8 The fulfilment of the promise inaugurated: the epistles
8
The fulfilment of the promise inaugurated: the epistles
Fulfilment in Paul
The fulfilment of the land promise in relation to Christ is further confirmed in Paul. One clear text, for example, is found in Romans 4:13. Romans 1:18 – 3:20 demonstrates the solidarity of humanity in sin and the inevitability of judgment on the basis of God’s righteous character. All people are guilty because, although they have a knowledge of God based on his revelation in nature, they suppress the truth in unrighteousness (v. 18), ‘exchange the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things’ (v. 23), ‘exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator’ (v. 25) and ‘did not see fit to acknowledge God’ (v. 28). In 2:5–16 Paul describes the day of judgment, when God will judge every man according to his works (2:6). The standard of this judgment is God’s law, which is either explicit in the Torah for Jews, or implicit in the conscience of Gentiles (2:12–25). The result, then, is that only the law-keepers will be justified in God’s sight (2:7, 10, 12).
However, herein lies the problem: there is no perfect law-keeper, neither Jew nor Gentile, for every person is under the power of sin and no one is righteous before God (3:10–18). The prospect for humanity, then, is universal judgment, for Torah-breaking Jews are no more acceptable to God than Gentiles, whose conscience accuses or excuses them. As a result, all are doomed and no one will be justified by the works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin (3:20).
But now, in Romans 3:21–26, Paul takes a sharp turn in his argument by presenting the solution to the universal plight of humanity. This passage deals with how people are saved from God’s judgment on sin through the work of Christ. Paul proclaims that the righteousness of God has now been revealed apart from the law through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe, whether Jew or Gentile. All have sinned and fall short of God’s glory, but God is patient and merciful. Indeed, he has fulfilled his saving promises of redemption to those who place their faith in him by judging sin in the bloody death of his Son, whom he set forth publicly as a propitiation, or sacrifice, of atonement. In this way, then, God demonstrated his justice even in justifying the one who has faith in Jesus.
In Romans 3:27–31, Paul draws some conclusions from verses 21–26. First, because righteousness is based on faith in what God has accomplished in Christ (vv. 21–26), and not on human obedience, boasting is excluded (vv. 27–28). Secondly, the oneness of God demands that every person, whether Jew or Gentile, is justified in the same way: by faith (vv. 29–30). And thirdly, Paul concludes that faith does not nullify the commands of the law, but rather obedience will flow from those who have faith in Christ (v. 31). As confirmation that righteousness is attained only through faith, Paul introduces Abraham in Romans 4 to demonstrate that justification is by faith alone, not by works, and that this salvation promise is for all people who believe (vv. 1–25).
Romans 4:13, then, builds on Paul’s previous argument, defines the content of the promise to Abraham and explains what it is, namely that Abraham and his offspring would be heir (klēronomon) of the world. In the Old Testament, inheritance was almost exclusively connected to the land and was a fundamental part of Israel’s covenant relationship with God. Burge notes that the land is a ‘by-product of the covenant, a gift of the covenant. It is not a possession that can be held independently.’ While there is no explicit statement in the Old Testament that Abraham would become heir of the world, the idea is there. That is, while the land initially promised to Abraham and his descendants extended to the borders of Canaan, both the typological pattern and trajectory of the Old Testament show that as his offspring multiplied and filled the earth, so also would the boundaries of the land encompass the earth. Of particular importance is Genesis 26:3–4, where the unique plural ‘lands’ (hā’ărāṣōt), when read in conjunction with the oath to which it alludes in Genesis 22:17–18, makes clear that Abraham’s seed will possess/inherit the gate of his enemies. This, together with Genesis 22:17, provides firm exegetical warrant for Paul’s assertion that Abraham would inherit the world. Paul, then, is demonstrating sound biblical exegesis, informed by Scripture’s redemptive-historical story line, by putting all three elements of the covenant together. Therefore in the light of Christ – Abraham’s (singular) seed (Gal. 3) – Abraham and his (corporate) offspring will inherit the world as people, both Jew and Gentile, come to faith in Jesus Christ.
