10 Theological reflections
10
Theological reflections
The land promised to Abraham advances the place of the kingdom that was lost in Eden and serves as a type throughout Israel’s history that anticipates an even greater land – prepared for God’s people – that will come as a result of the person and work of Jesus Christ. In other words, the land and its blessings (type) find their fulfilment in the new heaven and new earth (antitype) won by Christ.
As the beginning and the end show, God’s cosmological purpose is for his people to dwell in his place under his rule. That is, from Genesis 1 through Revelation 22 God’s eschatological goal is to establish his kingdom on earth. However, due to the fall of humanity into sin and death the accomplishment of this goal is radically marred but not decimated, for God makes a promise that will providentially guide his redemptive means to their divinely appointed end. That is, future triumph over the serpent will come through the offspring of the woman (Gen. 3:15). God will re-establish his kingdom on earth through his graciously initiated covenants that reach their telos in and through the person and work of Christ, the last Adam. As a result, the kingdom of the world will become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever (Rev. 11:15).
God’s promise of land to Abraham advances God’s fulfilment of his promise in four plot movements across the Old Testament: (1) Genesis 1 – 11, (2) the nature and scope of the Abrahamic covenant and the promise of land, (3) the advancement and fulfilment(s) of God’s promise of land throughout Israel’s history, and (4) the loss of land in exile and the prophetic anticipation of an international and universal restoration brought through a new covenant. In the end, God’s cosmological plan progresses from Adam through Abraham, and is cast in terms of an Edenic land, city and temple – all of which are coextensive. What these plot movements demonstrate, then, is that the land is a type of a new creation that will come through Abraham’s seed and a Davidic Son, who will triumphantly bring God’s new covenant people into a new creation.
Finally, programmatic passages in the New Testament are examined, which present the land promised to Abraham and his offspring to be finally fulfilled in the (physical) new heaven and earth won by Christ. At this time in history, however, the fulfilment is primarily focused on Christ, who himself has inaugurated a new creational kingdom through his physical resurrection and has made new creations out of those united with him. This united people – both Jew and Gentile – now live between the inauguration and consummation of the kingdom and anticipate the final fulfilment in the new heaven and new earth (Rev. 21 – 22).
This chapter aims to apply the interpretative findings of the previous chapters to eschatology. More specifically, it will evaluate how the land promise is interpreted and fulfilled in the theological systems of dispensationalism and covenant theology in the light of the arguments presented throughout this work.
Bound for the Promised Land: some theological implications
There are various forms of dispensationalism, which makes it difficult to present a unified theology of land. Nevertheless, it is possible to distil the pillars of dispensational theology into an essential core. That is, all forms of dispensational theology construct their theology of land from an interconnected set of convictions. First, the sine qua non of dispensationalism is the distinction between the nation of Israel and the church. Secondly, dispensationalists believe that God’s unconditional promise of land in the Abrahamic covenant must be fulfilled to the nation of Israel in the future, which ‘includes at least the millennial reign of Christ and for some dispensationalists, extends into the eternal state as well’. Feinberg writes, ‘If an OT prophecy or promise is made unconditionally to a given people and is still unfulfilled to them even in the NT era, then the prophecy must still be fulfilled to them.’ Thirdly, and building on the second point, is a hermeneutical concern: the New Testament does not reinterpret or spiritualize the land promise to Israel. Again, Feinberg writes, ‘Lack of repetition in the NT does not render an OT teaching inoperative during the NT era so long as nothing explicitly or implicitly cancels it.’ Feinberg’s contention applies to types and antitypes and leads to the fourth point, which Wellum says is often not argued but is assumed. Wellum writes:
For dispensational theology, the ‘land’ must not be viewed as a type or pattern of something greater. . . . Instead, it is a straightforward (‘literal’) promise that reaches its fulfillment only with Christ ruling and reigning in the millennium in the land of Israel. To view the land as a divinely given pattern which looks back to the creation and forward to the greater reality of the new creation is rejected.
