Tag: Theology

Why "Limited Atonement" (Part 1)

~ fundyreformed ~ 21 Comments

Recently, a dear brother in Christ posted a lengthy rebuke of limited atonement as a comment on my blog. I promised him a response and thought I’d share the exchange here for the benefit of my readers. Feel free to read his original comment. This is the first part of my response to his concerns.

A Widespread Concern

Many Christians are very concerned over the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement. To them, the very words “limited atonement” imply something totally foreign to Scripture — that Christ’s atonement is limited. Christ’s power isn’t, neither is His love. Worse yet, there are many verses which seem to teach that God loves all and wants all to be saved, and that Jesus suffered and died for all. So Calvinism then, is unscriptural and dangerous in that it teaches Christ’s power is limited.

The motivation behind the above conclusion is commendable. Scripture is more important than any system of belief and Christ’s power is not limited. Such points are important to defend. The problem comes from the basis of the above conclusion. Most Christians who object to Calvinism on this point do not understand what it is that Calvinism is actually teaching by means of the words “limited atonement”.

The Cavlinist Concern

Before I explain what Calvinists affirm by this doctrine, I want to point out something very pertinent to this debate. The very Christians who claim Calvinism limits the atonement, limit the atonement themselves. They admit that not all are saved finally. This admission teaches that the atonement Christ performed did not have complete saving results for all people. And since it was done for all people alike, then it is incomplete in the sense that people must respond and believe to finish the work of the atonement. So, in effect, Christ really didn’t save anyone in particular. He merely made salvation possible for everyone.

The Calvinist View of The Atonement

This is where Calvinists part ways with the idea of unlimited atonement. When we think about atonement, we see men as dead sinners totally in need of a Savior. Every thought of our hearts are vile and we do not even have the ability to please God in any way. Yet God in his mercy chose a people for his sake to glorify his name. He is cleansing and purifying that people and he has given them as a bride to his Son. His Son keeps them and will not lose any the Father has given him. It is for these and these alone that Jesus in his High Priestly role prays (John 17:9, 12). It is this flock that he keeps and guides. And if one is not part of the flock they will not believe (John 10:26). It is for these– his people, the many– that Christ lays down his life (John 10:11; Matt. 1:21; 26:28). He purchased his church with his blood (Acts 20:28), and he died for the purification of his bride (Eph. 5:25-26). He didn’t also purchase the non-church and die to purify the non-bride.

For salvation to occur, sins need to be paid for and the penalty used up. God’s wrath needs to be spent on a substitute, that it might be propitiated. The condemned need someone to die in their place, instead of them. Once such a substitutionary death takes place, there remains no more penalty for sins. Such a sacrifice purchases the sinner and buys him back from death’s domain. That blessed man has been saved.

Faith is still necessary, but such faith is a gift of God. The sinner is an enemy of God and hostile to God. He wants no part of God. What makes his anger towards God cease? How can his dead heart start living by faith? How can his unborn existence become born into new life? The Spirit graciously applies the benefits of Christ’s sacrificial work in the hearts of the elect causing them to awake and instantaneously believe in Christ. To be alive is to have been born, and to be spiritually alive is to have been regenerated. Spiritual life is not possible without faith. And faith is not possible for the non-elect. When the Gospel is preached, the elect ones respond in belief by the working of the Spirit. And the miracle of salvation is seen by all.

Are we co-operators with God in our salvation? He dies for us and just stands at our heart’s door meekly knocking hoping we’ll believe? Or is he the one who comes to the tomb or our hearts shouting “Lazarus come forth!”

The Real Question

So at the end of the day, both groups limit the atonement in some sense. The question in my mind should center on what we mean by “atonement”. After the break here, I’ll provide an excerpt from an earlier post I did on this topic, and offer some other links to help people understand just how Calvinism impacts evangelism, and why I see strong scriptural warrant for the postions of Calvinism.

The following quote is from my post: “Who’s Limiting the Atonement?”

