‘Radical Reinterpretation,’ New Testament Priority, and the Hermeneutics of George Ladd

As I continue my discussion on Historic Premillennialism (HP), I want to focus my thoughts on the hermeneutics of HP’s #1 defender in the 20^th century—George Ladd. Specifically, I want to address Ladd’s views on how the New Testament (NT) uses the Old Testament (OT). Since Ladd is often looked to as a primary leader of HP, his views on hermeneutics should be examined to help us understand HP or at least modern expressions of HP.

In regard to how the NT uses the OT, I will point out that Ladd affirmed three things: (1) the NT used the OT non-contextually; (2) the NT reinterpreted the OT; and (3) the NT has priority over the OT.

Non-contextual Use of the OT

Ladd believed that the NT writers used OT prophecies non-contextually:

The fact is that the New Testament frequently interprets Old Testament prophecies in a way not suggested by the Old Testament context.[1] (emphasis is Ladd’s)

Responding in agreement to Ladd’s statement, the amillennialist, Anthony A. Hoekema, wrote, “I agree with him [Ladd] that the Old Testament must be interpreted in light of the New Testament and that a totally and exclusively literal interpretation of Old Testament prophecy is not justified.”[2]

Ladd also argued for deeper meaning for OT passages given by the NT: “Old Testament prophecies must be interpreted in the light of the New Testament to find their deeper meaning.”[3]

NT Reinterpretation of the OT

In addition, Ladd believed in NT reinterpretation of the OT. In doing so he argued that physical promises to Israel are “reinterpreted” and may find their spiritual fulfillment in the church:

The Old Testament must be interpreted by the New Testament. In principle it is quite possible that the prophecies addressed originally to literal Israel describing physical blessings have their fulfillment exclusively in the spiritual blessings enjoyed by the church. It is also possible that the Old Testament expectation of a kingdom on earth could be reinterpreted by the New Testament altogether of blessings in the spiritual realm.[4]

Two passages highlight Ladd’s methodology. First, concerning Matt. 2:15 which states, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son,” Ladd offered the following:

In Hosea [11:1] this is not a prophecy at all but a historical affirmation that God had called Israel out of Egypt in the Exodus. However, Matthew recognizes Jesus to be God’s greater son and deliberately turns a historical statement into a prophecy. This is a principle which runs throughout biblical prophecy. The Old Testament is reinterpreted in light of the Christ event. (Emphasis is Ladd’s)[5]

Second, Ladd held that Rom 9:24–26 is evidence that the Christian church fulfills promises made to national Israel. He states, “Paul deliberately takes these two prophecies about the future salvation of Israel and applies them to the church. The church consisting of Jews and Gentiles has become the people of God. The prophecies of Hosea are fulfilled in the Christian church.”[6]

Third, according to Ladd, Jesus’ exaltation as discussed in Acts 2 means “new redemptive events in the course of Heilsgeschichte (“salvation history”) have compelled Peter to reinterpret the Old Testament.”[7]

 At times, Ladd escalates the concept of “reinterpretation” to “radical reinterpretation.” In regard to Peter’s understanding of Jesus’ ascension in Acts 2, Ladd said:

This involves a rather radical reinterpretation of the Old Testament prophecies, but no more so than the entire reinterpretation of God’s redemptive plan by the early church.[8] 

In regard to Heb 8:13 and the new covenant Ladd states: “Here again we have a radical reinterpretation of the Old Testament prophets. . .”[9]

NT Priority over the OT

Along with the concept of “reinterpretation” or “radical reinterpretation” of the OT, Ladd explicitly affirmed NT priority over the OT. He did this when comparing Dispensationalism with non-dispensationalism:

Here is the basic watershed between a dispensational and a non-dispensational theology. Dispensationalism forms its eschatology by a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and then fits the New Testament into it. A nondispensational eschatology forms its theology from the explicit teaching of the New Testament. It confesses that it cannot be sure how the Old Testament prophecies of the end are to be fulfilled for (a) the first coming of Christ was accomplished in terms not foreseen by a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, and (b) there are unavoidable indications that the Old Testament promises to Israel are fulfilled in the Christian church.[10]

One important thing to note here is that Ladd views NT priority over the OT as more than just being his own personal view—it is a “watershed” issue that separates non-dispensational theology from dispensational theology. Thus, one can determine whether he or she is a dispensationalist or not based on this understanding. As a dispensationalist, John Feinberg affirms this difference:

Nondispensationalists begin with NT teaching as having priority and then go back to the OT. Dispensationalists often begin with 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.[11]

(When Feinberg made this statement he did so with Ladd’s previous statement in mind.)