This point is demonstrated by Feinberg when he states:
My contention is that understanding that both type and antitype must have their own meaning even while bearing a typological relation to the other, understanding the implications of NT reinterpretation of the OT, and realizing that progress of revelation only renders earlier truth inoperative if God says so leads one to see that the meaning of both OT and NT passages must be maintained.
As a result, dispensationalists reject the idea that the land promised to Abraham and given to Israel serves as a type of the new creation won by Christ for all God’s people. How, then, does the present study differ from the dispensational view? To answer this question is to summarize the biblical-theological arguments set forth in the previous chapters across the three horizons (textual, epochal and canonical) of Scripture.
To begin, appeal to the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic covenant does not prove that the promise of land must be exclusively fulfilled to the nation of Israel in the future. As chapter 3 demonstrated, the common distinction between unconditional and conditional covenants is not quite accurate. On the one hand, Genesis 15 forcefully shows that God will unilaterally fulfil the promise and conditions of the covenant even if it means taking the curse upon himself. However, this unconditional emphasis does not remove the necessity of Abraham’s obedience. Genesis 17:2 and 22:17–18 (cf. 26:4–5) show that God requires an obedient partner in the covenant relationship. He promises the covenant blessings to Abraham, but these blessings are reserved for people who trust and obey him. In other words, the ultimate fulfilment of the covenant is grounded on God’s promises, but the means of fulfilment will come through Abraham’s (and his descendants’) obedience. This conditionality, therefore, is instrumental to the reception and fulfilment of the promises. The tension between God’s promise and the necessity of obedience in the covenant relationship becomes clearer and stronger as the story line progresses, and is crucial for understanding the nature and progression of the covenants as they reach their telos in Christ, who inaugurates a new and better covenant in his own blood. That is, when the larger canonical story line is considered, the conditions are met by God himself when he sends his obedient Son – the true seed of Abraham (Gal. 3) – to fulfil the demands of the covenant.
Furthermore, appeal to the Abrahamic covenant supports the view that the land promise is finally fulfilled in a greater way than in the geographical boundaries of Canaan. That is, the Abrahamic covenant itself has both national and international and regional and global dimensions, which are later confirmed through the progress of God’s revelation. This point must be traced across the three horizons of Scripture. First, the calling of and promise to Abraham recovers the universal purpose of Adam in terms both of offspring and land. In other words, the universal scope of Eden temporarily narrows to the land of Canaan, which then expands with the proliferation of Abraham’s offspring.
Secondly, when Genesis 22:17–18 and 26:3–4 are taken together, the immediate context of the Abrahamic covenant already points to a universal expansion of the territorial promise. In other words, the propagation of Abraham’s offspring will result in inheriting the world (cf. Rom. 4:13). This interpretation is not reinterpreting or spiritualizing the Old Testament promise. Rather, it establishes the type or pattern that the ultimate fulfilment of the promise will encompass the entire world.
Thirdly, after the exodus from Egypt, Deuteronomy depicts Israel’s imminent entrance into the Promised Land as a return to Edenic conditions, for they will multiply, subdue and enjoy blessing in the land. Moreover, when Israel – God’s son – inherits the land, rest will follow. Securing their inheritance of the Promised Land, then, presents a pattern, or type, of Israel’s entering into God’s eternal rest, of which Canaan is the beginning.
Fourthly, Joshua demonstrates initial fulfilment of the Abrahamic promise and at the same time anticipates a greater fulfilment that will bring Eden-like rest. However, the end of Joshua points to Israel’s future failure and further need for subsequent repossession.
Fifthly, a significant advance of God’s promise to plant his people in the land comes with the arrival of David and his son Solomon. David and Solomon, respectively, enjoy expansive and international reigns, and the nation enjoys rest from its enemies. The construction of the temple and subsequent rest represent a new Eden, for God once again dwells with his people ‘in a more intensive sense’. However, while Solomon typifies a return to Edenic conditions, he is responsible through his disobedience for the second expulsion from the sanctuaryland and the end of the monarchy. Subsequently, the united kingdom is divided and exiled. In the midst of judgment, however, the prophets resound with the eschatological hope of restoration that will bring the universal purposes of Eden, Abraham and David back into focus.