However, this conclusion does not mean that Paul is spiritualizing the Old Testament promise. For example, Louis Berkhof writes:
The covenant with Abraham already included a symbolical element. On the one hand, it had reference to temporal blessings, such as the land of Canaan, a numerous offspring, protection against and victory over the enemies; and the other, it referred to spiritual blessings. It should be borne in mind, however, that the former were not coordinate with, but subordinate to, the latter. These temporal blessings did not constitute an end in themselves, but served to symbolize and typify spiritual and heavenly blessings.
The physical–spiritual distinction is not accurate, for these promises have begun spiritually and will be consummated physically in the final new creation. Though Dunn is closer to the mark in interpreting the promise, he still focuses on the spiritual aspect when he comments:
Paul takes up the enlarged form of the promise, of course, not because it implies Israel’s worldwide dominance, but presumably because it sets the narrower strand of salvation-history centering on Israel within the larger scheme of creation: the blessing promised to Abraham and his seed (including ‘the nations’) is the restoration of God’s created order, of man to his Adamic status as steward of the rest of God’s creation; over against a more nationalistic understanding of the promise, Paul’s ‘interpretation of the promise is a-territorial’, fulfilled ‘in Christ.’ (Davies, Land, 179) Elsewhere Paul places the concept within an eschatological framework, with the Spirit as the first installment and guarantee (see further on 8:17). As with other related covenantal terms – ‘promise’ (Gal. 3:14) and ‘seal’ (see on 4:11) – Paul sees the eschatological fulfillment in terms of the Spirit given to faith.
While Dunn is correct in seeing the fulfilment of God’s promises in Christ within an eschatological framework, his ‘a-territorial’ understanding misses the mark. That is, while those who believe are sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee or down payment of their inheritance until they acquire possession of it (Eph. 1:13–14), it is nevertheless a ‘down payment’. What awaits them, then, is the ultimate fulfilment of the promise ‘in a consummated order of the new heavens and the new earth’ – a (physical) new creation. Hans LaRondelle notes, ‘In order to understand Paul, one must view the land of Palestine as a down payment, or pledge, assuring Israel as a nation the larger territory necessary to accommodate the countless multitudes of Abraham’s offspring.’ Indeed, Paul ‘envisions a future salvation that will engulf the entire cosmos and reverse and transcend the consequences of the fall’ (Rom. 8:18–25).
Also important for understanding Paul’s view of the promise and fulfilment of land is the concept of inheritance. For Paul, his use of this terminology is a natural extension of the meaning in the Old Testament, which commonly refers to the land allotted to Israel. That is, the promise to Abraham and his offspring finds fulfilment in their inheritance of the world. This interpretation of inheritance is warranted, for in other places Paul speaks of those who will inherit the kingdom of God. George Ladd writes:
In a number of places, God’s kingdom is an eschatological blessing that is to be ‘inherited’ (1 Cor. 6:9, 10; 15:50; Gal. 5:21). Jesus had also spoken of the kingdom as an eschatological inheritance (Matt. 5:5). The background of this idiom is the prophetic idea of inheriting the promised land (Isa. 57:13; 60:21; 61:7; 65:9), and in the New Testament the inheritance is equated with the eschatological salvation of the Age to Come.
Thus the entire world will become God’s kingdom and his people’s inheritance. An important link is forged, then, between inheritance, the Promised Land and the kingdom of God.
However, more can be said concerning Paul’s understanding of the believer’s inheritance. In Colossians 1:12, Paul tells the Colossian believers that God the Father has qualified them ‘to share in the inheritance of the saints in light’. Because of the combination of terms such as inheritance, deliverance and transfer, scholars have rightly read this passage against the backdrop of the exodus. Moo comments:
In a move typical of the New Testament ‘christifying’ of the Old Testament ‘land’ theme, Paul applies this language to the spiritual privilege enjoyed by God’s new covenant people – including, in a particularly significant salvation-historical development, the Gentiles, such as the Colossians.
Thus there is an eschatological reward for believers that has escalated from the Old Testament inheritance of the Promised Land to the New Testament inheritance of final salvation.