Dispensationalists have responded to Ladd’s claim that the NT overrides the meaning of the OT. John Feinberg claimed that:

No NT writer claims his new understanding of the OT passage cancels the meaning of the OT passage in its own context or that the new application is the only meaning of the OT passage. The NT writer merely offers a different application of an OT passage than the OT might have foreseen; he is not claiming the OT understanding is now irrelevant.[12]

In response to George Ladd’s declaration that the NT reinterprets the OT, Paul Feinberg asked some relevant questions: “If Ladd is correct that the NT reinterprets the OT, his hermeneutic does raise some serious questions. How can the integrity of the OT text be maintained? In what sense can the OT really be called a revelation in its original meaning?”[13]

Conclusion

My purpose here has been to focus specifically on the hermeneutics of George Ladd and his understanding of how the NT uses the OT. I am not saying all historic premillennialists agree with Ladd on every one of Ladd’s assertions. But since Ladd is often looked to as the leading proponent of HP, it is helpful to look at his beliefs in this area and understand that Dispensationalism has strong differences with Ladd on how the NT uses the OT.

---

[1] George Eldon Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism,” in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views (IVP, 1977),  20. Emphasis in original.

[2] Hoekema, “Amillennialism,” in  The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views 55. Emphasis is mine.

[3] Ladd, 23.

[4] George E. Ladd, “Revelation 20 and the Millennium,” Review and Expositor 57 (1960): 167.

[5] Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism,” 21.

[6] Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism,” 24.

[7] George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, Eerdmans, 1974, Revised edition, 1994, 372.

[8] George Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament , 373. Emphasis mine.

[9] Ladd, The Last Things: An eschatology for Laymen, Eerdmans, 1978, 27. Emphasis mine.

[10] Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism,” 27.

[11] John Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1988), 75.

[12] John Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity

[13] Paul Feinberg, “Hermeneutics of Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, 116. Emphasis in original.

Dispensationalism, Historic Premillennialism, and the Restoration of Israel

As I continue with my thoughts on how Dispensational Premillennialism (DP) differs from Historic Premillennialism (HP) I want to make some additional comments regarding my earlier statement in another blog that DP differs from HP in that DP affirms a restoration of national Israel while HP does not affirm this. The Orange Mailman expressed strong rejection of my claim:

. . . Vlach states something that is just flat-out not true.  You can tell because he cites no source whatsoever to back up his claim.  He states that Historic Premillennialists do not believe in a future restoration of the nation of Israel.  I quoted in the comments section from Ladd himself where he states that there would be a future restoration of the nation of Israel.  Older premillennialists also held out this hope.  So will there be a retraction of certain aspects of Vlach’s post?  I doubt it. (http://theorangemailmanmyblog.wordpress.com/2011/07/10/historic-pre-millennialism-misrepresented-again/)TOM then offers a quote from Ladd where Ladd uses the term "restoration" in regard to Israel:

Consider this quote from The Gospel of the Kingdom which concerns Romans 11:26.  " It is quite impossible in light of the context and the course of Paul’s thought in this passage to understand "all Israel" to refer to the Church….  But secondly, there is to be a greater turning to the Lord on the part of Israel after the flesh, of such proportions that Paul can say that "all Israel," i.e., Israel as a whole, will be saved….  When God’s purpose for the Gentiles is fulfilled, so this verse implies, Jerusalem will no longer be trodden down.  There will be a restoration of Israel; "all Israel will be saved." "Since Ladd uses the term "restoration" for Israel, does this mean I was wrong in my affirmation that only DPs believe in a restoration of Israel? I don’t think so.

This is a case where we have different understandings of the term, "restoration." Ladd and DPs use the term in different ways. I and other dispensationalists use the term "restoration" more specifically to mean that Israel will not only be saved but restored as a nation in the sense of having a specific role to play to other nations in the millennium and perhaps beyond. While Israel and all believers are saved in the same way and have the same spiritual blessings in Christ, the nation Israel has a role to play in the millennium that is not shared with other groups.

I think Arnold Fruchtenbaum is right when he states that Dispensationalists believe in both the salvation and restoration of national Israel (see Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology) while non-dispensationalists do not affirm both. HPs usually affirm a salvation but not a restoration of Israel. Restoration goes beyond salvation and indicates that national Israel will lead the nations in service, worship, and example when Jesus returns to earth—just as the OT predicted (see Isa 2). It is this meaning of "restoration" that DPs affirm and HPs usually do not. In his book, The Millennial Maze, Stanley Grenz makes this point when explicitly comparing HP with DP:

According to historic premillennialists the object of the prophesies of a golden age is not a future regathered nation of Israel, as in dispensational thought, but "spiritual Israel"—the church. The group that will enjoy the millennial blessings, therefore, is not composed of an end-times restored nation of Israel, the natural offspring of Abraham, but the true Israel of God composed of Abraham’s spiritual children in all generations. (Stanley J. Grenz, The Millennial Maze, IVP, 1992, 136).Grenz also says:

Historic premillennialists continue likewise to reject the dispensationalist understanding of the tribulation and the millennium, which views them in terms of God’s program for his Old Testament people. These eras do not belong to some purported Israel phase of salvation history, historic premillennialists argue. (Grenz, 130).Grenz appeals to historic premillennialist, Clarence Bass, who says that historical premillennialists believe, "that the church is indeed spiritual Israel; that the covenantal relations of God to Israel have indeed passed over to the church." (Clarence C. Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism, Baker, 1960, 152.)

Russell Moore, who appears to take a Ladd-like view of HP states his difference with DP on this issue: "Dispensationalists, even progressives, mistakenly speak of the millennial Israel as having a 'mediatorial' role in dispensing the blessings of God to the nations." For Moore, "Scripture presents this mediatorial role as belonging to Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5). (The Kingdom of Christ, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 118.)

When I read George Ladd and other HPs after Ladd (Grudem, Erickson, Moore, etc.), I sense that many HPs affirm a salvation of Israel and some even see Israel "restored" in the sense of being placed in their land. But I do not see them (at least Ladd and post-Ladd HPs) saying that the nation Israel will have a mediatorial role of leadership, service, and example to the other nations as prophesied in the OT. The closest thing I have seen to this is a chapter by Richard Hess, where he argues for a literal restoration of Ezekiel’s temple in the coming millennium (see "The Future Written in the Past: The Old Testament and the Millennium," in A Case for Historic Premillennialism, ed. Craig Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung, Baker, 2009, 23-36).

My purpose here has not been to argue which side is right although as a dispensationalist I believe DP is correct. But I think it fair to say that DP affirms a restoration of Israel as a national entity with a role to play to other nations in a way that HP does not.

Yes, George Ladd Believed that the Church is the "New Israel"

Recently a blogger called The Orange Mailman called me out for stating that George Ladd held that the church is the “new Israel.” Not only is he unhappy with my claim but he has rebuked me in a blog and has asked whether I will offer a retraction of my comments on this (as well as some other things). Below are two segments from his blog:

Vlach cites Ladd, but he does so in such a way that you think that Ladd believes that the church is the new Israel, which is not the case. Ladd never wrote that the church is the new Israel as he always used the term “the true Israel”. Notice how Vlach frames Ladd’s quote: Ladd asserted that the church is now the new “spiritual Israel.” You see how the word “new” is not in the quotes, only “spiritual Israel” is in the quotes.

So will there be a retraction of certain aspects of Vlach’s post? I doubt it. (http://theorangemailmanmyblog.wordpress.com/)

I thought it was common knowledge for those interested in eschatology that George Ladd believed that the church is the “new Israel.” If you scan the internet you’ll see that many others have rightly come to this conclusion as well (Mike Stallard says, “. . .  Ladd treats the Church as a kind of 'New Israel' in his commentary on Revelation.” http://faculty.bbc.edu/mstallard/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/PDChallenge.pdf)

But since I have been challenged on this let me offer three quotes from Ladd that show that Ladd believed the church is the “new Israel”:

“James cites the prophecy of Amos 9:11-12 to prove that Peter’s experience with Cornelius was a fulfillment of God’s purpose to visit the Gentiles and take out of them a people for his name. It therefore follows that the ‘rebuilding of the dwelling of David’ which had resulted in the Gentile mission, must refer to the exaltation and enthronement of Christ upon the (heavenly) throne of David and the establishment of the church as the true people of God, the new Israel. Since God had brought Gentiles to faith without the Law, there was no need to insist that the Gentiles become Jews to be saved” (George Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, Eerdmans 1974, 355). (emphasis mine)

“Here, in two separate places, prophecies which in their Old Testament context refer to literal Israel are in the New Testament applied to the (Gentile) church. In other words, Paul sees the spiritual fulfillment of Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 in the church. It follows inescapably that the salvation of the Gentile church is the fulfillment of prophecies made to Israel. Such facts as this are what compel some Bible students, including the present writer, to speak of the church as the New Israel, the true Israel, the spiritual Israel.” (George Ladd, “What About Israel.” http://articles.ochristian.com/article14710.shtml (emphasis mine)

Here is an outstanding difference between participation in the old and new Israel. Membership in the old Israel required circumcision and acceptance of the Law; membership in the new Israel required individual personal faith and confession of Christ as Lord (Rom 10:9).  (Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 545.)

Make no mistake. George Ladd believed that the church is the “new Israel.”

