Interpreting The Bible's Promises To Israel

As an evangelical Christian I join with many others and am part of a tradition that takes the Bible seriously. In saying that, I am not dismissing authorities such as human tradition and reason; but these are subordinate authorities.

I believe the scriptures to be the word of God written given to show us the way of salvation (2 Tim 3.15). The scriptural Word points to Jesus the Word (Jn 1.1;1.14) who points us to God the Father.

The very next verse in the letter to Timothy (2 Tim 3.16) gives a fuller description of the nature of scripture and its profitability for those who read it and do it.

The Scriptures Invite Interpretation

No one, whatever he may say, can speak the words of Scripture without involving the community of which he is a part. So for example, the Mormon 'missionaries' at your door use Scripture consistent with the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Attempts have been made to override individual, ignorance or bias altogether by insisting that one central body has the one true interpretation of Scripture. 

The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) took that position from the 6th century, until the 16th century Protestant Reformation cracked the RCC's monolithic structure apart. And various cults today maintain this same delusion that only those within their organisation¹ are saved.

Granted that the scriptures require interpreting and that this means the involvement of sinful people with human limitations, how can we know what scripture means? Through these two means at least:
  
1. The Holy Spirit is given to 'guide us into all truth' (Jn 16.12-15). When scripture is read with 'an honest and good heart' (Lk 8.15) then the truth of the word can be received. Reading the word together is helpfully done in groups where each can receive direction from others.
2. Teachers within our particular denominational or house church groups play an important role in teaching the word of God. 

Literalness: A Valid Interpretive Principle?

Dispensationalists are passionate about interpreting scripture using a 'literal' hermeneutic (system of interpretation). And it sounds very proper for evangelicals to advance a case for taking the bible's text literally because it can appear to be a method for taking it seriously. 

However, the term 'literal' is a slippery one. (See here for a full treatment.)

The Nature of the Patriarchal Covenants

Many Christians may not recognise the importance of the covenant which God makes with Abram (Gen 12.1-3) (then Isaac, and Jacob) but it is pivotal for understanding the unity of Scripture as taught by dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists.

Abram (later Abraham, 'father of many nations') is first called to go to Canaan and God will make him a great nation (Gen 12.1-3; 13.14-17; 15.5, 13-21; 17.1-11; 21.1-7). In summary, these passages promise that Abraham will have land, descendants ('seed'), and be blessed and a blessing to all 'families' of the earth. (Abram is also promised protection from those who curse him, and promised the fatherhood of a great nation.)

Fulfilment of God's Land Promise

Now the question arises as to how we understand these promises are to be fulfilled. To illustrate, let's look at the promise of LAND (Gen 13.15; 15.18-21; 17.1-9). In Gen 17.8 the Land given by God to Abraham and his descendants is said to be 'all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession [italics added]'.  

This land promise in terms of its geographical extent was fulfilled (Josh 21.43-45; 23.4-5; 24.11, 13, 28; 2 Sam 8.3; I Kings 4.21; II Chron 9.26; Neh 9.8; Jer 11.5).³

God's promise re land spoke of its being 'an everlasting' possession, and it is just at the point that dispensationalist (D) and non-dispensationalist (nD) cross swords. 

For the D says, 'Everlasting means "lasting forever". Hence, those who are cultural descendants of Abraham still have just claims on the land of Palestine-Israel according to the borders of the Abrahamic covenant.'

However, the nD says, 'Not so fast. Don't you Ds say that while believing that 'everlasting' means "lasting forever" also contend that the land promise was suspended for 2000 years? Surely that is a very flexible, 'literal' meaning of everlasting. 

'And don't you Ds claim that when the Jewish leaders comprehensively rejected Jesus as the Messiah and the "woes" of Matt 23.13-36 are pronounced upon them and the nation (Matt 23.37-39) that the offer of the kingdom was taken from them and given to the Church (the congregation)? But where is this major 'stopgap' plan so much as hinted at in any scripture?

Two millennia are devoted to the Gentiles' salvation according to D theology and during that period the Jews have no land and again nDs ask, 'How can the land be said to be an "everlasting" possession when it is obvious that this "everlasting" possession has not been enduring or "continuous"?'

If the D admits that it hasn't been 'everlasting' in the normal, plain sense of 'everlasting' he has surrendered his literal hermeneutic.

Next time, we look further into the question of the land promise and how it affects us as Gentiles.

1. However mercifully, the scriptures have a power through the Holy Spirit that can also transcend the restrictions of the traditions to which we belong.
2. Cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses are controlled by 'The Organisation' as to what they must believe about the bible's teaching. Such control becomes more and more pervasive as one become more deeply involved. Even the Seventh-Day Adventist Church regards itself as the 'remnant' Church although the SDAs are not as monolithic as they once were.
3. Joshua's confirmation of God's fulfilment of his promise re land was accompanied by a stiff warning of the consequences of sinning against the Lord (Josh 23.16; 24.11-27). We know that Israel did go into apostasy after Joshua's death and God sent the deliverer-judges, prophets and kings to deliver them from their distress. Finally, they lost their land altogether to the Assyrians in the North in 721BC and to the Babylonians in 586BC. After 70 years they came back to their land but were ruled by the Persians then by the Greeks, and after a short time of independence under the Maccabees, were finally conquered by the Romans (63BC).

