Spiritualizing the Scripture
“Is the Old Testament amillennial? Now I’ve got to stop here for a minute, take you off on a little bit of a detour, may I? A caution here…a caution here. To say that the writers of the Old Testament were amillennial when they were writing about a Kingdom is a strange thing to say, right? To say that they were writing about a Kingdom that they knew was not going to come, it’s a very strange thing. And one would have to ask, how could they be inspired to writing details about a coming Kingdom promised to Israel and through Israel to the Gentiles as well, a great glorious Messianic Kingdom, you can’t imagine that they were receiving this revelation from God, writing it down and at the same time they were writing it down they knew it wasn’t so. That’s absurd. Of course they would believe it was true.
Take that a little further. If the only way they could know that it wasn’t true was if they had the New Testament, which is what amillennialists have to do, and they knew that Judaism became apostate and Judaism rejected Jesus and crucified Him, if then the only way they could have a true interpretation of what they wrote was to have the New Testament, then what they wrote had no meaning to them. It is not legitimate to interpret the Old Testament only by the New Testament. It is not legitimate to say that the Old Testament is this oblique, mysterious, hidden book with all kinds of things that you can’t know about apart from the New Testament, that is to give the primacy of interpretation to the New Testament. This is what Walt Kaiser, a great scholar, says is having a canon within a canon, having a rule within a rule. This then means that the Old Testament can’t be interpreted on its own, that people who are writing it and reading it can’t have any idea what it is that they’re writing and reading. If Old Testament promises were actually for the church and not for ethnic Jews, ethnic Israel, then those Old Testament promises are meaningless, they are utterly unintelligible and they are irrelevant to the Old Testament reader. But this is essentially what you’re left with if you take an amillennial view. The New Testament is the starting point for understanding the Old Testament. And what you’ve just done is damage any meaningful interpretation of the Old Testament on its own.
And this is basically what leads to what we call spiritualizing the Scripture. That is, taking texts out of their literal sense, spiritualizing them into some other than literal sense.”
- John MacArthur, Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist, Part 2
The Covenants
by Pastor Dale Briggs - Christ’s Church of Tucson
The Covenants
Ephesians 3:6
09-06-09
Last week we began to consider the question of the relationship between the church and the Covenants. This question stems from our study of Ephesians 3:1-13 where Paul is writing about the mystery that is worthy of our suffering. In Ephesians 3:6 Paul begins to define the mystery in terms of its effects on the Gentile believer. The mystery has affected the Gentile believer by causing him to become fellow heirs, fellow members of the body and fellow partakers of the promise.
It is the Gentile’s position as a fellow partaker of the promise that raises the question of how does the church relate to the covenants. Last week we said that this promise is directly linked to the covenants mentioned in Ephesians 2:12. From our study of the covenants (Abraham and Davidic) we concluded that the promise spoken of here is the promise of redemption made possible by the work of Christ on the cross. This could also be seen in a study of the New Covenant.
If you will remember our study of the covenants showed us that the covenants have basically four elements: land, nation, blessing, and seed. The blessing element and the seed element have been fulfilled respectively by the finished redemptive work of Christ on the Cross and by Christ Himself. Every family on the earth (which includes both Jews and Gentiles) has been blessed by the Abrahamic Covenant because of the seed element and blessing element of the Abrahamic Covenant.
The seed element of the Abrahamic Covenant has had a physical fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ. The blessing element of the Abrahamic Covenant has had a spiritual fulfillment in the redemptive work of Christ on the cross. Through these two elements comes the promise of redemption.
The mystery of Christ is defined in part by the Gentile believer’s partaking of the promise of redemption. This is made possible because there has been a physical fulfillment of the seed element and a spiritual fulfillment of the blessing element.
I ended last week saying that today we would seek to answer questions about the other two elements; the land and nation element. Have they also had some sort of fulfillment? Can we expect them to have spiritual fulfillments in the church? What if any will be the benefits of these two elements for the church? Should we still be expecting God to fulfill His covenantal promises made to Abraham by once again establishing Israel on the land promised to them and giving them full and everlasting possession of it and rest from their enemies?
