Book Review - Waiting for the Land: The Story Line of the Pentateuch

I'm not clear on what the difference is in this case. If the church "fulfills" does that imply that Isreal does not fulfill? And fulfill what?

I would expect replacement theology from a Calvin Seminary guy, so that doesn't really alarm me. But I suspect the distinction between fulfillment and replacement is ultimately imaginary. We're probably talking about a fulfillment that involves/includes replacement because the entire national identity of Israel is put in the same bucket with tabernacle/ritual elements of the Old Covenant that are fulfilled in (and replaced by) Christ. So Israel, in this way of thnking, is likewise fulfilled-by-replacement.
At least, this is what I've read elsewhere from that neck of the woods.

Bob, have you read From Paradise to the Promised Land (2nd ed.) by T. D. Alexander? Based on your review here, I think you would find it well worth your time.

Aaron, it's about how the debate is framed. If the starting assumption is that the church is not Israel, then some sort of replacement follows. But if the church is a developed form of Israel, then replacement isn't really appropriate, just as a butterfly does not replace a caterpillar. Pauline scholars are pretty consistent on this point. See Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, for an insightful intertextual read of the Israel/Church relationship in Paul.

As Charlie mentioned above, replacement is the only view one can take if you first start with the Classic (even progressive) Dispensational understanding of Israel & the Church. On the other hand, if you see the Reformed connection then as Kim Riddlebarger puts it you have expansion theology. The church includes Jews (including believing Israelites from the 1st century onward) and Gentiles.

Just read 1 Peter. It is written to Jews from the Disporia who are the church (not doubt it included Gentile believers). Peter uses OT terminology used to describe Israel and now describes the church with it.

There may be an older Reformed way of thinking that used the term replacement but it is not really in use presently.

For what it's worth, here are a few scholars who are not as diffident about the Church replacing Israel:

I accept that it is more common today for those who refer to the church as the "New Israel" to speak in terms of "transformation" (change?; alteration?; transmutation?). Perhaps we should call them "Mutationists"? Only kidding!

@ Paul Henebry - Sure there are those in the Reformed camp that use the term "replacement" but that cannot be used as a blanket statement about all of them. From my reading in contemporary Reformed literature that term and idea is out of date. If one wants to label contemporary Reformed theologians as holding to replacement theology then we could do the same thing with Dispensational theologians. We could label progressives with classical terms and thought but that would not be fair or accurate.

Further, the term replacement in the mind of a Dispensationalist is different for a Reformed theologian. I dare say that the term replacement in the mind of a Dispensationalist smacks of no future for ethnic Israel which is why one would get bent out of shape over the term. However, for a Reformed theologian I think it means something different. In my mind at least I see replacement referring to the form in which the one people of God exists. There is one people of God, though made up of different ethnicities, that exists in one form on the OT and another in the NT. The church replaces Israel in that much of the religious system has changed (sacrifices, priesthood, etc.). Remember the church includes both believing Gentiles and Jews.

I see Romans 11 this way:

1. Vs. 1-10 - Paul points out that though Israel does not exist as it did in the OT God has been faithful to them. Paul cites himself as an example of a believing Jew as one who is part of the believing remnant. The idea of Israel existing as a remnant runs throughout the OT. If Paul were the only Jew that believed then God was faithful to His people. No doubt there were many other Jews during Jesus' ministry, at Pentecost and throughout the book of Acts that believed. These believing Jews made up reconstituted Israel.
2. Vs. 11-24 - As was the task of Israel in the OT, now it is the task of Israel as the church in the NT to evangelize Gentiles and bring them into the covenant people - grafting them in as Paul says. That the Gentiles were brought/grafted into the people of God gives first priority to ethnic Israel as seen in the OT and the NT ministry of Jesus and the Apostles - to the Jew first and then to the Gentile. They went to the Jews first because it was the Jews who were to be the light to the nations. They were to be the blessed people who mediated those blessing to the other nations. The NT follows the same pattern.
3. Vs. 25-32 - Here Paul tackles the issue of a hardening of Israel that is partial. The question is, in what way is the hardening partial? It is either in (1) time referring to all of Israel for a short period of time or (2) in number in that a hardening has happened to part of ethnic Israel. I think we would have to go with #2 because if one Jew is saved (and there were more than that) after Christ then #1 cannot be the case. So, eventually this hardening will be removed once all of the elect Gentiles have been grafted in and much of national Israel will believe.

After Christ came there was never a chance of OT Israel being restored to how it was. Their entire religious system was done away with in Christ and His fulfillment of what it foreshadowed. It is a farse to think that in order for God to keep his covenant promises with Israel they have to be restored in the millennial kingdom and have their sacrificial system and priesthood restored as some Dispensationalists believe. This totally undermines and ignores what Christ has done as the final sacrifice and now high priest.

More can be said but this is a start.

I recently read Goheen's A Light to the Nations which makes a lot of this very clear. You can read my review here - http://craighurst.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/book-review-a-light-to-the-na... .

The book is on mission but in reading it you will see how it fits in with this discussion. One of the best books I have read this year!