Calvinists affirm basically all that Arminians teach on this point. Arminians believe that Christ death provides a legitimate gospel offer of salvation to every person. Calvinists affirm that Christ’s death purchases common grace for all and enables everyone the opportunity of responding to the gospel message. Both groups agree that those who respond will be saved, and both groups agree that not everyone responds.

This leads us back to the difference””Calvinists and Arminians disagree on the nature of the atonement. Calvinists see it as an actual payment of sins and a purchase of people. They see it as purchasing the very gifts of faith and repentance. So while anyone might potentially believe, all who believe are the ones for whom Christ actually died to procure their salvation.

Arminians, however, claim that faith and repentance are something that human beings add to the atonement (in a sense) to make it effective. And even on this point, they would claim that God’s grace enables the sinners to repent and believe. Calvinists see this grace as having to be purchased on the cross for specific people, and Arminian’s don’t.

So on the face of it, Calvinists and Arminians both limit the atonement. Neither are universalists. Both claim that we must preach the gospel to everyone and yet only some will be saved. Calvinists basically affirm everything Arminians do, but affirm something else. That repentance and faith were purchased on the cross, and that the sins of the elect were actually atoned for (not potentially atoned for) on the cross. They claim that Jesus came to actually save sinners, not merely to make them savable.

So the question should not be “Who is limiting the atonement?” But rather, “What is the nature of the atonement?” When you approach the “L” in TULIP from this perspective, the Calvinist doctrine of “particular redemption” or “definite atonement” will make more sense.

Additional Resources

“The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” by O. Palmer Robertson

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Author: O. Palmer Robertson
Format: Softcover
Page Count: 196
Publisher: Presbyterian & Reformed
Publication Date: 2000
ISBN: 0875523989
Rating: 5 of 5 stars

Like most any American evangelical, how the Bible views the modern state of Israel is a topic that interests me. I’ve grown in my understanding of this issue, even as I’ve evaluated competing theological systems such as dispensationalism and covenant theology. For me, the Bible is most important, as I don’t feel compelled to be loyal to any particular theological system.

Perhaps that is why O. Palmer Robertson’s writings have been so helpful to me. I greatly appreciated his Biblical treatment of the various covenants of Scripture in The Christ of the Covenants (see my review). In The Israel of God: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, Robertson far exceeded my expectations.

Robertson doesn’t have to convince anyone that interpretations concerning the Bible’s view of Israel are varied and extremely influential. In his book, though, he manages to bring the focus to where it should be: on what Scripture actually says concerning the topic.

And this is where he excels. He doesn’t settle for a few proof texts. Rather he carefully traces out a Biblical theology of the land, the people Israel, their worship and lifestyle, and the Kingdom as it relates to Israel. He offers a careful exposition of Galatians 6:16, Hebrews 7, and Romans 11. All the while, he examines Scripture’s entire testimony on these subjects letting all of Scripture weigh in on this issue.

The book shows how the essence of the land promise was spiritual fellowship with God. This is enjoyed by the church today (Matt. 5:5, Rom. 4:13, Eph. 6:3). It argues that the worship and lifestyle of Israel is radically altered with Christ’s provision of a better covenant (Heb. 7). It goes on to examine how Scripture defines the people of Israel, and it details how Gentile believers in the church are Abraham’s children and heirs, true Jews, yes, even the Israel of God (Gal. 3:26-29, 6:16; Rom. 2:28-29, 4:11-12; Eph. 2:14, 19).

One may well disagree with Robertson’s conclusions. But anyone who cares about Scripture will appreciate his emphasis on letting Scripture speak for itself. I would hope those differing with Robertson would at least give his Biblical presentation fair consideration. His exposition of Romans 11 in particular has the potential of changing the mind of many on this subject. Not because it is novel, but because he shows how clearly the chapter as a whole argues for a present-day focus in Paul’s concern.

I won’t explain all of Robertson’s arguments for you. I encourage you to pick up a copy of the book yourself. Its a fairly quick read (196 pages), which will definitely keep your interest. I’m sure you’ll be glad you gave this book a hearing.

