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.

Models of Eschatology Part 7: The Significance of Nations on the New Earth

A New Creation Model affirms the presence of nations not only in the Millennium, but also in the Eternal State. Three references indicate this:

Rev 21:24-26: The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. In the daytime (for there will be no night there) its gates will never be closed; and they will bring the glory and honor of the nations into it.

Rev 22:3: in the middle of its street On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

It is significant that when we arrive at the final two chapters of the Bible, the ‘people of God’ are called “the nations.” This happens three times. These “nations” were probably in mind in Rev 21:3 when it was stated “and they shall be My peoples” (while many translations have “my people” the better manuscripts have “my peoples” which is laoi in Greek).

These references to nations cannot simply be references to Gentiles in a generic sense since Rev 21:24 mentions “kings of the earth.” These nations have leaders known as “kings” which implies that the nations have leaders that rule over specific nations with geographical territories. These kings bring their “glory” into the New Jerusalem which probably includes cultural contributions. (art, music, food, perhaps?) The fact that the kings of the nations bring their cultural contributions into the New Jerusalem suggests that nations exist outside of the New Jerusalem.

The declaration of Rev 22:3 that “the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations” may indicate that the nations in the Eternal State have continuity with nations during this present age. The nations that once warred with each other now experience continual healing and they exist in harmony. If there were no continuity with our present nations why would there be a need to mention “healing”?

The presence of nations also indicates that there is diversity in the Eternal State amidst the unity of salvation that all experience in Christ. Ethnic and functional diversity can exist alongside the unity of salvation in Christ just as men and women can be distinct in gender and function while still experiencing the same salvation in Jesus. The Trinity itself evidences both unity (one God) and diversity (three persons with differing roles). Yes, unity and diversity can exist in perfect harmony!

If one recognizes that “nations” exist in eternity, then certainly there should be no problem recognizing Israel’s role as a distinct nation among the nations. Thus, the presence of nations in eternity gives further evidence for national Israel’s existence into eternity.  Would it not be odd to have differing nations on the New Earth with no nation of Israel present? Isa 66:22 affirms Israel’s perpetuity on the New Earth:

“For just as the new heavens and the new earth
              Which I make will endure before Me,” declares the LORD,
             “So your [Israel’s] offspring and your name will endure.”

While the New Earth will certainly be filled with corporate worship of God, the presence of nations and kings outside of the New Jerusalem indicates that the people of God are involved in more than an eternal church service. The New Earth is full of diversity and activity. One of the greatest miracles which will bring glory to God is the unity that will take place among different ethnic groups and nations as they exist in peaceful harmony and work together to bring glory to our great God.