… [emphasis added]

As I was typing up a response to the idea that we are not “new covenant believers”, I thought my answer might make for a good blog post. So I’m sharing my response for your benefit. Do I hit the mark? Does this make sense? I’d love your input after reading my reply below.

I want to challenge this a bit. And I’m just using Ted’s words here it isn’t about him it’s a bigger issue. What John is doing is trying to do justice to the NT teaching which is quite clear on how much continuity there is between God’s people before Christ and afterward. The comments here by the opposing view center only on Zecharaiah mostly.

If we just had Jer. 31, then yes, we aren’t “new covenant believers”, to use Ted’s terms. But the New Testament tells us the new covenant has begun. Jesus said as much in his inauguration of the Lord’s Supper ceremony for the church. “And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.’ ” (Luke 22:20 ESV) Paul tells us that he is a minister of the new covenant:

“Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” (2 Corinthians 3:5-6 ESV)

In context, the ministry of the new covenant is Paul’s ministry of spreading the gospel among the gentiles (4:1 “this ministry”… and 4:3-6 “our gospel”).

Furthermore, Hebrews says the old covenant is passing away and insufficient because the new covenant is here, see chapters 8 and 10 of Hebrews where Jeremiah 31:31-34 is quoted and applied as a current reality.

Not only are we “new covenant believers”, we are inhabitants of “Jerusalem” who is our true mother (see Gal. 4:26, Heb. 12:22) and seek a heavenly city in the same sense that OT believers sought a heavenly (not earthly) city (Heb. 13:14, cf. Heb. 11:13-16).

This NT language means something. The NT description of God’s people being a living temple is something that goes beyond OT realities. Something is happening in the NT and it will affect how we understand the OT. 1 Peter tells us that the OT authors often didn’t know what they were writing of, but were writing for our benefit (1 Pt. 1:10-12). And what happened to the OT saints is a lesson and instruction for us and was written for our encouragement (1 Cor. 10:11, Rom. 15:4).

I believe that following the lead of the NT apostles and Jesus, in how they used OT Scripture and saw that it culminated in Jesus Christ and the gospel of grace, is how best to interpret Scripture. Scripture doesn’t leave us without a hermeneutic. A redemptive-historical hermeneutic aims to follow the teaching of the Bible about itself and to understand how Christ truly sums up all things in His own ministry. He fulfills the Law.

I think John Davis’ last paragraph captures the NT age experience well. The new covenant is here but we aren’t experiencing it in all its fullness quite yet. That may mean a millennium, but it certainly means more than a millennium. Christ will reign and we will live on a restored earth for all eternity.

This post follows on the heels of my recent entry on Gal. 6:16 which I’d encourage you to read, if the thought of the NT depiction of the church in OT terms is new to you. Again, I’m interested in any input you might have regarding this question. Are we, or aren’t we, “new covenant believers”?

Recommended Resource on Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

My friend Nathan Pitchford has turned several of his essays into books by means of Lulu.com’s self-publishing capabilities. His essays are excellent and several of them got me thinking regarding the problems of dispensationalism. Pitchford’s books are available for free .pdf download so I encourage you all to check them out.

One of his newest books is Themes in Theology vol. 4, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. Several of his best essays are in there. You can download the book here, or purchase a print copy here. I’d also encourage you to read the first two essays for sure: Is Dispensationalism Biblical? and Land, Seed and Blessing in the Abrahamic Covenant. He also includes an appendix with a Scripture verse list on the topic.

One other note about Nathan, he is going to be a guest on Scott Oakland’s ReformedCast podcast tonight. You can listen live at 6pm Central, or get the free download later. He will be sharing his transition from Baptist to Presbyterian. That’s one area I still disagree with Nathan. The show will be worth listening to, however, as I’ve found the Baptism debate is beneficial and can increase your understanding of those in the Church who disagree with your particular position.

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.