Finally, the prophets advance the pattern of God’s promise by portraying the return from exile in various ways and stages, including both a physical and spiritual return with national and international results. That is, through the new covenant God will make a new people – composed of both believing Jews and Gentiles – and make a new place for them to live. This restoration describes incredible realities that expand the original forms: the return is so glorious that it is described as an Edenic city-temple-land, coextensive with the new creation and filled with an international people. Therefore, as the Old Testament progresses and escalates towards God’s fulfilment of his promises, at each stage of redemptive history the numerous textual and historical correspondences present the Promised Land as a type that will ultimately be fulfilled when the rule of the king will extend to the entire creation (Ps. 72:8–11, 17–19).
Before moving to the New Testament, an important observation must be made concerning an Old Testament theology of land. There are exegetical grounds both in the immediate context of the Abrahamic covenant and across the entire Old Testament to argue that God’s original intention for the land was not merely to be limited to the specific geographical boundaries of Canaan. In other words, when situated within the biblical covenants and viewed diachronically, the land functions as a type or pattern of something greater that will recapture God’s original design for creation. This point is important, for non-dispensationalists have been charged with not sufficiently developing a theology of the land on Old Testament terms. Feinberg writes:
Dispensational and nondispensational thinkers agree that the NT fulfills the OT and is a more complete revelation of God. But there is disagreement as to what that means for the priority of one Testament over the other. Nondispensationalists begin with NT teaching as having priority, and then go back to the OT. Dispensationalists often go back to the OT, but wherever they begin they demand that the OT be taken on its own terms rather than reinterpreted in the light of the NT.
While this charge is debatable, there is some warrant that confirms Feinberg’s point. 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.
Similarly, Francis Andersen notes:
The prophets who give warning of threatened deportation from Palestine also hold out hopes of redemption by restoration to the promised land. But in the New Testament such a matter is wholly spiritualized; the land of promise is ‘a better heavenly city’ (Heb 11:10, 16), a thought in line with Paul’s teaching that Sarah, as the mother of us all, is ‘Jerusalem which is above’ (Gal 4:26). The promised rest continues to remain, then, to the people of God and those who believe in Jesus enter into it (Heb 4).
Bruce Waltke contributes a substantial chapter developing an Old Testament theology of land, but then argues:
[T]he New Testament redefines Land in three ways: first, spiritually, as a reference to Christ’s person; second, transcendentally, as a reference to heavenly Jerusalem; and third, eschatologically, as a reference to the new Jerusalem after Christ’s second coming. By ‘redefine’ we mean that whereas ‘Land’ in the Old Testament refers to Israel’s life in Canaan, in the New Testament ‘Land’ is transmuted to refer to life in Christ.
As a result, dispensationalists such as Blaising and Bock write:
Is it possible that covenantalist approaches to the question of the relationship of Old Testament and New Testament hope are already determined by a traditional structure framed within the linguistic dimensions of the New Testament before the biblical theology of the Old Testament has been properly understood in its historical setting?
While this question is disputable, the present study is in basic agreement with them in that covenant theology tends to move from the Old Testament to the New too quickly before comprehensively developing the land theme across the Old Testament, both in its historical and epochal horizons. When this process is accomplished, the New Testament demonstrates both when and how the Old Testament is brought to fulfilment in Christ, though in a way that does not reinterpret, spiritualize or contravene the earlier texts.
The New Testament demonstrates that what was promised in the Old Testament is fulfilled through the person and work of Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham, the son of Adam, the son of God. Jesus – the true Israel – inaugurates the kingdom through his death and resurrection and finally delivers his people from the exile of sin. He interprets the eschatological land promises through the lens of the many typological and universalized texts in the Old Testament (Matt. 5:5). He makes a new covenant people – described as new creations and a new temple – with those united to him, the true temple. This new people, the church of Jesus Christ made up of both Jew and Gentile, await their final home, the new heaven and new earth that is cast in terms of a paradisal garden-temple-city. In other words, the variegated realities of the Old Testament promises – the expansive city, temple and land – overlap with the new creation won by Christ (Rev. 21 – 22). Thus Israel’s land promises reach the fulfilment of their original design when redeemed people from every tribe, tongue, nation and people fill and inhabit the whole earth. In this sense, then, what believing Israel obtains is far greater than the land of Canaan, for they – along with the nations – will inherit the whole earth in fulfilment of God’s gracious and irrevocable promises.