I also recommend those interested to check out mac-eschatology.blogspot.com. Some good points are made here.

The Parable of the Minas and the Future Coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 19:11-27)

Jesus’ parable of the minas reveals significant information about the kingdom program and is evidence that Christ’s kingdom was viewed as being in the future late in Jesus’ earthly ministry. Luke 19:11 states:

While they were listening to these things, Jesus went on to tell a parable, because He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately.

The audience (“they”) were those who heard Jesus’ words regarding the salvation of Zaccheus which included both the multitude and the disciples of Jesus (Luke 19:1–10). Several important theological points should be noted from this verse.

First, Luke tells us that the Jesus’ parable was occasioned by the belief that “the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately.” There was a heavy expectation that Jesus would soon establish the kingdom as He approached Jerusalem. This certainly included the expectation of the deliverance of Israel from oppression and the restoration of the nation.

Second, it does not appear that Jesus or His audience viewed the kingdom of God as having already been established or inaugurated. Jesus and the disciples earlier had preached that the kingdom was near (Matt. 4:17 and Matt. 10:5-7), but Luke 19:11 indicates that both Jesus and His hearers viewed the kingdom as future from their immediate standpoints.  This supports the view that the kingdom was near in that it was imminent but it had not yet been inaugurated. There is no sense in Luke 19:11 that the kingdom had already officially arrived.

Third, the purpose of the parable is to correct the idea that the kingdom would be established immediately. It was not to correct the belief that the kingdom would come to earth or involve a restoration of Israel. In other words, the parable is about the kingdom’s timing not its nature. McClain is correct that “the people were not wrong in looking for a very genuine appearing or manifestation of the Messianic Kingdom; but the error of which they needed to be cured was the supposition that the Kingdom could come at once without first a departure and a return on the part of the King.”[1]

Moving on, Luke 19:12 states: “So He [Jesus] said, ‘A nobleman went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return.’”

The historical background for this parable as McClain has noted, “was undoubtedly drawn from actual events in the political history of the times. It was a regular procedure for native princes to journey to Rome to receive their right to rule.”[2]The case of Herod Archelaus, with whom Jesus’ listeners would have been familiar, was probably the incident most on their minds. Archelaus was proclaimed a leader by his father Herod the Great and the army. But Archelaus did not claim the right to rule until he received official sanction from Caesar Augustus in Rome. This involved traveling for many months. During this process he was opposed by various Jews who followed him to Rome to contest his petition to rule over them. In 4 B.C. Caesar Augustus granted Archelaus authority over Samaria, Judea, and Idumea to the dismay of Archelaus’s opponents.

The “nobleman” of Luke 19:12 is clearly Jesus. This “nobleman” travels to a “distant country” in order to “receive a kingdom” and then return to begin his rule over his kingdom. The nobleman is not reigning before he travels to receive his kingdom. He travels in order that he may receive official sanctioning to rule.

The reason why the kingdom of God is not going to appear immediately is because Jesus needs to officially receive His kingdom before it can begin. For Jesus, this “distant country” appears to be Heaven, which He will travel to with His ascension. Just before His ascension, after His resurrection, Jesus told His disciples, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18). At the time of His ascension Jesus receives all authority but the exercise of that authority awaits His second coming. A kingdom involves both the right and power to rule along with the actual exercising of that rule.

To make the comparison, Archelaus went to Rome to receive his kingdom from Caesar but his kingdom reign did not begin until he returned to Judea when he rewarded his servants and dealt with his enemies who did not want him to rule. Likewise, Jesus must travel to Heaven to receive His kingdom from the Father. He receives the right to rule there but His kingdom reign begins at His return.

Luke 19:13-15 continues the parable:

And he called ten of his slaves, and gave them ten minas and said to them, “Do business with this until I come back.” But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, “We do not want this man to reign over us.” When he returned, after receiving the kingdom, he ordered that these slaves, to whom he had given the money, be called to him so that he might know what business they had done.

The slaves who belong to the nobleman were each given a mina which is the equivalent of 100 days of work. They were to “do business” and try to turn a profit on behalf of the nobleman. These slaves appear to represent servants and believers in Christ. Christians are to use their gifts and talents for Jesus in this period between the Lord’s return to Heaven and His second coming. The “citizens” who hate the nobleman appear to be the majority of Jews who do not want Jesus to reign over them.

Verses 16-26 discuss how three of the servants used their minas. The first took his mina and made it ten minas. The second made his mina five minas. But the third did nothing with his mina. He received a strong rebuke and his mina was taken from him and given to the one with ten. The citizens, however, who opposed him were slain (v. 27).