Another feature of inheritance in Paul is the connection with sonship. That is, Paul forges an inseparable link between adoption as sons and the believer’s inheritance. Of particular importance for understanding this connection is the redemptive-historical progression of sonship and inheritance, for the Old Testament demonstrates that God’s son is Israel (Exod. 4:22) and the inheritance is the land. In the New Testament, however, Paul understands all God’s people – both Jew and Gentile – to be sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ, and if they are Christ’s then they are Abraham’s offspring, inheritors according to the promise. Since Christ is God’s Son par excellence, those who are in Christ receive their inheritance in him as they await the final fulfilment of God’s promises. Moreover, they are sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of their inheritance until they acquire possession of it (Eph. 1:13–14). This calls to mind the promised Spirit to Israel. Thus the Christian’s inheritance looks to the not yet. Andrew Lincoln comments:
In a down payment, that which is given is part of the greater whole, is of the same kind as that whole, and functions as a guarantee that the whole payment will be forthcoming. The Spirit then is the first installment and guarantee of the salvation of the age to come with its mode of existence totally determined by the Spirit.
The consummation of the Spirit’s work is cast in terms of the resurrection of the body (2 Cor. 5:5), but ultimately it will result in freeing this present creation from the effects of sin and making a new creation (Rom. 8:18–25). Dan Barber and Robert Peterson write:
The body of Christ, who is ‘the firstfruits’ of the resurrection (1 Cor 15:20), was not annihilated and re-created, but his own body was raised from the dead (John 2:19–22; 10:17–19). . . . Just as we will not be destroyed but renewed, so it is with God’s creation. We are a microcosm of the creation. Even as we long for God’s final salvation, the creation personified as an expectant mother does the same. The creation is eager to ‘be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God’ (Rom 8:21). The creation longs, so to speak, for removal of the curse (vv. 20–22). This is not destruction and re-creation but great renovation of the present cosmos.
The Spirit ‘connects our “already” with our “not yet,” making “the hope of glory,” though unseen, as certain as if it were already ours – which, in a sense, it is (cf. “glorified” in v. 30)’. The inheritance, then, is future oriented and will culminate not in the annihilation of this present creation, but in the transformation of it. That is, this present corrupt earth will give way to a new heaven and new earth – the kingdom of God – as an inheritance for God’s people.
Two summarizing observations can be made concerning Paul’s use of inheritance. First, inheritance in the Old Testament is inextricably linked to the Abrahamic promises. The constellation of related themes became fused with other theological concepts such as union with Christ, God’s presence and the temple. Thus inheritance language enables Paul to draw upon the overlap that occurs between promise and fulfilment. The second observation is that a future orientation is inherent within the idea of inheritance. Initially, this future orientation was present in the transmission of the promise from Abraham to his offspring. Eventually, however, the future orientation of the promised inheritance (land) is expressed through the typological correspondences that unfold within the Old Testament. Moreover, by picking up and advancing the inheritance motif in the light of the fulfilment of Christ, Paul is able to trace these typological trajectories to their ultimate fulfilment in the consummation of the eschatological promises yet to come – a new creation.
Fulfilment in Hebrews
The intersection with land in Hebrews continues the pattern of fulfilment in the New Testament with the arrival of Jesus Christ and his finished work. Perhaps the clearest presentation of the land theme is found in 3:7 – 4:13 and in chapters 11–13. This section will provide context before delving into the exegesis of these passages.
In Hebrews 1 the author presents Jesus, the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature (vv. 1–4), as God’s final and supreme revelation. He has inherited a name that is more excellent than angels, for he is superior as God’s Son (vv. 5–14). Therefore the people of God must pay closer attention to the message of salvation (2:1–4) because Jesus, God’s authoritative Son, is now the founder of a greater salvation, though his people still wait for everything to be put in subjection to him (2:5–8). Nevertheless, Jesus is seen as exalted because of his humiliation (2:9–10). Indeed, Christ assumed a human nature because the children share in flesh and blood, so that he will destroy the devil (2:14), deliver his brethren (2:15–16) and help his people by serving as their sacrificial substitute before God (2:17–18). Lindars notes, ‘The real humanity of Jesus is essential for the argument of Hebrews, because the whole argument turns on the saving efficacy of his death. . . . For the solidarity of Jesus with humanity makes him a representative figure.’ Hence it is imperative that God’s people consider Jesus, who is greater than Moses, for Jesus is faithful over God’s house as God’s Son (3:1–6a). And Christians are God’s house by virtue of their relation to the Messiah, which makes perseverance all the more necessary (3:6b). Now, in the light of the contrast between Moses and Jesus (3:1–6), the author of Hebrews offers a warning to Jesus’ followers not to be like the wilderness generation who did not enter God’s rest.
