This will ultimately happen someday in the future, when, to use Paul’s words in Romans 11, national Israel turns in faith to the Messiah and is once [...]]]> In my last post I argued that although Israel does not currently possess a divine right to Palestine, they will someday inherit the land promises that God made to Abraham.

This will ultimately happen someday in the future, when, to use Paul’s words in Romans 11, national Israel turns in faith to the Messiah and is once again grafted into the olive tree of God’s covenant people.  At that time Israel will (under the New Covenant, not the Old) be given the inheritance promised to  Abraham’s seed.

But that’s just one part of the picture.  Another part of the picture is that Palestine/Canaan, was never the end goal of the land promises.  In this second post I want to argue that the true, final fulfillment of the land promises that believing Israel will inherit is heaven—or, to be more, precise, the New Earth and New Creation. The land that Israel will inherit is nothing less than the earth.

Let me begin with a few observations that will help to set the stage for the point I want to make.

1. The great blessing of creation was that man, created in God’s image, lived in God’s presence and enjoyed perfect fellowship with Him.  In Eden Adam and Eve enjoyed the three essential elements of the kingdom of God: (1) God’s people, (2) living in God’s place, (3) under God’s loving and gracious rule.  In the fall, Adam and Eve rebelled against God’s rule and kingdom, lost these benefits, and were expelled from God’s place and presence.
2. God’s plan in redemption is to restore his kingdom through his appointed King, the Messiah.  When we arrive at Revelation 21-22 we find that redemption has come full circle and Man is once again enjoying the kingdom that he lost in Eden: God’s people are living in God’s “place” under God’s loving and gracious rule.  But now God’s “place” is no longer a single garden (Eden), or even a larger track of land (Palestine), but the whole earth–the new earth.  This ideal is promised throughout the Scripture with the refrain, “I will be their God, they will be my people, and I will dwell among them.”  This ideal was lost in Eden and will be restored in the New Creation.
3. In the Old Testament God paves the way for this future restoration of his kingdom through national Israel.  He chooses and calls Abraham, enters into covenant with him, promises to make of him a nation, and to give that nation a land inheritance.  Through types and shadows, God was making promises concerning his future plans to restore his kingdom on earth.  National Israel, as a typical representation (i.e., type) of God’s kingdom plan portrays the ideal kingdom of God:  (1) God’s people, (2) living in God’s place, (3) under God’s loving and gracious rule.
4. What’s vitally important when reading the OT is to understand that the external forms and structures of the Old Covenant program were simply meant to foreshadow God’s greater, fuller, perfect, kingdom program in the new creation, the new heaven and new earth.
5. So, for example, the temple provided a shadowy foretaste of what it would be like in the eternal kingdom when God dwelt among his people.  When you read the OT, you’d get the impression that the temple institution (structure, ritual, etc.) was to be eternal.  However, when you read the New Testament and then, finally, arrive at Revelation 21-22, you find that the temple institution which in the OT was presented as an eternal institution, was really only a temporary foreshadowing of an eternal reality—a reality much greater and more perfect than the temple institution could ever portray.
6. Similarly, Israel’s monarchy—that dynasty of kings descended from David that ruled over the kingdom of Israel—was really only an imperfect foreshadowing of the future, eternal, perfect, universal kingship of David’s Messianic Son, Jesus Christ.

So here’s the point I’m driving at.  The land promises are similar.  The promise that the seed of Abraham would inherit the land was really only an imperfect, temporary foreshadowing of God’s intention for his covenant people to inherit a greater, perfect, universal, eternal Rest.

I think the author of Hebrews makes this clear.  As does the Old Testament, the author of Hebrews portrays the land promises as a future time of REST for God’s covenant people.   He argues in chapter 4 that Joshua was not able to give Israel the promised rest and that God therefore spoke of another, future Sabbath rest for the people of God (vv. 8-9).  So what is the future Sabbath rest that the OT land promises pointed to?  Well, he makes it clear that it is something that his readers (not just Israel, but now the Church) should strive to enter and that they should be careful not to fail to enter it because of unbelief as OT Israel did.  I think it’s clear from Hebrews 4 that the future rest of which he speaks is the future, heavenly rest that awaits all believers.