Also significant are the positions of ruling authority given to the faithful slaves. For the first servant who earned ten minas, he was given “authority over ten cities” (v. 17). The second servant was given authority over five cities (v. 18). When the nobleman begins his kingdom reign his faithful servants participate in that reign by also having positions of authority. Faithful service now results in positions of authority later. Neither the nobleman nor the servants were reigning while the nobleman was traveling to the distant country but they both began to reign upon the nobleman’s return. These truths fit with other passages where the reign of the saints coincides with the reign of the Messiah (see Rev 2:26-27). Nowhere in Scripture are the saints said to be reigning with Christ now but they will in the future when He returns.

A summary of the parable of the minas:

Occasion: The people thought the kingdom of God was going to be established immediately as Jesus approached Jerusalem.

Main point: The kingdom would not be established until Christ returns from Heaven after He received authority to establish His kingdom from the Father. After that He will come and reward his servants abundantly giving more to those who were faithful and taking away from those who were not faithful.

Practical Application for Christians: Christ’s servants are to be faithfully using their gifts and talents during this period between the two comings of Christ. When Jesus returns and establishes His kingdom He will reward those who have been faithful and grant them positions of ruling authority. The rewards will not be equal. Those most faithful will reap the most rewards.

Practical Application for Non-believers: Those who oppose Jesus will be slain when Jesus returns with His kingdom.

---

[1] McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, 342.

[2] McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, 341.

Why the Sheep/Goat Judgment and Great White Throne Judgment Are not the Same Event

Amillennialists, Postmillennialists, and even some Premillennialists view the Sheep/Goat judgment of Matthew 25:31-46 and the Great White Throne judgment of Revelation 20:11-15 as being the same event. But a close examination reveals that these two judgments are not the same judgment.

1.      The timing of the Sheep/Goat judgment happens in connection with the second coming of Christ (see Matt 25:31-32). Jesus comes in glory with His angels, sits on His glorious throne and all the nations are gathered before Him.  The Great White Throne judgment takes place after the return of Christ (Rev 19) and the thousand year reign of Christ with the saints (Rev 20:4-7). After the thousand years are completed (20:7) the Great White Throne judgment takes place (20:11-15).

2.      The purpose of the Sheep/Goat judgment is to see who will inherit the kingdom (Matt 25:34) and who will not (Matt 25:41). The purpose of the Great White Throne judgment is to see who will be sent to the lake of fire (Rev 20:15)

3.      The subjects of the Sheep/Goat judgment are both believers and non-believers—sheep and goats (Matt 25:32). The subjects of the Great White Throne appear to be unbelievers. While Rev 20:11-15 does not exclude the presence of believers at this judgment believers are not mentioned as being at this judgment. But unbelievers who are sentenced to the lake of fire at the Great White Throne judgment are mentioned (Rev. 20:15).

4.      The basis of judgment at the Sheep/Goat judgment is how the nations treated the “brothers” of Christ (Matt 25:40). The basis of the Great White Throne judgment is works (Rev 20:13).

5.      The subjects of the Sheep/Goat judgment appear to be those alive at the time of the second coming of Jesus. There is no mention of a resurrection of the saved and unsaved dead. The Great White Throne judgment says it is the dead who are raised for this judgment (Rev 20:13). The sea and Hades give up their dead for this judgment.

6.      The Sheep/Goat judgment does not mention a “Great White Throne” being present while the Great White Throne judgment does (Rev 20:11).

7.      The Sheep/Goat judgment does not mention the “book of life” being present while the Great White Throne judgment does (Rev 20:12).

8.      The Sheep/Goat judgment does not indicate that death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire while the Great White Throne judgment does (20:14).

9.      The fact that there are two resurrections separated by a thousand years (see Rev 20:4b-5) strongly suggests that there can be two judgments separated by a thousand years.

(NOTE: Some also argue that the setting of the two judgments is distinct with the Sheep/Goat judgment being on earth while the Great White Throne judgment is in space since heaven and earth have fled away. While this argument is possible my view is that the Great White Throne judgment is also on earth since Rev 20:13 makes reference to the “sea” which still exists. In my estimation, heaven and earth flee away in the sense that they provide no hiding place for the wicked from God.)

Man Created to Rule Over God's Creation

It may surprise some to know that God’s kingdom program for this earth goes back to the first chapter of the Bible—Genesis 1. God created man to represent God on Earth and rule over His wonderful creation. Genesis 1:26-28 states:
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." The Hebrew word for "rule," which is used twice in the above passage is radah. This term will be used later in reference to the Messiah’s future reign in Psalm 110:2: "The LORD will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion, saying, "Rule [radah] in the midst of Your enemies."