For more on the covenant theology vs. dispensationalism discussion, see my blog posts related to this issue. You may also be interested in my series entitled “Understanding the Land Promise“.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Westminster Bookstore, Amazon.com, or direct from P & R Publishing.

Bob's Blog Finds: The Apostolic Hermeneutic

~ fundyreformed ~ 4 Comments

In my blog finds I highlight some of the best articles I’ve found online recently. You can see all my blog finds (courtesy of Google Reader) in the sidebar.

It’s been a long while since I posted a Bobspotted Blogroll post. With Google Reader, it’s easier to share my posts one by one. Rather then abandon the blogspot idea altogether, I plan on posting Blog Finds posts where I share articles or links one at a time. This will allow more interaction from you, my readers, and I hope it will serve my blog readers well.

Proponents of Biblical Theology, particularly those who hold to redemptive historical hermeneutics, often speak of the apostolic hermeneutic. We see how the Apostle’s interpreted the OT Bible and draw lessons for how we should interpret it as well.

Now this approach is often misunderstood or even maligned by other Bible scholars, particularly dispensationalists. R. Scott Clark addresses this issue in an excellent post (actually a re-post) at his Heidelblog. I’ll provide some excerpts and encourage you to read the excellent post for yourself. He provides book recommendations for where to pursue this hermeneutical approach further, too.

It’s isn’t that complicated. Pay close attention here:  The Apostolic hermeneutic is to see Christ at the center of all of Scripture. We’re not reading him  into Scripture. We’re refusing to read him out of it. There, I said it. That’s what it is. Perhaps the reason our dispensational friends cannot see it is because they are blinded by their rationalism. They know  a priori what the organizing principle of Scripture  must be and it isn’t God the Son, it’s national Israel….

Yes, Reformed folk (and others) have been reading the bible like this for a very long time. The earliest post-apostolic Christians, in contrast to the Jewish critics of the Christian faith, read the Bible to teach a unity of salvation organized around Jesus Christ. The entire medieval church read the Bible this way as did the Reformation and post-Reformation churches….

What method do we use? It’s grammatical and historical! It reads the Old in the light of the new. It doesn’t set up arbitrary  a priori‘s about what can and can’t be. We don’t begin with an unstated premise, “All reasonable people know p.” We don’t think that any uninspired hermeneutic (system of interpretation) is superior to Paul’s or James’ or Peter’s.

One need not be inspired to read the Bible the way the apostles did. I’m not even sure it’s proper to say that their hermeneutic was inspired. We confess that Scripture is inspired, but was their way of reading Scripture inspired? I doubt it. As John Frame used to ask in class, were the apostolic grocery lists inspired? No. Can we observe  how they read Scripture and imitate it? Yes….

Read the rest of the post for yourself. And let me know what you think of it.

Understanding the Land Promise: Conclusion

~ fundyreformed ~ 10 Comments

Continuing from part 7….

At last, this series is coming to a close. We’ve explored an understanding of the land promise informed by NT Scripture itself. All believers are Abraham’s heirs, and they inherit the promise that he would be heir of the world (Rom. 4:13-16). Gentile believers can expect to “live long in the land” (Eph. 6:3), even as the meek “inherit the earth” (Matt. 5:5). Just like in Ps. 37, it is only the righteous who inherit the earth and dwell in it forever, not anyone who claims the name of Christ. While Israel did possess the land for a time, and all of God’s promises were proven true (Josh. 21:43-45, 1 Kings 8:56) and fulfilled, the actual experience of Israel in the land fell short of the prophetic expectation. Ultimately the spiritual seed of Abraham will inherit a new heaven and a new earth, and all the believing children of Abraham from all time, will enjoy the eternal kingdom of the new earth in resurrected bodies. The new earth will center on the heavenly Jerusalem, where God’s presence will dwell eternally with His people. The church was God’s temple on earth, and in the eternal state there will be no temple, as we enjoy God’s presence forever. Indeed, even now, we share in the worship of the heavenly company of the redeemed who are in the heavenly Jerusalem, of which old Jerusalem was just a picture.

