The “Literal” Hermeneutic and Dispensationalism

Daniel 9, A Test Case

While doing a search on a non-related subject, I stumbled upon yet another typical negative comment pertaining to how Dispensationalists interpret Scripture.

The author implies that the Dispensational hermeneutic, which I understand to be the historical-grammatical approach to reading the Bible, is problematic when it comes to interpreting the biblical text. The "Dispensational" take on Daniel 9 is presented as an example.

The snippet is taken from a blog article written in 2006. Though that is nearly 6 years ago, seeing that it pertains to the use of hermeneutics, I thought it may be useful to visit. Let me cite the comment in full and then go back and dismantle it piece by piece.

As an aside, often the Dispensational interpretation of certain passages is hardly “literal,” but “literalistic.” That is, the application of the text is something terribly foreign to the historical context. Take Daniel 9, for instance. Daniel, in searching the Scriptures, realizes that the 70 years Jeremiah predicted were about to come to a close (9:2). And while he prays in response to this (his prayer, by the way, is permeated with covenantal references to God. Keep that in mind when you read that one whom Dispensationalists believe to be the antichrist will “confirm a covenant with many,” 9:27), Gabriel appears to him in a vision (9:21), and he tells him that “seventy sevens” and “sixty-two sevens” (references to sabbatical weeks, Lev 35:1-4[sic]) are decreed to follow (9:25). That is, a total of 490 years (an ultimate Jubilee, Lev 24:8), the messianic age. But the Dispensational interpretation of this text (the supposedly “literal” interpretation) forces an at least 2000 year break (or “an indeterminate gap of time”) between the end of the sixty-ninth and seventieth week, a disjunction which the text *no where* posits. This is directly contrary to the Dispensationalist’s professed “literal” hermeneutic! And this forcing of something into the text which is not present (something that used to be called “eisegesis”) has terrible consequences: confusing Christ with the antichrist!

...often the Dispensational interpretation of certain passages is hardly “literal,” but “literalistic.” That is, the application of the text is something terribly foreign to the historical context.

The complaint here is that Dispensationalists, of which I would count myself, interpret the Bible not “literally” but “literalistically.” I would be curious for a more concise definition that distinguishes those two words. Is there really a difference between "literal" and “literalistic”? How exactly would they be so different that to be “literal” is okay, but “literalistic” is flawed?

The basic web dictionary meaning of literal is, “adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression” or “free from exaggeration or embellishment.” Literalistic, according to various on-line dictionaries, is simply the means of interpreting words in the literal sense.

Perhaps the author has in mind the idea that when Dispensationalists interpret the Bible they do so in a wooden, literal fashion. In other words, they make the passage under consideration sound so absurd it creates theological error. In the case of Daniel 9, the Dispensationalist “literalistic” hermeneutic confuses Jesus with the antichrist.

Web dictionary definitions can only supply a basic sense of the word literal and it many not be especially helpful as it pertains to Bible study. So how do Dispensationalists truly understand the word?

Mal Couch, a Dispensationalist, explains that “literal” does not mean “letterism,” which would be equal to the assumed use of “literalistic” by our Dispensational critic. Instead, “literal” means “normal.” Couch explains,

A normal reading of Scripture is synonymous with a consistent literal, grammatical-historical hermeneutic. When a literal hermeneutic is applied to the interpretation of Scripture, every word written in Scripture is given the normal meaning it would have in its normal usage. ... A normal reading of Scripture recognizes figures of speech and symbolism used in eschatological literature and other books of the Bible." [Mal Couch, An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics, 33, 34].

Just so I am on the same page as the critic, when James White, who is definitely not a Dispensationalist, defines what he means by exegesis, he clearly implies Couch's understanding of “literal” when we study Scripture. White writes,

Exegesis can be defined with reference to its opposite: eisegesis. To exegete a passage is to lead the native meaning out from the words; To eisegete a passage is to insert a foreign meaning into the words. You are exegeting a passage when you are allowing it to say what its original author intended; you are eisegeting a passage when you are forcing the author to say what you want the author to say. True exegesis shows respect for the text and, by extension, for its author: eisegesis, even when based upon ignorance, shows disrespect for the text and its author. [James White, Scripture Alone, 81 (emphasis in original)].