Man’s right to rule over God’s creation is linked with Adam being made in the image of God. Being in the "image of God" means that man is created to represent God over the creation. He is to rule over God’s creation for the glory of God. This truth is discussed in Psalm 8:4-8:
What is man that You take thought of him,
And the son of man that You care for him?
Yet You have made him a little lower than God,
And You crown him with glory and majesty!
You make him to rule over the works of Your hands;
You have put all things under his feet,
All sheep and oxen,
And also the beasts of the field,
The birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea,
Whatever passes through the paths of the seas. Thus, in relation to the creation, man is a mediator. God’s universal kingdom reign over all things continues, but in relation to planet earth, God wants man to represent Him. So even from the very beginning, God’s kingdom program included this earth and it included man ruling over the earth.

God's Universal Kingdom

Any discussion of God’s kingdom and kingdom purposes must take into account what can be called God’s universal kingdom. On several occasions the Old Testament affirms God’s eternal sovereign rule over all things. For example, Psalm 145:13 states:
Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
And Your dominion endures throughout all generations.Psalm 103:19 also declares:
The LORD has established His throne in the heavens,
And His sovereignty rules over all.David affirmed God’s universal kingdom with his prayer in 1 Chron 29:11-12:
Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, indeed everything that is in the heavens and the earth; Yours is the dominion, O LORD, and You exalt Yourself as head over all. Both riches and honor come from You, and You rule over all, and in Your hand is power and might; and it lies in Your hand to make great and to strengthen everyone.Even the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, eventually affirmed the truth that God is sovereign overall and does what He wishes over His creation with no one telling Him otherwise:
"But at the end of that period, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever; For His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
And His kingdom endures from generation to generation.
"All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
But He does according to His will in the host of heaven
And among the inhabitants of earth;
And no one can ward off His hand
Or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’" (Dan 4:34-35)While most passages in the Bible will focus on God’s kingdom that will be established on the earth (Dan 2:44; Matt 6:10; Acts 1:6), we must not forget that God’s universal kingdom is always in operation. He is always in control and His ways will prevail.

"NT Use of OT" Course Wrapup

Recently I finished leading a class of 5 students in a class called, “NT Use of the OT.” We read the works of Darrell Bock, Walter Kaiser, Peter Enns, Greg K. Beale, Robert Thomas, John Walton, Rynold Dean, Douglas Moo, and Charles Dyer.  Over a period of 14 days we met to discuss the writings of these men. We learned a lot from these men and appreciate their hard work on this issue. Below are some conclusions that our class agreed upon:

1.       Since the NT quotes the OT around 300 times, pastors and Christians must do serious thinking on this issue. How the NT writers use the OT is a topic that cannot be ignored and must be addressed in a serious manner. How can a pastor teach his people the Word of God if he has not thought through this issue?

2.        Scholars, including Evangelical scholars, have offered varied and often confusing answers to the topic. There is a great need for accurate and clear explanations of this issue. At times, scholars are using the same terms with different meanings (i.e. sensus plenior, meaning, application, etc.). This leads to confusion

3.       It is concerning how many Evangelical scholars are willing to concede that the NT writers often used the OT non-contextually. We appreciated Greg Beale’s assertion that the vast majority of NT uses of the OT are clearly contextual and that good answers have been offered for the few cases where non-contextual uses are allegedly taking place.

4.        It is often assumed that the NT uses the OT non-contextually but this is not proven very well.  Many of the examples given are weak or non-conclusive. Time and time again we found scholars offering examples of alleged non-contextual uses but upon review we found the NT writers to be using the OT contextually.

5.       Understanding the concept of antecedent theology is crucial for understanding the NT use of the OT issue. Later writers of Scripture often wrote in light of theological truths found in earlier portions of Scripture (Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, seed concept, etc.).  Later writers of Scripture are not writing in a vacuum but are often building upon and relying upon earlier parts of Scripture. We concluded that lack of understanding of antecedent theology is probably the main reason why so many scholars think the NT writers are using the OT non-contextually.

6.       Scholars often give up too early on a contextual link with the OT passages.

7.       Assumptions and presuppositions greatly affect how one views NT uses of the OT.

8.       We appreciated most of the writers we read and their commitment to a high view of Scripture. But we found ourselves in strong agreement with Walter Kaiser’s approach that the NT writers quote the OT contextually and do not resort to sensus plenior. We also affirmed his understanding of antecedent theology which we believe is the key concept for understanding how the NT writers use the OT. 

9.       We do not believe that Kaiser always writes and defends his view as clearly as he could but we found ourselves in essential agreement with his position. We would like to see a Kaiser-like approach that is refined and promoted in a way that is clear and easy to understand.