I am not sure we will get to all of these questions today, because I am not satisfied with our understanding of the blessing element.
Last week we clearly saw where the seed element of the Abrahamic Covenant was fulfilled in Christ, but I do not believe we adequately understood that the redemptive work of Christ on the Cross is a spiritual fulfillment of blessing element of the Abrahamic Covenant.
Quickly let’s review the elements of the Covenants.
Four elements found in the covenants. I will be using the terms promises and elements interchangeably.
1) Land.
2) Nation.
3) Blessing.
4) Seed.
Plural: another reference to the twelve tribes of Judah which make up the nation of Israel.
Singular: used only in association with the blessing element.
Genesis 22:18 cf. Gal 3:16
Since the plural nature of the seed element is already represented in the nation element, I believe it is best to understand the element of a seed promise to be an exclusive reference to the promise of the Messiah.
Christ is the fulfillment of the seed promise, therefore His redemptive work on the cross could be loosely connected to the seed promise. But I believe it is better to see the redemptive work of Christ on the cross as a fulfillment of the blessing element. I think last week we made too strong of a connection between the seed element and redemption and too little if any connection between the blessing element and redemption.
I want to begin this Morning by focusing on the blessing element. The reason I want to begin with the blessing element is because I believe it is by far the most significant element of the Abrahamic Covenant. Without the spiritual fulfillment of the blessing element there could be no fulfillment of the land or nation element either spiritual or physical. No matter what side of the fence you are on when it comes to issue of the covenants I believe everyone must see the spiritual fulfillment of the blessing element as being absolutely indispensable to any blessing received from God.
Last week we saw where Christ is the physical fulfillment of the seed promise of the Abrahamic Covenant, but we did not give enough attention to how the redemptive work of Christ on the cross is a spiritual fulfillment of the blessing element of the Abrahamic Covenant.
The spiritual fulfillment of the blessing element of the Abrahamic Covenant is found in the redemptive work of Christ on the cross.
The only way to receive the benefits of any of the elements of the Abrahamic covenant is for those to whom the covenant was made to express effectual faith in the promises and the Promise Giver of the covenant. Our faith would have no salvific value if it were not for the redemptive work of Christ on the cross. Apart from the spiritual fulfillment of the blessing element of the Abrahamic Covenant seen in the work of Christ on the cross faith would be ineffective in enabling one to receive the other elements of promise found in the Abrahamic Covenant.
THE BLESSING ELEMENT IS THE PRINCIPLE ELEMENT OF THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
Principle element because the gospel is its spiritual fulfillment
The promise of blessing is first mentioned Genesis 12:3 where there is no mention of the seed. The promise that was made to Abraham in Gen.22:18 and repeated in the presence of Isaac in Gen.26:4 and then in the presence of Jacob in Genesis 28:14.
Notice what Paul says about this element in Gal.3:8
The Gentile is saved because of this element of promise found in the Abrahamic Covenant.
Principle element because it is a promise given to Christ.
Read Genesis 22:15-18 The term “seed” is used three times in this passage. The first two have obvious references to plurality. But the last time there is no reference to plurality. The only other time the “term” seed is used in connection with the Abrahamic Covenant and does not have a clear reference to plurality is in Gen.26:4 and Gen.28:14. Both cases that speak of a blessing coming to the nations or families of the earth.
Turn with me now back to Galatians 3:16. Paul must be speaking of the promise of a blessing because this is the only time where the term “seed” is not clearly a reference to more than one.
Who are the families/nations of the earth?
It is important to point out that all the families of the earth is a reference to a representation of individuals from every people group not to every individual in every family. God never says everyone will be saved. God never says every one will be receive the blessing spoken of here. That would be universalism; a teaching that says Hell will be empty and all will go to Heaven.