Dr. White goes on to explain what constitutes sound exegesis of a biblical text, or the rules of exegetical hermeneutics. Such things as determining context, considering the author, the audience, and the historical setting of the passage, and the consideration of grammar, syntax, and lexical semantics. All of these points the Dispensationalist would heartily agree with, and in fact, practice when he studies the Bible. I take these points as reading the Bible in a literal fashion.

Our critic claims the Dispensational interpretation brings something “terribly foreign” to the text. In other words, Dispensationalists eisegete passages, they do not exegete them. Yet, is his claim valid? I can show you it is not, and in point of fact, it is he who brings something “terribly foreign” to this passage in Daniel and is the inconsistent eisegete. He demonstrates my point in this very paragraph in which he is supposedly shows us the hermeneutical errors of Dispensationalists.

Let me break down his “exegesis.”

Daniel, in searching the Scriptures, realizes that the 70 years Jeremiah predicted were about to come to a close (9:2).

Notice that Daniel expects that 70 years to be “literal.” In other words, Daniel reads Jeremiah 25:11, 12 and expects what Jeremiah to be saying in his prophecy to be fulfilled literally. He can mark his calendar, as it were, from the year Israel went into exile, count out 70 years to the very year the prophet Jeremiah says they will return from exile. Daniel doesn't “spiritualize” the number 70 as if Jeremiah originally meant it to be some number meaning “total completion” or “perfection” or other similar nonsense. Jeremiah means 70 calendar years, as in 7 decades, like from 1910-1980.

Hence, we see an important point noted: If Daniel read the numbers in Jeremiah in such a literal fashion that he understood those numbers to be 70 calendar years, would not the remainder of the numbers in chapter 9 be literal calendar years as well? Keep that thought with you as I move along.

And while he prays in response to this (his prayer, by the way, is permeated with covenantal references to God. Keep that in mind when you read that one whom Dispensationalists believe to be the antichrist will “confirm a covenant with many,” 9:27), Gabriel appears to him in a vision (9:21), and he tells him that “seventy sevens” and “sixty-two sevens” (references to sabbatical weeks, Lev 35:1-4[sic]) are decreed to follow (9:25). That is, a total of 490 years (an ultimate Jubilee, Lev 24:8), the messianic age.

Laying aside the comment about the antichrist for a moment, I would agree with his main understanding of Daniel's vision. As I outlined in my studies of Daniel, what I believe is in mind here is the Sabbatical year as written about in Leviticus 25. Israel failed with keeping the 7th year Sabbath that allowed the land to “rest” for a year. They did it multiple times, at least 70 times over the course of 800 years. Their exile to Babylon reflects that disobedience.

But our author goes on to say the decreed 490 more years are considered an ultimate Jubilee, a Messianic age. Where exactly is he getting that? Does he understand the 490 years to be literal years, just like the 70 years Israel spent in exile? Or is there some “deeper” meaning? Certainly the coming of Messiah is prophesied at the closing of the 69th week when he will be “cut off.” Is that where he is getting this notion of an “ultimate Jubilee” or “Messianic age?”

Keep that in mind as you read that one whom Dispensationalists believe to be the antichrist will “confirm a covenant with many,” 9:27

Let me return to that comment about the antichrist. I am going to venture a guess and say our author probably holds to the traditional, covenant Reformed view of Daniel 9:25-27. I'll quote myself when I outlined the Reformed position on Daniel 9 in a previous post:

Jesus Christ is understood to be both "the prince" or "Messiah" who is to be cut off as described in verse 26, and the "prince" mentioned in the next clause who is described as having a people who come to destroy the city. The point being that the Jews, or the people of the prince who is to come (Jesus Christ), bring their own destruction upon themselves by rejecting their Messiah and hence solidifying God's wrath against the nation as played out in 70 A.D. when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. The destruction of the temple put an end to sacrifices for the OT sacrificial system just as Daniel states.

There may be some variation among theologians, but that is the basic view held by Reformed writers like Kim Riddlebarger, Gary Demar, E.J. Young, etc.

However, if we are going to take the text seriously by applying the principles of “exegesis” defined above, which includes the idea of “a literal reading of the text” I cannot see how the details of the text can bring one to that conclusion. I would even say the conflation of the “Messiah” and the “prince” is being read into the text eisegetically due to covenant Reformed traditions.