10.   We also found that Kaiser is often misrepresented by others who critique his view. This has contributed to why many dismiss his view as insufficient. There is a myth being promoted that Kaiser teaches that the writers of the OT actually saw all the stages of fulfillment of what they spoke about.

11.   We agreed that types exist in the Bible but that types are primarily prospective (forward looking) and not retrospective. When NT writers make typological connections they are not abandoning historical-grammatical hermeneutics.

12.   We concluded that it is important to understand the difference between “meaning” and “significance” or “application.” If a NT writer applies a meaning from the OT( i.e. a moral principle) this application is not “new meaning” but an application of what the original author meant.

13.   Discussion of this issue means addressing the question, “What is the nature of language?” We believe that authorial intent and historical-grammatical hermeneutics is embedded in the image of God and how we use language.   

14.   We are concerned that some scholars are using “inspiration” as a trump card for whenever they believe the NT writers are using the OT non-contextually.  The impression at times is given that, “The NT writers use the OT completely out of context, but that’s okay because they were ‘inspired.’” We don’t believe inspiration works this way. Inspiration is not primarily divine dictation We believe that God guided the writers of Scripture but they also used good hermeneutics as part of their process of understanding.

Yes, "Reinterpret" Is Sometimes Used By Non-dispensationalists

Sometimes I get complaints for claiming that non-dispensationalists believe that the NT “reinterprets” the OT. While I certainly acknowledge that some do not use that specific term, we must be honest and acknowledge that some have. Here is a sample of those who explicitly use “reinterpret” language (note that the emphases below are mine):

George Ladd:   “The Old Testament must be interpreted by the New Testament. In principle it is quite possible that the prophecies addressed originally to literal Israel describing physical blessings have their fulfillment exclusively in the spiritual blessings enjoyed by the church. It is also possible that the Old Testament expectation of a kingdom on earth could be reinterpreted by the New Testament altogether of blessings in the spiritual realm.”(George E. Ladd, “Revelation 20 and the Millennium,” Review and Expositor 57 (1960): 167. Emphasis mine.)

Kim Riddlebarger: “But eschatological themes are reinterpreted in the New Testament, where we are told these Old Testament images are types and shadows of the glorious realities that are fulfilled in Jesus Christ. (Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003, 37).

Kim Riddlebarger: “This [literal interpretation of the Bible] leaves dispensationalists frequently stuck in the awkward position of insisting on an Old Testament interpretation of a prophetic theme that has been reinterpreted in the New Testament in the light of the messianic age which dawned in Jesus Christ.”(Ibid., 38.).

Stephen Sizer: “Jesus and the apostles reinterpreted the Old Testament.” (Stephen Sizer, Zion’s Christian Soldiers: The Bible, Israel and the Church (Nottingham, England: InterVarsity, 2008, 36.)

Gary Burge: “For as we shall see (and as commentators regularly show) while the land itself had a concrete application for most in Judaism, Jesus and his followers reinterpreted the promises that came to those in his kingdom.” (Gary M. Burge, Jesus and the Land: The New Testament Challenge to “Holy Land” Theology Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010, 35).

My purpose in offering these quotations is not to claim that all non-dispensationalists use this terminology, but many have and it is right to point this out. If others want to use “interpret,” “transcend,” “fulfill,” etc. that is okay. But let’s be clear that several key non-dispensationalists use “reinterpret” to explain their view. Thus, it is a legitimate term to bring up in the discussion.

Eschatology Seminar Wrapup

Yesterday I shared some thoughts on the Dispensationalism seminar that we completed at The Master’s Seminary. Today another seminar came to an end—Seminar on Eschatology. This, too, was a Th.M. seminar done in a roundtable-discussion format. This course had eleven students. This course was broader than the Dispensationalism seminar and included study of the following issues:

--Models of eschatology (New Creation Model vs. Spiritual Vision Model)

--Premillennialism vs. Amillennialism and Postmillennialism

--Futurism vs. Preterism

--Rapture views

--Olivet Discourse

--Daniel 9:24-27

--Zech 12–14

--Rev 20 and the Millennium

There were also research papers from the students. These included a discussion of the kingdom's relationship to mercy ministries; a theology of water in the eschaton; the literary structure of Revelation; the lake of fire; Jeremiah in the book of Revelation; Premillennialism in the OT; Acts 15’s use of Amos 9; the Eternal State; and the practical importance of eschatological hope.