When God says every family will be blest through Abraham and Christ He is saying that no people group will be excluded from this blessing. There will be people from every part of the world who receive this blessing. The blessing will be extended to the ends of the earth. In a broad sense the phrase all families of the earth could accurately be interpreted as referring to Gentile and Jew. Thus, Paul is saying that God promised Abraham and Christ that the whole world would be blest through them. The blessing through Christ is obvious: redemption. There will be some from all the families of the earth who will be blest through the redemption of their sins made possible by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
God gave Abraham and Christ the same promise. Through them the families of the earth would be blest. This blessing comes though the redemptive work of Christ on the cross. This makes the blessing promise the most important promise of the Abrahamic Covenant. Without faith no one can experience any of the benefits of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant The only reason faith has this value is because of redemption provided through the blessing Element of the Abrahamic Covenant
Why does faith work? It works because the redemptive work of Christ on the cross works.
Does a partial spiritual fulfillment of the covenant require a full spiritual fulfillment of the covenant?
One must be careful not to use the spiritual fulfillment of the blessing element as grounds that the land and nation elements must also have spiritual fulfillments.
The spiritual fulfillment of the blessing element does not negate the future physical fulfillment of the land and nation elements rather the spiritual fulfillment of the blessing element paves the way for the possibility of a physical fulfillment of the land element and nation element.
If we are going to say that the land element and nation element of the Abrahamic Covenant have spiritual fulfillments in the NT, then we must see these clearly stated in the NT. The following two NT passages are examples of what might be considered as passages that teach land and nation elements have been spiritually fulfilled in the NT.
We will first consider the nation element of the Abrahamic Covenant.
Exodus 19:5,6 People of God’s possession
Kingdom of priests.
Holy nation
I Peter 2:9,10 A chosen race
Royal priesthood
Holy Nation
People of God’s possession.
Is it possible that the church has replaced Israel, yes it is possible.
Is it possible that the church is extremely similar to Israel and shares with Israel the same divine purpose for existing. Yes this too is possible.
Does I Peter 2:9,10 clearly show that God views the relationship between Israel and the church as being one of strong continuity. Is this passage clearly teaching us that the church has replaced Israel or that God no longer has a distinct plan for the people of Israel and He is now solely focusing on the church?
Remember the clarity of Galatians 3:8 when it equated the gospel with the blessing promise. “…the gospel was preached before hand saying All the nations will be blessed in you.”
Remember the clarity of Galatians 3:16 when it equated the seed promise with Christ.
“… and to your seed that is Christ.
No where have we read where God has said in the NT something to the equivalent of I will make you a great nation that is the church.
Now we will consider the land element of the Abrahamic Covenant.
The land was obviously the land of Canaan.
Joshua 21:43-45
Before we compare this passage with its NT counterpart I want to address the issue as to whether or not this is a physical fulfillment of the land promise in the Abrahamic Covenant.
Compare Joshua 21:43-45 with Joshua 23:1-5
Same time period. The Israel in both passages has been given rest from all her enemies on every side.
In Joshua 21:43-45 Israel has received all the land that was promised to their fathers and they possessed it and lived in it.
In Joshua 23:1-5 There are enemies yet to be driven from the land and there is land yet to be possessed. There are promises connected to the land yet to be realized.
Often times when God is speaking of the fathers of Israel He is referring to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, yet there are times when the fathers of Israel is a reference to the generation of adults that God brought out of Egypt. Thus, the reference to fathers could be a reference to the generation of adults brought out of Egypt and the oaths could be a reference to God’s promise that they would wonder and gradually die in the wilderness for 40 years because of their rebellion and that their children would enter into the promised land. The reference to promises made to the house of Israel might also support this theory. I want to emphasize that this is a theory and one that has not been adequately tested, thus we should not put to much weight on it.
We need to remember the faithfulness of God to bless faith and punish rebellion.
What we also need to remember is that God’s plan was and always has been to fulfill the land promise by giving the land to a generation of Abraham’s descendants that manifested perpetual faith in God. The concept of perpetual faith is very critical when one studies the fulfillment of the land promise. God makes it very clear to Moses that continual faith will be blest with continual possession of the land, but rebellion and revolt will be meant with at least oppression from one’s enemies and if rebellion continues it will be meant with expulsion from the land.