It seems ironic to me that while this is very unclear for modern dispensationalists, it was not at all unclear for the original recipient of the land promises, Abraham.  Hebrews 11 makes it clear that even Abraham understood that the land of Palestine did not represent the final inheritance of God’s covenant promises.  According to Hebrews 11:9-10, Abraham was heir to the land promises but, in reality, his hope was not placed upon the land itself but upon the future, heavenly inheritance:  “He was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.”   The OT recipients of the land promises so clearly understood the true nature of God’s promises that they chose to live as “strangers and exiles on the earth” and by faith greeted the true, heavenly fulfillment of those promises from afar (v. 13).  The homeland which they sought was not Canaan: “They desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one,” and “Therefore,” says the author of Hebrews, “God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city” (v. 16).

Then, at the end of chapter 11, the author of Hebrews acknowledges again that none of the OT saints ever received their promised inheritance.  The reason he gives is striking:  “And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect” (vv. 39-40).  From these two verses I conclude that the reason that the OT saints did not inherit the land was because God had something better in store (a heavenly inheritance), and that better inheritance would not be given until we, the Church, was drawn into God’s covenant program.

So when I say that Israel will inherit the land, what I really mean to say is that Israel will inherit the EARTH. That seems to be what Jesus has in mind when he takes the OT promise that the “meek will inherit the land (Heb. erets)” and converts it to “the meek will inherit the earth (Gr. ge)” (Matt 5:5).  Likewise, Paul interprets God’s land promise to Abraham to mean that Abraham would be “heir of the world (Gr. kosmos)” (Rom 4:13).  When was Abraham every promised to inherit the whole world?  Clearly it was inherent in the land promises.

In other words, the land promises are simply a shadowy type of a greater reality–the earth and new creation.  The land promises have not been annulled, but have been expanded to include all of creation.

In my next post I plan to argue, then, that God’s covenant promises concerning the land inheritance are not limited to national Israel.  We, as Gentile members of the New Covenant community, are also heirs of the covenant promises—all of them.  Or, as Paul puts it, “If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal 3:29).

This is the first of three posts in which I want to argue that as Gentile believers in Jesus Christ, we share an [...]]]> Who is the man who fears the LORD? Him will he instruct in the way that he should choose. His soul shall abide in well-being, and his offspring shall inherit the land. (Psalm 25:12-13)

This is the first of three posts in which I want to argue that as Gentile believers in Jesus Christ, we share an equal inheritance with believing Israel of the land promises made to Abraham.

In this first post I simply want to provide some context by reiterating a point that I made several weeks ago when I argued that the Jews do not currently possess a divine right to the Promised Land.  The reason for this, I argued, is that Israel is currently under God’s curse (see Deut 27-28), outside of the covenant because of her disobedience.  In the words of Yahweh in Hosea 1, Israel is currently “not my people” and therefore not entitled to the privileges of the covenant–including the land.  In making this point, I am not, however, arguing that Israel never will be given her inheritance.  The land promises still stand.  So although Israel does not currently possess a divine right to the land, she will someday inherit what God has promised, including the land promises.

Let me explain.