To add to what Bob mentioned about in reference to the sacrifices, the church is a body of believer priests and we offer up daily the sacrifice of our lives to God (Rom. 12).

One aspect of this discussion revolves around the nature of the promise and to who this promise is made. I have found the book of Romans quite interesting in this regard. I'll just quote some verses and leave others to make comment on them. The key issue revolves around the meaning of "promise" in this chapter.

Certainly, the previous was from a NT perspective. However, the context in which God's promise was made to Abraham in the OT has been an object on interest. All sorts of assumptions are being made in the following that require a ton of explanation, but I'll be writing shorthand to conserve space and be concise. Through a literary-theological method Genesis 1-11 sets up Abraham as a way in which God is reversing the effects of the fall. The five "blessing" statements in ch12 parallels the five "curse" statements in the opening chapters (1-11). The geneology just before 12 is not evidencing the same focus upon death but upon life. The Abrahamic narrative is hugely about the ability of God to produce life from the seemingly dead in overruling the curse. The issue of "seed" comes into play in a huge way in the narrative; first Lot is presented as the possible seed; then Abraham's son through Hagar is possible; then the seed through Sarah is possible; then Sarah is seemingly delayed beyond possibility; then Isaac is finally born whose name is a rebuke to the laughter of both parents; then Abraham is finally told to sacrifice his son. There is certainly a ton of drama while all the while highlighting the power of God in giving life in what seems to be dead and lifeless. The drama conveys God's providential beginnings and continued reversal of the curses of the fall. The point is this. Israel's beginnings are understood in a redemptive historical context. (For the anti-covenantal dispensationalist, this is different than the redemptive historical context provided through covenant theology, and so it cannot be dismissed upon the same grounds) It is this redemptive historical context, evidence through a literary-theological method of exegesis, that makes it utterly impossible to have a bifurcation between the sacred and the secular. This in turn creates significant overlap between Israel and the church. The particulars I will leave others to point out.

With these points in place, then "equivocation" and "different boy" does not even make sense. Such accusations are only formed by dispensational assumptions, which may or may not be grounded in the text of Scripture.

Again, I must place the disclaimer that this is hardly an exhaustive accounting of the features of the text; nor is this a full accounting of the method and its mechanics and the significance of the observations of the text.

Bob,

Here are a few thoughts then I must go:

If the Church is not there in Jer. 33 then who is? I would say ethnic Israel. Not all of them, since "not all Israel is Israel" (i.e. just the eschatological Remnant who will be Israelites). You claim the church "has been grafted into the intended audience" and you employ Paul's language in Rom.11. But in Paul Israel are "the natural branches" and the Gentiles are the wild branches (see, e.g. Rom. 11:24). therefore, the "olive tree" is not a people in Romans. It also cannot be Christ because He didn't come till after the OT was closed (and you agree that the church is not in the OT). I think the olive tree is the covenants (cf. Rom. 11:24-26).

Now, we must ask how these godly Israelites would have understood Jer. 33 before they got hold of a NT. Since they had no NT they could hardly have known that God was speaking to them in types and shadows. But if they understood God to mean precisely what He said in Jer. 33:14-26, without typology, surely you can see that equivocation was happening?

Answer? I'm not sure! I'm not sure of a lot of things, like the mystery of the hypostatic union (I agree with Chalcedon btw). But just because I can't figure everything out doesn't mean I am free not to believe it. If Abraham had not taken God literally in Gen. 22 he would doubtless have concluded that since what God asked him to do with Isaac didn't make sense, He must not have meant it literally. He didn't of course. He took God at His Word (and was prepared to kill his son) and let God worry about bringing Isaac back to life (Heb. 11:17-19). I do the same with the Levitical sacrifices since I know what God covenanted in Num. 25:11-13 and Jer. 33 and Mal. 3:1-6.

Thanks for the exchanges and may God bless you.

P.

"This recognition of a metaphorical style is not to be thought of as a return to allegorization, nor is it a “spiritualizing” of the passage. When a writer employs metaphor he is to be understood metaphorically and his metaphorical meaning is his literal meaning: that is to say, it is the truth he wishes to convey. The term “literal” stands strictly as the opposite of “figurative,” but in modern speech it often means “real,” and it is used this way by those who want to be sure that they know what the writer really and originally meant. In this sense a metaphorical saying is “literally” true. … Thus a metaphorical statement is “literally” true but cannot be “literalistically” true. The “literal” meaning, then, is what the particular writer intended, and although he used metaphor, no one familiar with the language in which he expressed himself could reasonably misunderstand him" (Kevan, “The Principle of Interpretation,” in Revelation and the Bible, ed Henry, p. 294).

"Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation. This means interpretation that gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking. It is sometimes called grammatical-historical interpretation since the meaning of each word is determined by grammatical and historical considerations. The principle might also be called normal interpretation since the literal meaning of the words is the normal approach to their understanding in all languages. … Symbols, figures of speech, and types are all interpreted plainly in this method, and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. After all, the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved" (Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p. 80).