With this in mind we can see where yes in one sense the Israelites in Joshua 21:43-45 did receive possession of the promise land, yet in another sense the jury is still out on that generation to see whether they would retain an everlasting possession of the land. Their faith had not been fully tested. The nations God left in the land were meant to test the faith of Israel, a test that the first 2 chapters of judges shows that they failed.
So we need to realize that Joshua 21:43-45 does not prove a physical fulfillment of the land promise. But it is a reference to the physical land. Can this reference possibly be used by the NT to show that God has now fulfilled this promise spiritually?
Hebrews 4:8-11. In Hebrews 4:8-11 the writer of Hebrews speaks of a rest that Joshua gave. This is a reference to the rest from enemies the people of Israel received when they came into the promise land. Now we know that Joshua did not actually give the rest, God gave the rest, but He God exercised His sovereign power through the leadership of Joshua.
The point the writer of Hebrews is making is that the rest the people received in Joshua’s day is not the ultimate rest. The ultimate rest is the Sabbath rest. The Sabbath was set aside to remember that God ceased on the seventh day from his creative work because the creative work was finished.
But, is the writer of Hebrews saying the rest mentioned in Joshua 21 is a type that finds its anti-type in the Sabbath rest believers find in Christ? Are we now to see the Sabbath rest in Christ as the spiritual fulfillment of the land element given in the Abrahamic Covenant?
What does it mean to enter into this Sabbath rest? V.10. When one enters into this Sabbath rest one is saying I am done depending upon my works as a means to have peace with God. Why or How can one makes such a decision? Because just as God’s creative is finished so the work of making peace with God is finished. It was finished on the cross.
But why is the writer of Hebrews comparing the rest that faith in Christ gives us from our works with the rest given the Israelites in Joshua’s day?
4:1 The writer of Hebrews does not want us to come short of this rest.
4:3 One must believe to enter this rest. There is the issue of faith. But who is represented by the “they” who are not entering the rest? The ones represented by the “they” in verse 3 are the same ones represented by the “they” in verse 2. Ones who hear the word and it does not profit them because they do not unite their hearing of the word with faith. Just what exactly is the writer of Hebrews talking about? When did these people hear the word and not unite it with faith? Look at Hebrews 3:16-19. The adult generation of Israelites coming out of Egypt heard the good word of God when He promised to give them the promise land. They heard this promise but did not unite the hearing of the promise with a belief in the promise and they were not allowed to enter into the rest of the promise land.
The writer of Hebrews is giving us two responses to the hearing of the word of promise and the consequence of each response.
Disbelief brings wrath. Belief brings peace or rest.
The writer of Hebrews is not using the land rest as a type pointing to the anti-type seen in the Sabbath rest. The writer of Hebrews is warning against disbelief in the Sabbath rest found in Christ. The writer of Hebrews only mentions the land rest because he wants to be sure his readers do not focus on it to the point where they cannot see the greater rest found in Christ.
The writer of Hebrews is not telling us that the spiritual rest we have in Christ is a spiritual fulfillment of the land promise found in the Abrahamic Covenant. The writer of Hebrews is telling us that there is a greater rest than the rest that comes with the fulfillment of the land promise. This greater rest is the rest that comes through the promise of the finished work of Christ on the cross.
How does one receive the benefit of the promise found in the finish work of Christ on the cross? The same way one receives the benefit of the land promise found in the Abrahamic Covenant. Faith. Have faith in the promise and the promise giver.
Is the spiritual rest that we find in the finished work of Christ on the cross greater than the physical rest the nation of Israel finds in their physical promised land? Of course it is.But, does that mean that God is no longer concerned about keeping His promise to Abraham about the physical land? No it does not.
The blessing of the spiritual rest found in the finished work of Christ on the cross far exceeds the blessing of the physical rest Israel will find when they are given a physical fulfillment of the land promise. But this does not mean that God has replaced his promise of a physical rest for Israel in the physical promise land with his promise to provide the church with a spiritual rest in Christ.
God said the promise of blessing found in the Abrahamic Covenant is spiritually fulfilled through the gospel.
God said the seed promise is fulfilled in Christ.