Hebrews 3:7 – 4:13 provides a warning and a promise grounded on Psalm 95:7–11. The author’s use of Psalm 95 presupposes both the Abrahamic promise of land and the well-established link between the land and rest (Deut. 12:8–10). The author asserts that God’s people are his house if they endure to the end (3:6). This is especially important given the wilderness generation’s miraculous deliverance from the Egyptians. They were delivered out of Egypt but failed to enter the Promised Land because of their unbelief and disobedience. It is astonishing that the people who were led by Moses and delivered by God out of Egypt by signs and wonders were the same ones who grumbled and rebelled (3:16–19). Thus there is an important warning to heed: to be saved out of bondage is incomplete unless they are saved into something greater. But the author does not end with a warning. Rather, he holds out a promise of hope.
The argument now shifts to the rest/land theme as the author connects his audience to the wilderness generation of the past. In contrast to the former generation, now the emphasis falls upon the Christian community as the heir to the promise of entering God’s rest. This promise of hope is for the present recipients. The reason the wilderness generation failed and the message did not benefit them was because it was not ‘united by faith with those who listened’ (4:2). But now in 4:3, all who believe (‘we’) enter into that rest (katapausin). The author’s point is understood only if his argument concerning rest is followed through the Old Testament.
The connection of rest with Canaan is given in 3:16–19 and 4:8, but the future promise of rest points to something greater. The author links Psalm 95 to Genesis 2:1–3 by the use of ‘my rest’ (pausin mou). Psalm 95 in context refers to the land of Canaan, but it also looks beyond Canaan to a future, final place of rest. Moreover, the author demonstrates this pre-existing rest by bringing in Genesis 2:1–3. O’Brien comments, ‘Within a salvation-historical time frame, Psalm 95:11 and Genesis 2:2 are joined by an exegetical argument . . . to prove that the rest cannot simply be identified with the land of Canaan – it was not final (v. 8).’ Canaan, then, was not an end in itself; it pointed forward to something much bigger that was to come. Consequently, the conclusion is drawn in 4:6–7:
Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he appoints a certain day, ‘Today’, saying through David so long afterwards, in the words already quoted,
‘Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts.’
Thus centuries after the denial of the Promised Land and rest offered to the first generation, God through David appoints a new day of opportunity, ‘Today’. This opportunity highlights the contemporary relevance of the text and is essential to the author’s argument. The second generation, like the first, did not experience final rest under Joshua; for if they had, then God would not have spoken of another day later on (4:8). If this were not the case, then what need was there for the exhortation in Psalm 95? The author of Hebrews, then, demonstrates good exegesis, for he shows what was already developed within the Old Testament itself, namely the incomplete character of rest in Canaan and the future-oriented, final rest of God. The earthly land of Canaan was a type of the eternal rest that still remains. So, then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God (4:9). This leads the author to conclude with a vital exhortation: ‘Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience’ (4:11).
Two conclusions can be drawn from Hebrews 3:7 – 4:13. First, the rest in Canaan functions as a type of God’s heavenly rest in Genesis 2 and Psalm 95; that is, entering the presence of God on the last day. The rest that came with the possession of the land was achieved in some measure under Joshua. This rest reflected the rest enjoyed at creation, but it was lost in the fall. However, it still left something to be desired. This rest, then, anticipated the eschatological rest for the people of God, which David announced in Psalm 95. As the Old Testament demonstrated, rest in the land was no longer a possibility. But God’s rest is available for all who believe and obey. As long as it is called today, then, God’s people are not exhorted to return to the type of rest in the land of Canaan. Rather, they are exhorted to enter God’s eschatological rest that comes through a newfound relationship with Christ (3:6). Secondly, the already–not yet and faith-obedience tensions seen in Deuteronomy stand parallel in important ways to the audience of Hebrews. There are both present and future realities that serve as motivations to obey and persevere, yet they stem from the unshakeable grace that is shared in Christ. Therefore the recipients must heed the message of Hebrews, for God still speaks and his word is powerful and lays open those who are accountable to him (4:12–13).