If the covenant Reformed proponent believes there is only one prince being spoken of at the end of Daniel 9, that being, Jesus Christ and His cross work, there are some problems that arise. Let me highlight four.

1) The nearest antecedent to the “he shall confirm a covenant for one week” in verse 27 is “the prince” of the people who will come in verse 26. If the “people” are the Jewish nation at 70 AD, the interpretation of many Reformed writers, how exactly does one draw the connection between “the people” of this prince who is to come and “Israel” at 70 AD with this text? Would not external factors outside of Daniel have to bring one to that conclusion? Of course, assuming that is the position of our author.

2) The “prince” mentioned in 9:27 is said to confirm a covenant for one week. If this “prince” is Jesus, what exactly is this “covenant for one week” that He confirmed? If it is Christ's death on the cross and making an end of sacrifices in the temple, what then is meant by Daniel's expression “for one week?” How are we to understand that “week” and how does that “week” factor into the previous 69 weeks that are mentioned?

3) The “prince” is said to put an end to sacrifices in the middle of the week. What does that mean? Again, is that “week” a “literal” 7 years in the 490 year prophetic cycle, or is it understood figuratively? Is this connected to 70 AD and the destruction of the temple? How is that connection made exegetically from this passage?

4) We know from previous revelation in Daniel 7:25 that a blasphemous horn persecutes Israel for a time and times and half a time, understood by practically every commentator I have encountered as meaning 3 1/2 years. Some may take those “years” in a figurative sense, but they are 3 1/2 years. That interpretation is affirmed in other passages of Scripture as well, like Revelation 13 where the beast, or antichrist, wages war against the people for 42 months, or 3 1/2 years. Considering that Daniel understood the 70 years of exile as a literal 70 years, why shouldn't we understand the 3 1/2 years as literal?

But the Dispensational interpretation of this text (the supposedly “literal” interpretation) forces an at least 2000 year break (or “an indeterminate gap of time”) between the end of the sixty-ninth and seventieth week, a disjunction which the text *no where* posits.

Our critic seems to think he has uncovered some previously unforeseen contradiction on the part of Dispensationalists that exposes why a “literal” hermeneutic must be avoided. Yet he ignores the main difficulty with his criticism in that he is forced to affirm at least a 40 year “gap” if he goes with 70 AD as the end to the 70 weeks. A gap is a gap, no matter how many years may exist between the 69th week and the 70th week.

He may think 2,000 years is an exceptionally long postponement, but 40 years is still a postponement, too. Now we are just haggling over which postponement makes sense when we interpret the text. Additionally, the idea of prophetic postponement or an apotelesmatic interpretation, in which a temporal interruption occurs within God’s redemptive program, is biblical. The postponement between the first coming of Christ and His second coming is a prime example, as Randall Price writes in his article, Prophetic Postponement

Considering how I believe the covenant Reformed position over looks many of the textual details I noted above, I don't think my critic has provided a satisfying interpretation of Daniel's vision, nor a compelling “debunking” of the Dispensational hermeneutic. In order to reach the conclusion he advocates, one has to re-interpret the text with a kind of theologically alchemy that makes the text affirm Covenant Theology. A person can call that “theological alchemy” a "Christological" or a “Historical Redemptive” hermeneutic, but it sounds to me like he’s eisegeting, not exegeting.

Voddie at Shepherd's Conference

Austin Duncan, the college pastor at GCC - who, btw, reminds me of a bald-headed, Christian version of Penn Jillette - explains why Voddie Baucham was invited to be a keynote speaker at this year's Shepherd's Conference.

Voddie Baucham and Shepherd's Conference

Exploding Stuff in Microwaves

In super slow motion.
How awesome is that!?

The Other Elephant in the Room

Gleanings in 1 Samuel [5]

From a Boy to a Prophet (1 Samuel 3)

I have been working through 1 Samuel on a devotional level.

First Samuel is a book that bridges the time of Israel's judges and the reign of the theocratic monarchs.

In chapter 2, we were introduced to Eli. He was both a judge and a high priest. His "ministry" was marked by ineptitude and spiritual lethargy. Most damning was that Israel was led astray and brought to sin against God by his two sons, Hophni and Phinehas. Eli refused to confront them and remove them from their roles, because he more than likely was benefiting from their sinful mishandling of the sacrifices.