God did not say the land promise is fulfilled through the spiritual rest one finds in the finished work of Christ on the cross.
God did not say the nation promise is fulfilled in the church.
If scripture clearly teaches that the promise of Israel’s everlasting possession of the land and the promise that they will continue to exist as a nation have spiritual fulfillments Then I could be more comfortable with admitting that we should not look to see God fully restore the nation of Israel to the land God promised to give them as an everlasting possession. As it stands I still believe the over all weight of the authority of scripture is telling us that God is not finished with Israel and that we can expect Him to fulfill His covenantal promises made to Abraham by once again establishing Israel on the land promised to them and giving them full and everlasting possession of it and rest from their enemies.
Why has the land promise not been fulfilled?
Because of the lack of perpetual faith in the promises of God on the part of Israel.
When will the land promise be fulfilled?
When the nation of Israel manifests perpetual faith in the promises of God.
Will the nation of Israel ever manifest a perpetual faith in the promises of God?
According to the OT prophets, Yes
According to the writers of the NT, Yes
According to Jesus, Yes.
Thesis: The blessing element of the Abrahamic Covenant is the principle element of the Abrahamic Covenant. Does its spiritual fulfillment necessitate that the land and seed elements also have spiritual fulfillments?
The blessing element is the principle element of the Abrahamic Covenant because:
The gospel is its spiritual fulfillment
It is a promise given to Christ.
Obviously the blessing element is primary in importance when compared to the physical land and nation elements.
But does the subordinate status of the physical land and nation elements render them non-existent concepts in God’s future dealings with humanity? No.
Is there any reason to believe that the land and nation elements of the Abrahamic Covenant have spiritual fulfillments? No.
Is the Old Testament Amillenial?
“Is the Old Testament Amillenial? Now a note here, please. It is not legitimate to interpret the Old Testament as secondary to the New Testament as primary. Okay, that’s not legitimate. Otherwise, the Old Testament was literally darkness, not light. If you say that the Old Testament cannot be rightly interpreted apart from the New Testament, then you have denied the perspicuity of the Old Testament. And as Walt Kaiser puts it, ‘Now you have a canon within a canon.’ The question must be answered, does the Old Testament itself propound an Amillenial view? You cannot remove the Old Testament from having a true interpretation on it’s own. And make Old Testament promises relate to the Church, which is by Paul’s own statement a mystery unknown in the past. You cannot there make the Old Testament unintelligible and irrelevant to the reader. The idea that the New Testament is the starting point for understanding the Old Testament is exactly where Amillenialism comes from, reading it back into the Old Testament, and of course you damage the perspicuity or the clarity of the sensibility of the Old Testament in and of itself. It leads, I think, to an even more grand kind of spiritualizing that goes beyond just prophetic texts and gives license to spiritualize all kinds of things and read New Testament Christianity and New Testament principles back into the those texts in the Old Testament where they do not belong.”
- John MacArthur, 2007 Shepherd’s Conference, General Session #1.
Understanding the End Times
“Does the end matter? Does it matter to God? Should it matter to us? I think it matters to God. I think it’s the whole point of history, I know it’s the whole point of history! History is headed to a divinely-designed and revealed end. And if it matters enough to God to reveal it, it should matter enough to us to understand the revelation of it. Did not God fill scripture with end time prophecy? Some say nearly 1/4 of scripture relates to the prophecies of the end. Did God, in this significant volume of revelation, somehow muddle His words so hopelessly that the high ground for theologians is simply to recognize the muddle and abandoned any thought of the perspicuity of scripture with regard to eschatology? Is in fact working hard to understand prophetic passages needless and impossible because they require a spiritualized or allegorized set of interpretations that says the truth is somehow hidden behind the normal meaning of the words, so any idea of what it might mean is as good as any other idea of what it might mean since it doesn’t mean what it says? Are you comfortable with the notion that the hard and fast, tried and true, principles of interpretation have to be set aside any time you come to a prophetic text? There are a number of Amillennialists who feel that way.”
- John MacArthur, 2007 Shepherd’s Conference, General Session #1.