1. God’s covenant with Abraham included the promise that his seed would finally dwell in the land and the final fulfillment of that promise is unconditional. That means that someday Abraham’s seed—those who inherit the promises—will inherit the land. No doubt about that.
2. The promise of the land has not been revoked. That is, God’s promise that Abraham’s seed will someday inherit the land still stands.
3. The Old (Mosaic) Covenant was an administrative covenant that administered God’s relationship with Abraham’s seed. Israel’s enjoyment of the benefits of the covenant was dependent upon her obedience of the conditions of the covenant, namely the law. In other words, possession of the land at any given point in time was dependent upon her status as covenant people. Yahweh said as much when he made the covenant: “If you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples” (Ex 19:5). Built into the Old Covenant was a set of harsh sanctions that, when enacted, would remove Israel from her covenant status. In Deuteronomy 27-28 these sanctions are called “the curse.” When Israel failed to obey the covenant they would fall under his curse, rendering them as a nation just like all the other cursed nations of the earth. The curse included, among many other things, losing the privilege to dwell in the land in the presence of Yahwah (just as happened to Adam and Even when they broke the covenant). The prophets frequently reflect upon Israel’s status as a cursed people. God inspired Hosea to tell Israel “you are not my people, and I am not your God” (1:9). This was not some kind of reckless hyperbole. Nor are they the words of a modern anti-Semite. They’re God’s words. Again, if the conditions of God’s covenant with Israel mean anything—that is, if we really take seriously the sanctions and curse proclaimed in the law, then we must conclude that Israel is currently in the same condition in which she found herself in Hosea: “not my people.” So it’s vitally important to understand that the right to possess the land is conditioned upon Israel’s status within the covenant. Under the curse of Deuteronomy, Israel has been driven out of the Promised Land by God himself (Dan 9:7). They are under the sanctions of the law. They are being divinely punished for their sin and currently hold no Divine claim to the land. As Paul says in Romans 11, they have been “cut off” from the olive tree of God’s covenant people.
4. God, because of his faithfulness to his promises to Abraham, always held out the offer to Israel to return to covenant status. That offer was conditioned upon Israel’s repentance and obedience. The problem was (and continues to be) that Israel never has and never will be able to meet the conditions of the Old Covenant. Ultimately, the law can only bring a curse. That’s where the New Covenant comes in. Under the New Covenant God promises to do an internal work in the hearts of Israel so that they can obey him and live before him in covenant faithfulness.  So Old Testament New Covenant passages like Jer 31 and Ezek 36-37 make it clear that it will not be under the Old, Mosaic Covenant that Israel is restored to covenant status, but under the New Covenant.  Both in Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36-37 Israel is promised a return to land when they are restored as God’s covenant people under the New Covenant. It is then, and only then, that “I will be their God and they shall be my people” (Ezek 37:23, 27). It is then that, to use Hosea’s words, “in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ it shall be said to them, ‘Children of the living God.’” It is only as children that Israel will inherit the promises made to Abraham’s seed.
5. Now what about Israel’s present occupation of Palestine? As a theologically informed observer, I can see God working now in Israel in preparation to fulfill his promise to someday save all of Israel. I believe that Israel as a nation will someday turn to the Messiah, repent of her sins, and participate in the blessings of the New Covenant (cf. Rom 11). And God’s ongoing work in the nation of Israel confirms my belief that someday Israel will be grafted back with us into the covenant people of God and thus inherit the promised rest—i.e., the land (Heb 4). But they still don’t own it in a New Covenant sense. Our support for Israel should be on the grounds of fairness and human justice and we should treat the Palestinians with the same fairness and justice. To argue (on emotional grounds) that Israel has a Divine right to own the whole land at this time and that we should drive the Palestinians out after they’ve lived there for hundreds of years betrays a fundamental misunderstanding Israel’s current condition, I think. Jesus Christ will settle this at his coming when Israel turns to him and once again enters the covenant (when, to use Romans 11, they’re grafted back into the tree of God’s covenant people).

In Part 2, I plan to argue that those promises are not limited to Israel, but are blessings to be enjoyed by all of God’s New Covenant people, including Gentiles.

Here’s my concluding analysis for the review:

Although CHP addresses many important issues relating to nondispensational premillennialism and does an [...]]]> In case anyone’s interested, I’ve reviewed A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to “Left Behind” Eschatology (edited by Craig L. Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung) for the latest issue of Themelios.  You can read the review here.

Here’s my concluding analysis for the review:

Although CHP addresses many important issues relating to nondispensational premillennialism and does an adequate job of refuting its rival, overall the work fails to make a clear, comprehensive case for historic premillennialism. As one might expect (given its origin), the feel of the book is more that of a series of papers presented at a conference on historic premillennialism, than of a monograph intended to present a cohesive case for that system (as its title suggests). While several of the articles are excellent and make a strong positive contribution to the overall case, others, although good in their own right, contribute very little to the actual case for nondispensational premillennialism. The result is a work that offers many good arguments in favor of historic premillennialism and provides a helpful critique of “Left Behind” eschatology, but that never really defines either in a way that makes their fundamental differences clear (outside of their differing views of the timing of the rapture) or that advances a cohesive, systematic case for its preferred premillennial scheme. Perhaps the best way to summarize my impression of CHP is that I found its essays helpful and informative, but overall the book failed to deliver what its title had led me to expect.