Contrasted to Samuel, the Scripture says in 2:26 that he grew in stature and favor with the LORD and men.

Coming to chapter 3, the author establishes Samuel's uniqueness as Israel's national prophet.

The writer of Samuel book-ends this section with a play on two Hebrew words:
In 3:1, Samuel is described as a na'ar, or "boy."
In 3:20, he is described as a na' bi, or "prophet."

He moves from being a juvenile, waiting on the high priest at the tabernacle, to becoming an impeccable and revered spokesman for God.

The LORD establishes Samuel's prophethood by revealing to him firsthand and allowing him to be the messenger of judgment upon Eli and his family.

Four main sections I wish to consider.

I. The Prophecy Withheld (3:1-3)

Chapter three opens with Samuel shown as a youthful Levite who is providing service to the Lord under Eli's tutelage.

The opening verse says that the "Word of the LORD was rare in those days." In other words, God was not communicating with His people. There was no revelation. The idea, as some translations relate, is that God's Word was "precious."

Eli had grown old and could barely see physically. He had poor eye-sight, but his bad eye-sight pictures his spiritual eye-sight. He was not seeing God at all.

Contrasted to Eli, Samuel is said to be sleeping before the Ark of the LORD where the lamp of God burned. It was perhaps his duty to keep watch on the tabernacle furniture and not let the lamp burn out, but it was Samuel who was closest to the presence of the LORD.

II. The Prophecy Given (3:4-14)

We then read a humorous scene where the LORD calls Samuel, but the inexperienced lad believes it is Eli calling him. Verse 7 says he did not yet know the LORD. I don't think that speaks to his salvation as much as it speaks to the fact he had yet become God's anointed prophet to Israel.

The LORD calls Samuel three times, and after each time he hurries to Eli who tells him he had not called him. After the third time, Eli recognized that it was the LORD calling Samuel and tells him to respond to the LORD the next time.

On the fourth time, Samuel does just that. The text says the LORD came and stood when he called Samuel. This can mean either the presence of the LORD on the ark or perhaps it was a Christophany. Whatever the case, the LORD then reveals His judgment against Eli.

- Confirms the judgment He passed against Eli in chapter 2 by the words of a "man of God."
- His sons were to be judged for their sin and Eli for his sin in not restraining them.
- Nothing Eli does can change God's verdict and it will effect Eli's house forever.

These words precursor the major events in chapters 4 and 5.

III. The Prophecy Proclaimed (3:15-18)

The next morning, Samuel opened the doors to the house of the Lord. Quite possibly emphasized by the writer to show how God is now once again communicating with His people.

Reluctantly, Samuel tells Eli what the LORD revealed, and Eli, to his credit, accepted the pronouncement of the LORD.

IV. The Prophet Established (3:19-4:1)

Samuel then becomes God's official mouthpiece to Israel. Four things are important to note and mark his office:

- Samuel had a special relationship with God.
- Everything he said for God came to pass, "let none of his words fall to the ground."
- Everyone in Israel knew of Samuel being a prophet, "from Dan to Beersheba."
- God once again communicated to Israel through Samuel.

Defending Premillennialism [9]

The Everlasting Promise of the Land

I wish to continue in my study of premillennialism I had reintroduced before the holidays. The focus of my study is the land promises God made to Israel throughout the OT and their significance as they pertain to the future hope of Israel in the eschatological future.

As I noted in my introductory post, many of my covenant Reformed brethren believe those promises have been fulfilled when Israel entered Canaan under Joshua. The greater “fulfillment” of those promises are not to be understood as Israel being restored to a “literal” geographic territory. Rather, they have been fulfilled in the work of Christ by uniting in one body, the Church, all the “elect” remnant of Jews who come to faith in their Messiah, with the “elect” gentiles who also come to faith in Christ. The Christian Church is now the “New Israel.” Thus, the greater fulfillment of those land promises given to Israel in the OT, extends beyond the meager, physical territory of the “land of Israel” to now the entire world, so that the “meek,” God’s New Covenant people, “will inherit the earth.”

Adding to this view, the covenant Reformed believer will further note that the NT writers never mentioned a literal fulfillment of the land promises in a physically restored nation of Israel. If God had intended to “restore” Israel in a literal kingdom in the physical, geopolitical territory known as “Israel,” why didn’t the NT writers provide details to such a restoration?