How this Understanding Matters

At this point, I’d like to emphasize why this matters. Many readers have probably skipped over these posts as irrelevant. “This is just a theological squabble over semantics”, they might say. I contend this understanding, which invariably leads to a reordering of or even a wholesale rejection of dispensationalism, has profound implications. I’d like to discuss four broad categories directly influenced by this understanding of the land.

How You Read the Bible, and the Unity of God’s People

When you really grasp this idea of how the NT Church experiences the land blessing now, and even more so later, you comprehend what Eph. 2, Gal. 3, 1 Pet. 2 and Rom. 4 overwhelmingly proclaim — that the Church in the NT and believing Israel in the OT are together to be understood as God’s people. Sure there are some important differences, but we are unified as one people of God. When reading the NT we constantly are reminded that just like the saints of old had to trust in God by faith, so we do today. They looked forward to Christ’s day and we look back, but we all prize Christ.

This in turn revolutionizes how you read the Bible. You no longer read certain sections as if they don’t apply to you at all. instead you see everything through the lens of faith. You understand how the Israelites’ plight in Judges parallels our plight in our fight for faith today. You also start to see how the NT ties in to the OT in profound ways.

As an example, consider baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Baptism is not a totally distinct, new thing in our age. Moses and the Israelites were in a sense baptized in the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10), and the word baptism is used of ritualistic washings in the OT (see the use of the Greek words relating to baptism in Hebrews). Of course the New Testament makes clear that baptism symbolizes cleansing from sin (Acts 22:16), and OT Israel had many ordinances and ceremonies which symbolized the same thing with water. This should help us see that baptism, while definitely illustrating our solidarity with Christ in his death and burial, still most basically symbolizes that Christ has washed us from our sins. Without this full fledged understanding of Scripture’s unity, numerous baptism services totally ignore the most fundamental and basic meaning of the symbol of water baptism.

The Lord’s Supper, likewise connects with the Passover. It was first instituted at an observance of Passover. Indeed, Passover’s true meaning was transformed (or revealed) by the Lord’s Supper. We now have Christ offering his body as the final and ultimate sacrifice. Just as Passover was to be a family and corporate event, which remembered the sorrow of the sacrifice but majored on the joy of being rescued from death, so the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance and should include both sorrow and an emphasis on joy. I am probably going off on a bit of tangent here, but consider how this impacts the understanding of substitutionary atonement. Jesus declared his blood would be offered to establish the new covenant. Hebrews declares blood-shedding is required for a covenant to be in effect. The blood shed at the original Passover, was shed only for a specific group of people, and it was placed over their door posts to mark off God’s people. Similarly, Jesus blood is shed for his people, with whom He establishes his new covenant.

These are just a few examples of how this understanding transforms your reading of and appreciation for the Bible.

How You Think About Modern Israel, Political Activism & Patriotism

Now for this topic, many a dispensationalist will say understanding the land promise as I do will make me anti-Semitic. Well, I’m part German, so I guess they must be right! Just kidding. In no way does this make one anti-Semitic or encourage that.

Now I must admit some Christians historically who have understood how the Church (made up of believing Jew and Gentile alike) ultimately fulfills the land promise and other Abrahamic promises, have been anti-Semitic. But it does not need to follow that the idea makes one anti-Semitic. The NT is emphatic that the only hope for anyone, Jew or Gentile, comes through Christ. And if all Israel will one day be saved, that event will only occur through Christ and all living Jews repenting and embracing Him. And then they will be grafted back into the single tree they were taken out of the very tree in which the believing Gentiles have been grafted in permanently.

The New Testament doesn’t show any Christians as being second-class. There are no racial or class distinctions. Gentile believers are fellow heirs and partakers of the covenant promises — yea even members of the commonwealth of Israel, according to Eph. 2. Gal. 3 declares believers are Abraham’s descendants. So even if there is a millennium prior to the creation of the new world, and that millennium concerns Israel, believing Gentiles will have to be included per the clear teaching of the New Testament.