Progressive Dispensationalism

The revising of dispensationalism we talked about in the last post in turn gave way to a third form of dispensationalism which began in the 1980s called progressive dispensationalism (PD). 

One of the major features of this new dispensationalism was that its adherents began to subject one of C. C. Ryrie's defining criteria -literal interpretation- to closer examination and found it wanting.

At the same time, dialogue took place between some dispensationalists and nondispensational¹ theologians which brought about more understanding and greater unity between the two opposing groups.

The PD group believes that God has one plan of salvation. That plan is being unfolded through a series of different administrations (dispensations) but they emphasise the unity of the dispensations. 

However, the PD group still holds to the main dispensational tenet that Israel and the Church are distinct; nevertheless, they also hold that both receive blessings through the Abrahamic, the Davidic, and the New Covenants.

Interpretation

This subject is a large one and highly vexed with strong differences of opinion. 

But as an example I had always believed that Gentiles could claim to be beneficiaries of the New Covenant set out in Jeremiah 31.31-34 (even though I was brought up as a dispensationalist without even knowing it). This fact seemed to be clear from Jesus' words to his disciples at the Last Supper (1 Cor 11.25; Luke 22.20²). We also have in The Letter to the Hebrews where the New Covenant is specifically mentioned as making the Old covenant obsolete (Heb 8.8-12³). 

But some consistent dispensationalists don't believe that the New Covenant benefits the Gentiles. They believe that the New Covenant is for Israel alone. They reason this way on the basis that Jeremiah's words address, 'the house of Israel [Northern Kingdom] and the house of Judah [Southern Kingdom]' (Jer 31.31) and say nothing about the Gentiles.

Such exegetes would argue that all they are doing is being faithful to the 'literal' meaning of the words of Jeremiah 31.31. Hence, differences are apparent even within the classical⁴ dispensational school and require that we look further at the subject of interpretation which will be examined in future posts.

1. I've used this category to designate premillennialists who are nondispensational, as well as amillennialists (those who don't believe in a millennium on earth). It would also included preterism (that most prophecy has already been fulfilled) of all types.
2. Modern translations omit 'new' because of their use of a variant text. However, the Gospel accounts are clearly describing a covenantal Meal.
3. Of course, it can also be said that Hebrews is not addressed to Gentiles but to Hebrew Christians who were in danger of going back into Judaism once again.
4. Another issue that dispensationalists are divided on is the time the Church actually began. Some hold to an Acts 2 beginning; others to Acts 13 with the beginning of Paul's ministry; others to an Acts 28: 25-31.

Doing All Things Through Christ

'I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me' (Phil. 4.13). 

All sorts of nonsense unfortunately have been inferred from these words of the apostle Paul in Philippians. One bit of silliness is the preaching that every saint of God 'can do all things they wish to do' in Christ. 

I suspect that this teaching comes from the 'health and wealth' theological quarter but wherever it comes from, that type of motivational preaching that seeks to use this verse to encourage God's people to 'reach for the stars' and 'fly like eagles', etc. is unsound.

And yes, it is bound to lead to eventual disappointment and disillusionment in the hearers that seek to follow the advice.

Another possible and associated source is 'possibility thinking' ideology and my remarks above and below also include this understanding too.

My main objections follow these paths:

A). These interpretations are not true to the context of this verse

The question of the meaning of 'all things' is implicitly answered by every interpreter and reader of Philippians 4.13.

Just a moment's thought though would surely incline one to the fact that 'all things' does NOT mean every thing possible. We can't decide to jump off a high bridge and expect to escape all injury on the basis of the 'all things'. We are limited by our creatureliness because we are creatures; the creator is God alone.

Definitively, Paul's words are limited by the immediate biblical context (Phil 4.11-12) which too often isn't even read! This context speaks of Paul's being in want as well as abundance and his having learned to be content whatever his situation. Would that was each Christian's testimony! 

But, his testimony is that 'I can do all this [i.e., accept both want and abundance] through him who gives me strength [NIV]'.

B). These interpretations are not true to the overall tenor of Scripture

I read the scriptures and although we can meet the patriarchs and judges of the Old Testament who did great things for God. However, their exploits were never done with the spirit of a recent US presidential candidate who said in 2008, 'We can do it', which is hallmark of practical atheism.

Some Christian teaching today seems to want to be among those who can sing with Frank Sinatra, 'I did it my way'.* My technique, my application, my resolutions, my method, my (secret) knowledge got me to the line. 

We have to get this one thing into our hearts; none of these things count with God! We have to again get into our hearts who God is. I fear we have lost that sense of the majesty, the glory, the spendour and the fear of the Lord that permeates the Scriptures. When mere mortals met angels they were terrified! When they met the Lord, they encountered the holiness of God and fell prostrate at his feet.

The, 'we can do it' mantra is the old adamic spirit showing itself in its dulled sheen. (And of course, 'we' haven't been able to do it!)

God wants all the glory to be his because it rightfully belongs to him; whereas, the flesh wants to rob God of his supreme position. 

Let's not be found among those who are caught by the devices of Satan but be among those who are fully knowledgeable of his wicked snares.

Let us put on 'the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh to gratify its desires (Roms 13.14, RSV).

*Did you know that this song is the most popular song being played at funerals nowadays? The song for Christians should be, 'He did it His way'!