That point is often repeated throughout Reformed polemical literature against future premillennialism. But is it an accurate claim about the NT and Israel’s restoration? Or is it a conclusion forced upon the various texts by other external theological considerations, particularly the redemptive-historical hermeneutic utilized by covenant theology? I think it reflects the latter. I’ll back-up and begin by outlining what the Bible tells us about Israel and their land promises with this article, and address Israel’s restoration in the next. As I move along, I’ll respond to the main arguments put forth by my Reformed covenant friends against my position.

First, it is important to recognize that the land promises God made to Abraham were the major center piece to the overall Abrahamic covenant.
Beginning in Genesis chapter 12, God called Abraham to this land and there He stated He will make him a great nation (Gen. 12:1-2). Then, in Genesis 13:14-17, after Abraham separates himself from Lot, God again makes this promise to him,

14 And the LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him: "Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are-- northward, southward, eastward, and westward;
15 "for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever.
16 "And I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if a man could number the dust of the earth, then your descendants also could be numbered.
17 "Arise, walk in the land through its length and its width, for I give it to you."

Coming to Genesis 15 God makes an official "covenant" with Abraham regarding the inheritance of the land. Verse 18 sums up the promise God made in that covenant when He says, To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates... This same promise concerning the land is reiterated once again by God in Genesis 17. God comes to Abraham, changes his name "Abram" to "Abraham" and promises, by oath of the covenant He made with him in Genesis 15, states,

7 And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you.
8 "Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

Jumping over to Exodus 32:13, when Moses intercedes for the people against God’s judgment, Moses reminds God of the covenant He made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and the terms of that covenant being the promise God made to give their descendants the land forever. After his plea, God relents His judgment against Israel.

These are just a brief smattering of passages describing God’s covenant with Israel and the promises of the land He made to them. Considering the data so far as outlined in these passages, we can observe a few points:

1). First, the language is straight forward and clear that it is physical land God has in mind to give Abraham and his descendants. In fact, the land is identified with the “land of the Canaanites,” the geographic area that becomes the land occupied by the Jews and known as Israel.

2). Second, nothing in the language suggests that God meant anything other than physical territory when He promised the land to Abraham. In other words, God was not telling Abraham, "I will give this land to you and your descendants, but really it’s just a type for heaven, so don't take my words in a "wooden, literal fashion." As far as Abraham is concerned, he believed he was being promised the possession of physical territory that he and his descendants will occupy forever.

Now, covenant Reformed apologists will argue that promise was “expanded” by God in His redemptive purposes so that now we shouldn’t take it in a “wooden, literal fashion” like premillennialists do. I would agree God later “expands” upon this promise to include the gentiles and extend salvation throughout the global nations, but “expanding” on the promise is different from nullifying, cancelling, or replacing specific terms of that promise. The inclusion of the gentiles in the New Covenant doesn’t cancel those land promises God made to His people, the Jews.

3). Adding to that last point, God says several times that He gives the land to Abraham and his descendants “forever.” Moreover, in Genesis 17:7, 8, this covenant promise is described as an "everlasting" covenant and the land is described as an “everlasting possession.” Now, if we take the words “forever” and “everlasting” in their normal meaning, they describe something that is “forever” and “everlasting.” Thus, no matter if Israel’s possession of the land is interrupted due to their disobedience and the people are removed from the land, the idea of “everlasting” means God will come through with the fulfillment of His promise and restore them at some future point.

Keeping these observations in mind, many covenant Reformed proponents argue that the idea of “forever” or “everlasting,” particularly in Genesis 17:8 where God says the land of Canaan will be an “everlasting possession,” does not necessarily mean “everlasting” in a literal sense [i.e., Crenshaw/Gunn, 241ff.*]. In other words, “everlasting” should be understood in a conditional sense. The reason being is that context defines the meaning.

Though it is true, they explain, that “everlasting” typically means “everlasting” in the sense of “eternal” and “never ending,” it doesn’t carry this meaning in every passage. For instance, in Exodus 40:15, the priests are said to be “anointed” so as to be admitted to a “everlasting” priesthood. We know the priesthood ended when the “Great High Priest” came.