Hebrews goes on to argue that Jesus is a greater high priest (4:14 – 7:28), a mediator of a better covenant (8:1–13), a greater tabernacle and sacrifice (9 – 10), and provides a greater redemption. The author then returns to concepts associated with land in chapters 11–12, employing terms such as topon (‘place’; 11:8), klēronomian (‘inheritance’; 11:8), gēn tēs epangelias (‘the land of promise’; 11:9), polin (‘city’; 11:10, 16), patrida (‘homeland’; 11:14), Siōn orei (‘Mount Zion’; 12:22), Ierousalēm epouraniō (‘heavenly Jerusalem’; 12:22; 13:14). These chapters are consistent with the overall message of Hebrews, which present the land in the Old Testament as a type of the greater land to come.
In Hebrews 11:8–22, the author shifts the focus to Abraham the patriarch, the examplar of faith in the Old Testament. He begins by briefly recounting the story of Abraham by focusing on two events in his life. First, the author emphasizes Abraham’s obedient response to God to go to a ‘place’ (topon) that he would receive as an ‘inheritance’ (klēronomian) (vv. 8–10). The second event is the faith of Abraham and his barren wife Sarah to have children (v. 11). I will, however, here examine only the focus on Abraham and the land. According to verse 9, ‘by faith [Abraham] went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise’. The image of the patriarchs living in tents stresses the fact that mere entry into the land did not result in the attainment of the promised inheritance. Then immediately it says that ‘he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God’ (v. 10). The logical relationship between verse 9 and 10 is important to note. Abraham looked for the land of promise because (gar) he was looking to the city with foundations. The pointed contrast between ‘the land of promise’ and ‘a foreign land’ serves to show the unsettled life of Abraham. That is, ‘Entrance into the promised land had brought no settlement.’ Hence Abraham looked beyond his present fleeting scene to the unseen blessing, for the land pointed beyond itself to a more excellent consummation. According to the author, then, the patriarchs knew that the land of promise was not the ultimate fulfilment, since they were dwelling as strangers and exiles (11:13). Lane comments:
Abraham’s status as an immigrant and alien in the land had the positive effect of indicating that Canaan was not, in the final sense, the promised inheritance. It served to direct his attention beyond Canaan to the established city of God as the ultimate goal of his pilgrimage [cf. 11:13–16].
This point is reiterated in verse 16, ‘But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.’ Harris notes:
Perhaps the most relevant OT passage is Isa. 54:1–17, from which the Author appears to have drawn numerous allusions. In Isa. 54:1–17, Zion, initially portrayed as a barren woman (steira; cf. Heb. 11:11), is exhorted to enlarge the place of her tent (ton topon tēs skēnēs sou, v. 2; cf. Heb. 11:8–9). The foundations (ta themelia, v. 11; cf. Heb. 11:10) of restored Zion (next pictured as a city) are likened to precious jewels. The indescribable beauty and security of the city are the klēronomia of the servants of the Lord (v. 17; cf. 11:8).
The background of Hebrews 11:8–16 suggests that Isaiah 54 was important in the author’s understanding of the eternal city of God to which Abraham looked.
That the land of Canaan was not ultimately the fulfilment of the promise is confirmed in that the patriarchs died there without receiving the things promised (11:13). However, the land of Canaan was not merely a rest stop. Rather, it was the Promised Land – the land Abraham and his descendants received as their inheritance. From there they continuously waited for the appearance of the city of God, of which they were already members by virtue of God’s call and promise. This city is later referred to as the heavenly homeland (11:16), the city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem (12:22), the unshakeable kingdom (12:28) and the abiding city that is to come (13:14). The patriarchs, notes Walker, ‘were looking forward, not so much to the day when their descendants would inherit the physical Land, as to the day when they themselves would inherit the heavenly country which the physical Land signified’. Indeed, they looked beyond Canaan to a new heaven and new earth – a new Jerusalem. Again, the promise of land typologically pointed to something greater.