Now as to modern day Israel, this understanding gives us no reason to prefer the Jewish claim for the land over the Palestinian one. The Church, is not to be allied with a single political party or view, as God’s kingdom advances through the Gospel and not the sword. Israel today almost completely rejects Christ, sadly. Those Jews who are believers are members of the Church, and as such their ultimate inheritance is the new world and heaven, not a physical geographical area in Palestine.

I have seen that those Christians most connected with a dispensationalist understanding of the land promise, are often the most involved in political pursuits and the most apt to “defend” Israel and pledge support for it. Thankfully, many dispensationalists understand we should not have as our main goal the reformation of society through political action (see a wonderful series on this point by Phil Johnson of Pyromaniacs, for instance). But one’s understanding of the land promise directly touches on how likely they will lose the importance of the fact that we are just passing through this world like Abraham, and are looking for an eternal city. Politics in a free society, provides an avenue for kingdom work and a place to be salt and light, but we are not to legislate Christianity or moralism, instead we are to proclaim the Gospel to the ends of the earth.

This understanding also shapes our patriotism. While we are thankful for America, we know God’s people are of every nationality and race. We are reminded our country is pagan, as is the whole world. Nations have always been composed of pagan people. Christianity is not a nation but a spiritual kingdom, and we are called to be lights in a dark place. God wants people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Burma, Chile, Venezuela, Israel, and America equally to repent and embrace His kingdom. And God does his work in all those nations according to His sovereign purposes to accomplish His glorious plan.

How You Think About Prophecy & End Times

It goes without saying that this understanding shapes how you approach prophecy. When one prioritizes the NT as the fullest revelation, and interprets the end times through its teachings, rather than elevating Daniel 9 to supreme importance, a different view of end times emerges. Prophecy, as with the land promise, is often pointing to the Gospel age and is fulfilled ultimately through Christ and His people.

I won’t delve into the whole prophetic end times discussion here. But it is obvious that understanding the land promise in this way informs how we interpret prophecy and our thoughts on the end times. I’ll let you work that out for yourself, but I hope we can be a bit less dogmatic and divisive over this, as there are many positions which are true to the clear, unequivocal truths of Christ’s return and rule, and yet differ over the various details of how that fleshes out. Currently, I believe an amillennial understanding best accounts for the whole of Scripture on this subject, but I have great respect for historic premillennialism (post-trib rapture), and postmillenniallism or even moderate preterism. A pre-trib rapture depends on this distinction between Israel and the Church, a distinction I believe the NT clearly denies.

How You Interact with God’s Mission & Think About His Kingdom

Finally, this impacts how we view missions, and God’s kingdom. God’s single mission given to us, His people, is to spread His fame to the ends of the earth. Dispensationalism is often pessimistic, with an emphasis on how bad society is getting and how eventually we need the rapture to get us out of here. But this understanding of the land, while admitting that our ultimate blessings are in the new earth, still allows for optimism. God’s kingdom rule is happening now through the church, and ultimately it will extend over all the earth. Rather than stressing over how much land Israel is currently allotted, we can shift our energies to extending God’s kingdom by preaching the Gospel to all the unreached peoples of the world. So many ministries focus solely on reading the “signs of the times”. Such speculation really distracts from our calling and mission. We are not to be so separate from and scared of the world that we obsess over how bad its getting and get excited when our teacher tells us some current event is making Christ’s return come sooner. Christ could come at any moment. He wants us working in His mission and reaching the lost rather than trying to enact moralistic rules on their behalf. Modern day Israel needs missionaries and prayer. They need to embrace Christ, just as much as the Palestinians, and other people groups do as well.

I’ve rambled on longer than I wanted, but I can’t close without highlighting some resources and recommendations for further study.

Resources for Additional Study

Understanding the Land Promise: Part 7

~ fundyreformed ~ 11 Comments

Continuing from part 6….

I hope this post concludes my arguments, responses, and all other considerations of the matter — warning: this is a lengthy post! 🙂 I plan to follow up with a concluding post which explains the ramifications for holding my position.