"The literalist (so called) is not one who denies that figurative language, that symbols, are used in prophecy, nor does he deny that great spiritual truths are set forth therein; his position is, simply, that the prophecies are to be normally interpreted (i.e., according to the received laws of language) as any other utterances are interpretation—that which is manifestly figurative being so regarded" (Lange, Revelation, cited in Ryrie, p. 81).

So I don't think anyone who knows what they are talking about argues that literal is the opposite of figurative or or metaphorical. Literal encompasses figurative and metaphorical. Literal is normal. The opposite would something like spiritual or allegorical.

I think the mistake made by the opponents of dispensationalism is focusing on the meaning of "literal," and thus saying something that dispensationalism doesn't say. The real issue is not "literal" vs. "figurative" but the "consistent use" of literal or normal hermeneutic. The problem with the alternatives to dispensationalism is that they are inconsistent in their use of a normal hermeneutic when it comes to the Scripture. So going after dispensationalism based on "literal" is the wrong tack, IMO, first because the opponents use the exact same hermeneutic, and second, because they don't use it consistently.

As the first definition above really seems to emphasize, "literal" is really meant as the opposite of "allegorization" and "spiritualization". When dealing with the issue of metaphor, I really think that Sandy is much more clear than the first definition. You don't take the "surface meaning" as the meaning {Sandy, D Brent, Plowshares & Pruning Hoods, (IVP Academic: Downers Grove, 2002), p. 39}. In other words, you don't take metaphor literally. Much like our expressions of "freeze," ect. You don't take it literally. The opening definition has to add another term to "literal" in order to clarify this issue. Now we have "literalistically" added into the mix because you really can't take figurative language literally. But because we have to protect the label of "literal" we have to add "literalistically" instead of saying that we don't read the surface meaning literally. The reader has to note that "the specific words of the text are pointing to a meaning beyond the surface meanings of the words. (p.39)" Sandy goes on in the same page and the next to point out that there are degrees of being removed from the literal meaning/surface meaning; hence, "literalness" is not a black or white issue. What is taken from the word "freeze" is the idea of rigidity or immobility; a person is to cease from activity in a manner like unto a froze state. This is the meaning. The first definition above would apparently call this the "literal" meaning, with the "literalistic" meaning being that of a person thinking that he would have to "literally" become frozen. The key also becomes understanding the language, which requires a historical context, which may be remarkably different than how a person in modern culture would "normally" or "plainly" read it; so the definition itself can be at odds with other labels like "plain" and "normal". So my problem with the first definition has more to do with its wording than with its content; its wording lends itself to the creation of confusion and a lack of clarity. My problem with the second definition is that "normal" must be understood under the umbrella of "historical context"; it is not as though the modern reader reads it normally, with his modern scientific assumptions and historiography intact. So while the second addresses the grammatical/historical, it unfortunately does not connect "normal" with the previous. Also, when it says that symbols, figures of speech, and types are interpreted plainly, I am forced to ask once again; what era defines "plainness"? Is not the modern reader at a disadvantage in recognizing past figures of speech? Perhaps this question is completely lost to those who are monolingual; in fact, the question is probably lost. When the Hebrew speaks of a person being "long nosed", does the modern reader read that normally? Again, this is one example of many. Here is another example. Do we read "bulls of Bashan" normally? Do you see how this language (the disp definition) is horribly confusing? The first example was of an idiom, and both are examples of how the reader cannot simply read the surface level meaning of the text. One has to go beyond the surface level meaning. The third definition above is simply too vague. The reader is left wondering, "What are these laws of language?" And "what is this normal interpretation?" Heaping undefined terms together doesn't help the definition. So to terms used to define literal are too elastic, and thus "literal" can mean way too much or too little.

In continuing on with your own comments in your first paragraph, you continue by defining "literal" in dispensational terms rather than how it is commonly understood to be literally used. Your understanding is that it is opposite to spiritual/allegorical. Again, this is a definition based out of a reaction against certain hermeneutical abuses of the past and covenant theology in particular. It is not the "normal" understanding of literal.

Contrary to what you state, I think that it is very important to focus upon what "literal" means to the dispensationalist, for therein is found their system tied up with their terms in a way that is not normal or literal (since literal now encompasses the non-literal). The facade of approaching the text as "brute fact" or in terms of common sense realism appears to be near the root of it. This leads to a remarkably inability to observe personal assumptions, theological assumptions, and world view (subjective elements) that are often brought into the interpretive process.

In regard to consistency: I may be inclined to agree with you if you were pointing to how one uses an "allegorical" use here and a "literal" approach there. However, I'm hitting at a different level. It is the dispensationalist that has defined himself into ALWAYS being literal even when he is not, so now he is "consistent"! Oh the irony! Also, the only options available are not "literal" vs "spiritual/allegorical". There are many more issues and options even within the category of "literal" as my questions above have indicated. This means that "consistency" is relative. Certainly, according to the self-definition of dis, others are not consistent. But who is really going to let dispensationalists define/determine what is consistent? In other words, the "consistency" jab only begs the question of dispensationalism. In other words, such a statement is only preaching to the choir, to borrow a non-literal metaphor.

I hope that this explains things a little bit better, and I hope that it points out more clearly why I write these things in opposition to disp.