Moreover, the occupation of the land was conditioned upon Israel’s obedience to the covenant God made with them. Deuteronomy 4:25-27, for example, reads,

25 "When you beget children and grandchildren and have grown old in the land, and act corruptly and make a carved image in the form of anything, and do evil in the sight of the LORD your God to provoke Him to anger,
26 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that you will soon utterly perish from the land which you cross over the Jordan to possess; you will not prolong your days in it, but will be utterly destroyed.
27 "And the LORD will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations where the LORD will drive you.

Obviously, according to that passage, the idea of the land being “an everlasting possession” is conditioned upon Israel faithfully maintaining the terms of the covenant. We know the people were not faithful and were removed from the land in exile during the Babylonian captivity, and when they rejected their Messiah, they were permanently removed from their land in 70 AD.

At first glance, I can sorta see how this may be compelling argumentation, but there are some problems with it.

I’ll sketch out my response.

Honestly, I do not find any exegetical or theological warrant in the biblical text, OT or NT, to redefine the word “everlasting” in a conditional sense as it describes the land promises.

Of all the major covenants mentioned in the Bible, the Noahic (Genesis 9), the Abrahamic (Genesis 15, 17 etc.), the Mosaic (Exodus 19, 20), the Palestinian (Deuteronomy 30:1-10), the Davidic (2 Samuel 7:12-16), and the New (Jeremiah 31:33-34), all of them except the Mosaic covenant are described in terms of being “everlasting” or being “forever.” That is because they are unconditional, established by God’s divine sovereignty in spite of the response of the receiving party, in this case, Israel.

One can argue that the Mosaic covenant was established by God’s divine sovereignty in that He alone freed Israel from Egyptian bondage and gave His law to be kept by them. However, it is not defined as being “everlasting” because it was not designed to be “everlasting” in the same manner the others were. The Mosaic covenant functioned as a national constitution for Israel as a theocratic nation. It was also meant to demonstrate the holiness of God and point to the need for a perfect, everlasting sacrifice, what the New Covenant foretold and was ratified in the work of Christ.

The Mosaic covenant did have specific conditions set upon the occupants of the land that if they disobeyed the terms of the covenant they would forfeit their occupancy in the land. But those conditions do not nullify the previous promise made to Abraham for his descendants to possess the land forever as Paul writes to the Galatians in 3:17.

When we come to the NT, all of the unconditional covenants revealed in the OT culminate in the ratification of the New covenant. But the NT writers narrowly focus upon the soteriological aspects of the New covenant. Such things as the fulfillment of the priestly sacrifices, God’s laws being “written on the heart,” a new heart that willing obeys those laws, and the out pouring of God’s Spirit. That is understandable, because Christ’s first coming was for the purpose of securing eternal life for His elect. R.K. McGregor-Wright explains the New covenant this way,

This covenant was the subject of much OT prediction and was announced to his people by Jesus as the new Moses in the Upper Room, and ratified by God on the Cross (Heb. 13:20). It is called "eternal" in Isa. 24:5, 61:8, Jer. 32:40, 50:5 and in Hebrews 13:20. It was made with “spiritual” Israel, i.e., with the Elect of God in Christ, and contains at least a dozen specific promises to them, including some of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant. It includes the future regenerate Israel and therefore will later incorporate promises of the Palestinian and Davidic covenants. Its fulfillment rests ultimately on the gracious "I will" of Jehovah himself. It absolutely guarantees the salvation of the elect and includes no one else. It was to be made only with those who "know the Lord," according to Jer. 31:33-34, and therefore cannot be a “family” or “national” covenant like the Mosaic was, but is entered into only by believers upon the exercise of saving faith.

The New covenant has at this time salvific implications to God’s spiritual people, the elect, both Jew and gentile. It will have physical implications in the future when God, through the work of the New covenant, saves all of national Israel in the eschatological future. What Deuteronomy 4:29-30 prophecy as happening during the “latter days.”

As I noted at the outset, It is important to understand that the “everlasting possession” of the land is a key element to the Abrahamic covenant which factors significantly in the establishment of the New Covenant. I don’t believe God’s promise to save Israel’s can be separated from His promise to give them the land. In fact, when we examine the OT passages where God declares His intention to save Israel, that salvation always includes the promise to establish the people in the land. Additionally, it will be a holy people willing obedient to their God because of the spiritual renewal He sovereignly brings upon the people.