Conditionality of the Land (follow up)

Before I begin, let me share a passage which I should have listed under my “Conditionality of the Land” point.

Then the word of the LORD came to me: “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the LORD. Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. (Jer. 18:5-10)

On top of the clear verses in Deuteronomy which teach the land is conditional, this passage teaches that in all God’s promises, conditionality is assumed. God reserves the right to pull out of an agreement based on the obedience or lack thereof of his people. This matches how covenants of that day work. The sovereign promises blessings conditioned on the loyalty/obedience of the subject. Of course, as mentioned last time, with salvation, God has accomplished the obedience Himself, through Jesus’ perfect life and death on our behalf. God will work in us through His Spirit to make us continue believing and being loyal to God. If we don’t continue that evidences we are not truly His children.

The Necessity of Faith

We’ve just been talking about how important faith is. And with the land and the promises of it, faith is still prominent. This passage from Hebrews teaches us much about how God’s promises and faith interact:

And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. (Heb. 6:11-12, emphasis added)

Abraham and everyone else for whom God gave glorious promises, inherit them only by means of faith. The same goes for Israel and the land. This is made explicit in Ps. 37, where it doesn’t talk in general terms re: all Israel, but gets specific regarding which individuals will actually inherit the land:

For the evildoers shall be cut off, but those who wait for the LORD shall inherit the land. In just a little while, the wicked will be no more… But the meek shall inherit the land and delight themselves in abundant peace. For those blessed by the LORD shall inherit the land, but those cursed by him shall be cut off. Turn away from evil and do good; so shall you dwell forever [in the land]. (Ps. 37:9-11, 22, 27)

Notice the wicked are going to be cut off from the land, but the faithful will inherit the land. There is no sure possession of the land for Israel if they do not remain faithful to God.

Incomplete Fulfillment

Earlier, I’ve made much of Joshua’s and Solomon’s statements that all of the promises concerning the land were fulfilled. God’s part of the bargain was complete. They viewed Israel’s occupation of the land as a fulfillment of that promise. Yet they didn’t dwell there forever. And they didn’t control all the land to the fullest extent possible. Does this mean the fulfillment is actually in the future? Yes and no.

God’s promises included a forever provision. They would have the land forever. But they didn’t. They had it and lost it. As God made His covenantal arrangements with Israel more fully known in Deuteronomy, he allowed for expulsion from the land as a covenantal curse if Israel did not obey their God. This does not negate the fact that Scripture sees Joshua’s conquest and Solomon’s reign as fulfillments of the Abrahamic promises: “not one good word from the Lord” failed.

Yet, the fulfillment was incomplete. They had a taste of long life and peace in the land, but didn’t experience everything God seemed to promise. In Abraham’s case, he never owned the land but lived like a pilgrim in it. Hebrews informs us that this caused Abraham, with the other patriarchs, to confess they were looking for a heavenly land (see Heb. 11). So Israel’s uneasy time in the land should have pointed them beyond it as well. Israel ultimately broke covenant with God and were driven out, but He did not desert them. God promised to return them to their land. And he did. But even this return (the return from the exile), fell short of the prophetic expectations of a glorious return. The Old Testament closed with promises seemingly unfulfilled. The glory of Israel had faded. Of course the story goes on, and God established the new covenant through Jesus death on the cross and gave spiritual Israel and all the saved Gentiles an inheritance unfathomable in its richness.

The Restoration Promised

Earlier some have pointed to strong promises in Ezekiel about God bringing Israel back to their land. How do we understand these promises? Are they to be literally fulfilled for a national Israel in the millennium period? Well, first off, we should note that these promises are part of a wider array of restoration promises all connected to each other. They all describe a glorious restoration of Israel. If we look at some of the parallel promises, we might be surprised at what we find.

Other Restoration Promises

Isaiah 19:19-24 tell of God blessing the land. However, it is not the land of Israel in view. Egypt and Assyria are claimed as God’s own land. And Israel will just be one with these lands. God will shed His favor on all of them. Other passages speak of Jerusalem as a city “without walls”, having Jehovah as a “wall of fire” around her (Zech. 2:1-5). And others mention the influx of all the nations coming into Jerusalem to worship.