The issue of the fulfilment of the land promise in the New Testament presents a crucial issue for a particular view of typology within dispensationalism. Dispensationalists agree that if the land promised to Israel is unconditional, then the ultimate fulfilment must be to the nation of Israel in the future regardless of how the New Testament applies the Old Testament texts. As a result, Edward Glenny notes that progressive dispensationalists, who agree with revised dispensationalists but go beyond them in their understanding of typology, allow some of the Old Testament promises for Israel to find typological fulfilment in the church. However, this initial fulfilment does not annul the original Old Testament meaning for Israel. That is, ‘Even though the church fulfills these Old Testament prophecies, it does not exhaust them.’ When applied to the issue of land, then, this view maintains that, although some spiritual aspects are applied to the church, the territorial aspects of God’s promise to the nation of Israel will be fulfilled in the future. In other words, although the antitype is in a real sense a fulfilment of the type, the fulfilment is only a partial one. Therefore the original promises to the nation of Israel will still be kept, even if they have partial application to the church.
So what are we to make of this approach to the typological fulfilment of the land promise? Although this view should be commended for attempting to apply the inaugurated eschatological nature of the kingdom to its interpretation of the land promise, it does not do full justice to the New Testament presentation of the already–not yet character of the kingdom or the nature of typological fulfilment in Scripture. First, the application of inaugurated eschatology is not accurate at this point. That is, while there is an already–not yet nature to the kingdom in the New Testament, this eschatological perspective does not merely mean that part of the kingdom is present now in the church and part of it will be present later in the nation of Israel. Instead, the New Testament shows that all of God’s saving promises have already been fulfilled in Christ and that these promises are expanding where Christ is present – in the church now and finally in the new heaven and new earth in the age to come.
Secondly, Scripture presents the New Testament antitype to fulfil the Old Testament type, for in and through the person and work of Christ all of God’s promises have reached their telos. This point is what distinguishes the view of this book from replacement theology. In other words, it is not that the church replaces Israel and inherits her blessings. Rather, Israel finds its fulfilment not in a community but in an individual Son of God. Richard Davidson demonstrates this typological pattern by examining every New Testament use of ‘type’ and its cognates. The Bible’s use of typology is consistently characterized by an eschatological escalation, or intensification, in the progression from type to antitype and from promise to fulfilment. Furthermore, biblical typology is Christotelic. In other words, Old Testament types do not merely correspond analogically to New Testament types, but were designed by God to be ‘a shadow of the good things to come’ (Heb. 10:1). Mark Karlberg writes:
To be sure, there is still to be at the consummation an antitypical fulfillment of the land promise, a cosmic antitype to typological Canaan-land, such as does not obtain in the present Church-age stage of the new covenant. But genuine typological interpretation rules out any additional literal fulfillment of the land promise in a future restoration of national Israel subsequent to or alongside the messianic fulfillment.
Indeed, all of God’s promises find their ultimate terminus in the person and work of Christ as the culmination of God’s revelation and redemptive plan, which will end in nothing less than a new creation for all of his people in Christ.
Conclusion
Here, at the end, let us be reminded that our great and glorious triune God fulfils his promises. In his ministry, Jesus announced that God was working to fulfil his ancient promises of restoration from exile and the establishment of his universal and international kingdom. In this age, however, we live as sojourners and exiles who seek the city that is to come, whose designer and builder is God (1 Peter 2:11; Heb. 11:10; 13:14). We should in faith, therefore, live with this eschatological anticipation in our minds and hearts, and in our words to others until that day (1 Thess. 4:13 – 5:11).
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away.’
And he who was seated on the throne said, ‘Behold, I am making all things new.’ (Rev. 21:1–5)
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.