Consider the “New” covenant sounding language in Deuteronomy 4:29-31; 30:6, Ezekiel 36:24-28; 37:14, 22-23, 26-28; Zechariah 14:20-21. There is mention of Israel receiving new hearts, having circumcised hearts, obeying from the heart God’s law, sovereignly awakened by God to see their Messiah, having clean water sprinkled on them, and having God’s Spirit dwelling with them, and all of these spiritual promises of salvation are in conjunction with the promise to be reestablished in the physical land. Now Israel can meet those conditions of obedience in order to dwell in the land because they will obey from a divinely changed heart.

*If you read Crenshaw and Gunn you will note how they cherry pick passages to support their position. For example, by only citing the first part of Deuteronomy 4 concerning the curses brought upon Israel and their removal from the land, they ignore the latter part of the chapter where God tells of Israel’s restoration.

Sources

Curtis Crenshaw and Grover Gunn, Dispensationaism: Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow
John Feinberg, ed, Continuity and Discontinuity
R.K. McGregor-Wright, Historical Doubts Concerning One “Covenant of Grace [unpublished paper]

For My Prog Acquaintances

Who Love Hating on Homeschoolers

I wish he'd hit on spelling bees and 98 Ford passenger vans, but he covers a lot of the basics. The Sparky vest is a nice touch.

On Interpreting the OT with the NT

One of the primary differences between Christians who adhere more to dispensational distinctives and those who may adhere to covenant Reformed distinctives is how the two groups use the NT to understand the OT.

Those of the Reformed view (and those of the NCT perspective, see #2) tend to read the NT back onto the OT allowing it to re-interpret at times passages in the OT, especially those passages that have prophetic, eschatological significance. They argue that the NT is the pentacle of God's revelation, because it reveals Jesus Christ, who is the focus and fulfillment of God's redemptive purposes. Thus, OT prophetic passages that speak of God promise being fulfilled need to be interpreted with the NT as the starting point, and our understanding of the OT passages directing us to Jesus.

Paul Henebury provides us with 40 reasons why this hermeneutic is problematic and can make for some seriously bad Bible study. They are presented in two articles:

Forty Reasons for Not Reinterpreting the Old Testament by the New: The First Twenty

Forty Reasons for Not Reinterpreting the Old Testament by the New: The Last Twenty

By the way. This is the stuff I want to see Jamin Hubner and his young buddies genuinely interact with. Not those tomato can "dispensational" theologians like Joel Rosenberg and John Hagee they always beat on.

Galatians and the Abrahamic Covenant

I noted the first part in this series back before Christmas.

Paul Henebury has some good insights on Paul's teaching in Galatians three on the idea of "seed" and the Abrahamic covenant. He has written three more articles on the subject plus an addendum interacting with objections. They supplement my posts I am currently compiling that detail the premillennial understanding of the land promises.

Galatians 3, the Land, and the Abrahamic Covenant: What was Paul Thinking?

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Addendum

Paul summarizes his main point in the fourth post by writing,

In disagreeing with Gunn I am not saying that he is not justified in attending to the places in Genesis where the apostle appears to be getting his language about “and to your seed” from: that is, from Genesis 12 through 22. The problem comes in when he extrapolates from the false notion that Paul is quoting from only two places in the Septuagint and claims the land promise of these “seed” passages must be transferred to the Church and turned magically into promises of heaven. When Christians insist that this must be done they are going beyond the teaching of the NT, not to say the apostle Paul elsewhere (e.g. Romans 11). They are also claiming the OT cannot be properly understood without the New – a claim which sounds pious enough, until it is analyzed in light of its logical outcome...

My response (which, remember, was just a part response) is that in order for the Abrahamic covenant to be tied to the Church (especially its Gentile contingent), that covenant must be connected to the New covenant in Christ. If that is true then Paul is thinking along these lines when he cites the four words “and to your seed” from Genesis. He most probably does not have an exact reference in mind, as he did with his earlier quotation of Genesis 15:6, but rather has in view the repeated use of the phrase through the Abrahamic narrative (if I had to make a guess which passage Paul may have been citing I would go for Gen. 22:18).

I have to admit I appreciate the comment about transferring the "seed" passages onto the NT Church and "magically" turning them into promises just about heaven.

Frisbee Tricks

I bet this guy makes like a lot of money.