Two conclusions can be drawn from Hebrews 11:8–22 that contribute to the land motif in Hebrews. First, this passage underscores the relationship between the Abrahamic promises and the promised inheritance. Secondly, this passage advances the argument that the promised inheritance was not finally fulfilled in the land of Canaan, but rather in the city of God, the heavenly homeland, greeted from afar. In this way, it shows ‘that the land is not only a type of promised rest, but also a type of the city of God’. Thus this passage offers an important stage in the unfolding typological trajectory of the land in Hebrews.
The epilogue in Hebrews 11:39–40 provides an appropriate summary of and conclusion to the list of examples of faith in chapter 11 and a transition to the call of Hebrews 12:1–13. This conclusion is important for the entire argument in chapter 11. The author says that all those celebrated in chapter 11 were commended for their trust in God to do what he had promised. However, they did not obtain what was promised. This failure was not due to any fault of their own. Instead, it was due to the gracious, meticulous providence of God, ‘since God had provided something better for us’ (v. 40). Thus the reason given is redemptive-historical. The ‘something better’ is Jesus and his work. God in his providence deferred the conferral of the final reward until the advent of Christ, his sacrificial death and the enacting of the new covenant. Therefore New Testament believers are all the more exhorted to run the race with endurance, looking to Jesus (12:1–13).
The final references to ‘city’ are found in Hebrews 12 – 13. In 12:18–24, a contrast is made between the wilderness generation under the old covenant (18–21) and New Testament believers, specifically as they relate to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant (22–24). Moreover, a contrast is made between Mount Sinai and Mount Zion. Attridge notes that the omission of ‘Sinai’ (vv. 18–21) deliberately puts the focus on Zion. The seven features that describe the encounter with God at Mount Sinai are set against the seven images that create a glorious vision of Mount Zion, the heavenly city of God. New covenant believers have not come to Mount Sinai, which was a holy terror to the old covenant people. Rather, they have come to Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. Believers have access to God through Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant (24a). This is a joyful, celebrative access, not a terrifying one (22), for Jesus’ sprinkled blood speaks a better word than the blood of Abel (24b). Indeed, there is a better speaking, for this speech is not accompanied with judgment but with mercy. That is, this speech is to encourage believers to persevere in faith in order to obtain eschatological rest, for greater responsibility comes with greater revelation.
The last reference is found in Hebrews 13:14, where the author speaks explicitly about the earthly Jerusalem. Because Jesus suffered in order to sanctify the people with his own blood (13:12), believers are to exemplify his suffering and they are to ‘go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured’ (v. 13). The basis (gar) for this exhortation is that ‘we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come’ (v. 14). Whereas in other places believers are reminded of what they do have (e.g. a better sacrifice, mediator, covenant), here they are reminded of what they do not have. That is, it is in heaven, not here on earth, that they possess an enduring city. Hebrews aligns itself with the message of the Old Testament concerning land: no earthy place, land or city can provide ultimate rest and security, for the earth itself will be shaken by the voice of our fire-consuming God (12:25–29). The only place that will not be shaken is the kingdom of God (12:28). But in the present, believers follow Jesus outside the city and confidently await the place to come.
In summary, Hebrews clearly picks up the Old Testament account of land and associated concepts. But for the author, the presentation of land is not unfulfilled, rejected or ignored. Rather, in the light of the coming of Christ and his greater work, God has performed a greater deliverance than that of Egypt (chs. 8–10). As a result, if they persevere in faith he will bring them into his eschatological rest, the heavenly Jerusalem, their final homeland and the unshakeable kingdom. Therefore the land theme functions as a type of what will come as a result of Christ and the blood of his perfect sacrifice. Thus the type is eclipsed by its antitype in the light of Jesus, and those trusting in him await the ultimate fulfilment of his promises.
Fulfilment in Peter
Peter also employs the language of inheritance to describe what awaits Christians. Peter writes to those who are ‘elect exiles’ (1 Peter 1:1) of the dispersion. In other words, their status as elect of God is what accounts for their being pilgrims of this world. Furthermore, like elect exiles, ‘dispersion’ (diasporas) is laden with Old Testament imagery. Davids comments:
The Jews had used the term ‘dispersion’ or ‘diaspora’ to refer to their scattered communities outside Palestine ever since the Exile (cf. the Greek form of Deut. 28:25; Neh. 1:9; and Isa. 49:6); it appears several times in the NT with this meaning (see John 7:35; 11:32). Here in Peter we find a natural transfer of one of the titles of Israel to the church, as we will frequently later (cf. 2:5, 9).