In the wider spectrum of restoration promise, we see God promising a dramatic turn around. God will cause all the earth to worship Him. Jerusalem will be prominent, but God will relate with the formerly pagan nations, Egypt and Assyria as well. They will be lands of God’s covenant as well.

Ezekiel’s Promise of Restoration to the Land

Ezekiel does give specific promises concerning a return to the land. What’s often missed is the context of these promises.

I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God…. Thus says the Lord GOD: On the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will cause the cities to be inhabited, and the waste places shall be rebuilt. 34And the land that was desolate shall be tilled, instead of being the desolation that it was in the sight of all who passed by. And they will say, ‘This land that was desolate has become like the garden of Eden, and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are now fortified and inhabited.’ Then the nations that are left all around you shall know that I am the LORD;I have rebuilt the ruined places and replanted that which was desolate. I am the LORD; I have spoken, and I will do it. (Ez. 36:24-28, 33-36)

Then he said to me, “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. Behold, they say, ‘Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; we are indeed cut off.’ Therefore prophesy, and say to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will open your graves and raise you from your graves, O my people. And I will bring you into the land of Israel. And you shall know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves, and raise you from your graves, O my people. And I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I am the LORD; I have spoken, and I will do it, declares the LORD….Behold, I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from all around, and bring them to their own land. And I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. And one king shall be king over them all, and they shall be no longer two nations, and no longer divided into two kingdoms.They shall not defile themselves anymore with their idols and their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions. But I will save them from all the backslidings in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God….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. (Ez. 37:11-14, 21-23, 25-28 )

The land promises are in dark green above. Notice a couple things however. See the orange lines? Those are new covenant promises. We’ll talk about those in a bit. See the maroon towards the end of each section? A return to the land (not just a return, but a forever, glorious possession by a forgiven people) is a sign to “the nations” around them. Now in the millennium, who are those nations? Don’t they already know the LORD? Hmmm, interesting.

Also notice the olive green section at the start of the second quote. These clear promises are tied directly to Ezekiel’s famous “dry bones” prophecy. The dead bones that will live obviously hearkens to a literal resurrection. Israel is like a dead land and will be revived. It’s interesting that this glorious return to the land is linked to a resurrection promise. This could point two ways. First, it could indicate the glorious land promises are fulfilled in Isaiah’s “new heavens and new earth” which John shows us in Revelation comes after the last judgment (in the eternal state). Second, it could point back to Ex. 36 and the new covenant promise of new life by the Spirit. In which case, Israel doesn’t get the land apart from the new covenant, and the gift of Spirit-life. The same Spirit which gives life to all the spiritual sons of Abraham.

The Restoration and the New Covenant

Again, looking up at our quote, we see explicitly that these land promises are tied into the “everlasting covenant” or the “covenant of peace”. Jeremiah calls it the “new covenant”. Jesus inaugurated this covenant by his death and shedding of blood (at the Last Supper, he said the cup is the “new covenant” in his blood). Hebrews says a covenant requires shedding of blood to enact it. Because of land promises like this and other considerations, dispensationalists like to say the new covenant is made specifically with Israel and points to the millennium alone. Such a conclusion contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture that the new covenant is now, and applies to God’s church (Jew and Gentile). See Hebrews 7-9, especially chapter 8 which quotes Jeremiah’s “new covenant” passage as applying to believers today.

With the explicit tie in to the new covenant, we should see how new covenant texts teach us to understand the land promise.

The World as the Land

We’ve repeatedly emphasized that the New Testament expands the boundaries and concept of the land. I can’t stress enough how important this observation is. Rom. 4:13 teaches that Abraham was promised the kosmos — i.e. the world. Not just “land”. And all the children of promise (Gentiles included) share in Abe’s inheritance. Eph. 6:1-3 stresses that Gentile children inherit the land promised to Israel. And “the meek” “inherit the earth”.