“In my ideal world, there would be no church or parachurch organization, including seminaries, that would make [...]]]> In addition to Dever’s and Schreiner’s recent comments, Craig Blomberg also has some good comments on the non-essential nature of eschatological beliefs such as the millennium and the timing of the rapture.  In A Case for Historic Premillennialism Blomberg says:

“In my ideal world, there would be no church or parachurch organization, including seminaries, that would make a certain belief about the millennium or the tribulation a requirement of anything, such as membership, employment, or the like.  If we believe in the literal, visible, public return of Christ to usher in the judgment of the living and the dead, if we believe in the bodily resurrection of all people, some to eternal life and others to eternal destruction, surely we can agree to disagree in love over the particulars on which intelligent, godly, Bible-believing Christians have never achieved consensus and yet fellowship and work together at every level of Christian service and activity.  The classic orthodox creeds of the patristic period, like the major confessions of faith from the Protestant Reformation, never required more than this.”

He was referring specifically to the issue of the Millennium, but his comments obviously apply to lesser issues (like the timing of the rapture).  (And obviously his comments don’t apply to fundamental doctrines like the second coming and final judgment.) Here’s what he said:

“I think that [...]]]> So said Mark Dever in his sermon yesterday on Revelation 20.

He was referring specifically to the issue of the Millennium, but his comments obviously apply to lesser issues (like the timing of the rapture).  (And obviously his comments don’t apply to fundamental doctrines like the second coming and final judgment.) Here’s what he said:

“I think that millennial views need not be among those doctrines that divide us. . . .  I am suggesting that what you believe about the millennium—how you interpret these thousand years—is not something that it is necessary for us to agree upon in order to have a congregation together.  The Lord Jesus Christ prayed in John 17:21 that we Christians might be one.  Of course all true Christians are one in that we have his Spirit, we share his Spirit, we desire to live out that unity. But that unity is supposed to be evident as a testimony to the world around us.  Therefore, I conclude that we should end our cooperations together with other Christians (whether near-ly in a congregation, or more at length in working together in missions and church planting and evangelism and building up the ministry) only with the greatest of care, lest we rend the body of Christ for whose unity he’s prayed and given himself.  Therefore, I conclude that it is sin to divide the body of Christ—to divide the body that he prayed would be united. Therefore for us to conclude that we must agree upon a certain view of alcohol, or a certain view of schooling, or a certain view of meat sacrificed to idols, or a certain view of the millennium in order to have fellowship together is, I think, not only unnecessary for the body of Christ, but it is therefore both unwarranted and therefore condemned by scripture.  So if you’re a pastor and you’re listening to me, you understand me correctly if you think I’m saying you are in sin if you lead your congregation to have a statement of faith that requires a particular millennial view. I do not understand why that has to be a matter of uniformity in order to have Christian unity in a local congregation.” (italics added)

I couldn’t agree more.  Dever’s comments fit well with Tom Schreiner’s recent discussion of whether or not eschatological questions should be considered non-negotiable (see Jason Button’s blog for a transcript of some of Schreiner’s comments).

What I appreciate about Dever’s comments is that they emphasize a vitally important truth–one that many people have failed to understand: unity among believers is a non-negotiable absolute in Scripture, and anyone who breaks fellowship or cooperation when it is not absolutely required by Scripture is sinning. Period.  Unity and cooperation among believers is not optional.  The N.T. does allow for (i.e. requires) separation from professing believers in certain extreme circumstances of blatant, unrepentant sin, but the norm is clearly unity and cooperation.

More on this later.

BTW, Dever’s whole series on Revelation is simply excellent, and a breath of fresh air from the “Left Behind” preaching so prominent on Revelation today.  As a premillennialist, however, I prefer Tom Schreiner’s premil treatment of Revelation 20 to Dever’s amil treatment.