The threats of dispersion (Deut. 28:15–68) were realized in the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles. Many Jews had been scattered from their homeland because of their sin and were referred to as being in the dispersion (cf. John 7:35; Jas 1:1). Here, however, Peter uses the word in a metaphorical sense and applies it to his (largely) Gentile readers throughout Asia Minor. From the outset, then, Peter indicates that the church of Jesus Christ is now identified with the Israel of God, his chosen people. This identity is further confirmed in the theme of 1 Peter 2:9, where the church is called ‘a chosen race’.
Peter then praises God for the Christians’ certain salvation, for through the resurrection of Jesus and because of God’s great mercy they have been begotten anew to a living hope (1:3; cf. 1:23), to an imperishable inheritance (1:4), and by God’s power are kept through faith for the salvation to be revealed (1:5). Schreiner rightly notes that Peter selects the language of ‘inheritance’ (klēronomian) to describe what awaits Christians. For Peter, like Paul, the background of the idea of inheritance is the Old Testament. Schreiner comments:
In the Old Testament the inheritance is the land God promised to his people (Num 32:19; Deut 2:12; 12:9; 25:19; 26:1; Josh 11:23; Ps 105:11; Acts 7:5). The word is especially common in Joshua for the apportionment of the land for each tribe or family. Peter understood the inheritance, however, no longer in terms of a land promised to Israel but in terms of the end-time hope that lies before believers.
In other words, Peter’s use of the term is understood in the light of Christ and his fulfilment. Michaels writes:
Peter’s use of the term is most closely related to NT passages that speak of ‘inheriting’ either ‘the kingdom’ (Matt. 25:34; 1 Cor. 6:9–10; 15:50; Gal. 5:21; cf. klēronomia in Eph. 5:5 and klēronomoi in James 2:5) or ‘eternal life’ (Matt. 19:29; Mark 10:17; Luke 10:25; 18:18) or an equivalent (e.g., ‘the earth’ [Matt. 5:5], ‘incorruption’ [1 Cor. 15:50], ‘salvation’ [Heb. 1:14], ‘the promise’ [Heb. 6:12], ‘blessing’ [1 Pet. 3:9], ‘these things’ [Rev. 21:7]).
A salvation-historical shift centred in Christ, therefore, meant that the type met its terminus in the antitype. Grudem comments:
The ‘inheritance’ of the New Covenant Christian is thus shown to be far superior to the earthly inheritance of the people of Israel in the land of Canaan. That earthly land was not ‘kept’ for them, but was taken from them in exile, and later by Roman occupation. Even while they possessed the land, it produced rewards that decayed, rewards whose glory faded away. The beauty of the land’s holiness before God was repeatedly defiled by sin (Num. 35:24; Jer. 2:7; 3:2).
Such could never happen to them again in their new home in Christ’s kingdom, into which they – both Jew and Gentile – have been born anew. Indeed, this promised blessing (the antitype) is imperishable, undefiled and unfading. That is, no foreign enemies can take this inheritance, because, unlike the previous symbol of God’s presence in the land, this one is kept in heaven for you (1:4).
The future fulfilment of God’s promise, however, should not be understood as merely spiritual. Schreiner comments, ‘This hope is still physical, for we learn from 2 Peter that it will be realized in a new heaven and a new earth (2 Pet 3:13; cf. Rev 21:1–22:5). But it transcends and leaves behind the land of Palestine.’ Again, this idea of a transformed eschatological reality is also found in Paul, who casts the same vision with different words (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:52–54; Rom. 8:18–25). Furthermore, in ways similar to the book of Revelation, Peter looks forward to the promised new heaven and new earth (3:13; cf. Rev. 21:1), which point back to Isaiah (65:17; 66:22). Indeed, God’s promises will reach their fulfilment, and, in contrast with the present world filled with evil deeds (3:10), the new creation will be one in which righteousness dwells (3:13).