One issue that came up over and over again was the importance of understanding the relationship between the New Testament and the Old Testament. As with the Dispensationalism seminar there was a strong rejection of the idea that the NT reinterprets or changes the meaning of OT texts. We also observed that there is strong continuity between the OT prophetic expectation and the NT expectation. There are things promised in the OT that even from the standpoint of NT eschatology are still future such as: (a) a coming abomination of desolation (Matt 24:15); (b) a coming salvation and restoration of Israel (Matt 19:28; Rom 11:25-26); a coming antichrist and desolation of the Jewish temple (2 Thess 2); a coming Day of the Lord (1 Thess 5; 2 Thess 2; 2 Peter 3); a future for Jerusalem (Luke 21:24); and the restoration of the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6). Thus, the student of the Bible must properly discern which aspects of eschatology have been fulfilled and which parts are still future from our standpoint.

In sum, the class concluded that the key to properly understanding eschatology is a sound hermeneutic and a New Creation Model approach that shakes off any remnants of Spiritual Vision Model thinking. God’s plans include spiritual and physical matters, and individual and national matters.

I am excited about the sound theology that these men in this Eschatology seminary will be taking to their pulpits and ministries.

Dispensationalism Seminar Wrapup: Some Thoughts on Dispensationalism from a Class on Dispensationalism

 Today we finished a 15-week course on Dispensationalism at The Master’s Seminary. This was a Th.M. course with a roundtable-discussion format (actually our table was rectangular but you get the idea).

The students and I worked through several books both pro and con about Dispensationalism. We spent considerable time evaluating the works of dispensationalists like Charles Ryrie, Robert Saucy, and Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock. We also read a negative book by Keith Mathison in which he launches some serious soteriological charges against Dispensationalism. The guys also had opportunities to interact with others who were negative toward Dispensationalism. Several read Vern Poythress’s book Understanding Dispensationalists. Some read Sam Waldron’s, MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto. One interacted with Kim Riddlebarger’s, A Case for Amillennialism. Yet another read a book by Ronald Henzel that evaluates John Nelson Darby, the father of systematized Dispensationalism. Another offered a strong critique of John Gerstner’s book against Dispensationalism.

I do not want to speak for everyone in the class but I want to offer some general observations about how the class viewed Dispensationalism. These observations are based on comments made throughout the semester, comments in our final two-hour session today, and position papers on Dispensationalism. Again, these are general observations based on the class as a whole. Individual exceptions may apply:

1. Dispensationalism has undergone significant developments throughout the years but Dispensationalism has a core set of beliefs that have remained stable, namely: (1) historical-grammatical hermeneutics should be applied to all aspects of Scripture including both testaments; (2) the NT does not reinterpret the OT; (3) OT promises and covenants that have not been fulfilled yet must be literally fulfilled in the future; and (4) there will be both a salvation and restoration of the nation Israel in the future.

2. There is debate among dispensationalists whether the New Covenant and the Davidic Covenant are being partially fulfilled today. But differing views on these covenants does not overturn the major areas of agreement as found in #1 above. Thus the various forms of Dispensationalism whether Traditional, Modified, or Progressive, have more in common than they do differences.

3. A dispensationalist can be somewhat eclectic in holding to elements of Traditional, Modified, or Progressive Dispensationalism. One does not have to accept one form only and totally reject the others.

4. Dispensationalism, especially Progressive Dispensationalism, is in strong agreement with a New Creation Model understanding of God’s purposes. Thus, God’s purposes include both spiritual and physical matters. They include both individuals and national entities (including Israel). Dispensationalism does a great job of emphasizing both unity and diversity in God’s plans.

5. The critics of Dispensationalism err greatly when they attack secondary and non-essential elements of Dispensationalism (rapture or a particular view of the Sermon on the Mount) or treat Dispensationalism as a soteriological system. Thus, the criticisms of Gerstner and Mathison show an utter lack of understanding of dispensational theology. Harsh language and sharp rhetoric may appease some non-dispensationalists but they fall flat on dispensationalists who understand the issues.

6. Several (not all) critiques of Dispensationalism show an utter lack of familiarity with more recent dispensationalists and tend to focus almost exclusively on early dispensationalists and picking out the 'worst of the worst' statements from these people.

7. The strength of Dispensationalism is found in its hermeneutic of a historical-grammatical approach to all Scripture including the OT, and its rejection of NT reinterpretation of the OT.

8. Another strength of Dispensationalism is found in its holistic understanding of the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New covenants and how these intertwine with each other. It is better to base one’s theology on covenants explicitly discussed in the Bible than covenants that are not clearly seen or emphasized in Scripture.

9. Later forms of Dispensationalism that emphasize the importance of the Eternal State along with a Millennium are recognized and applauded.

10. The barrage of negative critiques from Covenant theologians has caused dispensationalists to examine and reexamine their views, but these negative critiques have not defeated Dispensationalism. In fact, Dispensationalism may actually be stronger now as a result of them. The knockout blow has not come and Dispensationalism is alive and well.