Typology of the Land

Hebrews is a very important book for understanding the Old Testament. It clearly teaches that the OT rituals and practices were shadows or types of things to come. It teaches that Christ is a better priest than the Levitical priesthood. Christ’s offering as “once for all” truly atoned for sin, unlike the continual animal sacrifices. The tabernacle and the Temple were “earthly” patterns with “heavenly” archetypes. (See Hebrews 8-9). These types pointed forward to the spiritual realities of the new covenant age of Christ.

While we could point to Gal. 4, which compares earthly Jerusalem with Heavenly Jerusalem, instead we will focus on another important passage in Hebrews. In chapter 12 we read:

For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. For they could not endure the order that was given, “If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.” Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I tremble with fear.” But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven. At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” This phrase, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of things that are shaken””that is, things that have been made””in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire. (Heb. 12:18-29)

Here we are taught that believers today share in the “heavenly Jerusalem”. We “have come to Mount Zion”. We are participants of the new covenant. This mention in Hebrews is signficant. Hebrews contrasts the old covenant shadows with the new covenant spiritual realities. On this point, I’d like to quote O. Palmer Robertson from his book The Israel of God, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow (P&R, 2000):

Just as the tabernacle was never intended to be a settled item in the plan of redemption but was to point to Christ’s tabernacling among his people (cf. John 1:14), and just as the sacrificial system could never atone for sins but could only foreshadow the offering of the Son of God (Heb. 9:23-26), so in a similar manner Abraham received the promise of the land but never experienced the blessing of its full possession. In this way, the patriarch learned to look forward to “the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Heb. 11:10). Because of the promise that was set before them, the patriarchs never returned to the land of Ur, since “they were longing for a better country–a heavenly one” (Heb. 11:16). (pg. 13-14)

So just as the Temple pointed forward to Christ and the church (1 Pet. 2:5), and as the sacrifices pointed forward to Christ, so also the land pointed forward to spiritual fellowship enjoyed by the church now and forever. Remember, Jesus told the Samaritan woman, “The hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father… the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth…” (Jn. 4:21, 23). We share in the worship of heaven, as we come to the “heavenly Jerusalem” as we worship God today.

The “Forever” Factor

Finally we should mention that some will not be convinced by this presentation. They will hold on to phrases like “forever” and insist that the promise must literally apply only to Israel. Remember God interprets his own meaning best and clearly reveals that believers today inherit the land promise of Abraham (Rom. 4:13-16). The word “forever” in our mind must mean always, eternally. But there are various ways of understanding that term in Hebrew. David was promised a “forever” lineage on the throne of Israel. Dispensationalists are fine with Jesus ultimately fulfilling this literal promise through his eternal rule. Yet they must admit there have been thousands of years without a Davidic heir on the throne of Israel.

If such a fulfillment is possible for David, it is possible with the land promise. Joshua tells us that in Joshua’s day none of the promises had failed. Yet, full possession and “forever” possession did not happen. Why can’t we see an ultimate fulfillment in Christ’s rule in the eternal state, when the whole earth is recreated and restored? When the heavenly Jerusalem comes down to earth and God dwells with His people (Jew and Gentile) forever?

Beyond these considerations, something else must be reckoned with. Ps. 37:29 declares:

The righteous shall inherit the land and dwell upon it forever.

Forever. The righteous have a promise of dwelling in the land forever! So a believing, righteous Jew who trusted God and this promise had a hope of eternal life! And eternity was the only way to experience the “forever” promise of dwelling in the land forever. This goes well with the Ezekiel dry bones idea of resurrection. Ultimately the land hearkens to our heavenly Beulah land where we will dwell with God forever.

God fulfills His promises in the way He intends. Such an all-encompassing spiritual fulfillment is by no means a let-down. In no way does this make God a liar. God gives Abraham not just a plot of land but the entire kosmos. God sets his favor not just on the “holy land” but all the earth. God pledges to redeem all creation, and He will.

I apologize for the length of this post but I wanted to bring our study to an end. In the last post, I’ll share some resources, recommended books, as well as discuss some ramifications that flow from this understanding.